And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
If Hartlepool does go tory on Thursday as I and a number of others on here think then you really cannot just airily dismiss it like that.
It's emblematic of what happened in the biggest national poll of the lot: the 2019 General Election.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
I'm not even sure that sleaze would finish the tories. It was Black Wednesday which did for them in 1992-7 more than the sleaze.
We witnessed a generational seismic political shift in 2019, the seeds of which were sown over several previous years. It ain't shifting back in a hurry.
Labour in real trouble in the north if the Hartlepool poll is anywhere near reality. Stuff like Barnsley East, one of the Hull seats and Miliband's seat would go lol
All 3 Sunderland seats could be in play. However, I'm still sceptical.
Sunderland is a university town along with Middlesborough. I think they will be much more resilient.
Relevant to those of us who go electioneering, I will join ANY party who pledge to make letter boxes at the bottom of a front door illegal. Especially ones where they are behind two gates.
Even better - anyone with more than three steps up or down to their front door should be made to have a letter box next to the gateway by the street
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
Excellent piece. It brought memories of the heady early days of the SDP in particular where by elections were so crucial to getting attention between elections (where we were thrashed). The recent death of Shirley Williams had already had me thinking quite a lot about that time when a political party that was serious and realistic about economics but also focused on making a difference for those less advantaged seemed within reach.
Alas, it was not to be and the closest we ever got, in my estimation, was the Coalition government of Cameron and Clegg. That got me interested in politics again after a fairly extended period of disillusionment. The last decade has certainly been eventful. I rather hope, despite the lack of betting opportunities that would arise that the next decade is less so.
We? Were you an SDPer?
I had you down as a liberal Tory like myself.
Yes, I was a founder member of the SDP in my University days and subsequently area party secretary for Dundee and Angus for my sins. My journey to the dark side came later when that youthful naivety got burned away after the SDP joined up with the Lib Dems. It was somewhat stalled by some pretty unpleasant Tory policies as Blair pushed them to the margins but was completed by the accession of Cameron.
Makes sense.
I was too young to know the SDP as an independent party, always felt like a liberal Tory but couldn't back the Tories in my first election in 2001, though even then despite it being my first vote I felt in exile voting for Blair's Labour.
Cameron was the first time I was properly happy with my own vote. First time I didn't feel like I was holding my nose doing so.
Bring on Angela Rayner, who is a far more deft and sophisticated politician than often perceived.
If Rayner is their last best hope then they really are in trouble. She is absolutely authentic, and speaks of the life opportunities that were given to her by the Blair governments. The problem is that her political ideology is the opposite. Instead of prosperity and aspiration and building consensus her politics are exclusive and excluding and marginalising.
Labour need to speak to and for normals. People who speak like Angela Rayner who aren't interested in class or the bosses or benefits. The problem is that so many of them are incapable of doing so - the unions really don't help here.
But this is just how political parties work isn't it? To be a candidate you have to put in your 20 years of schmoozing and you become out of touch along the way.
which is why Trump, Berlusconi and even Macron succeeded in mobilising voters
This post by AB is a truly first-rate contribution to electoral history in general, and political betting history in particular!
Haven't actually read it yet, but can't wait to do so, it's clearly chock full o' facts. AND nuts!
Its a great piece and brought a few memories back..... shame they dont offer the long odds these days - George Galloway 33/1 in Bradford made me smile. I have got a small sum on Labour in Hartlepool... Interested to see how Chesham and Amersham shapes up I reckon the LDs will fancy their chances
I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong but the LDs have never lost a by-election battle with the Tories when they were in second place at the previous general election.
Awww. You’re so sweet sometimes.
The LibDems have been around about 30 years. The first 20 were a long upswing with highly favourable circumstances. Then they were in government. The last few years have been…challenging.
Bring on Angela Rayner, who is a far more deft and sophisticated politician than often perceived.
If Rayner is their last best hope then they really are in trouble. She is absolutely authentic, and speaks of the life opportunities that were given to her by the Blair governments. The problem is that her political ideology is the opposite. Instead of prosperity and aspiration and building consensus her politics are exclusive and excluding and marginalising.
Labour need to speak to and for normals. People who speak like Angela Rayner who aren't interested in class or the bosses or benefits. The problem is that so many of them are incapable of doing so - the unions really don't help here.
They need to be aspirational, if they want to appeal to today’s version of Mondeo Man who decides elections. Talk more about making poor people richer, and less about making rich people poorer, and remember that 80% of the country are in neither the top nor bottom income deciles.
Just imagine a young Mike Smithson, clutching his coppers (the coins, not the bill) as he steps up to the window, peering upward and piping, "Please sir, may I put a half crown on Sir Alec"? (Or whatever he - the laird, not Mike - was calling himself at that moment.)
The hardened bookie snorts in derision, "It'll be yer funeral, lad. Sure you don't want to invest in a half-pound of Turkish Delight instead?"
"No, Sir!"
And the rest, as they say, is history . . .
Alas my first political bet on the 1963 CON leadership was a foretaste of what was to come - a loser
So how did the rank outsider with the carry on voice beat Rab Butler? Some sort of backlash against those on front bench?
Off the top of the head, it was a smoke filled room election, not democracy?
Magic circle - SuperMac was in hospital so I assume they didn’t smoke there…
And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
If Hartlepool does go tory on Thursday as I and a number of others on here think then you really cannot just airily dismiss it like that.
It's emblematic of what happened in the biggest national poll of the lot: the 2019 General Election.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
I'm not even sure that sleaze would finish the tories. It was Black Wednesday which did for them in 1992-7 more than the sleaze.
We witnessed a generational seismic political shift in 2019, the seeds of which were sown over several previous years. It ain't shifting back in a hurry.
Some people naïvely assume that 2019 was a rejection of Corbyn and getting Brexit done and now that Brexit is over and Corbyn is gone it will return back to the natural state of things.
That's the same naivety that saw Tories in 1998 saying that they were the natural party of government and people would see through Blair soon enough.
Labour need their Cameron and Osborne prepared to reform the party. That's not Keir.
Excellent piece. It brought memories of the heady early days of the SDP in particular where by elections were so crucial to getting attention between elections (where we were thrashed). The recent death of Shirley Williams had already had me thinking quite a lot about that time when a political party that was serious and realistic about economics but also focused on making a difference for those less advantaged seemed within reach.
Alas, it was not to be and the closest we ever got, in my estimation, was the Coalition government of Cameron and Clegg. That got me interested in politics again after a fairly extended period of disillusionment. The last decade has certainly been eventful. I rather hope, despite the lack of betting opportunities that would arise that the next decade is less so.
We? Were you an SDPer?
I had you down as a liberal Tory like myself.
I always felt that Social Democrats and Liberals could and can work well together, as they did. OK liberals are far more radical than Social Democrats who are far more pragmatic, but as Social Democrats do believe in a free economy and not state control generally as an overwhelming principle we got on ok and even as a liberal I do believe in state intervention where appropriate eg education, health, state pension, protection of the disadvantaged etc.
That unherd piece by Tanya Gold is absolutely brilliant. It says what I was stating only much better.
I urge everyone, everyone, on here who thinks Brexit is done and dusted or who thinks the 2019 result was an aberration or who thinks Starmer is the answer or who doesn't believe that the Red Wall shift was for real or who ever bets on British politics to read this. Adjust your sights accordingly.
As I posted the other day, my soundings in my old home town seem to be pointing to a Street win. Surprised if the gap is this great though.
I don't see why. I am a (former) Labour member and I'd vote Street in a heart beat. I'm originally from the West Midlands and all I hear are positive things.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
Great article - shame it misses out what I remember as the biggest shock by-election of recent years, Glenrothes in 2008. Amazing work for the Scottish Labour machine to pull that off. Shows how far the party has fallen North of the border.
Yes it was very lucky the votes were all mistakenly incinerated before anyone could check them for sure. Biggest election fix in history.
Excellent piece. It brought memories of the heady early days of the SDP in particular where by elections were so crucial to getting attention between elections (where we were thrashed). The recent death of Shirley Williams had already had me thinking quite a lot about that time when a political party that was serious and realistic about economics but also focused on making a difference for those less advantaged seemed within reach.
