From Dr Tang’s new study just published in the BMJ:
The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 after touching surfaces is now considered to be relatively minimal.
For some reason I thought this had been common knowledge for some time.
Indeed. All those wiping down of supermarket trolleys etc have achieved absolutely nothing so far as Covid is concerned. Of course the gains in respect of noravirus etc have been considerable and it is at record lows.
Curiously, when I got my vaccine on Monday I had to wait 15 minutes and we were asked to wipe down our chairs with disinfectant when we had done our time.
From what I’ve seen out and about, I reckon about a fifth of the country have been turned into clinical obsessive compulsives over this. It’s no longer just the washing of hands three times after leaving the supermarket and then mask wearing when alone in your own car.
Yesterday I saw a married couple arrive at an outside cafe, both wearing N95s, one with a face shield over the N95. Which they left on for the duration of their stay, moving to one side when sipping coffee. Both of an age to have received certainly one vaccine, possible two. In a district where the covid map has recorded 0-3 weekly cases for about two months now (as has every neighbouring district). Sitting at a table a good 5-7 metres from the nearest one.
And the most depressing thing is that these are the people overwhelmingly who vote. And who the government is pandering to, in some weird symbiotic relationship where the PM keeps telling them how dangerous everything still is because in focus groups they say that’s what they want to hear.
Boris Johnson was lobbied by killer Saudi prince: Prime Minister acted on personal plea from Mohammed Bin Salman over 'axed' £300m deal to buy Newcastle United football club... now it may be back on
Mohammed Bin Salman urged PM to 'correct and reconsider' a 'wrong' decision
Premier League was accused of blocking a £300m takeover of Newcastle United
The angry crown prince warned that Anglo-Saudi relations would be damaged
I think that no overall majority is way overpriced although there are also half a dozen seats in Scotland vulnerable to the SNP. My expectation, given where we are starting from + the boundary review is that there will be a smaller Conservative majority although a larger one cannot be ruled out. Either way this clearly has to be the favourite.
So what could bring us back to no overall majority? Economic disaster possibly but this government has not and will not hesitate to spend its way out of trouble if they can. The next year and a half, possibly 2 according to the IMF, will have strong growth on the back of that stimulus but by 2024 a recession is possible. Corruption and sleaze is something Tory governments are prone to. Losing Scotland in a referendum would not go down well. There are possibilities but the probability at the moment seems to me Labour going nowhere fast, the Lib Dems struggling to make an impact and the Tories cruising in a post UKIP world.
Personally, I would reckon a small Tory majority is most likely, and a Labour majority extremely unlikely.
The last 5 years have seen incredible political volatility though, and the pandemic has not yet peaked in most of the world. Indeed the record increases in case numbers in much of Asia and their low vaccination rate looks very ominous. The economic and political consequences of this are hugely unpredictable. I think it too far off to wage significant sums on 2024.
Yes, betting on general elections this far out is a mug's game.
I have an 18-month rule on them.
So, I will be taking an interest towards the end of next year - not before - and perhaps not even until 2023.
A strategy that is doubtless mostly wise, but you do miss out on opportunities to sell the favourite at a time when you judge it is overbought. Such a strategy can work very well for ‘next leader’ markets - for example I did very well laying JRM when he was favourite for next Tory leader and being regularly touted on PB by some of the Tory fanclub.
The same principle applies to other GE bets - for example it’s a reasonable view that the current circumstances, of the population being rescued from the virus by the vaccination programme - represents a uniquely favourable circumstance for the government in office, from which the large majority of future trajectories are likely to be downwards. If you buy this view then there is money to be made selling the Tories now, expecting to buy back at better odds when the inevitable next stormy patch comes along.
Yes, it's different to the next PM / next leader markets where there are bigger price spreads and more opportunities for change.
I'm playing those already. I laid Nigel Farage at 80/1 for next PM the other day - which was an easy £5.
The optimum moment for selling Farage as next PM tends to be when HY is telling us he will be. Whether such a moment will ever come again, who can say?
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
Good news everyone. I’ve been offered, and have accepted, a role as a paralegal at a fairly prestigious commercial law firm in the North of England in their engineering and construction team.
The salary is pants but it’s a great opportunity and the team seems lovely — I hope it pays off.
That's grand! Cost of living up north likely to be significantly lower, too.
As to the chances between the three options in the header. In very broad terms the prospect of Tory maj and NOM look very difficult to distinguish as to the likelihood. Assuming a 2024 election this is the chances of a two animal race in three years time at an unknown track over an unknown distance under unknown rules with unknown jockeys on an as yet undecided species of animal. Evens is the only option.
Does this change with the Labour entry? Not much. the chance of a Labour victory are predicated only on a Blair/Black swan event. Less than 10%. Nowhere close to 17%.
What factors might shift the other two horses from level in the betting:
1) Boris. Always a winner versus He has time to blow up 2) Events. They happen and you don't know what they are. 20% inflation would kill the Tory project stone dead. 3) Despite FTPA Boris can choose the timing. I think this will be significant. 4) Labour's support looks least secure where they need it - old lost territory and middling sort marginals. Their strong bits are rock solid; progress elsewhere looks hard. 5) Boris is more secure in his job that SKS is in his.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
Brown and Major were continuations of the governments that preceded them, albeit tired clapped out versions. Johnson’s government has represented a completely clear break from May and Cameron and reset the clock. (Don’t ask me about 1964).
Swing voters won’t feel that the “it’s Labour’s turn” argument is ready for a hearing until some time after the next election. I can imagine that Covid has shortened the life of this government from three terms to two but who is to say so, if the inflation dragon does not awaken after all and we are set for a decade more growth after the covid crash?
From Dr Tang’s new study just published in the BMJ:
The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 after touching surfaces is now considered to be relatively minimal.
So can we please stop all the pointless washing of hands and constant spraying of surfaces? I note from Radio 5 this morning that the government quietly dropped advice to quarantine items in shops back in November, and that you can now use changing rooms to try on garments. There seems to be no appetite to bring this science up to date more widely. Just too confusing?
Washing hands isnt pointless though, it helps prevent other diseases significantly. And covid too. The science is not saying you cant catch it off surfaces, they are saying that will happen in scenarios like an infected person coughs or sneezes onto a surface you touch within an hour, not from someone breathing near a parcel that you have stored for 24 hours.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Best GE bets out there at current prices: Cons largest party (1.67), Starmer next PM (5.7).
The latter by way of a trading position since when it dawns that this is a 2 horse race with neither Johnson or Starmer exiting before the GE it will be layable back at 3 point something (or less).
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
As often is the case (tanks aside) the voice of balanced Conservative reason, HYUFD.
I would add the cautionary note that many of the great unwashed cheering for Johnson do not associate his Government with those of Cameron and May's Blairite/ Remainer Governments that preceded him. So for some, we are a mere two years into the regime change.
Personally however, I do agree that should Starmer become PM it will be the Cameron and not the Blair model that prevails. And even then we need quite a lot of bad news to flow under Boris' garden bridge.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Did I say it is ok? The fact is, Johnson is nowhere as weak as Major was, and Starmer is nothing like Blair. It won't get traction.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
Agree. The Cameron issue will be regarded by most as belonging to someone from a different party and era. In the voter world there is pre and post Brexit, and pre and post Boris, and pre and post pandemic. They are different geological eras.
I also expect more than usual disparity of swing between different sorts of area. Especially strong anti Tory swing in areas where it makes no difference.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
Brown and Major were continuations of the governments that preceded them, albeit tired clapped out versions. Johnson’s government has represented a completely clear break from May and Cameron and reset the clock. (Don’t ask me about 1964).
Swing voters won’t feel that the “it’s Labour’s turn” argument is ready for a hearing until some time after the next election. I can imagine that Covid has shortened the life of this government from three terms to two but who is to say so, if the inflation dragon does not awaken after all and we are set for a decade more growth after the covid crash?
Major's 1992 government was a big change from Thatcher's government before it, ending her poll tax etc.
Brown was also ideologically something of a change from Blair too.
I certainly think Boris would win another majority in England in 2024, as indeed Home did in 1964, it was Scotland and Wales that put Wilson in with a majority of 4 then and the same would likely be the case for Starmer
From Dr Tang’s new study just published in the BMJ:
The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 after touching surfaces is now considered to be relatively minimal.
For some reason I thought this had been common knowledge for some time.
Indeed. All those wiping down of supermarket trolleys etc have achieved absolutely nothing so far as Covid is concerned. Of course the gains in respect of noravirus etc have been considerable and it is at record lows.
Curiously, when I got my vaccine on Monday I had to wait 15 minutes and we were asked to wipe down our chairs with disinfectant when we had done our time.
From what I’ve seen out and about, I reckon about a fifth of the country have been turned into clinical obsessive compulsives over this. It’s no longer just the washing of hands three times after leaving the supermarket and then mask wearing when alone in your own car.
Yesterday I saw a married couple arrive at an outside cafe, both wearing N95s, one with a face shield over the N95. Which they left on for the duration of their stay, moving to one side when sipping coffee. Both of an age to have received certainly one vaccine, possible two. In a district where the covid map has recorded 0-3 weekly cases for about two months now (as has every neighbouring district). Sitting at a table a good 5-7 metres from the nearest one.
And the most depressing thing is that these are the people overwhelmingly who vote. And who the government is pandering to, in some weird symbiotic relationship where the PM keeps telling them how dangerous everything still is because in focus groups they say that’s what they want to hear.
Underlines my surprise at returning to the gym yesterday to find that we were expected to wipe down apparatus but that actual users of said equipment didn't need to. Although of course said users are likely to puff and pant over some parts at least of equipment.
