Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
If by "rather well", you actually mean:
* He got 55 fewer seats than May * He only won four more seats than Brown did in 2010 * He didn't become PM after the election
Jonathan thinks Gordon Brown was a good PM. Judge everything he says by that....
The other point to consider is that, if we assume the next election takes place on new boundaries this will also make tactical voting harder to organise. The 2005 GE cited was the last of a series of elections on those boundaries in England & Wales (although new boundaries in Scotland).
New boundaries are a big problem for the three BetterTogether parties.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
I think Labour can realistically gain 30-40 seats from the Tories but will majorly struggle to gain more than that considering that Labour only made a net gain of 30 in 2017. I think the best Labour can hope for is a sort of Con 40 Lab 38 type scenario and hope the Lib Dems somehow do a lot of heavy lifting in the south.
Without Scotland Labour will struggle to get a majority (it'd have to be a landslide in England to do it) that means that the Tories will be able to suppress Labour votes in England with threats of the krankies. it's a lot harder for them to do it than it was for TB.
If it was the Lib Dems up 5, and Labour/Greens level then perhaps the Tories would have something to worry about.
There will be a limit to the number of seats the Lib Dems can campaign hard in.
The LibDem drop in the poll is actually partly a measure of the tactical vote that already exists. The poll compares PREFERENCE now with ACTUAL votes then, and I'm certain that a chunk of people who prefer Labour or Green voted LibDem in 2019. There are also places in the south (e.g. Portsmouth S) where the reverse is true, but they're less frequent.
I can say things in French. But if I ask a question and receive a reply, usually I have no idea what the other person has said.
We should just teach kids how to order a coffee, order a beer and say 'I love you' in a dozen languages and settle for that.
My father said wryly that he learned French for 6 years at Winchester, and then took a trip to Paris;he found he was unable to ask the inspector when they would arrive.
I was educated in French only until I was 12 and couldn't really write English at that age. When I got to English speaking schools in the US and UK I was amazed at how little grammar was taught compared to my Francophone education.
Now that I'm a language tutor I see the same situation among British students. Teaching Latin would help slightly as they would be exposed to grammatical concepts like declension. There is almost no declension in English but it's very important in other languages. I regularly see anglophone students struggle with it in Russian.
It could be fixed much more effectively by teaching Linguistics rather than Latin but that would not stimulate the desiccated G spots of Telegraph readers with type 2 diabetes in the same way so the tories won't do it.
I wonder if the Latin is because its full of gender to troll the wokists?
Also - because it gives those parents with money to send their brats to private schools an advantage? At the moment Latin can't seriously be used as an educational criterion. It's like an O level in sheep-farming - only the Welsh, etc., have a hope of doing it. But make it a general educational qualification ...
Rachel Johnson (as in sister of ...) suggested rote learning of the classics was a soft route to Oxford.
So why would Tories want more competition for their children's life chances?
Tokenism. The Universities might dump the classics if it became obvious they are an upper middle class scam. You want a trickle of comp school entrants to point at and claim how inclusive it all is.
There is not much to dump, the only universities which still do pure Classics/Latin degrees are Oxford and Cambridge, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Exeter and Nottingham, Manchester, Bristol, KCL and UCL and Royal Holloway.
They are all pretty posh universities anyway
So?
If cutting the classics means an instant downwards improvement to the posho-meter reading , to help meet the targets mandated by government, they'll have to consider it very seriously.
It is dumbing down and would make barely any difference whatsoever, as they are tiny courses anyway.
We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care, we support selection on merit and high academic standards, hence Williamson is pushing Latin in state schools. So if they want to suck up to Williamson if anything universities will expand their classics courses and do state school outreach for them.
Plus not all classics students will be privately educated and Oxbridge are 60% state school now anyway
‘Leading Tory says they “do not care” about state schools’
You need to be more careful about your choice of words if you want to progress in politics
What an absurd distortion of what I said.