Alas, it was not to be and the closest we ever got, in my estimation, was the Coalition government of Cameron and Clegg. That got me interested in politics again after a fairly extended period of disillusionment. The last decade has certainly been eventful. I rather hope, despite the lack of betting opportunities that would arise that the next decade is less so.
We? Were you an SDPer?
I had you down as a liberal Tory like myself.
I always felt that Social Democrats and Liberals could and can work well together, as they did. OK liberals are far more radical than Social Democrats who are far more pragmatic, but as Social Democrats do believe in a free economy and not state control generally as an overwhelming principle we got on ok and even as a liberal I do believe in state intervention where appropriate eg education, health, state pension, protection of the disadvantaged etc.
The amusing thing is that while people want the left and liberals to get along, Clegg and Cameron was no an abberration, liberals and free market liberals (Tories) get along just fine and have done time and again through the years.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I agree. What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote compared to the days when they got within 3% of Blair and he got a very comfortable majority. This has happened so far because the very considerable ebbing of their strength in the south of England has merely reduced their majorities whilst they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north.
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
If Hartlepool does go tory on Thursday as I and a number of others on here think then you really cannot just airily dismiss it like that.
It's emblematic of what happened in the biggest national poll of the lot: the 2019 General Election.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
I'm not even sure that sleaze would finish the tories. It was Black Wednesday which did for them in 1992-7 more than the sleaze.
We witnessed a generational seismic political shift in 2019, the seeds of which were sown over several previous years. It ain't shifting back in a hurry.
Some people naïvely assume that 2019 was a rejection of Corbyn and getting Brexit done and now that Brexit is over and Corbyn is gone it will return back to the natural state of things.
That's the same naivety that saw Tories in 1998 saying that they were the natural party of government and people would see through Blair soon enough.
Labour need their Cameron and Osborne prepared to reform the party. That's not Keir.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I didn't call you lazy. I said that I thought one point you made was lazy analysis.
Clearly you didn't read the rest of my post because I wasn't disputing the Hartlepool result. I've said that Hartlepool will go Con from pretty much day 1.
And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
If Hartlepool does go tory on Thursday as I and a number of others on here think then you really cannot just airily dismiss it like that.
It's emblematic of what happened in the biggest national poll of the lot: the 2019 General Election.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
I'm not even sure that sleaze would finish the tories. It was Black Wednesday which did for them in 1992-7 more than the sleaze.
We witnessed a generational seismic political shift in 2019, the seeds of which were sown over several previous years. It ain't shifting back in a hurry.
Some people naïvely assume that 2019 was a rejection of Corbyn and getting Brexit done and now that Brexit is over and Corbyn is gone it will return back to the natural state of things.
That's the same naivety that saw Tories in 1998 saying that they were the natural party of government and people would see through Blair soon enough.
Labour need their Cameron and Osborne prepared to reform the party. That's not Keir.
Spot on
Strikes me it is a lot harder, an order of magnitude harder, to change Labour than Tory party which has the unions often as a deadweight and doesn't have the same kind of loyalty to power and leadership that Tories seem to have.
And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
If Hartlepool does go tory on Thursday as I and a number of others on here think then you really cannot just airily dismiss it like that.
It's emblematic of what happened in the biggest national poll of the lot: the 2019 General Election.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
I'm not even sure that sleaze would finish the tories. It was Black Wednesday which did for them in 1992-7 more than the sleaze.
We witnessed a generational seismic political shift in 2019, the seeds of which were sown over several previous years. It ain't shifting back in a hurry.
Some people naïvely assume that 2019 was a rejection of Corbyn and getting Brexit done and now that Brexit is over and Corbyn is gone it will return back to the natural state of things.
That's the same naivety that saw Tories in 1998 saying that they were the natural party of government and people would see through Blair soon enough.
Labour need their Cameron and Osborne prepared to reform the party. That's not Keir.
The one thing that Starmer is doing very effectively is reforming the party. The far-left is losing control at constituency, regional and national level. That in and of itself does not win you votes, though - especially at a time when so many of the political fundamentals are in the government's favour.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I agree. What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote compared to the days when they got within 3% of Blair and he got a very comfortable majority. This has happened so far because the very considerable ebbing of their strength in the south of England has merely reduced their majorities whilst they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north.
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
David, what I think you meant to say is that the Tories are crap but have been lucky enough to have been up against the worst donkeys in history. Now they are crooked and crap and their luck has to run out some time.
Even the Modeller of Doom admits this is nearly over.
Dan Bloom @danbloom1 NEW: Prof Neil Ferguson says we now "don’t see any prospect of the NHS being overwhelmed, with the one caveat around variants", in a third wave this summer/autumn
Just imagine a young Mike Smithson, clutching his coppers (the coins, not the bill) as he steps up to the window, peering upward and piping, "Please sir, may I put a half crown on Sir Alec"? (Or whatever he - the laird, not Mike - was calling himself at that moment.)
The hardened bookie snorts in derision, "It'll be yer funeral, lad. Sure you don't want to invest in a half-pound of Turkish Delight instead?"
"No, Sir!"
And the rest, as they say, is history . . .
Alas my first political bet on the 1963 CON leadership was a foretaste of what was to come - a loser
So how did the rank outsider with the carry on voice beat Rab Butler? Some sort of backlash against those on front bench?
Off the top of the head, it was a smoke filled room election, not democracy?
Magic circle - SuperMac was in hospital so I assume they didn’t smoke there…
And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
If Hartlepool does go tory on Thursday as I and a number of others on here think then you really cannot just airily dismiss it like that.
It's emblematic of what happened in the biggest national poll of the lot: the 2019 General Election.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
I'm not even sure that sleaze would finish the tories. It was Black Wednesday which did for them in 1992-7 more than the sleaze.
We witnessed a generational seismic political shift in 2019, the seeds of which were sown over several previous years. It ain't shifting back in a hurry.
Some people naïvely assume that 2019 was a rejection of Corbyn and getting Brexit done and now that Brexit is over and Corbyn is gone it will return back to the natural state of things.
That's the same naivety that saw Tories in 1998 saying that they were the natural party of government and people would see through Blair soon enough.
Labour need their Cameron and Osborne prepared to reform the party. That's not Keir.
Spot on
Strikes me it is a lot harder, an order of magnitude harder, to change Labour than Tory party which has the unions often as a deadweight and doesn't have the same kind of loyalty to power and leadership that Tories seem to have.
Yep, it’s quite east to see Johnson getting swapped out before the next election if he starts to become unpopular, just as Theresa May was in 2019.
It’s much more difficult to imagine any challenge to Starmer, except by the far-left Corbynites who have already shown us their lack of electability.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I agree. What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote compared to the days when they got within 3% of Blair and he got a very comfortable majority. This has happened so far because the very considerable ebbing of their strength in the south of England has merely reduced their majorities whilst they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north.
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
David, what I think you meant to say is that the Tories are crap but have been lucky enough to have been up against the worst donkeys in history. Now they are crooked and crap and their luck has to run out some time.
An interesting perspective Malcolm. And, sadly for me, pretty applicable to the SNP government up here. When will Sturgeon's luck run out? Its draining away but not quite yet, I fancy.
I just about understand Murphy taking that final red on. No chance he would have done in the final frame of course. But with Selby’s as safety game he may have considered he might not get a further opportunity.
Incredible poll in Hartlepool, I think the % lead will end up being single figs but have always maintained Ben Houchen the biggest factor just ahead of the disasterous choice of Paul Williams.
In Scotland some interesting leadership approvals in the polls. What use is Sarwar being in positive territory if so much of it comes from SNP voters? Perhaps another Sturgeon scandal and he profits but it might be one election too soon for ScotLab to make headway. A good start for him though.
Similarly Mike always talks about preferred leader and PM, Starmer trails by a large distance but has had a couple of much more positive Lab polls last week. It’s hard to make sense of what these mean for Thursday? Perhaps in contrast to how many of us were thinking the Labour brand is actually still a bigger draw for the masses than the Starmer brand.
I just about understand Murphy taking that final red on. No chance he would have done in the final frame of course. But with Selby’s as safety game he may have considered he might not get a further opportunity.