Can I go O/t for a moment and ask a general question of the lawyers and web professionals here. What is the legal position of the owner of a 'correspondence' website .... like this.....when a user.....poster ...... libels someone. Brought to mind by the current Arlene Foster case.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Did I say it is ok? The fact is, Johnson is nowhere as weak as Major was, and Starmer is nothing like Blair. It won't get traction.
It will be in the back of voters minds should the economy crash in 18 months and mortgages and car leases are defaulted. Those unlucky souls will remember yesterday's revelations as the bailiff repossesses the white Transit and the wife's Nissan Juke.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
Yes, whenever the 'Tories have been in power for 11 years' trope gets trotted out, I'm always tempted to respond with a 'yes, but...'. Because while I know it's true, it feels like it's only true on a technicality. 2010-2015 was the coalition, which feels like another world now. It felt like a lot of Conservative things didn't happen because they couldn't get passed the Lib Dems (of course, this is how a coalition is supposed to work - I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just that it doesn't, in retrospect, feel like part of the same administration). 2015-2017 was undoubtedly a Conservative government, though with one thing an done thing only on the agenda: Brexit. And the characters we remember from that era feel almost as historical as Eden and Macmillan now. (Philip Hammond?) The continuity between 2016 and now seems minimal. (Again, this is an impression: counterexamples can be found). And 2017-2019 was all about paralysis. The current government doesn't feel like the one from ten years ago; it certainly doesn't feel like this lot have been in power for a decade and a bit (which is very different to how it felt in the 90s). Most unfair to an opposition waiting for Buggins' turn, but there we are.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
You're assuming the Lib Dem voters are interchangeable with Labour ones and vice-versa though.
Not only might some not vote if their preferred party is not on the ballot paper (or vote for a different third party) but some Lib Dems might vote Tory if there were no Lib Dem on the ballot paper.
If Labour and Liberal Democrat voters were the same, they'd all be voting Labour already.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
I'm not sure the Cameron allegations will hurt the government because it is quite hard for the voter on the Clapham omnibus to understand quite what Greensill was up to. Starmer's task is to link it to allegations of cronyism in procurement and planning. Major's government did not fall because the Hamiltons stayed at the Ritz for free, or cash for questions, or Aitken's rusty sword of truth; rather it was the drip drip effect of many cases, none fatal in themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
As often is the case (tanks aside) the voice of balanced Conservative reason, HYUFD.
I would add the cautionary note that many of the great unwashed cheering for Johnson do not associate his Government with those of Cameron and May's Blairite/ Remainer Governments that preceded him. So for some, we are a mere two years into the regime change.
Personally however, I do agree that should Starmer become PM it will be the Cameron and not the Blair model that prevails. And even then we need quite a lot of bad news to flow under Boris' garden bridge.
Agreed, plus Cameron got in after 13 years of the Tories in opposition in 2024, Blair got in after a full 18 years of Labour in opposition in 1997.
So if Starmer does win after 14 years of Labour in opposition it would be closer to 2010 than 1997, 1997 would be more like if the Tories got re elected in 2024 and a new Labour leader was Blair to Starmer's Kinnock and won after 19 years in opposition in 2029
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
And Johnson frequently suggests that it's only the name which is the same...... police numbers and so on.
Cancelling Olympics remains an option, says Japan official
A senior Japanese ruling party official said cancelling this year’s Olympics in Tokyo remains an option if the coronavirus crisis becomes too dire, as a fourth wave of infections surges less than 100 days from the planned start of the Games, Reuters reports.
I think that this has become inevitable given the incredibly slow roll out of vaccines in Japan. If they wanted to do the Olympics they would have had to be vaccinating at at least UK levels with all their vulnerable already done. They are a long way from that. Has anyone heard of late from @edmundintokyo ? I haven't seen him on for quite a while.
Yes it would be good to hear from him.
Is the dogged insistence the games go ahead regardless a face issue or a cash issue? If the latter is it being driven by the IOC demanding their billions? I would imagine the Japanese have built Olympic facilities that can be used ongoing unlike some other host cities.
Holding the games this summer would be madness. I know some anti-lockdown people on here insist the pox is over and we can and MUST return to status quo ante on the date set by Shagger, but in the real world it is still everywhere...
If the rest of the world had come close to matching "Shagger's" (as you insist on calling him) performance in vaccine delivery they would be viable but sadly very few countries in the world have such outstanding leadership.
I'm going to point out my theory again. For working class people down the pub calling someone shagger is not an insult
On Topic I think Boris is a double edged sword. He is probably the most likely to motivate the cohort of Tory supporters, but does repel other possible Tory voters, and well I can't be the only one to think there is a clear danger of him completely screwing up. I think that explains the difference between current leads and likely future government.
You know nothing of the working class.
As an expert in the working classes I will tell you that if you a call a woman 'shagger' then you're eating teeth as they and their partner consider it an insult.
Sorry - obviously I was talking about one of the lads! Absolutely no way you would want to call a wife, girlfriend, sister or mother a shagger unless you want to provoke the fight.
From Dr Tang’s new study just published in the BMJ:
The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 after touching surfaces is now considered to be relatively minimal.
So can we please stop all the pointless washing of hands and constant spraying of surfaces? I note from Radio 5 this morning that the government quietly dropped advice to quarantine items in shops back in November, and that you can now use changing rooms to try on garments. There seems to be no appetite to bring this science up to date more widely. Just too confusing?
Washing hands isnt pointless though, it helps prevent other diseases significantly. And covid too. The science is not saying you cant catch it off surfaces, they are saying that will happen in scenarios like an infected person coughs or sneezes onto a surface you touch within an hour, not from someone breathing near a parcel that you have stored for 24 hours.
Wash your hands before you eat, or if they are dirty is what is needed. What we have done for the last year is so far over the top and now clearly not evidence based that it needs to stop. They come round every day and wipe the bloody door handles in my building. Madness.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
In terms of deals I don't think there will be anything formal but in almost all of the 92 seats where the LDs are challenger LAB isn't competitive. Same goes for the LDs in all other seats.
It is in Starmer's interest for the Tories to lose as many seats as possible because his best hope of getting to Number 10 is as lead party in a minority government. He needs the LDs, Greens and PC to do well where LAB cannot win.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
The question is whether the Tories can reinvent and refresh themselves again like Boris so successfully did before losing to Labour.
Perhaps by embracing Scottish independence after a referendum?
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Corruption seems to infest the UK at all levels now. I lived in Russia for almost a decade so I am a suave and confident briber. Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say. That's why vaccine passports don't concern me. I am fairly sure that functionary charged with injecting me can be enticed into firing the syringe into the bin and stamping my papers anyway.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
The question is whether the Tories can reinvent and refresh themselves again like Boris so successfully did before losing to Labour.
Perhaps by embracing Scottish independence after a referendum?
Someone has just posted on Facebook, quoting the Guardian....Afua Hirsch writes in the Guardian this morning about her ambivalent views regarding Prince Philip. She refers in passing not to the current government but to the "governing party".
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
The self-analysis by the unite to remain folks found that the LibDems and Greens each did 5% better and Plaid 3% better in the “alliance” seats than nationwide.
For the LibDems the flaw in this analysis is that the seats in which they made the effort to secure the alliance were mostly their better prospects, where they had better organisation and in some cases were already well positioned against Labour.
The Greens carried the alliance banner in ten seats, almost all of them long shots given the low base from which the party starts. They got a vote share increase of over 6% in these seats, compared to a rise of just 1% nationally. For Plaid its vote went up by 2% in the alliance seats compared to a drop of 1% elsewhere in Wales - and here the alliance seats included some Plaid long shots. Some believe the alliance made the difference for Plaid retaining Arfon.
So there is some evidence of vote gain - the trouble being that these relatively modest differences in vote share weren’t enough to make any difference under the voting system. In 2019 none of the three parties were on roll - with an upswing in the general level of support, such an alliance might make more of a difference.
There were however other benefits - for example the Greens saved their deposits in every one of the ten alliance seats (Green saved deposits are pretty rare), and managed to overtake the Tories to take second place in Dulwich and in Bristol West - setting up two potential targets for next time. And, on the back of the national deals (which in practice required local deals), some local understandings have been secured on council seats, mutual help was given and received, and relationships formed.
There was some measure of local interest from Labour in participating - all of course stamped on by the party’s national rules and firm centralised management. Perhaps one day this dam might break.
Cancelling Olympics remains an option, says Japan official
A senior Japanese ruling party official said cancelling this year’s Olympics in Tokyo remains an option if the coronavirus crisis becomes too dire, as a fourth wave of infections surges less than 100 days from the planned start of the Games, Reuters reports.
I think that this has become inevitable given the incredibly slow roll out of vaccines in Japan. If they wanted to do the Olympics they would have had to be vaccinating at at least UK levels with all their vulnerable already done. They are a long way from that. Has anyone heard of late from @edmundintokyo ? I haven't seen him on for quite a while.
Yes it would be good to hear from him.
Is the dogged insistence the games go ahead regardless a face issue or a cash issue? If the latter is it being driven by the IOC demanding their billions? I would imagine the Japanese have built Olympic facilities that can be used ongoing unlike some other host cities.
Holding the games this summer would be madness. I know some anti-lockdown people on here insist the pox is over and we can and MUST return to status quo ante on the date set by Shagger, but in the real world it is still everywhere...
If the rest of the world had come close to matching "Shagger's" (as you insist on calling him) performance in vaccine delivery they would be viable but sadly very few countries in the world have such outstanding leadership.
I'm going to point out my theory again. For working class people down the pub calling someone shagger is not an insult
On Topic I think Boris is a double edged sword. He is probably the most likely to motivate the cohort of Tory supporters, but does repel other possible Tory voters, and well I can't be the only one to think there is a clear danger of him completely screwing up. I think that explains the difference between current leads and likely future government.
You know nothing of the working class.