I did not once say 'I do not care about state schools', merely I want selection on merit. If anything I care more than Carnyx as like Williamson I want to spread Latin in our state schools and expand excellence in them (a few more grammars would help too).
If you would prefer to keep excellence and Latin confined to your alma mater of Eton and a few top public schools and a conveyor belt to Oxbridge and the top professions like law and medicine and banking that is your affair
“ We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care”
“We Tories… have set no state school target, we … do not care”
Of course it’s absurd. But that’s a direct quote.
It’s meant as friendly advice, so don’t get upset.
Yes, the whole point of being a Tory is we don't believe in setting socialist style targets for state school admissions to leading universities like Oxbridge.
We believe in treating private and state school applicants equally on merit. We do not care about equality of outcome and state school targets. ' Otherwise what is the point in being a Tory? Your 'friendly advice' is to stop being a Tory as far as I can see
I thought the whole bit of being a Tory was to resist change and tut at people who don't know their place.
"I think that the principle of the Conservative Party is jealousy of liberty and of the people, only qualified by fear; but I think the principle of the Liberal Party is trust in the people, only qualified by prudence." - William Gladstone, 1878.
How can we get to the situation where the main opposition to the Tories is based on classical liberalism, (modernised) with a dash of social democracy? The LP is a massive dead weight on our politics its death throws prolonged by first past the post.
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Lizzie (aka The Guv'nor) has at most around 5 years left. at that point chuck will be in his mid/late 70s. I've no doubt that he'll live as long as his parents so will have 15/20 years on the throne.
She might surprise us. Her ma made 101 despite being handicapped by the Gordon's in a way which Brenda isn't.
She's a woman who likes a good record I bet, probably has her sights set on beating Louis XIV, apparently the longest reigning monarch of a sovereign state which can be verified (various uncertain historical figures and monarches of dependent or constituent states were longer, according to wiki). Here's hoping she can make it.
Sounds a bit like Avignon and Antipopes versus Real Popes.
One of my favourite titbits from a history of the papacy I read recently was how the papacy itself has gotten confused over which popes were 'proper' popes and which were not (and some who did not even exist), and apparently some antipopes as previously stated by the Vatican still get included in their own histories as real ones unintentionally.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
Christ you are so wrong on so many levels but we all know that.
We know TSE the Tories are far too common for you now and have been ever since your heroes Dave and George left, you clearly can't stand being in the same party as common working class Brexit voting patriots who love the royal family.
So you vote LD which is your natural home as the party of snobbish liberal Remainers
You are so full of bollocks you're the human jock strap.
I joined the Tory party because of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, two PMs from humble backgrounds, so wrong on that front.
I only voted Lib Dem in my specific constituency because I didn't want a Corbynite as my MP but I've mentioned on here I will not be voting Lib Dem at any future election because Vera Hobhouse sits on the front bench and she should be sacked because of her views on 5G.
Yes but Thatcher and Major came from the lower middle class and working class to the upper middle class and back then most working class voters still voted Labour.
Now, shock horror, most working class voters voter Tory, though I could see even you might vote for Starmer Labour as Labour is now more middle class than it has ever been
I'm not voting Labour.
I remain a conservative, my outlook on life and policies haven't changed, I've spent my life campaigning against socialism and lefties, I'm not going to vote for them, I'm just enamoured by the current Tory party, particularly its leadership.
I noticed the small 'c'.
From what I can see, and despite what they may say to the contrary, both Johnson and Sunak are the most fiscally socialist PM and Chancellor in my lifetime.
If Johnson wasn't such a dick, I would be tempted to vote for an incumbent Government following the most left-wing economic agenda the UK has ever seen.
Oh and the Animal Farm style corruption and incompetence is on the scale of a dodgy 1970s Labour City Council Leader or Soviet President.
I wouldn't say this is a socialist government. They are more like a regular government in the 1945-1970's model; but one with little ideology bar some reasonable sound principles (not overtaxing people, keeping some freedoms intact, not believing the state can be a way of achieving progress) that is somehow muddling through with more than a few dodgy dealings and a dangerous amount of borrowing.