Incredible poll in Hartlepool, I think the % lead will end up being single figs but have always maintained Ben Houchen the biggest factor just ahead of the disasterous choice of Paul Williams.
In Scotland some interesting leadership approvals in the polls. What use is Sarwar being in positive territory if so much of it comes from SNP voters? Perhaps another Sturgeon scandal and he profits but it might be one election too soon for ScotLab to make headway. A good start for him though.
Similarly Mike always talks about preferred leader and PM, Starmer trails by a large distance but has had a couple of much more positive Lab polls last week. It’s hard to make sense of what these mean for Thursday? Perhaps in contrast to how many of us were thinking the Labour brand is actually still a bigger draw for the masses than the Starmer brand.
I think Labour could have picked Nigel Farage as their candidate and still lost in Hartlepool to be honest.
Relevant to those of us who go electioneering, I will join ANY party who pledge to make letter boxes at the bottom of a front door illegal. Especially ones where they are behind two gates.
How about ones with a strong spring that closes on your fingers… just after the yappy nippy dog gets there
Excellent piece. It brought memories of the heady early days of the SDP in particular where by elections were so crucial to getting attention between elections (where we were thrashed). The recent death of Shirley Williams had already had me thinking quite a lot about that time when a political party that was serious and realistic about economics but also focused on making a difference for those less advantaged seemed within reach.
Alas, it was not to be and the closest we ever got, in my estimation, was the Coalition government of Cameron and Clegg. That got me interested in politics again after a fairly extended period of disillusionment. The last decade has certainly been eventful. I rather hope, despite the lack of betting opportunities that would arise that the next decade is less so.
We? Were you an SDPer?
I had you down as a liberal Tory like myself.
I always felt that Social Democrats and Liberals could and can work well together, as they did. OK liberals are far more radical than Social Democrats who are far more pragmatic, but as Social Democrats do believe in a free economy and not state control generally as an overwhelming principle we got on ok and even as a liberal I do believe in state intervention where appropriate eg education, health, state pension, protection of the disadvantaged etc.
The amusing thing is that while people want the left and liberals to get along, Clegg and Cameron was no an abberration, liberals and free market liberals (Tories) get along just fine and have done time and again through the years.
Liberals tend to have a bigger overlap of desired outcomes with the left but of preferred means with the right. I have always found Labour councillors the harder to deal with, because their mindset in terms of how they go about things is so starkly different from mine.
Survation have the Tories winning Hartlepool by 17%.
Con 50%
Lab 33%
Perhaps I should be readjusting my predictions for 2024 after all. That is a ringing endorsement for Johnson. I had Hartlepool down as a comfortable Conservative by election win, but not that comfortable!
If the current allegations surrounding the Conservatives aren't cutting through, nothing will.
Survation have the Tories winning Hartlepool by 17%.
Con 50%
Lab 33%
Perhaps I should be readjusting my predictions for 2024 after all. That is a ringing endorsement for Johnson. I had Hartlepool down as a comfortable Conservative by election win, but not that comfortable!
If the current allegations surrounding the Conservatives aren't cutting through, nothing will.
I mean they *are* cutting through if the latest Westminster polls are to be believed, just in other parts of the country.
Great article - shame it misses out what I remember as the biggest shock by-election of recent years, Glenrothes in 2008. Amazing work for the Scottish Labour machine to pull that off. Shows how far the party has fallen North of the border.
Yes it was very lucky the votes were all mistakenly incinerated before anyone could check them for sure. Biggest election fix in history.
You mean the SNP council that oversaw the by election screwed up?
Personally it speaks volumes about the incompetence of the First Minister of Scotland at the time, *checks notes*, Alex Salmond.
Relevant to those of us who go electioneering, I will join ANY party who pledge to make letter boxes at the bottom of a front door illegal. Especially ones where they are behind two gates.
How about ones with a strong spring that closes on your fingers… just after the yappy nippy dog gets there
Or the ones with so much baffling behind them that your leaflet ends up a screwed up rag before the said yappy dog even gets a hold of it.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I agree. What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote compared to the days when they got within 3% of Blair and he got a very comfortable majority. This has happened so far because the very considerable ebbing of their strength in the south of England has merely reduced their majorities whilst they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north.
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
Most of the problems there arise from the voting system, which directs all the political attention to those areas considered marginal, and neglects the safer areas for any party.
Relevant to those of us who go electioneering, I will join ANY party who pledge to make letter boxes at the bottom of a front door illegal. Especially ones where they are behind two gates.
How about ones with a strong spring that closes on your fingers… just after the yappy nippy dog gets there
Or the ones with so much baffling behind them that your leaflet ends up a screwed up rag before the said yappy dog even gets a hold of it.
Just imagine a young Mike Smithson, clutching his coppers (the coins, not the bill) as he steps up to the window, peering upward and piping, "Please sir, may I put a half crown on Sir Alec"? (Or whatever he - the laird, not Mike - was calling himself at that moment.)
The hardened bookie snorts in derision, "It'll be yer funeral, lad. Sure you don't want to invest in a half-pound of Turkish Delight instead?"
"No, Sir!"
And the rest, as they say, is history . . .
Alas my first political bet on the 1963 CON leadership was a foretaste of what was to come - a loser
So how did the rank outsider with the carry on voice beat Rab Butler? Some sort of backlash against those on front bench?
Off the top of the head, it was a smoke filled room election, not democracy?
Magic circle - SuperMac was in hospital so I assume they didn’t smoke there…
The poll certainly does our expectation management for us . It's unlikely to be that large a gap. The raw data is tiny, 142 Con to 99 Lab, sampled at a time when the Tory lead nationally was 10-11 (presumably release was delayed to make itt more interesting close to the poll?), and I'm not sure I believe the 68% turnout or the huge support for minor candidates. But as I've said here before, I do think the Tories will win it - my guess is by a margin of 6 points or so.
The sad thing is as I’ve said many times, Starmer was the best Labour had.
I'm not so sure.
Starmer was an arch Remainer and the fact is that Labour's Red Wall aren't. They are Brexiteers and that doesn't mean just about Brexit. It's a generational seismic shift that encompasses British patriotism and an anti-woke agenda. Starmer is a million miles away from these people. However much he tries to big up his south London tough background, which might be true, he's a metropolitan barrister.
He's not a northerner. He's not a northerner. He's not a northerner.
I don't honestly know how Labour come back, I really don't. They are caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand there's the mainly southern pro-European pro-Remain anti-Brexit internationalist metropolitans with their heartland in Labour London.
On the other there's their old core vote, the red wall, which has little or nothing in common with the aforementioned.
Brexit brought those two factions to a head. Starmer in the end tried to bridge the gap with a risible fudge.
What I would state is (I think) this. Whereas if Labour had a northerner leader who spoke the Red Wall language they would not lose their London core, the opposite is not true. Having a metropolitan Remainer as leader means they will continue to lose their Red Wall.
Even then there would be a problem: lots of remainers vote Tory but there is no doubt where the Tories stand - they enthusiastically back the new status quo (whatever their private misgivings); sane remainers, politicians and voters, simply accept and move on. The rump (Dominic Grieve and so on) are out of the Tory game or out of the party.
Labour do not present as a future government currently accurately critical of the present lot (despite some open goals) but, much more important, don't present as if they have fully and wholeheartedly accepted and embraced our non EU future.
And if you don't do that you have a fatal psychological flaw at the heart, and you belong to other good outfits like the Economist, Guardian, FT, much academia who just look as if they dislike the future prospects for the country.
So Labour look like people quietly supporting the super league and disliking the premiership when the caravan has moved on. 'Yesterday's men' as Labour said of ADH and friends in the election of 1964.
If the Hartlepool poll is anywhere near correct then its quite a contrast to the Sedgefield byelection after Blair flounced to get money from JP Morgan and to bring peace to the Middle East.
Then the Conservatives increased their vote by 0.2% and dropped from second to third.
The poor performance partly from not bothering to campaign as they were putting all their efforts into winning the concurrent Ealing Southall byelection (where they also did poorly).
Its a long time ago now in years but its a far long time ago electorally.