As an expert in the working classes I will tell you that if you a call a woman 'shagger' then you're eating teeth as they and their partner consider it an insult.
Sorry - obviously I was talking about one of the lads! Absolutely no way you would want to call a wife, girlfriend, sister or mother a shagger unless you want to provoke the fight.
I suspect the epithet would go down better with younger male voters than older ones. "Shagging around' though isn't necessarily regarded as a recommendation.
Good news everyone. I’ve been offered, and have accepted, a role as a paralegal at a fairly prestigious commercial law firm in the North of England in their engineering and construction team.
The salary is pants but it’s a great opportunity and the team seems lovely — I hope it pays off.
The sort of person who breaks the rules in a small way rarely stops there. It’s why culture and principles are so important in the financial sector
Oi! Stop stealing my lines. I've been saying this for years. Long before it became fashionable and all these "culture" experts crawled out of the woodwork.
From Dr Tang’s new study just published in the BMJ:
The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 after touching surfaces is now considered to be relatively minimal.
For some reason I thought this had been common knowledge for some time.
Indeed. All those wiping down of supermarket trolleys etc have achieved absolutely nothing so far as Covid is concerned. Of course the gains in respect of noravirus etc have been considerable and it is at record lows.
Curiously, when I got my vaccine on Monday I had to wait 15 minutes and we were asked to wipe down our chairs with disinfectant when we had done our time.
From what I’ve seen out and about, I reckon about a fifth of the country have been turned into clinical obsessive compulsives over this. It’s no longer just the washing of hands three times after leaving the supermarket and then mask wearing when alone in your own car.
Yesterday I saw a married couple arrive at an outside cafe, both wearing N95s, one with a face shield over the N95. Which they left on for the duration of their stay, moving to one side when sipping coffee. Both of an age to have received certainly one vaccine, possible two. In a district where the covid map has recorded 0-3 weekly cases for about two months now (as has every neighbouring district). Sitting at a table a good 5-7 metres from the nearest one.
And the most depressing thing is that these are the people overwhelmingly who vote. And who the government is pandering to, in some weird symbiotic relationship where the PM keeps telling them how dangerous everything still is because in focus groups they say that’s what they want to hear.
Underlines my surprise at returning to the gym yesterday to find that we were expected to wipe down apparatus but that actual users of said equipment didn't need to. Although of course said users are likely to puff and pant over some parts at least of equipment.
Can I go O/t for a moment and ask a general question of the lawyers and web professionals here. What is the legal position of the owner of a 'correspondence' website .... like this.....when a user.....poster ...... libels someone. Brought to mind by the current Arlene Foster case.
Always begin with the presumption that the owner of any publication in any form is liable as the publisher not only to exercise care but also directly for libel. This will not always be true (and lawyers are growing rich on the boundaries) but only because the owner is not always deemed to be a publisher. Just because Facebook and Twitter, like BT in phone calls, are apparently exempt does not mean Joe Bloggs is.
Assume: Yes I can be sued for libel, unless I can prove I can't.
Boris is also a celebrity, not just a charismatic politician. This is often overlooked. Compare Boris with Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump or, and I think politically this is the significant comparator, Arnold Schwarzenegger who rocked up from nowhere to be a two-term Republican governor of a Democrat state.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
The question is whether the Tories can reinvent and refresh themselves again like Boris so successfully did before losing to Labour.
Perhaps by embracing Scottish independence after a referendum?
What an absurd proposition, the Tories firstly would not allow such a referendum anyway as a Unionist Party respecting the 2014 once in a generation vote.
Secondly even if Scotland did vote for independence the Tories would not embrace the SNP, they would go full hardline English Nationalist to screw the SNP in Scexit negotiations and would ensure as hard a line as possible was taken with Edinburgh just as Brussels took as hard a line as possible with London after the Brexit vote (which took place 41 years after the first EEC vote in 1975 anyway)
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
You're assuming the Lib Dem voters are interchangeable with Labour ones and vice-versa though.
Not only might some not vote if their preferred party is not on the ballot paper (or vote for a different third party) but some Lib Dems might vote Tory if there were no Lib Dem on the ballot paper.
If Labour and Liberal Democrat voters were the same, they'd all be voting Labour already.
Yes but we have and have long had far more than 2 parties represented in our main elected legislature and that is also the case for almost every other western nation.
The only exception is the USA where the Republicans and Democrats still have a monopoly at Congressional, state and Presidential level
Good news everyone. I’ve been offered, and have accepted, a role as a paralegal at a fairly prestigious commercial law firm in the North of England in their engineering and construction team.
The salary is pants but it’s a great opportunity and the team seems lovely — I hope it pays off.
Well done.
A close relative of mine works in th construction industry. He say that sector is "on fire" at every level - salaries for experienced people zooming up. Lots of work on.
Apparently domain knowledge combined with skill x *and* presentation/managerial skills is like gold dust - people who know construction, have legal knowledge (say) and can apply one to the other in a sensible fashion....
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
From memory, the arrangement cost at least one seat in the GE (Ynys Mon) - but I think that was with LDs and Greens standing aside for PC, and much of the LD vote going Tory (because, why would it go PC?). There may be other examples in Wales.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
In terms of deals I don't think there will be anything formal but in almost all of the 92 seats where the LDs are challenger LAB isn't competitive. Same goes for the LDs in all other seats.
It is in Starmer's interest for the Tories to lose as many seats as possible because his best hope of getting to Number 10 is as lead party in a minority government. He needs the LDs, Greens and PC to do well where LAB cannot win.
Except if the Tories and Labour did that consistently they'd have much fewer seats than they do now - and the Lib Dems much more. I can see why its appealing to a Lib Dem but not to the main parties beyond a superficial scratching of the surface.
Take Sheffield Hallam - it was a Tory/Lib Dem seat with the Labour candidate struggling to get into the teens in voting percentage.
Within one general election it was nearly taken by Labour, next time it was taken by Labour and then held on by them despite their problems.
There's seats like that all around the country. How many formerly-Lib Dem seats are currently held by the main party that used to be third? Its not just Sheffield Hallam I believe.
Boris is also a celebrity, not just a charismatic politician. This is often overlooked. Compare Boris with Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump or, and I think politically this is the significant comparator, Arnold Schwarzenegger who rocked up from nowhere to be a two-term Republican governor of a Democrat state.
Trump is a good analogy. Schwarzenegger and Reagan are not, because both these individuals have/ did have integrity and were pretty competent. Johnson is riding high at the moment because we are in unusual times. His charisma is masking his incompetence and lack of integrity. Whether that can last and he can continue to fool enough of the people enough of the time (to adapt the phrase), only time will tell.
From Dr Tang’s new study just published in the BMJ:
The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 after touching surfaces is now considered to be relatively minimal.
For some reason I thought this had been common knowledge for some time.
Indeed. All those wiping down of supermarket trolleys etc have achieved absolutely nothing so far as Covid is concerned. Of course the gains in respect of noravirus etc have been considerable and it is at record lows.
Curiously, when I got my vaccine on Monday I had to wait 15 minutes and we were asked to wipe down our chairs with disinfectant when we had done our time.
From what I’ve seen out and about, I reckon about a fifth of the country have been turned into clinical obsessive compulsives over this. It’s no longer just the washing of hands three times after leaving the supermarket and then mask wearing when alone in your own car.
Yesterday I saw a married couple arrive at an outside cafe, both wearing N95s, one with a face shield over the N95. Which they left on for the duration of their stay, moving to one side when sipping coffee. Both of an age to have received certainly one vaccine, possible two. In a district where the covid map has recorded 0-3 weekly cases for about two months now (as has every neighbouring district). Sitting at a table a good 5-7 metres from the nearest one.
And the most depressing thing is that these are the people overwhelmingly who vote. And who the government is pandering to, in some weird symbiotic relationship where the PM keeps telling them how dangerous everything still is because in focus groups they say that’s what they want to hear.
Underlines my surprise at returning to the gym yesterday to find that we were expected to wipe down apparatus but that actual users of said equipment didn't need to. Although of course said users are likely to puff and pant over some parts at least of equipment.
Can I go O/t for a moment and ask a general question of the lawyers and web professionals here. What is the legal position of the owner of a 'correspondence' website .... like this.....when a user.....poster ...... libels someone. Brought to mind by the current Arlene Foster case.
Always begin with the presumption that the owner of any publication in any form is liable as the publisher not only to exercise care but also directly for libel. This will not always be true (and lawyers are growing rich on the boundaries) but only because the owner is not always deemed to be a publisher. Just because Facebook and Twitter, like BT in phone calls, are apparently exempt does not mean Joe Bloggs is.
Assume: Yes I can be sued for libel, unless I can prove I can't.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
The question is whether the Tories can reinvent and refresh themselves again like Boris so successfully did before losing to Labour.
Perhaps by embracing Scottish independence after a referendum?
What an absurd proposition, the Tories firstly would not allow such a referendum anyway as a Unionist Party respecting the 2014 once in a generation vote.
Secondly even if Scotland did vote for independence the Tories would not embrace the SNP, they would go full hardline English Nationalist to screw the SNP in Scexit negotiations and would ensure as hard a line as possible was taken with Edinburgh just as Brussels took as hard a line as possible with London after the Brexit vote (which took place 41 years after the first EEC vote in 1975 anyway)
Going full hardline English Nationalists is embracing Scottish independence. 🤦♂️
It would be a sake of saying "well if the Scots are going and we respect that, we need to put ourselves first".
Brussels embraced Brexit by saying "off you go then, we're going to act now as an EU27 even while you're still members we're going to have meetings to determine our future without you".
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Corruption seems to infest the UK at all levels now. I lived in Russia for almost a decade so I am a suave and confident briber. Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say. That's why vaccine passports don't concern me. I am fairly sure that functionary charged with injecting me can be enticed into firing the syringe into the bin and stamping my papers anyway.