This government *does* believe the state can be an instrument of progress.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
Christ you are so wrong on so many levels but we all know that.
We know TSE the Tories are far too common for you now and have been ever since your heroes Dave and George left, you clearly can't stand being in the same party as common working class Brexit voting patriots who love the royal family.
So you vote LD which is your natural home as the party of snobbish liberal Remainers
You are so full of bollocks you're the human jock strap.
I joined the Tory party because of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, two PMs from humble backgrounds, so wrong on that front.
I only voted Lib Dem in my specific constituency because I didn't want a Corbynite as my MP but I've mentioned on here I will not be voting Lib Dem at any future election because Vera Hobhouse sits on the front bench and she should be sacked because of her views on 5G.
Yes but Thatcher and Major came from the lower middle class and working class to the upper middle class and back then most working class voters still voted Labour.
Now, shock horror, most working class voters voter Tory, though I could see even you might vote for Starmer Labour as Labour is now more middle class than it has ever been
I'm not voting Labour.
I remain a conservative, my outlook on life and policies haven't changed, I've spent my life campaigning against socialism and lefties, I'm not going to vote for them, I'm just enamoured by the current Tory party, particularly its leadership.
I noticed the small 'c'.
From what I can see, and despite what they may say to the contrary, both Johnson and Sunak are the most fiscally socialist PM and Chancellor in my lifetime.
If Johnson wasn't such a dick, I would be tempted to vote for an incumbent Government following the most left-wing economic agenda the UK has ever seen.
Oh and the Animal Farm style corruption and incompetence is on the scale of a dodgy 1970s Labour City Council Leader or Soviet President.
I wouldn't say this is a socialist government. They are more like a regular government in the 1945-1970's model; but one with little ideology bar some reasonable sound principles (not overtaxing people, keeping some freedoms intact, not believing the state can be a way of achieving progress) that is somehow muddling through with more than a few dodgy dealings and a dangerous amount of borrowing.
The principle of not over taxing voters is a sensible one, if one plans on re-election. But with astronomical levels of spending, not only on paying for the cost of the pandemic, but also paying for Brexit and Johnson's Soviet style vanity projects it needs to be paid off through taxation or via substantial rates of inflation. Neither of which I can recall the Conservative Party claiming as optimal during the time period of which you quote.
I can say things in French. But if I ask a question and receive a reply, usually I have no idea what the other person has said.
We should just teach kids how to order a coffee, order a beer and say 'I love you' in a dozen languages and settle for that.
My father said wryly that he learned French for 6 years at Winchester, and then took a trip to Paris;he found he was unable to ask the inspector when they would arrive.
I was educated in French only until I was 12 and couldn't really write English at that age. When I got to English speaking schools in the US and UK I was amazed at how little grammar was taught compared to my Francophone education.
Now that I'm a language tutor I see the same situation among British students. Teaching Latin would help slightly as they would be exposed to grammatical concepts like declension. There is almost no declension in English but it's very important in other languages. I regularly see anglophone students struggle with it in Russian.
It could be fixed much more effectively by teaching Linguistics rather than Latin but that would not stimulate the desiccated G spots of Telegraph readers with type 2 diabetes in the same way so the tories won't do it.
I wonder if the Latin is because its full of gender to troll the wokists?
Also - because it gives those parents with money to send their brats to private schools an advantage? At the moment Latin can't seriously be used as an educational criterion. It's like an O level in sheep-farming - only the Welsh, etc., have a hope of doing it. But make it a general educational qualification ...
Rachel Johnson (as in sister of ...) suggested rote learning of the classics was a soft route to Oxford.
So why would Tories want more competition for their children's life chances?
Tokenism. The Universities might dump the classics if it became obvious they are an upper middle class scam. You want a trickle of comp school entrants to point at and claim how inclusive it all is.
There is not much to dump, the only universities which still do pure Classics/Latin degrees are Oxford and Cambridge, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Exeter and Nottingham, Manchester, Bristol, KCL and UCL and Royal Holloway.