The argument “elect an MP from the governing party because they can lobby the minister more effectively” is as old as time
But that's not the argument being made, he's saying ministers won't go the extra mile for non Tory councils.
Technically “reluctant” not “won’t”
But that is exactly the same thing… they will do everything they ought to do for both councils… and a bit extra for councils that have the ability to lobby the minister more effectively.
Thought for day: walk a mile in Hartlepool's shoes. Think about neglect & decline and their effects. Consider that dutifully voting Labour didn't change anything fundamental; that Labour, for some, feels too remote, & pious with it; that politics is always, you know, complicated.
If the Hartlepool poll is anywhere near correct then its quite a contrast to the Sedgefield byelection after Blair flounced to get money from JP Morgan and to bring peace to the Middle East.
Then the Conservatives increased their vote by 0.2% and dropped from second to third.
The poor performance partly from not bothering to campaign as they were putting all their efforts into winning the concurrent Ealing Southall byelection (where they also did poorly).
Its a long time ago now in years but its a far long time ago electorally.
Labour would probably top 70% with an Ealing Southall by-election.
Just imagine a young Mike Smithson, clutching his coppers (the coins, not the bill) as he steps up to the window, peering upward and piping, "Please sir, may I put a half crown on Sir Alec"? (Or whatever he - the laird, not Mike - was calling himself at that moment.)
The hardened bookie snorts in derision, "It'll be yer funeral, lad. Sure you don't want to invest in a half-pound of Turkish Delight instead?"
"No, Sir!"
And the rest, as they say, is history . . .
Alas my first political bet on the 1963 CON leadership was a foretaste of what was to come - a loser
So how did the rank outsider with the carry on voice beat Rab Butler? Some sort of backlash against those on front bench?
Off the top of the head, it was a smoke filled room election, not democracy?
Home was Foreign Secretary, but as a Lord was regarded (rightly) as non-available to be PM. However, the law change that allowed Tony Benn to renounce his peerage opened up the same opportunity for Home, at just the right moment to take advantage of it when Macmillan announced he was stepping down due to ill health in the fall of 1963
The press, public and MPs considered the front-runners to be RAB Butler (Deputy PM), Quentin Hogg (formerly Lord Hailsham, he ditched his peerage also; until then he was Leader of the HoL) and Reginald Maulding (Chancellor of the Ex). There was no Conservative leadership election, instead the "customary processes" which were unofficial but highly significant "consultations" with Tory MPs and leading Lord and reports of the "results" to Macmillan, culminating with the PM giving his best (non-binding) advice to the Queen.
And that advice was to summon Sir Alec Douglas Home. Which she duly did.
Why not Butler, Hogg or Hailsham. Starting with the last, Hailsham was regarded as too young and flash and a bit risky, in the final analysis too risky. Hogg was regarded as a right-winger, and hearty about it which was considered (back then) worse; fact that Randolph Churchill passed out "Q" buttons at the Tory Conference while the powers-that-be were surveying parliamentary opinion was NOT a plus for him. As for Butler, Macmillan never thought him truly suitable, partly because he'd been a Chamberlainite (but then ADH had been Chamberlain's PPS) but mostly because he felt Butler lacked "bottom" whatever that is exactly.
BTW this was the last Tory leadership election decided by "customary processes". One of the things ADH did will he was C&UP Leader, was oversee creation of an actual election process for selecting his successor.
Hailsham and Hogg were the same person!
Quite correct, again I standed. Of course, meant to say MAULDING not HAILSHAM. My only excuse is, it's been a long day (now approaching 11pm PDT)
Perhaps the rest is slightly less erroneous? One can only hope!
It looked a fair enough substitute with ‘Maudling’ for ‘Hailsham,’ although you should have mentioned Macleod as well. (Too left wing, too enthusiastic about decolonisation.)
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I agree. What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote compared to the days when they got within 3% of Blair and he got a very comfortable majority. This has happened so far because the very considerable ebbing of their strength in the south of England has merely reduced their majorities whilst they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north.
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
"What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote" - have you studied the 2017 General Election. Took a small working majority, increased their vote tally by 2.3m / 20% and ended up in a minority.
Doesn't appear to be very efficient! You make the (for me) correct analysis further down your first paragraph - "they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north"
This. The Tories simply didn't exist as a viable party in seats they now hold with comfortable majorities. I remember a few generations ago when Tory Secretary of States would sneer at evil people in society like Single Mothers. Their transformation has been in electing a leader who personally supports the cause of single mothers by personally creating so many of them...
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I agree. What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote compared to the days when they got within 3% of Blair and he got a very comfortable majority. This has happened so far because the very considerable ebbing of their strength in the south of England has merely reduced their majorities whilst they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north.
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
Most of the problems there arise from the voting system, which directs all the political attention to those areas considered marginal, and neglects the safer areas for any party.
Whilst that is undoubtedly true it seems to me that Labour is going through an identity crises where they will become more potent in seats that are more like them, that is middle class, professional, well educated, dominated by the public sector and frankly rather more interested in the privileges of such people than those who have very little.
Those with little have caught on. They may come to realise that Boris doesn't really give a toss about them either but at least he pretends to listen and he is amusing rather than patronising.
David Amess tweet an absolute cry about nothing from Twitter. Anyone familiar with Croydon will realise the councillors don’t bother engaging with the electorate let alone the MPs. Southend has nothing to worry about.
Although it’s mostly Twitter nonsense given he has a radio show and small media profile it’s worth saying Labour need to muzzle their shockjock supporter James O’Brien. Even this morning he’s blaming the voters of Hartlepool and banging on about Brexit. The voters will themselves struggle to move on from Brexit when the commentators aren’t done with it. I sense Starmer is trying look forwards but his biggest cheerleaders have failed to get the memo.
Thought for day: walk a mile in Hartlepool's shoes. Think about neglect & decline and their effects. Consider that dutifully voting Labour didn't change anything fundamental; that Labour, for some, feels too remote, & pious with it; that politics is always, you know, complicated.
"Child poverty fell by 13% in the North East between 1999 and 2013. Between 2013 and 2019 it rose by 9%, three times faster than the national average, and it is still rising."
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I agree. What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote compared to the days when they got within 3% of Blair and he got a very comfortable majority. This has happened so far because the very considerable ebbing of their strength in the south of England has merely reduced their majorities whilst they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north.
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
Most of the problems there arise from the voting system, which directs all the political attention to those areas considered marginal, and neglects the safer areas for any party.
Whilst that is undoubtedly true it seems to me that Labour is going through an identity crises where they will become more potent in seats that are more like them, that is middle class, professional, well educated, dominated by the public sector and frankly rather more interested in the privileges of such people than those who have very little.
Those with little have caught on. They may come to realise that Boris doesn't really give a toss about them either but at least he pretends to listen and he is amusing rather than patronising.
"pretends to listen"? He delivered them their verdict on Brexit. Labour were set against doing so.
All this "Labour is out of touch" analysis is rather lazy. They may be seen as out of touch in the places where they used to win, and that is important granted, but Labour is still pulling in a good 35%+ of the vote. That isn't that out of touch.
Like @DavidL says, the issue is the current Labour vote distribution is rather inefficient. That could change quickly, just like it changed quickly for the Tories between 2017 and 2019. Is it likely to change quickly? Maybe not. But it could.
Relevant to those of us who go electioneering, I will join ANY party who pledge to make letter boxes at the bottom of a front door illegal. Especially ones where they are behind two gates.
How about ones with a strong spring that closes on your fingers… just after the yappy nippy dog gets there
Don’t forget the ones with the thick brush in the middle of two spring-loaded doors, that are impossible to slide a single sheet of paper through without tearing it.
Thought for day: walk a mile in Hartlepool's shoes. Think about neglect & decline and their effects. Consider that dutifully voting Labour didn't change anything fundamental; that Labour, for some, feels too remote, & pious with it; that politics is always, you know, complicated.
Hartlepool poll a good poll for the Tories but most of it was taken before the wallpaper and Cummings allegation rows and before the new national Survation and Opinium polls showing the Tories lead cut.