Well, six months on from the resignation of Sir Alex Allan, the advisor on Ministerial standards, Boris hasn't bothered to replace him. So why should anyone else bother about standards.....?
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
You're assuming the Lib Dem voters are interchangeable with Labour ones and vice-versa though.
Not only might some not vote if their preferred party is not on the ballot paper (or vote for a different third party) but some Lib Dems might vote Tory if there were no Lib Dem on the ballot paper.
If Labour and Liberal Democrat voters were the same, they'd all be voting Labour already.
Yes but we have and have long had far more than 2 parties represented in our main elected legislature and that is also the case for almost every other western nation.
The only exception is the USA where the Republicans and Democrats still have a monopoly at Congressional, state and Presidential level
Bernie Sanders has been opposed by, and in recent years has beaten, Democrats. I realise he 'counts as Democrat' for voting purposes as a Senator.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Corruption seems to infest the UK at all levels now. I lived in Russia for almost a decade so I am a suave and confident briber. Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say. That's why vaccine passports don't concern me. I am fairly sure that functionary charged with injecting me can be enticed into firing the syringe into the bin and stamping my papers anyway.
Well, six months on from the resignation of Sir Alex Allan, the advisor on Ministerial standards, Boris hasn't bothered to replace him. So why should anyone else bother about standards.....?
Just "Boris being Boris" isn't the end of it with the moneygrubbing and lying. It leads to everyone being Boris.
Boris is also a celebrity, not just a charismatic politician. This is often overlooked. Compare Boris with Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump or, and I think politically this is the significant comparator, Arnold Schwarzenegger who rocked up from nowhere to be a two-term Republican governor of a Democrat state.
Trump is a good analogy. Schwarzenegger and Reagan are not, because both these individuals have/ did have integrity and were pretty competent. Johnson is riding high at the moment because we are in unusual times. His charisma is masking his incompetence and lack of integrity. Whether that can last and he can continue to fool enough of the people enough of the time (to adapt the phrase), only time will tell.
Ronald Reagan wasn't a movie star who became President. He was a medium level actor who left acting for politics, and worked his way up, including becoming a very popular Governor of California - he would have been re-elected, if he'd run again, but quit for national level politics.
Schwarzenegger is a closer to populist wave thing - but there, he had already started on building a political career over a considerable period of time. If it hadn't been for the recall election, he would have been running for Congress or the Senate - he was, IIRC, investigating both of those.
Neither career resembles Donald Trump, who really did just run for President without any background in politics. Apart from the usual business man jokes about running for office.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
I wonder if incumbency has an effect related to time or number of re-elections. If you were voted in in 2015 you will have been re-elected 2 times already and we are 2-3 years of the 3rd election whereas nominally it could have been one year into a second term. Do voters get bored?
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say.
That's interesting.
Can you give us a list of say 20 examples you have encountered personally in the UK in the last 3 years?
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
The question is whether the Tories can reinvent and refresh themselves again like Boris so successfully did before losing to Labour.
Perhaps by embracing Scottish independence after a referendum?
What an absurd proposition, the Tories firstly would not allow such a referendum anyway as a Unionist Party respecting the 2014 once in a generation vote.
Secondly even if Scotland did vote for independence the Tories would not embrace the SNP, they would go full hardline English Nationalist to screw the SNP in Scexit negotiations and would ensure as hard a line as possible was taken with Edinburgh just as Brussels took as hard a line as possible with London after the Brexit vote (which took place 41 years after the first EEC vote in 1975 anyway)
Going full hardline English Nationalists is embracing Scottish independence. 🤦♂️
It would be a sake of saying "well if the Scots are going and we respect that, we need to put ourselves first".
Brussels embraced Brexit by saying "off you go then, we're going to act now as an EU27 even while you're still members we're going to have meetings to determine our future without you".
Wrong, the Tories are a Unionist party and hence respect the once in a generation vote, even if they allowed such a vote they would also campaign to retain the Union as they did in 2014.
If Scotland then voted to leave in such a referendum having allowed a vote then if the Tories appeased the SNP after they would obviously look weak and humiliated and lose the next election in England.
To win the next English election the Tories would have to go full, ultra English Nationalist with no concessions whatsoever to the SNP, the withdrawal of all English funds from Scotland etc and full Scottish payment of any debts owned. Plus a hard border at Berwick if Scotland rejoined the EU.
Much as the EU of course refused any concessions to the UK whatsoever in the Brexit negotiations.
English and Scottish relations would obviously be at their worst since Bannockburn and Flodden after Scottish independence, that would be inevitable, with nationalism ripping this island apart for at least a decade
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
In terms of deals I don't think there will be anything formal but in almost all of the 92 seats where the LDs are challenger LAB isn't competitive. Same goes for the LDs in all other seats.
It is in Starmer's interest for the Tories to lose as many seats as possible because his best hope of getting to Number 10 is as lead party in a minority government. He needs the LDs, Greens and PC to do well where LAB cannot win.
Except if the Tories and Labour did that consistently they'd have much fewer seats than they do now - and the Lib Dems much more. I can see why its appealing to a Lib Dem but not to the main parties beyond a superficial scratching of the surface.
Take Sheffield Hallam - it was a Tory/Lib Dem seat with the Labour candidate struggling to get into the teens in voting percentage.
Within one general election it was nearly taken by Labour, next time it was taken by Labour and then held on by them despite their problems.
There's seats like that all around the country. How many formerly-Lib Dem seats are currently held by the main party that used to be third? Its not just Sheffield Hallam I believe.
If you just analyse from a point of view of electoral self interest, then you’re right that the arrangement is attractive to the minor parties, helping them to secure better local electoral positions against one or other of the main parties. As and when there’s a market, IMO Dulwich and Bristol W may be worth a flutter as Green gains; they wouldn’t be in such a favourable position without the alliance. There’ll be a lot of green-leaning voters in those Labour seats frightened into voting Labour for fear of ‘letting the Tories in’. Having the Tories in third place weakens this argument considerably.
Labour’s tendency is to take the short term pain of more Tory seats as down payment for maintaining its hold as ‘only alternative’ and cashing in as majority party further down the road. Co-operation becomes of self-interest to Labour if you reach the conclusion that they can’t secure a majority on their own. Both because co-operation maximises the chance of depriving the Tories of a majority and because it lays some of the groundwork for the co-operation that a balanced parliament would require.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
You're assuming the Lib Dem voters are interchangeable with Labour ones and vice-versa though.
Not only might some not vote if their preferred party is not on the ballot paper (or vote for a different third party) but some Lib Dems might vote Tory if there were no Lib Dem on the ballot paper.
If Labour and Liberal Democrat voters were the same, they'd all be voting Labour already.
Yes but we have and have long had far more than 2 parties represented in our main elected legislature and that is also the case for almost every other western nation.
The only exception is the USA where the Republicans and Democrats still have a monopoly at Congressional, state and Presidential level
Bernie Sanders has been opposed by, and in recent years has beaten, Democrats. I realise he 'counts as Democrat' for voting purposes as a Senator.
Every single member of the House of Representatives is currently a Democrat or Republican, one Libertarian stepped down in 2020 and in any case defected in 2019 having been elected as a Republican in 2018.
The Senate has 1 genuine independent (Angus King from Maine) but he still caucuses with the Democrats, Sanders is effectively a Democrat now having run in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2016 and 2020
Good news everyone. I’ve been offered, and have accepted, a role as a paralegal at a fairly prestigious commercial law firm in the North of England in their engineering and construction team.
The salary is pants but it’s a great opportunity and the team seems lovely — I hope it pays off.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say.
That's interesting.
Can you give us a list of say 20 examples you have encountered personally in the UK in the last 3 years?
Yeah, I'll get right on that as long as soon as you send me ₿0.01.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
In which case 2019 was Boris' 1992 and 2024 would be his 1997 but I think it would be more like his 1964 or 2010 if he lost
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
In terms of deals I don't think there will be anything formal but in almost all of the 92 seats where the LDs are challenger LAB isn't competitive. Same goes for the LDs in all other seats.
It is in Starmer's interest for the Tories to lose as many seats as possible because his best hope of getting to Number 10 is as lead party in a minority government. He needs the LDs, Greens and PC to do well where LAB cannot win.
Except if the Tories and Labour did that consistently they'd have much fewer seats than they do now - and the Lib Dems much more. I can see why its appealing to a Lib Dem but not to the main parties beyond a superficial scratching of the surface.
Take Sheffield Hallam - it was a Tory/Lib Dem seat with the Labour candidate struggling to get into the teens in voting percentage.
Within one general election it was nearly taken by Labour, next time it was taken by Labour and then held on by them despite their problems.
There's seats like that all around the country. How many formerly-Lib Dem seats are currently held by the main party that used to be third? Its not just Sheffield Hallam I believe.
With the exception of 2015 and 2017, the Lib Dems have been in second place. But... I honestly don't see how the Lib Dems win it. That Labour vote is sticky. Perhaps the Lib Dems are more likely to take votes from the Tories, but I'm not so sure (unlike in, say, Guildford).
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
The question is whether the Tories can reinvent and refresh themselves again like Boris so successfully did before losing to Labour.
Perhaps by embracing Scottish independence after a referendum?
What an absurd proposition, the Tories firstly would not allow such a referendum anyway as a Unionist Party respecting the 2014 once in a generation vote.
Secondly even if Scotland did vote for independence the Tories would not embrace the SNP, they would go full hardline English Nationalist to screw the SNP in Scexit negotiations and would ensure as hard a line as possible was taken with Edinburgh just as Brussels took as hard a line as possible with London after the Brexit vote (which took place 41 years after the first EEC vote in 1975 anyway)
Going full hardline English Nationalists is embracing Scottish independence. 🤦♂️
It would be a sake of saying "well if the Scots are going and we respect that, we need to put ourselves first".