They are all pretty posh universities anyway
So?
If cutting the classics means an instant downwards improvement to the posho-meter reading , to help meet the targets mandated by government, they'll have to consider it very seriously.
It is dumbing down and would make barely any difference whatsoever, as they are tiny courses anyway.
We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care, we support selection on merit and high academic standards, hence Williamson is pushing Latin in state schools. So if they want to suck up to Williamson if anything universities will expand their classics courses and do state school outreach for them.
Plus not all classics students will be privately educated and Oxbridge are 60% state school now anyway
‘Leading Tory says they “do not care” about state schools’
You need to be more careful about your choice of words if you want to progress in politics
What an absurd distortion of what I said.
I did not once say 'I do not care about state schools', merely I want selection on merit. If anything I care more than Carnyx as like Williamson I want to spread Latin in our state schools and expand excellence in them (a few more grammars would help too).
If you would prefer to keep excellence and Latin confined to your alma mater of Eton and a few top public schools and a conveyor belt to Oxbridge and the top professions like law and medicine and banking that is your affair
“ We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care”
“We Tories… have set no state school target, we … do not care”
Of course it’s absurd. But that’s a direct quote.
It’s meant as friendly advice, so don’t get upset.
Yes, the whole point of being a Tory is we don't believe in setting socialist style targets for state school admissions to leading universities like Oxbridge.
We believe in treating private and state school applicants equally on merit. We do not care about equality of outcome and state school targets. ' Otherwise what is the point in being a Tory? Your 'friendly advice' is to stop being a Tory as far as I can see
I thought the whole bit of being a Tory was to resist change and tut at people who don't know their place.
"I think that the principle of the Conservative Party is jealousy of liberty and of the people, only qualified by fear; but I think the principle of the Liberal Party is trust in the people, only qualified by prudence." - William Gladstone, 1878.
Gladstone was himself once a Tory but moved to the Liberal Party with Peel over free trade and Tory protectionism.
Indeed in many respects Thatcher had more in common with Gladstone and Peel than she did with Derby and Disraeli, Boris is much more of a Disraeli type, populist, taken us out of the single market and pro global Britain punching above its weight on the world stage.
Gladstone was never an Imperialist as Disraeli was but Disraeli like Boris was much more willing to countenance state intervention
While this is written and headlined in the Guardian's traditional 'we are all gloomy and doomed' this is a very reasonable and realistic account of the end game. I think we will be 75% there at Christmas, and back to whatever will be the normal by Easter. 650,000 people will die every year. Thousands of them will be Covid related. That's life.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
That was because he was up against the Maybot. and also the expectations were so low. 2019 is a more accurate example of how well he was received.
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Sounds a bit like Avignon and Antipopes versus Real Popes.
Yes. The story of the Panchen Lama is rather sad. I can only assume the original, real one is alive somewhere, as he hasn't reincarnated. Maybe the Dalai Lama, and Tibet as a whole, has exhausted it's merit. Giving the gift of Tibetan Buddhism to the rest of the world? It's just karma after all.
What I love is the Guardian critic's view is this a philosphical viewpoint that is valuable.
The thing is, despite their extreme cruelty and brutality, the Aztecs, Maya and Inca were valuable thinkers, who have left a legacy in the modern world as regards agriculture: potatoes and tomatoes.
Most of the food we eat - wheat, oats, rice, barley, sugar etc - were safe in their wild forms, and the aim of cultivating them was simply to make them bigger, to produce better yields.
But potatoes and tomatoes are from the Belladonna family and are poisonous in their wild forms. But the meso-americans somehow cultivated them to reduce the alkaloid solanine, to make them safe to eat.
We don't know how they did this because Cortes burnt all their books, including their agricultural and scientific books.