It does however show the Tories winning most of the 2019 Brexit Party vote which will encourage them. To be honest Hartlepool should really have been Tory in 2019 anyway, after all it was 69.6% Leave, a full 17% bigger Leave vote than the UK as a whole and Labour got a lower voteshare in Hartlepool than it got in seats the Tories won in 2019 like Chingford and Woodford Green, Derby North, Chipping Barnet, Leigh and Hastings and Rye and Watford.
In my view the voteshares in the county and district council elections, the London and West Midlands and Teeside Mayoralties and in Scotland and Wales will be a far better indicator of the current national picture than the Hartlepool by election will be, especially given the BXP vote was over 20% in Hartlepool in 2019 but only 3% nationally
Just imagine a young Mike Smithson, clutching his coppers (the coins, not the bill) as he steps up to the window, peering upward and piping, "Please sir, may I put a half crown on Sir Alec"? (Or whatever he - the laird, not Mike - was calling himself at that moment.)
The hardened bookie snorts in derision, "It'll be yer funeral, lad. Sure you don't want to invest in a half-pound of Turkish Delight instead?"
"No, Sir!"
And the rest, as they say, is history . . .
Alas my first political bet on the 1963 CON leadership was a foretaste of what was to come - a loser
So how did the rank outsider with the carry on voice beat Rab Butler? Some sort of backlash against those on front bench?
Off the top of the head, it was a smoke filled room election, not democracy?
Magic circle - SuperMac was in hospital so I assume they didn’t smoke there…
A lot of far-reaching conclusions being drawn on the back of one constituency poll conducted a week ago and ignoring a number of more recent national polls indicating that the gap between the two main parties may actually be a lot closer.
I have always thought that the Tories would win in Hartlepool and do well on Thursday because the fundamentals are hugely in their favour:
* A great vaccine programme * Lockdown easing * Economic optimism soaring * House prices rising * The furlough and the triple lock protecting incomes
Labour has a huge mountain to climb. Tory hubris may just make the task a little bit easier.
Relevant to those of us who go electioneering, I will join ANY party who pledge to make letter boxes at the bottom of a front door illegal. Especially ones where they are behind two gates.
How about ones with a strong spring that closes on your fingers… just after the yappy nippy dog gets there
Don’t forget the ones with the thick brush in the middle of two spring-loaded doors, that are impossible to slide a single sheet of paper through without tearing it.
Already done that one. They are pretty popular around here where a gale is generally a welcome break from the proper wind. Yesterday was unbelievable. Sleet for most of the afternoon and evening.
Thought for day: walk a mile in Hartlepool's shoes. Think about neglect & decline and their effects. Consider that dutifully voting Labour didn't change anything fundamental; that Labour, for some, feels too remote, & pious with it; that politics is always, you know, complicated.
Hartlepool poll a good poll for the Tories but most of it was taken before the wallpaper and Cummings allegation rows and before the new national Survation and Opinium polls showing the Tories lead cut.
It does however show the Tories winning most of the 2019 Brexit Party vote which will encourage them. To be honest Hartlepool should really have been Tory in 2019 anyway, after all it was 69.6% Leave, a full 17% bigger Leave vote than the UK as a whole.
In my view the voteshares in the county and district council elections, the London and West Midlands and Teeside Mayoralties and in Scotland and Wales will be a far better indicator of the current national picture than the Hartlepool by election will be, especially given the BXP vote was over 20% in Hartlepool in 2019 but only 3% nationally
Look at the reaction to Johnson's visit...that poll looks about right.
Thought for day: walk a mile in Hartlepool's shoes. Think about neglect & decline and their effects. Consider that dutifully voting Labour didn't change anything fundamental; that Labour, for some, feels too remote, & pious with it; that politics is always, you know, complicated.
The Tories have (seemingly*) delivered jobs in all other parts of the Tees Valley except for Hartlepool
* - actual figures show actual jobs dropped by 1,000 between 2017 and 2019 (prior to Covid). But you wouldn't believe that if you saw the local news and Ben Houchen's very well organised twitter feed.
My friends in red have already messaged me about the Pools poll. "exactly as we said a month ago. Tories would have taken the seat in 2019 had Brexit not split their vote. The lion share of their vote is going Tory".
What is truly sad is that Labour on Teesside are about to get smashed in the by-election, the mayoral and the PCC elections. And yet so many of my former colleagues - all sensible centre-left - will still fail to see that THEY are the problem.
For too many long-standing Labour activists in the region, they see their right to be in power as absolute. The Tories destroyed industry and the Tories will get the blame. Except that the economy has changed, people have changed and that just isn't true any more.
Nailed it.
The surprising thing is that the Conservatives got the blame for the decline in heavy industry which happened across the developed world from 1970 for so long. It didn't hang around the necks of governing parties in, say, France and America decades later.
It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it...
Thought for day: walk a mile in Hartlepool's shoes. Think about neglect & decline and their effects. Consider that dutifully voting Labour didn't change anything fundamental; that Labour, for some, feels too remote, & pious with it; that politics is always, you know, complicated.
"Child poverty fell by 13% in the North East between 1999 and 2013. Between 2013 and 2019 it rose by 9%, three times faster than the national average, and it is still rising."
Banging on about child poverty or rough sleepers or food banks or bedroom taxes doesn't help Labour.
Its not the 10% at the bottom or the 10% at the top who decide elections.
And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
If Hartlepool does go tory on Thursday as I and a number of others on here think then you really cannot just airily dismiss it like that.
It's emblematic of what happened in the biggest national poll of the lot: the 2019 General Election.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
I'm not even sure that sleaze would finish the tories. It was Black Wednesday which did for them in 1992-7 more than the sleaze.
We witnessed a generational seismic political shift in 2019, the seeds of which were sown over several previous years. It ain't shifting back in a hurry.
Some people naïvely assume that 2019 was a rejection of Corbyn and getting Brexit done and now that Brexit is over and Corbyn is gone it will return back to the natural state of things.
That's the same naivety that saw Tories in 1998 saying that they were the natural party of government and people would see through Blair soon enough.
Labour need their Cameron and Osborne prepared to reform the party. That's not Keir.
The one thing that Starmer is doing very effectively is reforming the party. The far-left is losing control at constituency, regional and national level. That in and of itself does not win you votes, though - especially at a time when so many of the political fundamentals are in the government's favour.
Labour in real trouble in the north if the Hartlepool poll is anywhere near reality. Stuff like Barnsley East, one of the Hull seats and Miliband's seat would go lol
All 3 Sunderland seats could be in play. However, I'm still sceptical.
Sunderland is a university town along with Middlesborough. I think they will be much more resilient.
This mornings polls on Hartlepool and the Mayoral elections seem somewhat unexpected in view of the recent narrowing of the polls
However, in those polls closing the lead they all still gave Boris a commanding lead over Starmer on best pm, best on the economy, and best in dealing with covid
While they seem to have been taken around the time the lead was beginning to fall they were taken when postal votes were being submitted
It was interesting to see Survation giving no a 6 point lead in indyref2 53/47
Anyway only a few more days to wait, and as a matter of interest does anyone know when Hartlepool is likely to declare
Excellent piece. It brought memories of the heady early days of the SDP in particular where by elections were so crucial to getting attention between elections (where we were thrashed). The recent death of Shirley Williams had already had me thinking quite a lot about that time when a political party that was serious and realistic about economics but also focused on making a difference for those less advantaged seemed within reach.
Alas, it was not to be and the closest we ever got, in my estimation, was the Coalition government of Cameron and Clegg. That got me interested in politics again after a fairly extended period of disillusionment. The last decade has certainly been eventful. I rather hope, despite the lack of betting opportunities that would arise that the next decade is less so.
We? Were you an SDPer?
I had you down as a liberal Tory like myself.
I always felt that Social Democrats and Liberals could and can work well together, as they did. OK liberals are far more radical than Social Democrats who are far more pragmatic, but as Social Democrats do believe in a free economy and not state control generally as an overwhelming principle we got on ok and even as a liberal I do believe in state intervention where appropriate eg education, health, state pension, protection of the disadvantaged etc.