Brussels embraced Brexit by saying "off you go then, we're going to act now as an EU27 even while you're still members we're going to have meetings to determine our future without you".
Wrong, the Tories are a Unionist party and hence respect the once in a generation vote, even if they allowed such a vote they would also campaign to retain the Union as they did in 2014.
If Scotland then voted to leave in such a referendum having allowed a vote then if the Tories appeased the SNP after they would obviously look weak and humiliated and lose the next election in England.
To win the next English election the Tories would have to go full, ultra English Nationalist with no concessions whatsoever to the SNP, the withdrawal of all English funds from Scotland etc and full Scottish payment of any debts owned. Plus a hard border at Berwick if Scotland rejoined the EU.
Much as the EU of course refused any concessions to the UK whatsoever in the Brexit negotiations.
English and Scottish relations would obviously be at their worst since Bannockburn and Flodden after Scottish independence, that would be inevitable, with nationalism ripping this island apart for at least a decade
I'm not saying that the Tories would campaign for Yes, you're missing the point completely. I'm saying if the Tories say respectfully that it is Scotland's decision and they'll respect Scotland's decision while campaigning for No but that Scotland votes Yes anyway then the Tories could refresh themselves 2019-style by accepting Scotland's decision "with regret" and becoming more English Nationalist in response.
Like how Europeans didn't want Brexit, but once it was voted for there were no attempts to suggest England has another vote - it was a case of "well fine if you're going then we will put our own interests first".
Nobody is saying the Tories would or should "appease the SNP", the SNP are not Scotland. The EU27 didn't appease the Tories even if they accepted Brexit was happening and chose to operate as a 27 instead of a 28 even before Brexit happened.
Good news everyone. I’ve been offered, and have accepted, a role as a paralegal at a fairly prestigious commercial law firm in the North of England in their engineering and construction team.
The salary is pants but it’s a great opportunity and the team seems lovely — I hope it pays off.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
From memory, the arrangement cost at least one seat in the GE (Ynys Mon) - but I think that was with LDs and Greens standing aside for PC, and much of the LD vote going Tory (because, why would it go PC?). There may be other examples in Wales.
I think Davey himself had an arrangement of that type in place on his first election as an MP.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say.
That's interesting.
Can you give us a list of say 20 examples you have encountered personally in the UK in the last 3 years?
I am 59 and I cannot recall a single incident in my adult life where any official has ever indicated to me that some "fragrant grease" might aid the process along. Of course I don't live in Liverpool but it is just not a feature of public life in Britain in my experience. I have of course had to deal with officious and pedantic idiots who seemed to be creating problems for irrational reasons. Maybe I was just missing the signposts?
Our "corruption" seems to me to be at a different level. It is the appointment of like minded people to public bodies and publicly funded organisations, grants to those bodies who become beholden to and cheerleaders for those in charge, in more recent times contracts offered to chums without due diligence or competitive tendering, that sort of thing. We are a long way from perfect but just plain bribes or "thank you's"? Just never seen it.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
In which case 2019 was Boris' 1992 and 2024 would be his 1997 but I think it would be more like his 1964 or 2010 if he lost
Tend to agree- between 1993 and 1997, everything that could go wrong did for the Conservatives. Right down to which MPs from the 1992 intake died prematurely. Gyles Brandreth's diaries are brilliant about that time.
But whether one has more time for Major or Johnson, the parallels ought to cause pause for thought.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say.
That's interesting.
Can you give us a list of say 20 examples you have encountered personally in the UK in the last 3 years?
Yeah, I'll get right on that as long as soon as you send me ₿0.01.
Thought not ;-) .
The only one I have is I suspect the "Waste Disposal Operatives" (to channel Night Provisioning Assistant from Morrisons yesterday) may have taken my Garden Bin one week before it got through the system because I gave them a big crate of beer at Christmas for their lockdown service.
And I even asked if they were allowed gifts first.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
You're assuming the Lib Dem voters are interchangeable with Labour ones and vice-versa though.
Not only might some not vote if their preferred party is not on the ballot paper (or vote for a different third party) but some Lib Dems might vote Tory if there were no Lib Dem on the ballot paper.
If Labour and Liberal Democrat voters were the same, they'd all be voting Labour already.
Yes and no. You’re right that the core national vote of the LibDems splits pretty evenly - the precise split tending to depend on the balance of national favourability between the two main parties (as you’d expect) - which is why the ‘SDP let Thatcher win’ argument often heard is wrong; during the depths of Labour unpopularity in the 1980s, taking away the third party would actually have handed the Tories bigger parliamentary wins.
But there is a further slice of voters who vote Labour nationally but are prepared to vote LibDem locally - so at council level there are potentially significant gains from a more co-operative strategy, and in the medium term local success lays the foundation for many parliamentary successes.
And the wider point is that a Labour Party that adopted such a strategy would be a different one, and the process of co-operating at local level could start to change the political dynamic.
Labour’s biggest problem is that both its electoral and political strategy appear to assume that we have PR already. Yet whenever it gets the chance to go for PR, and even when it had so promised, it fails to make the leap.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say.
That's interesting.
Can you give us a list of say 20 examples you have encountered personally in the UK in the last 3 years?
I am 59 and I cannot recall a single incident in my adult life where any official has ever indicated to me that some "fragrant grease" might aid the process along. Of course I don't live in Liverpool but it is just not a feature of public life in Britain in my experience. I have of course had to deal with officious and pedantic idiots who seemed to be creating problems for irrational reasons. Maybe I was just missing the signposts?
Our "corruption" seems to me to be at a different level. It is the appointment of like minded people to public bodies and publicly funded organisations, grants to those bodies who become beholden to and cheerleaders for those in charge, in more recent times contracts offered to chums without due diligence or competitive tendering, that sort of thing. We are a long way from perfect but just plain bribes or "thank you's"? Just never seen it.
Agree. It was suggested to me in years past that I might advance myself locally, both socially and commercially, if I became either non-party or at least ceased to be an 'active' Liberal (this was before the LD's). I didn't, so I wasn't in the local 'chumocracy'.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
In terms of deals I don't think there will be anything formal but in almost all of the 92 seats where the LDs are challenger LAB isn't competitive. Same goes for the LDs in all other seats.
It is in Starmer's interest for the Tories to lose as many seats as possible because his best hope of getting to Number 10 is as lead party in a minority government. He needs the LDs, Greens and PC to do well where LAB cannot win.
Except if the Tories and Labour did that consistently they'd have much fewer seats than they do now - and the Lib Dems much more. I can see why its appealing to a Lib Dem but not to the main parties beyond a superficial scratching of the surface.
Take Sheffield Hallam - it was a Tory/Lib Dem seat with the Labour candidate struggling to get into the teens in voting percentage.
Within one general election it was nearly taken by Labour, next time it was taken by Labour and then held on by them despite their problems.
There's seats like that all around the country. How many formerly-Lib Dem seats are currently held by the main party that used to be third? Its not just Sheffield Hallam I believe.
The one I spotted the other day was Leigh becaue the Tories were nowhere for years when Andy Burnham was the MP. Now it is their seat after a close election last time - this had slipped my mind. Labour were on 65% to 70% of the votes with Tories a distant second around the same level as the Libdems for years. I think the Tories had added 15000 votes!!
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say.
That's interesting.
Can you give us a list of say 20 examples you have encountered personally in the UK in the last 3 years?
I am 59 and I cannot recall a single incident in my adult life where any official has ever indicated to me that some "fragrant grease" might aid the process along. Of course I don't live in Liverpool but it is just not a feature of public life in Britain in my experience. I have of course had to deal with officious and pedantic idiots who seemed to be creating problems for irrational reasons. Maybe I was just missing the signposts?
Our "corruption" seems to me to be at a different level. It is the appointment of like minded people to public bodies and publicly funded organisations, grants to those bodies who become beholden to and cheerleaders for those in charge, in more recent times contracts offered to chums without due diligence or competitive tendering, that sort of thing. We are a long way from perfect but just plain bribes or "thank you's"? Just never seen it.
Yesterday I had a call from someone in a Local Authority regarding our tender for some major works. He wanted to have a meeting about it outside Starbucks over a coffee.. This is an example of the signpost you are talking about.
This type of thing has been happening for decades and will always continue to happen. I could give hundreds of examples of where we do work on peoples houses for nothing, provide holidays, golf memberships etc etc as well as the good old brown envelope.
It appears French medical authorities (I assume the Academy of Medicine has an official role there, but will admit to a lack of expertise) are now recommending a 6 month dose interval for non-vulnerable under 55s.
It may well be sensible, they certainly know better than I do, but I'll confess even as a bit of a remoaner to a touch of amusement after all the criticism thrown at the UK for a 12 week interval.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
For those of us that have followed politics for a long time (and indeed have had an interest in history) your last para is quite powerful:
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
I am 59 and I cannot recall a single incident in my adult life where any official has ever indicated to me that some "fragrant grease" might aid the process along. Of course I don't live in Liverpool but it is just not a feature of public life in Britain in my experience. I have of course had to deal with officious and pedantic idiots who seemed to be creating problems for irrational reasons. Maybe I was just missing the signposts?
Sometimes there are no "signposts". Some people have never thought of asking for or taking a bribe until the cash is in front of them.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
For those of us that have followed politics for a long time (and indeed have had an interest in history) your last para is quite powerful:
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
Yes, Major was a much underrated PM. He is also the only party leader since universal suffrage in 1918 to win a general election after more than 10 consecutive years of his party in power.
Boris or Sunak would need to match that to be re elected in 2024
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
For those of us that have followed politics for a long time (and indeed have had an interest in history) your last para is quite powerful:
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
ERM was in the end what did for Major. Blair showed sleaze doesn’t matter if the economy is pumping. Johnson will be hoping to pull the same trick.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say.