And then, what sort of mindset looks at a poisonous plant and thinks "I'll make that safe to eat", instead of just concentrating on cultivating plants already safe in their wild form? You wouldn't even accidently find a wild plant with reduced solanine, because if a plant gets a reputation for being poisonous, there is a taboo against eating it. You wouldn't gamble and eat it on the off chance that one in 10,000 might have reduced poison so you weren't guaranteed to die. Did their cruelty help them here where they forced prisoners to eat poisonous stuff and someone survived, so they found the single plant that had reduced poison and cultivated it?
Even with modern science and genetic modification, science is still focused on making safe foods bigger, or less susceptible to pests. Nobody looks at poisonous stuff and thinks, "I'll make that safe". But that is what the meso-americans did, and their legacy is that massive chunks of the planet live on potatoes and tomatoes.
What is likely to happen with the new boundaries is that a projection will be made of what happened in 2019 in each seat and that will form the basis for comparisons at the next general election. This is what happened last time and what we saw after the Euros when a projection was made for each of the 650 constituencies.
I think Rallings and Thrasher produced the BBC version of the previous election outcome
I can say things in French. But if I ask a question and receive a reply, usually I have no idea what the other person has said.
We should just teach kids how to order a coffee, order a beer and say 'I love you' in a dozen languages and settle for that.
My father said wryly that he learned French for 6 years at Winchester, and then took a trip to Paris;he found he was unable to ask the inspector when they would arrive.
I was educated in French only until I was 12 and couldn't really write English at that age. When I got to English speaking schools in the US and UK I was amazed at how little grammar was taught compared to my Francophone education.
Now that I'm a language tutor I see the same situation among British students. Teaching Latin would help slightly as they would be exposed to grammatical concepts like declension. There is almost no declension in English but it's very important in other languages. I regularly see anglophone students struggle with it in Russian.
It could be fixed much more effectively by teaching Linguistics rather than Latin but that would not stimulate the desiccated G spots of Telegraph readers with type 2 diabetes in the same way so the tories won't do it.
I wonder if the Latin is because its full of gender to troll the wokists?
Also - because it gives those parents with money to send their brats to private schools an advantage? At the moment Latin can't seriously be used as an educational criterion. It's like an O level in sheep-farming - only the Welsh, etc., have a hope of doing it. But make it a general educational qualification ...
Rachel Johnson (as in sister of ...) suggested rote learning of the classics was a soft route to Oxford.
So why would Tories want more competition for their children's life chances?
Tokenism. The Universities might dump the classics if it became obvious they are an upper middle class scam. You want a trickle of comp school entrants to point at and claim how inclusive it all is.
There is not much to dump, the only universities which still do pure Classics/Latin degrees are Oxford and Cambridge, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Exeter and Nottingham, Manchester, Bristol, KCL and UCL and Royal Holloway.
They are all pretty posh universities anyway
So?
If cutting the classics means an instant downwards improvement to the posho-meter reading , to help meet the targets mandated by government, they'll have to consider it very seriously.
It is dumbing down and would make barely any difference whatsoever, as they are tiny courses anyway.
We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care, we support selection on merit and high academic standards, hence Williamson is pushing Latin in state schools. So if they want to suck up to Williamson if anything universities will expand their classics courses and do state school outreach for them.
Plus not all classics students will be privately educated and Oxbridge are 60% state school now anyway
‘Leading Tory says they “do not care” about state schools’
You need to be more careful about your choice of words if you want to progress in politics
What an absurd distortion of what I said.
I did not once say 'I do not care about state schools', merely I want selection on merit. If anything I care more than Carnyx as like Williamson I want to spread Latin in our state schools and expand excellence in them (a few more grammars would help too).
If you would prefer to keep excellence and Latin confined to your alma mater of Eton and a few top public schools and a conveyor belt to Oxbridge and the top professions like law and medicine and banking that is your affair
“ We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care”
“We Tories… have set no state school target, we … do not care”
Of course it’s absurd. But that’s a direct quote.
It’s meant as friendly advice, so don’t get upset.
Yes, the whole point of being a Tory is we don't believe in setting socialist style targets for state school admissions to leading universities like Oxbridge.