The amusing thing is that while people want the left and liberals to get along, Clegg and Cameron was no an abberration, liberals and free market liberals (Tories) get along just fine and have done time and again through the years.
Liberals tend to have a bigger overlap of desired outcomes with the left but of preferred means with the right. I have always found Labour councillors the harder to deal with, because their mindset in terms of how they go about things is so starkly different from mine.
You are definitely a Liberal, and I recognise the above in you - despite our clashes from time to time.
David Amess tweet an absolute cry about nothing from Twitter. Anyone familiar with Croydon will realise the councillors don’t bother engaging with the electorate let alone the MPs. Southend has nothing to worry about.
Although it’s mostly Twitter nonsense given he has a radio show and small media profile it’s worth saying Labour need to muzzle their shockjock supporter James O’Brien. Even this morning he’s blaming the voters of Hartlepool and banging on about Brexit. The voters will themselves struggle to move on from Brexit when the commentators aren’t done with it. I sense Starmer is trying look forwards but his biggest cheerleaders have failed to get the memo.
Not a very market-y approach, Brom.
JO'B has a job because he commands some kind of audience. If he wasn't popular he would be booted out. LBC isn't the BBC, you know.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I agree. What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote compared to the days when they got within 3% of Blair and he got a very comfortable majority. This has happened so far because the very considerable ebbing of their strength in the south of England has merely reduced their majorities whilst they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north.
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
Most of the problems there arise from the voting system, which directs all the political attention to those areas considered marginal, and neglects the safer areas for any party.
Its not a problem. Its just something that has to be dealt with.
And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
If Hartlepool does go tory on Thursday as I and a number of others on here think then you really cannot just airily dismiss it like that.
But if it stays Labour, it doesn't mean their problems in the Red Wall are solved, does it?
As I understand it, the local Labour Party has been overruled in its choice of candidate and is feuding. This could be important in the result, but says nothing about the national picture compared to the English locals that day.
And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
If Hartlepool does go tory on Thursday as I and a number of others on here think then you really cannot just airily dismiss it like that.
It's emblematic of what happened in the biggest national poll of the lot: the 2019 General Election.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
I'm not even sure that sleaze would finish the tories. It was Black Wednesday which did for them in 1992-7 more than the sleaze.
We witnessed a generational seismic political shift in 2019, the seeds of which were sown over several previous years. It ain't shifting back in a hurry.
Some people naïvely assume that 2019 was a rejection of Corbyn and getting Brexit done and now that Brexit is over and Corbyn is gone it will return back to the natural state of things.
That's the same naivety that saw Tories in 1998 saying that they were the natural party of government and people would see through Blair soon enough.
Labour need their Cameron and Osborne prepared to reform the party. That's not Keir.
The one thing that Starmer is doing very effectively is reforming the party. The far-left is losing control at constituency, regional and national level. That in and of itself does not win you votes, though - especially at a time when so many of the political fundamentals are in the government's favour.
Internal power dynamics replacing Corbynistas on the NEC etc is a 'necessary but not sufficient condition' for reform. Nobody in Hartlepool is voting based upon who sits in an NEC.
How policy, voice, image or tone wise is Labour credibly being reformed in the way that Blair or Cameron & Osborne did?
Thought for day: walk a mile in Hartlepool's shoes. Think about neglect & decline and their effects. Consider that dutifully voting Labour didn't change anything fundamental; that Labour, for some, feels too remote, & pious with it; that politics is always, you know, complicated.
"Child poverty fell by 13% in the North East between 1999 and 2013. Between 2013 and 2019 it rose by 9%, three times faster than the national average, and it is still rising."
Banging on about child poverty or rough sleepers or food banks or bedroom taxes doesn't help Labour.
Its not the 10% at the bottom or the 10% at the top who decide elections.
Labour aren't going to get anywhere because Starmer is utterly shit. It doesn't matter if you're shit and the incumbent because well better the devil you know and all that. The Tories are talking jobs, Labour is banging on about some wallpaper or other. Burnham is going to smash G Manchester because he does actually have a bit about him unlike the frankly dire Starmer. Greater Manchester was once not that much more Labour than the West Midsor North East. It probably still isn't but they'll do well there because Burnham is believed in.
Relevant to those of us who go electioneering, I will join ANY party who pledge to make letter boxes at the bottom of a front door illegal. Especially ones where they are behind two gates.
How about ones with a strong spring that closes on your fingers… just after the yappy nippy dog gets there
Or the ones with so much baffling behind them that your leaflet ends up a screwed up rag before the said yappy dog even gets a hold of it.
I think we should start 'The Letterbox Party'.
To add to the list:
a) Silent dogs (many and 1 hospital trip as a consequence)
b) Dogs that crash into the door at 100mph (many)
c) Those people who have considerately put a box at the front so you don't have to walk down the 100 metre drive but is now hidden in a hedge so you do walk down a 100 metre drive and waste 10 minutes looking for a letterbox that doesn't exist (several)
d) People who are ungrateful when you return their door keys which are still in the lock.
e) People who don't close their door properly so you land in their hall while putting the leaflet through the door (once)
Labour aren't going to get anywhere because Starmer is utterly shit. It doesn't matter if you're shit and the incumbent because well better the devil you know and all that. The Tories are talking jobs, Labour is banging on about some wallpaper or other. Burnham is going to smash G Manchester because he does actually have a bit about him unlike the frankly dire Starmer. Greater Manchester was once not that much more Labour than the West Midsor North East. It probably still isn't but they'll do well there because Burnham is believed in.
Labour made a huge mistake picking Corbyn over Burnham in 2017, had they chosen Burnham they would probably have won most seats ahead of May's Tories in 2017. Starmer ironically backed Burnham for leader then
Labour aren't going to get anywhere because Starmer is utterly shit. It doesn't matter if you're shit and the incumbent because well better the devil you know and all that. The Tories are talking jobs, Labour is banging on about some wallpaper or other. Burnham is going to smash G Manchester because he does actually have a bit about him unlike the frankly dire Starmer. Greater Manchester was once not that much more Labour than the West Midsor North East. It probably still isn't but they'll do well there because Burnham is believed in.
Labour made a huge mistake picking Corbyn over Burnham in 2017, had they chosen Burnham they would probably have won most seats ahead of May's Tories in 2017. Starmer ironically backed Burnham for leader then
Burnham wasn't very impressive then though, at least from my perspective. It was probably too early for him. He's certainly improved using the GM Mayor platform.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I agree. What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote compared to the days when they got within 3% of Blair and he got a very comfortable majority. This has happened so far because the very considerable ebbing of their strength in the south of England has merely reduced their majorities whilst they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north.
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
Most of the problems there arise from the voting system, which directs all the political attention to those areas considered marginal, and neglects the safer areas for any party.
Its not a problem. Its just something that has to be dealt with.
To use a word coined by an excellent piece of analysis here about 12 years ago, it's all about the MEETHs (Medium-sized English Towns and their Hinterlands). The Conservatives have been doing remarkably well in MEETH territory these last few years.
And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
If Hartlepool does go tory on Thursday as I and a number of others on here think then you really cannot just airily dismiss it like that.
But if it stays Labour, it doesn't mean their problems in the Red Wall are solved, does it?
As I understand it, the local Labour Party has been overruled in its choice of candidate and is feuding. This could be important in the result, but says nothing about the national picture compared to the English locals that day.
I was amazed that Labour would choose an avid pro EU candidate
Labour aren't going to get anywhere because Starmer is utterly shit. It doesn't matter if you're shit and the incumbent because well better the devil you know and all that. The Tories are talking jobs, Labour is banging on about some wallpaper or other. Burnham is going to smash G Manchester because he does actually have a bit about him unlike the frankly dire Starmer. Greater Manchester was once not that much more Labour than the West Midsor North East. It probably still isn't but they'll do well there because Burnham is believed in.
Labour made a huge mistake picking Corbyn over Burnham in 2017, had they chosen Burnham they would probably have won most seats ahead of May's Tories in 2017. Starmer ironically backed Burnham for leader then
Yeah there are structural changes going on but Labour should really have won stuff like Northfield in 2019. If Labour can't more or less sweep major city seats they'll never, ever win.