That's interesting.
Can you give us a list of say 20 examples you have encountered personally in the UK in the last 3 years?
I am 59 and I cannot recall a single incident in my adult life where any official has ever indicated to me that some "fragrant grease" might aid the process along. Of course I don't live in Liverpool but it is just not a feature of public life in Britain in my experience. I have of course had to deal with officious and pedantic idiots who seemed to be creating problems for irrational reasons. Maybe I was just missing the signposts?
Our "corruption" seems to me to be at a different level. It is the appointment of like minded people to public bodies and publicly funded organisations, grants to those bodies who become beholden to and cheerleaders for those in charge, in more recent times contracts offered to chums without due diligence or competitive tendering, that sort of thing. We are a long way from perfect but just plain bribes or "thank you's"? Just never seen it.
Yesterday I had a call from someone in a Local Authority regarding our tender for some major works. He wanted to have a meeting about it outside Starbucks over a coffee.. This is an example of the signpost you are talking about.
This type of thing has been happening for decades and will always continue to happen. I could give hundreds of examples of where we do work on peoples houses for nothing, provide holidays, golf memberships etc etc as well as the good old brown envelope.
There has been a high publicity example of this in Edinburgh in recent years which I have been on the edge of in a professional capacity in respect of contracts for common repairs. I am aware that there was general recognition in the distant past that there was a price for getting a licence or extension of hours in Dundee. Clients have talked about this with me. I don't dispute it happens. I am just saying that it has never happened to me.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
For those of us that have followed politics for a long time (and indeed have had an interest in history) your last para is quite powerful:
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
Yes, Major was a much underrated PM. He is also the only party leader since universal suffrage in 1918 to win a general election after more than 10 consecutive years of his party in power.
Boris would need to match that to be re elected in 2024
Personally I think the signing of the Maastricht Treaty was as calamitous a decision as any taken by a British Prime Minister.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
For those of us that have followed politics for a long time (and indeed have had an interest in history) your last para is quite powerful:
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
Yes, Major was a much underrated PM. He is also the only party leader since universal suffrage in 1918 to win a general election after more than 10 consecutive years of his party in power.
Boris would need to match that to be re elected in 2024
Personally I think the signing of the Maastricht Treaty was as calamitous a decision as any taken by a British Prime Minister.
In hindsight, yes. It was the beginning of the end and took decades to put right.
In hindsight Brexit was the almost inevitable result of Maastricht leading to a very asymmetric EU, just as Scottish Independence is now the almost inevitable result of asymmetric devolution.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say.
That's interesting.
Can you give us a list of say 20 examples you have encountered personally in the UK in the last 3 years?
I am 59 and I cannot recall a single incident in my adult life where any official has ever indicated to me that some "fragrant grease" might aid the process along. Of course I don't live in Liverpool but it is just not a feature of public life in Britain in my experience. I have of course had to deal with officious and pedantic idiots who seemed to be creating problems for irrational reasons. Maybe I was just missing the signposts?
Our "corruption" seems to me to be at a different level. It is the appointment of like minded people to public bodies and publicly funded organisations, grants to those bodies who become beholden to and cheerleaders for those in charge, in more recent times contracts offered to chums without due diligence or competitive tendering, that sort of thing. We are a long way from perfect but just plain bribes or "thank you's"? Just never seen it.
Yesterday I had a call from someone in a Local Authority regarding our tender for some major works. He wanted to have a meeting about it outside Starbucks over a coffee.. This is an example of the signpost you are talking about.
This type of thing has been happening for decades and will always continue to happen. I could give hundreds of examples of where we do work on peoples houses for nothing, provide holidays, golf memberships etc etc as well as the good old brown envelope.
There has been a high publicity example of this in Edinburgh in recent years which I have been on the edge of in a professional capacity in respect of contracts for common repairs. I am aware that there was general recognition in the distant past that there was a price for getting a licence or extension of hours in Dundee. Clients have talked about this with me. I don't dispute it happens. I am just saying that it has never happened to me.
Those with long memories may recall T Blair blocking a SFO investigation into arms sales sweeteners to the Saudis....the figures were colossal IIRC..... tolerance of corruption is certainly not just a Conservative weakness.
I wonder if incumbency has an effect related to time or number of re-elections. If you were voted in in 2015 you will have been re-elected 2 times already and we are 2-3 years of the 3rd election whereas nominally it could have been one year into a second term. Do voters get bored?
Interesting point, and I don't think the research addressed that. Intuitively I think it's the number of elections - in between elections, normal people barely give voting a thought, so the issue is how often they've been asked to think about it.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
For those of us that have followed politics for a long time (and indeed have had an interest in history) your last para is quite powerful:
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
Yes, Major was a much underrated PM. He is also the only party leader since universal suffrage in 1918 to win a general election after more than 10 consecutive years of his party in power.
Boris would need to match that to be re elected in 2024
Personally I think the signing of the Maastricht Treaty was as calamitous a decision as any taken by a British Prime Minister.
In hindsight, yes. It was the beginning of the end and took decades to put right.
In hindsight Brexit was the almost inevitable result of Maastricht leading to a very asymmetric EU, just as Scottish Independence is now the almost inevitable result of asymmetric devolution.
I don’t know what you mean by “in hindsight”. It was obvious at the time, as the “bastards” always said.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
For those of us that have followed politics for a long time (and indeed have had an interest in history) your last para is quite powerful:
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
Yes, Major was a much underrated PM. He is also the only party leader since universal suffrage in 1918 to win a general election after more than 10 consecutive years of his party in power.
Boris would need to match that to be re elected in 2024
Personally I think the signing of the Maastricht Treaty was as calamitous a decision as any taken by a British Prime Minister.
Really? How about offering guarantees to Belgium? How would that rank? Gulf War 2? I think signing Maastricht was a mistake which led to a number of unintended consequences, but I suspect history will judge it no worse than some of the ridiculous and more deadly mistakes made by PMs including the buffoon we currently have as incumbent.
May I add my congratulations to PB's newly appointed paralegal.
But I'm still puzzled by why we need legal professionals to jump out of aeroplanes.
So we can charge sky high fees, of course
Remember travel time is billable.
In which case why are you using a parachute with the added risk when you can bill for the rest of the flight and the journey from the airport to the office?
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say.
That's interesting.
Can you give us a list of say 20 examples you have encountered personally in the UK in the last 3 years?
I am 59 and I cannot recall a single incident in my adult life where any official has ever indicated to me that some "fragrant grease" might aid the process along. Of course I don't live in Liverpool but it is just not a feature of public life in Britain in my experience. I have of course had to deal with officious and pedantic idiots who seemed to be creating problems for irrational reasons. Maybe I was just missing the signposts?
Our "corruption" seems to me to be at a different level. It is the appointment of like minded people to public bodies and publicly funded organisations, grants to those bodies who become beholden to and cheerleaders for those in charge, in more recent times contracts offered to chums without due diligence or competitive tendering, that sort of thing. We are a long way from perfect but just plain bribes or "thank you's"? Just never seen it.
Yesterday I had a call from someone in a Local Authority regarding our tender for some major works. He wanted to have a meeting about it outside Starbucks over a coffee.. This is an example of the signpost you are talking about.
This type of thing has been happening for decades and will always continue to happen. I could give hundreds of examples of where we do work on peoples houses for nothing, provide holidays, golf memberships etc etc as well as the good old brown envelope.
"Wimbledon, Carshalton, Cheltenham, Winchester and Cheadle – all of which look very vulnerable and where Davey’s party has been working very hard."
a) It's Davey, the guy who was standing way behind Starmer when charisma was being doled out.
b) You think the Tories haven't been working those seats hard?
c) Rejoin is a very different thing to sell to Remain that gave them the bounce in those seats in 2019. Especially when Rejoin will come with a whole bunch of things we will have give up. Like membership of trade organisations that actually want us.
d) Four more years of incumbency.
The love of the EU and the antipathy towards Boris is far, far different on pb.com than that amongst the wider electorate.
Incumbency always helps but there's plenty of evidence that it peaks after the first re-election. Eventually floating voters start to move from "You've done quite well, let's give you another shot" to "You were pretty good but it's time for a change." Other things being equal, of course.
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Didnt LDs and Green do that in 2019? ended in tears I think...........
That’s overstating things - that it didn’t deliver much benefit is different from ending in tears. There’s no evidence that it did any harm.
Yes - two small parties helping each other doesn't produce many seats, and may not be worth the irritation to rival activists. But unlike the Greens (except in a tiny handful of seats), the LDs have a number of seats that they could easily win with no Labour candidate, and potential Labour gains with that sort of nudge are all over the place.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
From memory, the arrangement cost at least one seat in the GE (Ynys Mon) - but I think that was with LDs and Greens standing aside for PC, and much of the LD vote going Tory (because, why would it go PC?). There may be other examples in Wales.
The Tory vote in Ynys Mon had been suppressed for a number of general elections, because of the intervention of an independent Tory (Peter Rogers).
I agree that the LDs are very unlikely to have gone for PC in 2019, but there are more red squirrels than LDs on Ynys Mon (just 479 in 2017).
So, I doubt the pact (which was completely crazy) affected the result.
I suspect (unfortunately) Virginia Crosbie may be safe for the next election.
The local Tories are now united. She has a majority of 1,968 & there are still 2,184 Brexit Party voters up for grabs next time.
This is the only Welsh seat free from the boundary commissioners -- unhappily for Labour -- as it would otherwise be joined to Labour strength in Bangor & its hinterland.
I doubt that Starmer's 'Tory sleaze' redux (is Mandelson advising him?) will go anywhere. The transplant from the 1990s doesn't fit the world of the 2020s.