We believe in treating private and state school applicants equally on merit. We do not care about equality of outcome and state school targets. ' Otherwise what is the point in being a Tory? Your 'friendly advice' is to stop being a Tory as far as I can see
I thought the whole bit of being a Tory was to resist change and tut at people who don't know their place.
Surely the whole point of being a Tory is to be in power.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
They will also want devomax even if they lose indyref2 and if Labour give them that without an English Parliament that creates further problems
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Sounds a bit like Avignon and Antipopes versus Real Popes.
One of my favourite titbits from a history of the papacy I read recently was how the papacy itself has gotten confused over which popes were 'proper' popes and which were not (and some who did not even exist), and apparently some antipopes as previously stated by the Vatican still get included in their own histories as real ones unintentionally.
Same, it's funny about the numbering of some of them as well.
I think there was an Antipope who had same name and regnal number as a proper Pope.
As records from that era were messy it is entirely possible the biography of the real Pope is actually of the Antipope.
Even with modern science and genetic modification, science is still focused on making safe foods bigger, or less susceptible to pests. Nobody looks at poisonous stuff and thinks, "I'll make that safe". But that is what the meso-americans did, and their legacy is that massive chunks of the planet live on potatoes and tomatoes.
Don't forget Cassava (aka. Manioc) originally grown in the Amazon!
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
I would also suggest constitutional monarchy Sweden and Japan and the Netherlands have been very well run, as indeed we have compared to most of the republics in the world
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Yes, no corruption at all on the continent where they have PR. Italy and Belgium are famous models of probity in this regard.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
I think Labour can realistically gain 30-40 seats from the Tories but will majorly struggle to gain more than that considering that Labour only made a net gain of 30 in 2017. I think the best Labour can hope for is a sort of Con 40 Lab 38 type scenario and hope the Lib Dems somehow do a lot of heavy lifting in the south.
Without Scotland Labour will struggle to get a majority (it'd have to be a landslide in England to do it) that means that the Tories will be able to suppress Labour votes in England with threats of the krankies. it's a lot harder for them to do it than it was for TB.
“The krankies”
Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Yes, no corruption at all on the continent where they have PR. Italy and Belgium are famous models of probity in this regard.
Also isn't the SNP involved in a bit of a fraud scandal at the moment? Talk about glass houses.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
I think Labour can realistically gain 30-40 seats from the Tories but will majorly struggle to gain more than that considering that Labour only made a net gain of 30 in 2017. I think the best Labour can hope for is a sort of Con 40 Lab 38 type scenario and hope the Lib Dems somehow do a lot of heavy lifting in the south.
Without Scotland Labour will struggle to get a majority (it'd have to be a landslide in England to do it) that means that the Tories will be able to suppress Labour votes in England with threats of the krankies. it's a lot harder for them to do it than it was for TB.
“The krankies”
Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Without Scotland Labour will struggle to get a majority (it'd have to be a landslide in England to do it) that means that the Tories will be able to suppress Labour votes in England with threats of the krankies. it's a lot harder for them to do it than it was for TB.
“The krankies”
Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
They will also want devomax even if they lose indyref2 and if Labour give them that without an English Parliament that creates further problems
Your second scenario is easily rectified. An English Parliament sitting outside London. Not without issues to be resolved, granted. But not beyond the wit and wisdom of someone like yourself.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Israel, Belgium, Italy, Greece, South Africa say "hello".
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
It's easier for the Tories to recover in Scotland at the moment with the 'unionist' card than it will be for Labour to do so with the 'progressive' one. There will be some movement but Indiref2 will still be the main concern of Scottish voters at the next GE and the Krankies will make sure of it.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
I think Labour can realistically gain 30-40 seats from the Tories but will majorly struggle to gain more than that considering that Labour only made a net gain of 30 in 2017. I think the best Labour can hope for is a sort of Con 40 Lab 38 type scenario and hope the Lib Dems somehow do a lot of heavy lifting in the south.
Without Scotland Labour will struggle to get a majority (it'd have to be a landslide in England to do it) that means that the Tories will be able to suppress Labour votes in England with threats of the krankies. it's a lot harder for them to do it than it was for TB.