Relevant to those of us who go electioneering, I will join ANY party who pledge to make letter boxes at the bottom of a front door illegal. Especially ones where they are behind two gates.
How about ones with a strong spring that closes on your fingers… just after the yappy nippy dog gets there
Or the ones with so much baffling behind them that your leaflet ends up a screwed up rag before the said yappy dog even gets a hold of it.
I think we should start 'The Letterbox Party'.
To add to the list:
a) Silent dogs (many and 1 hospital trip as a consequence)
b) Dogs that crash into the door at 100mph (many)
c) Those people who have considerately put a box at the front so you don't have to walk down the 100 metre drive but is now hidden in a hedge so you do walk down a 100 metre drive and waste 10 minutes looking for a letterbox that doesn't exist (several)
d) People who are ungrateful when you return their door keys which are still in the lock.
e) People who don't close their door properly so you land in their hall while putting the leaflet through the door (once)
That is an excellent manifesto. How could anyone not vote for this?
I remember during the better together campaign trying to leaflet in a dodgy area of Dundee and the Rottweiler hit the door so hard it bulged outwards by several inches. I think I vaulted the gate on the way out! Genuinely terrifying.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
This is lazy analysis. Just because there's been some big political shifts in one area doesn't mean they cant be some in another.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I agree. What has made the Tories so successful over the last decade is the increased efficiency of their vote compared to the days when they got within 3% of Blair and he got a very comfortable majority. This has happened so far because the very considerable ebbing of their strength in the south of England has merely reduced their majorities whilst they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north.
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
Most of the problems there arise from the voting system, which directs all the political attention to those areas considered marginal, and neglects the safer areas for any party.
Whilst that is undoubtedly true it seems to me that Labour is going through an identity crises where they will become more potent in seats that are more like them, that is middle class, professional, well educated, dominated by the public sector and frankly rather more interested in the privileges of such people than those who have very little.
Those with little have caught on. They may come to realise that Boris doesn't really give a toss about them either but at least he pretends to listen and he is amusing rather than patronising.
"pretends to listen"? He delivered them their verdict on Brexit. Labour were set against doing so.
Yes, pretends to listen. Do the people of Hartlepool want Brexit because it is Brexit, or because what they hope it will bring them? Pools is a classic post industrial left behind backwater. People want back the jobs and prosperity and pride and hope that was taken from them. Brexit was the silver bullet to cure these ills which is why they were so enthusiastic for it.
Where the Tories will struggle is that they can't deliver what was promised. I have no doubt that Hartlepool will be thrown a few scraps once it goes Tory but it won't change the fundamental problems with the town and the region. One prime example - local Tories very excited by the prospect of a free port and how it will restore industry. Except that a free port makes it easier to IMPORT, it will do nothing but harm for local industry. But as nothing but harm has been on the menu for 40 years people are desperate and will try anything.
When salvation fails to arrive? Thats when the Tories are screwed. Not to Labour's benefit you understand, we're going to see a rise of the hard right. Think UKIP/Brexit with paramilitary activists...
Labour aren't going to get anywhere because Starmer is utterly shit. It doesn't matter if you're shit and the incumbent because well better the devil you know and all that. The Tories are talking jobs, Labour is banging on about some wallpaper or other. Burnham is going to smash G Manchester because he does actually have a bit about him unlike the frankly dire Starmer. Greater Manchester was once not that much more Labour than the West Midsor North East. It probably still isn't but they'll do well there because Burnham is believed in.
Labour made a huge mistake picking Corbyn over Burnham in 2017, had they chosen Burnham they would probably have won most seats ahead of May's Tories in 2017. Starmer ironically backed Burnham for leader then
Burnham didn't stand in 2017. Or 2016.
Had Labour chosen Burnham in 2015 there may not have even been a 2017 election. Indeed there possibly may have not even been a Brexit, possibly.
Just imagine a young Mike Smithson, clutching his coppers (the coins, not the bill) as he steps up to the window, peering upward and piping, "Please sir, may I put a half crown on Sir Alec"? (Or whatever he - the laird, not Mike - was calling himself at that moment.)
The hardened bookie snorts in derision, "It'll be yer funeral, lad. Sure you don't want to invest in a half-pound of Turkish Delight instead?"
"No, Sir!"
And the rest, as they say, is history . . .
Alas my first political bet on the 1963 CON leadership was a foretaste of what was to come - a loser
So how did the rank outsider with the carry on voice beat Rab Butler? Some sort of backlash against those on front bench?
Off the top of the head, it was a smoke filled room election, not democracy?
Magic circle - SuperMac was in hospital so I assume they didn’t smoke there…
One of the categories identified is the “naughty nurse”…
The slow move away from smoking started in earnest, I think, in 1962. But smoking in hospitals was clearly the norm up until then. BMJ “Medical notes in Parliament” (1960) https://www.bmj.com/content/2/5215/1813.1 “The Minister for Health has made known to the House of Commons the terms of his reply to the petition from medical practitioners urging that accommodation should be provided in hospitals for patients wishing to have treatment in wards free from tobacco smoke…”
Comments
It's emblematic of what happened in the biggest national poll of the lot: the 2019 General Election.
If you, but more importantly Labour, don't get this then there is no way they are returning to power anytime soon.
I'm not even sure that sleaze would finish the tories. It was Black Wednesday which did for them in 1992-7 more than the sleaze.
We witnessed a generational seismic political shift in 2019, the seeds of which were sown over several previous years. It ain't shifting back in a hurry.
If the Tories win Hartlepool by the amount suggested and IF (big if) the national polling is actually in the region of a 2% lead, rather than 10%, that suggests some big swings to Labour elsewhere...
I was too young to know the SDP as an independent party, always felt like a liberal Tory but couldn't back the Tories in my first election in 2001, though even then despite it being my first vote I felt in exile voting for Blair's Labour.
Cameron was the first time I was properly happy with my own vote. First time I didn't feel like I was holding my nose doing so.
The LibDems have been around about 30 years. The first 20 were a long upswing with highly favourable circumstances. Then they were in government. The last few years have been…challenging.
And n is small anyway
That's the same naivety that saw Tories in 1998 saying that they were the natural party of government and people would see through Blair soon enough.
Labour need their Cameron and Osborne prepared to reform the party. That's not Keir.
I urge everyone, everyone, on here who thinks Brexit is done and dusted or who thinks the 2019 result was an aberration or who thinks Starmer is the answer or who doesn't believe that the Red Wall shift was for real or who ever bets on British politics to read this. Adjust your sights accordingly.
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-the-left-lost-hartlepool/
Read this:
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-the-left-lost-hartlepool/
But as Labour is finding in reverse there is a tipping point in these things. The seats Labour took for granted whilst it went fishing in the suburbs and university towns of the south have bitten back and it is all too possible that southern seats which were much more remainer, much more liberal and much more dominated by professional classes will in turn get fed up being taken for granted.
Overall this is a good thing. It was not healthy that the Tories were content to get a majority with only the odd rural seat north of Birmingham and the inability of Labour to relate to our most economically successful areas outside of the actual cities meant that they had little to say in that area. A situation where both our major parties have a fair degree of representation from most of our country improves the chances of the government being aware of the needs of all of the country.
Clearly you didn't read the rest of my post because I wasn't disputing the Hartlepool result. I've said that Hartlepool will go Con from pretty much day 1.
If you take Labour -9% and Con+Brexit -5%
My seat, Newcastle upon Tyne North, goes Conservative. Just.
Dan Bloom
@danbloom1
NEW: Prof Neil Ferguson says we now "don’t see any prospect of the NHS being overwhelmed, with the one caveat around variants", in a third wave this summer/autumn
https://www.nursingoutlook.org/article/S0029-6554(12)00143-1/fulltext
It’s much more difficult to imagine any challenge to Starmer, except by the far-left Corbynites who have already shown us their lack of electability.
The argument “elect an MP from the governing party because they can lobby the minister more effectively” is as old as time
Incredible poll in Hartlepool, I think the % lead will end up being single figs but have always maintained Ben Houchen the biggest factor just ahead of the disasterous choice of Paul Williams.