Why do you think lining your pockets with taxpayers money is ok in the 2020s?
Because the expected standards for conduct in public life are massively lower.
Corruption seems to infest the UK at all levels now. I lived in Russia for almost a decade so I am a suave and confident briber. Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say. That's why vaccine passports don't concern me. I am fairly sure that functionary charged with injecting me can be enticed into firing the syringe into the bin and stamping my papers anyway.
Well, six months on from the resignation of Sir Alex Allan, the advisor on Ministerial standards, Boris hasn't bothered to replace him. So why should anyone else bother about standards.....?
Just "Boris being Boris" isn't the end of it with the moneygrubbing and lying. It leads to everyone being Boris.
More revelations today about civil servants with multiple jobs. Worth noting that many of these were brought in from outside and seem to have been very reluctant to give up their private sector perks and jobs. Rather than import private sector expertise and efficiency the public sector seems to have imported its lack of ethics.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
For those of us that have followed politics for a long time (and indeed have had an interest in history) your last para is quite powerful:
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
Yes, Major was a much underrated PM. He is also the only party leader since universal suffrage in 1918 to win a general election after more than 10 consecutive years of his party in power.
Boris would need to match that to be re elected in 2024
Personally I think the signing of the Maastricht Treaty was as calamitous a decision as any taken by a British Prime Minister.
Really? How about offering guarantees to Belgium? How would that rank? Gulf War 2? I think signing Maastricht was a mistake which led to a number of unintended consequences, but I suspect history will judge it no worse than some of the ridiculous and more deadly mistakes made by PMs including the buffoon we currently have as incumbent.
Failing to use the veto on Maastricht was in my view worse than Gulf War 2. We’ve yet to see just how seriously it will ultimately poison the well, both in terms of the UK’s diplomatic relations with Europe but also what being locked into a sub optimal currency area will inevitably mean for the continent of Europe itself.
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
For those of us that have followed politics for a long time (and indeed have had an interest in history) your last para is quite powerful:
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
Yes, Major was a much underrated PM. He is also the only party leader since universal suffrage in 1918 to win a general election after more than 10 consecutive years of his party in power.
Boris would need to match that to be re elected in 2024
Personally I think the signing of the Maastricht Treaty was as calamitous a decision as any taken by a British Prime Minister.
In hindsight, yes. It was the beginning of the end and took decades to put right.
In hindsight Brexit was the almost inevitable result of Maastricht leading to a very asymmetric EU, just as Scottish Independence is now the almost inevitable result of asymmetric devolution.
In a revised EU though would we not have just had what happened in 2010(?) when Cameron refused to agree to some treaty changes around the single currency, and the council of ministers just went around him, set up a parallel institution and done it anyway?
Historically if you take the 4 general elections since WW2 after one party had been in power for 10 years or more, as will be the case in 2024, the odds favour a change in government.
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
The other question is whether the change of governing party has already occurred. Does the voting public regard HMG as a Conservative government since 2010 or has the change from Cameron to May to Boris satisfied any putative demand for change?
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
Boris is certainly much less of a fiscally conservative PM than Cameron was and is arguably now governing even as a social democrat, he has also delivered Brexit obviously which Cameron opposed and a harder Brexit than May wanted too.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
If one really wants to be mischievous, what about Johnson as Major redux? Not (so far) the exhausted Major of 1997, but the triumphant Major of May 1992.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
For those of us that have followed politics for a long time (and indeed have had an interest in history) your last para is quite powerful:
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
Yes, Major was a much underrated PM. He is also the only party leader since universal suffrage in 1918 to win a general election after more than 10 consecutive years of his party in power.
Boris would need to match that to be re elected in 2024
Personally I think the signing of the Maastricht Treaty was as calamitous a decision as any taken by a British Prime Minister.
In hindsight, yes. It was the beginning of the end and took decades to put right.
In hindsight Brexit was the almost inevitable result of Maastricht leading to a very asymmetric EU, just as Scottish Independence is now the almost inevitable result of asymmetric devolution.
I don’t know what you mean by “in hindsight”. It was obvious at the time, as the “bastards” always said.
Though even that was a bit more complex at the time. In December 1991, it was seen as a triumph of British negotiation, given that John Major had secured opt-outs from the objectionable bits and a much less unitary structure than was originally desired by some. A Telegraph hack called Boris Johnson described it as a "copybook triumph";
Comments
Yesterday I saw a married couple arrive at an outside cafe, both wearing N95s, one with a face shield over the N95. Which they left on for the duration of their stay, moving to one side when sipping coffee. Both of an age to have received certainly one vaccine, possible two. In a district where the covid map has recorded 0-3 weekly cases for about two months now (as has every neighbouring district). Sitting at a table a good 5-7 metres from the nearest one.
And the most depressing thing is that these are the people overwhelmingly who vote. And who the government is pandering to, in some weird symbiotic relationship where the PM keeps telling them how dangerous everything still is because in focus groups they say that’s what they want to hear.
"This was a council that was literally a law unto itself," he said. "In some ways the comparison with a mafia-type set up is fair"
(Liverpool)
That was the case in 1964, 1997 and 2010, the only exception being in 1992 where Major's Tories held on despite some losses to Kinnock's Labour.
The question then is whether Starmer is Wilson 1964 or Cameron 2010 and becomes PM or Kinnock 1992 and he narrowly fails to, unless this government performs disastrously he is unlikely to be Blair 1997, more likely he will win narrowly as Wilson did in 1964 or more likely still become PM after a hung parliament as Cameron did in 2010
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/greensills-fantasies-lost-touch-with-reality-d0w920htx
Does this change with the Labour entry? Not much. the chance of a Labour victory are predicated only on a Blair/Black swan event. Less than 10%. Nowhere close to 17%.
What factors might shift the other two horses from level in the betting:
1) Boris. Always a winner versus He has time to blow up
2) Events. They happen and you don't know what they are. 20% inflation would kill the Tory project stone dead.
3) Despite FTPA Boris can choose the timing. I think this will be significant.
4) Labour's support looks least secure where they need it - old lost territory and middling sort marginals. Their strong bits are rock solid; progress elsewhere looks hard.
5) Boris is more secure in his job that SKS is in his.
I would put it at
Tory 48%
NOM 44%
Lab 8%
An important unknown is whether any kind of Lab/LD/Green understanding is reached. All it would take would be quietly shelving the Lab/LD rule that parties need to stand in every seat. Local parties will do the rest ("We give the GE a miss, you give us a clear run in 4 council seats"). As Sean F often observes, voters don't necessarily follow suit, but around 50-60% of them do, judging by multi-member wards where parties aren't putting up full slates (I'm a beneficiary of that)..
Swing voters won’t feel that the “it’s Labour’s turn” argument is ready for a hearing until some time after the next election. I can imagine that Covid has shortened the life of this government from three terms to two but who is to say so, if the inflation dragon does not awaken after all and we are set for a decade more growth after the covid crash?
Con maj 50%
Hung P 40%
Lab maj 10%
Best GE bets out there at current prices: Cons largest party (1.67), Starmer next PM (5.7).
The latter by way of a trading position since when it dawns that this is a 2 horse race with neither Johnson or Starmer exiting before the GE it will be layable back at 3 point something (or less).
It might be that in co-opting the popular parts of Jeremy Corbyn's platform and running against Cameron and May-style Conservatism, Boris already is the change prime minister. I'd not be wagering on 2024 based on historical parallels.
ETA I now see @moonshine has made much the same point in the last few minutes.
I would add the cautionary note that many of the great unwashed cheering for Johnson do not associate his Government with those of Cameron and May's Blairite/ Remainer Governments that preceded him. So for some, we are a mere two years into the regime change.
Personally however, I do agree that should Starmer become PM it will be the Cameron and not the Blair model that prevails. And even then we need quite a lot of bad news to flow under Boris' garden bridge.
I also expect more than usual disparity of swing between different sorts of area. Especially strong anti Tory swing in areas where it makes no difference.
It needs a constituency-based quid pro quo in council seats, though. Constituency parties are not up for standing down to benefit somewhere else - perhaps they should be, but they're not. However, a small party offered a chance at say 4 council seats vs 0 will be very tempted.
A Tory weakness is that there are no parties in sight which they could do that sort of deal with.
Brown was also ideologically something of a change from Blair too.
I certainly think Boris would win another majority in England in 2024, as indeed Home did in 1964, it was Scotland and Wales that put Wilson in with a majority of 4 then and the same would likely be the case for Starmer
Can I go O/t for a moment and ask a general question of the lawyers and web professionals here. What is the legal position of the owner of a 'correspondence' website .... like this.....when a user.....poster ...... libels someone. Brought to mind by the current Arlene Foster case.
So yes there is something in your point that a change of government has occurred already to some extent
The current government doesn't feel like the one from ten years ago; it certainly doesn't feel like this lot have been in power for a decade and a bit (which is very different to how it felt in the 90s). Most unfair to an opposition waiting for Buggins' turn, but there we are.
Not only might some not vote if their preferred party is not on the ballot paper (or vote for a different third party) but some Lib Dems might vote Tory if there were no Lib Dem on the ballot paper.
If Labour and Liberal Democrat voters were the same, they'd all be voting Labour already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair
So if Starmer does win after 14 years of Labour in opposition it would be closer to 2010 than 1997, 1997 would be more like if the Tories got re elected in 2024 and a new Labour leader was Blair to Starmer's Kinnock and won after 19 years in opposition in 2029
It is in Starmer's interest for the Tories to lose as many seats as possible because his best hope of getting to Number 10 is as lead party in a minority government. He needs the LDs, Greens and PC to do well where LAB cannot win.
Perhaps by embracing Scottish independence after a referendum?