In Scotland some interesting leadership approvals in the polls. What use is Sarwar being in positive territory if so much of it comes from SNP voters? Perhaps another Sturgeon scandal and he profits but it might be one election too soon for ScotLab to make headway. A good start for him though.
Similarly Mike always talks about preferred leader and PM, Starmer trails by a large distance but has had a couple of much more positive Lab polls last week. It’s hard to make sense of what these mean for Thursday? Perhaps in contrast to how many of us were thinking the Labour brand is actually still a bigger draw for the masses than the Starmer brand.
If the current allegations surrounding the Conservatives aren't cutting through, nothing will.
Personally it speaks volumes about the incompetence of the First Minister of Scotland at the time, *checks notes*, Alex Salmond.
Labour do not present as a future government currently accurately critical of the present lot (despite some open goals) but, much more important, don't present as if they have fully and wholeheartedly accepted and embraced our non EU future.
And if you don't do that you have a fatal psychological flaw at the heart, and you belong to other good outfits like the Economist, Guardian, FT, much academia who just look as if they dislike the future prospects for the country.
So Labour look like people quietly supporting the super league and disliking the premiership when the caravan has moved on. 'Yesterday's men' as Labour said of ADH and friends in the election of 1964.
Then the Conservatives increased their vote by 0.2% and dropped from second to third.
The poor performance partly from not bothering to campaign as they were putting all their efforts into winning the concurrent Ealing Southall byelection (where they also did poorly).
Its a long time ago now in years but its a far long time ago electorally.
But that is exactly the same thing… they will do everything they ought to do for both councils… and a bit extra for councils that have the ability to lobby the minister more effectively.
https://twitter.com/DuncanWeldon/status/1389480382605795332?s=20
https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/1389467678046310401?s=20
Doesn't appear to be very efficient! You make the (for me) correct analysis further down your first paragraph - "they have suddenly become much more competitive in the midlands, the east and now the north"
This. The Tories simply didn't exist as a viable party in seats they now hold with comfortable majorities. I remember a few generations ago when Tory Secretary of States would sneer at evil people in society like Single Mothers. Their transformation has been in electing a leader who personally supports the cause of single mothers by personally creating so many of them...
Those with little have caught on. They may come to realise that Boris doesn't really give a toss about them either but at least he pretends to listen and he is amusing rather than patronising.
Although it’s mostly Twitter nonsense given he has a radio show and small media profile it’s worth saying Labour need to muzzle their shockjock supporter James O’Brien. Even this morning he’s blaming the voters of Hartlepool and banging on about Brexit. The voters will themselves struggle to move on from Brexit when the commentators aren’t done with it. I sense Starmer is trying look forwards but his biggest cheerleaders have failed to get the memo.
"Child poverty fell by 13% in the North East between 1999 and 2013. Between 2013 and 2019 it rose by 9%, three times faster than the national average, and it is still rising."
Like @DavidL says, the issue is the current Labour vote distribution is rather inefficient. That could change quickly, just like it changed quickly for the Tories between 2017 and 2019. Is it likely to change quickly? Maybe not. But it could.
It does however show the Tories winning most of the 2019 Brexit Party vote which will encourage them. To be honest Hartlepool should really have been Tory in 2019 anyway, after all it was 69.6% Leave, a full 17% bigger Leave vote than the UK as a whole and Labour got a lower voteshare in Hartlepool than it got in seats the Tories won in 2019 like Chingford and Woodford Green, Derby North, Chipping Barnet, Leigh and Hastings and Rye and Watford.
In my view the voteshares in the county and district council elections, the London and West Midlands and Teeside Mayoralties and in Scotland and Wales will be a far better indicator of the current national picture than the Hartlepool by election will be, especially given the BXP vote was over 20% in Hartlepool in 2019 but only 3% nationally
I have always thought that the Tories would win in Hartlepool and do well on Thursday because the fundamentals are hugely in their favour:
* A great vaccine programme
* Lockdown easing
* Economic optimism soaring
* House prices rising
* The furlough and the triple lock protecting incomes
Labour has a huge mountain to climb. Tory hubris may just make the task a little bit easier.
Labour hasn't delivered for 47 years.
The Tories have (seemingly*) delivered jobs in all other parts of the Tees Valley except for Hartlepool
* - actual figures show actual jobs dropped by 1,000 between 2017 and 2019 (prior to Covid). But you wouldn't believe that if you saw the local news and Ben Houchen's very well organised twitter feed.
Discuss.
Its not the 10% at the bottom or the 10% at the top who decide elections.
But the 80% in the middle.
In fact, they rather detest him.
However, in those polls closing the lead they all still gave Boris a commanding lead over Starmer on best pm, best on the economy, and best in dealing with covid
While they seem to have been taken around the time the lead was beginning to fall they were taken when postal votes were being submitted
It was interesting to see Survation giving no a 6 point lead in indyref2 53/47
Anyway only a few more days to wait, and as a matter of interest does anyone know when Hartlepool is likely to declare
'The supercars are back in Knightsbridge', estate agents say
Melissa Lawford" {£}
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/sales-londons-priciest-properties-spike-80pc-lockdown-ends/
JO'B has a job because he commands some kind of audience. If he wasn't popular he would be booted out. LBC isn't the BBC, you know.
As I understand it, the local Labour Party has been overruled in its choice of candidate and is feuding. This could be important in the result, but says nothing about the national picture compared to the English locals that day.
How policy, voice, image or tone wise is Labour credibly being reformed in the way that Blair or Cameron & Osborne did?
The Tories are talking jobs, Labour is banging on about some wallpaper or other.
Burnham is going to smash G Manchester because he does actually have a bit about him unlike the frankly dire Starmer.
Greater Manchester was once not that much more Labour than the West Midsor North East. It probably still isn't but they'll do well there because Burnham is believed in.
To add to the list:
a) Silent dogs (many and 1 hospital trip as a consequence)
b) Dogs that crash into the door at 100mph (many)
c) Those people who have considerately put a box at the front so you don't have to walk down the 100 metre drive but is now hidden in a hedge so you do walk down a 100 metre drive and waste 10 minutes looking for a letterbox that doesn't exist (several)
d) People who are ungrateful when you return their door keys which are still in the lock.
e) People who don't close their door properly so you land in their hall while putting the leaflet through the door (once)
But it's an absolutely unacceptable thing to say.
Which is a problem if you want honest politicians. This has always been an unsaid truth.
Push for relaxation of restrictions faster so that people can get back to work - to earn.
They are currently on the side of mask scolds, pay rises for NHS workers and furlough wallowers - it's not a position to increase their vote shares.
I remember during the better together campaign trying to leaflet in a dodgy area of Dundee and the Rottweiler hit the door so hard it bulged outwards by several inches. I think I vaulted the gate on the way out! Genuinely terrifying.
Where the Tories will struggle is that they can't deliver what was promised. I have no doubt that Hartlepool will be thrown a few scraps once it goes Tory but it won't change the fundamental problems with the town and the region. One prime example - local Tories very excited by the prospect of a free port and how it will restore industry. Except that a free port makes it easier to IMPORT, it will do nothing but harm for local industry. But as nothing but harm has been on the menu for 40 years people are desperate and will try anything.
When salvation fails to arrive? Thats when the Tories are screwed. Not to Labour's benefit you understand, we're going to see a rise of the hard right. Think UKIP/Brexit with paramilitary activists...
Had Labour chosen Burnham in 2015 there may not have even been a 2017 election. Indeed there possibly may have not even been a Brexit, possibly.
BMJ “Medical notes in Parliament” (1960)
https://www.bmj.com/content/2/5215/1813.1
“The Minister for Health has made known to the House of Commons the terms of his reply to the petition from medical practitioners urging that accommodation should be provided in hospitals for patients wishing to have treatment in wards free from tobacco smoke…”
Having 60,000 fans in every day for the test in Ahmedabad looks like a sick joke.
Street (CON): 54% (+12)
Byrne (LAB): 37% (-4)
Caudwell (GRN): 4% (-1)
Durnell (RFM): 3% (+3)
Wilkinson (LDM): 3% (-3)
Via
@OpiniumResearch
, 19-26 Apr.
Changes w/ 2017.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1389490199168749570?s=20