Corruption seems to infest the UK at all levels now. I lived in Russia for almost a decade so I am a suave and confident briber. Latterly I've been struck by how many officials of all stripes in the UK are amenable to bit of fragrant grease - as the Chinese say. That's why vaccine passports don't concern me. I am fairly sure that functionary charged with injecting me can be enticed into firing the syringe into the bin and stamping my papers anyway.
For the LibDems the flaw in this analysis is that the seats in which they made the effort to secure the alliance were mostly their better prospects, where they had better organisation and in some cases were already well positioned against Labour.
The Greens carried the alliance banner in ten seats, almost all of them long shots given the low base from which the party starts. They got a vote share increase of over 6% in these seats, compared to a rise of just 1% nationally. For Plaid its vote went up by 2% in the alliance seats compared to a drop of 1% elsewhere in Wales - and here the alliance seats included some Plaid long shots. Some believe the alliance made the difference for Plaid retaining Arfon.
So there is some evidence of vote gain - the trouble being that these relatively modest differences in vote share weren’t enough to make any difference under the voting system. In 2019 none of the three parties were on roll - with an upswing in the general level of support, such an alliance might make more of a difference.
There were however other benefits - for example the Greens saved their deposits in every one of the ten alliance seats (Green saved deposits are pretty rare), and managed to overtake the Tories to take second place in Dulwich and in Bristol West - setting up two potential targets for next time. And, on the back of the national deals (which in practice required local deals), some local understandings have been secured on council seats, mutual help was given and received, and relationships formed.
There was some measure of local interest from Labour in participating - all of course stamped on by the party’s national rules and firm centralised management. Perhaps one day this dam might break.
Assume: Yes I can be sued for libel, unless I can prove I can't.
Secondly even if Scotland did vote for independence the Tories would not embrace the SNP, they would go full hardline English Nationalist to screw the SNP in Scexit negotiations and would ensure as hard a line as possible was taken with Edinburgh just as Brussels took as hard a line as possible with London after the Brexit vote (which took place 41 years after the first EEC vote in 1975 anyway)
The only exception is the USA where the Republicans and Democrats still have a monopoly at Congressional, state and Presidential level
A close relative of mine works in th construction industry. He say that sector is "on fire" at every level - salaries for experienced people zooming up. Lots of work on.
Apparently domain knowledge combined with skill x *and* presentation/managerial skills is like gold dust - people who know construction, have legal knowledge (say) and can apply one to the other in a sensible fashion....
Take Sheffield Hallam - it was a Tory/Lib Dem seat with the Labour candidate struggling to get into the teens in voting percentage.
Within one general election it was nearly taken by Labour, next time it was taken by Labour and then held on by them despite their problems.
There's seats like that all around the country. How many formerly-Lib Dem seats are currently held by the main party that used to be third? Its not just Sheffield Hallam I believe.
https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-254
Conclusions: The sensitivity of a single RT-PCR test of URT samples in hospitalised patients is 82.2%.
&
82% of LFD tests confirmed by PCR tests. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56750460
Suggests the 18% of LFD positive -> PCR negative are more likely to be True positive -> False negative than False positive -> True negative perhaps ?
Perhaps we should NOT be confirming LFD with PCR results, or at least doing another if a PCR negative comes back ?
https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1382614709304758275
It would be a sake of saying "well if the Scots are going and we respect that, we need to put ourselves first".
Brussels embraced Brexit by saying "off you go then, we're going to act now as an EU27 even while you're still members we're going to have meetings to determine our future without you".
Schwarzenegger is a closer to populist wave thing - but there, he had already started on building a political career over a considerable period of time. If it hadn't been for the recall election, he would have been running for Congress or the Senate - he was, IIRC, investigating both of those.
Neither career resembles Donald Trump, who really did just run for President without any background in politics. Apart from the usual business man jokes about running for office.
Can you give us a list of say 20 examples you have encountered personally in the UK in the last 3 years?
If Scotland then voted to leave in such a referendum having allowed a vote then if the Tories appeased the SNP after they would obviously look weak and humiliated and lose the next election in England.
To win the next English election the Tories would have to go full, ultra English Nationalist with no concessions whatsoever to the SNP, the withdrawal of all English funds from Scotland etc and full Scottish payment of any debts owned. Plus a hard border at Berwick if Scotland rejoined the EU.
Much as the EU of course refused any concessions to the UK whatsoever in the Brexit negotiations.
English and Scottish relations would obviously be at their worst since Bannockburn and Flodden after Scottish independence, that would be inevitable, with nationalism ripping this island apart for at least a decade
Labour’s tendency is to take the short term pain of more Tory seats as down payment for maintaining its hold as ‘only alternative’ and cashing in as majority party further down the road. Co-operation becomes of self-interest to Labour if you reach the conclusion that they can’t secure a majority on their own. Both because co-operation maximises the chance of depriving the Tories of a majority and because it lays some of the groundwork for the co-operation that a balanced parliament would require.
Both took over as PM after the Conservatives had been office for a long time and were struggling.
Both ditched the baggage holding the party down (Poll Tax, Brexit faff).
Both were seen as reaching out in a way that other Tories couldn't. If you weren't around at the time, you might not believe it, but the soapbox thing worked.
Both pulled off remarkable victories against an opposition that wasn't really ready for office. Remember, Major's 14.1 million votes still hasn't been beaten.
Both were, in different ways, masters of the art of persuading people that they were on their side.
There are differences of course. Johnson has been much more ruthless at getting rid of potential bastards before they can cause him trouble.
But in 1992, people were saying the same things that they're saying now; that Britain will become like Japan with a single natural party of government. Ten more glorious Conservative years.
But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder.
https://twitter.com/oldtrotter/status/1382604788353892354?s=21
The Senate has 1 genuine independent (Angus King from Maine) but he still caucuses with the Democrats, Sanders is effectively a Democrat now having run in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2016 and 2020
Planning Appeals !
All the best ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woking_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
With the exception of 2015 and 2017, the Lib Dems have been in second place. But... I honestly don't see how the Lib Dems win it. That Labour vote is sticky. Perhaps the Lib Dems are more likely to take votes from the Tories, but I'm not so sure (unlike in, say, Guildford).
Like how Europeans didn't want Brexit, but once it was voted for there were no attempts to suggest England has another vote - it was a case of "well fine if you're going then we will put our own interests first".
Nobody is saying the Tories would or should "appease the SNP", the SNP are not Scotland. The EU27 didn't appease the Tories even if they accepted Brexit was happening and chose to operate as a 27 instead of a 28 even before Brexit happened.
Our "corruption" seems to me to be at a different level. It is the appointment of like minded people to public bodies and publicly funded organisations, grants to those bodies who become beholden to and cheerleaders for those in charge, in more recent times contracts offered to chums without due diligence or competitive tendering, that sort of thing. We are a long way from perfect but just plain bribes or "thank you's"? Just never seen it.
But whether one has more time for Major or Johnson, the parallels ought to cause pause for thought.
The only one I have is I suspect the "Waste Disposal Operatives" (to channel Night Provisioning Assistant from Morrisons yesterday) may have taken my Garden Bin one week before it got through the system because I gave them a big crate of beer at Christmas for their lockdown service.
And I even asked if they were allowed gifts first.
But there is a further slice of voters who vote Labour nationally but are prepared to vote LibDem locally - so at council level there are potentially significant gains from a more co-operative strategy, and in the medium term local success lays the foundation for many parliamentary successes.
And the wider point is that a Labour Party that adopted such a strategy would be a different one, and the process of co-operating at local level could start to change the political dynamic.
Labour’s biggest problem is that both its electoral and political strategy appear to assume that we have PR already. Yet whenever it gets the chance to go for PR, and even when it had so promised, it fails to make the leap.
I didn't, so I wasn't in the local 'chumocracy'.
This type of thing has been happening for decades and will always continue to happen. I could give hundreds of examples of where we do work on peoples houses for nothing, provide holidays, golf memberships etc etc as well as the good old brown envelope.
A bit Metropolitan and up-itself.
https://twitter.com/nicolasberrod/status/1382620507468619784
It may well be sensible, they certainly know better than I do, but I'll confess even as a bit of a remoaner to a touch of amusement after all the criticism thrown at the UK for a 12 week interval.
"But then things happened, and Major's strengths that had helped him defy gravity became weaknesses that made the crash all the harder."
As you say, people forget the John Major of 1992, and for that matter the John Major of Gulf war 1. Johnson apologists should take note.
By the way, I once met Major, and to my surprise he was genuinely charismatic, and came across as a genuinely nice chap. It was also, mercifully before the news regarding Edwina came out!
Boris or Sunak would need to match that to be re elected in 2024
In hindsight Brexit was the almost inevitable result of Maastricht leading to a very asymmetric EU, just as Scottish Independence is now the almost inevitable result of asymmetric devolution.
more deadly mistakes made by PMs including the buffoon we currently have as incumbent.
I agree that the LDs are very unlikely to have gone for PC in 2019, but there are more red squirrels than LDs on Ynys Mon (just 479 in 2017).
So, I doubt the pact (which was completely crazy) affected the result.
I suspect (unfortunately) Virginia Crosbie may be safe for the next election.
The local Tories are now united. She has a majority of 1,968 & there are still 2,184 Brexit Party voters up for grabs next time.
This is the only Welsh seat free from the boundary commissioners -- unhappily for Labour -- as it would otherwise be joined to Labour strength in Bangor & its hinterland.
https://twitter.com/jamiedmaxwell/status/1382620852173307907?s=20
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/
Might have been a post-Easter effect, but clearly their level of vaccinations isn't anywhere near enough for the level of unlocking that they've had.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1240178/brexit-news-boris-johnson-eu-uk-integration-maastricht-treaty-copybook-triumph-spt
So there's another parallel- JM and BJ both got Eurodeals that looked brilliant on first inspection...