“The krankies”
Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
We are already seeing Labour distancing themselves from the SNP.
This is all part of the dance of course - the Lab-SNP relationship in the event of a Labour minority administration will be fascinating.
The SNP will get their vote but not at once - the vote will be predicated on the fact Labour will be opposed to independence. IF the independence vote is successful, it won't of course mean SNP MPs will be kicked out of Westminster the day after the vote (any more than voting to leave the EU meant the end of UK MEPs).
The process of departure will likely take 3-5 years during which time Scotland remains part of the UK and Scottish MPs will still be able to sit in Westminster. During that time, Labour will continue to use SNP votes to push through its legislation - perhaps some form of electoral reform?
The GE after a successful independence vote will therefore see a contrast between a "smooth separation" (Labour/SNP) and a "tough divorce" (Conservatives) and we'll see which way English voters choose to vote.
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
On topic, it's an interesting poll but doesn't offer many clues as to the next GE.
The fall in the Conservative vote, while welcome, isn't likely in and of itself to translate into a lot of seat changes as long as the opposition vote remains fragmented.
We have seen in previous elections how the anti-Conservative vote can, under the right circumstances, be extremely efficient in defeating Conservative incumbents. We also know that while there may be "informal understandings" between the Greens and LDs in particular, there will be no formal electoral alliance nor anything of the kind of a "progressive alliance" (whatever that means).
That said, we also know well-organised and targeted campaigning can be highly effective in bringing the combined anti-Conservative vote under a single banner, be that Green, LD or Labour (or possibly Independent).
That's the challenge for the opposition in 2024 - the Conservatives will be fighting on many fronts in hundreds of seats - the opposition will, if they have any sense, target their resources and messages accordingly and appropriately only working where they can win.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
About right. The Tories form the government if they lose 40 seats or do any better, so a few seats here and there is not to the point. To form a stable government of centre left alliance they all need to do much better.
The centre left has to deal with: An alliance with the SNP (in some form) is unavoidable mathematically. What does this mean for the ordinary voter.
And it has to deal with tying hands behind its back. In nearly every important seat the centre right will have one candidate, the centre left 3 (and in Scotland 4). Until they all realise that in current conditions this is bonkers they start quite a lot of seats down.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
WRT Roman legions, I expect their agents and recruiting officers would have travelled a long way down the Nile, just as they ranged across Germany and Eastern Europe. So, in all likelihhod, people from what is now Sudan and Ethiopia did join the Roman army, but they would not have formed a large proportion of the whole.
That doesn't stop English voters from voting against Labour because they think that they'd be pushed to do things by the SNP to get policies through. (it sounds contradictory but isn't)
The Fuehrer had a clear vision of a modern Germany with Autobahnen (also convenient for internal LOC for switching fronts). So, as well as an Organization Todt to build the aforesaid A-bahnen, the approved members of the German Volk needed a nice cheap(ish) car to be part of the Volk community and go out for approved Volkish outings. And a motor industry to stimulate to provide factories which could be used to motorise the Wehrmacht (as, indeed, happened to the Vokswagen factory when the lines were switched from KdF-Wagen to Kuebelwagen and Schwimmwagen for the war effort - hence, IIRC. the raised suspension later used on the VW Bus).
You can draw your own comparison of Mr Johnson's clarity of overarching vision and consistency in pursuing his own aims.
On a tangent, the vehicle below, a Trippel SG6, popped up on the account of someone I follow on Twitter. Pride myself that I'm fairly clued up on this kind of stuff, but had never heard of it. The Nazi ended production because it was heavier, more powerful and expensive than the Volkswagen version, not their usual approach it has to be said.
I've heard of it, which probably makes me terribly sad.
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Wishful thinking.
Anas is doing even worse than Richard, who did worse than Kezia, who did worse than Iain, who did worse than Jim, who…. all the way back to Donald.
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
Indeed so - but if there appears a serious prospect of Labour progressing in Scotland, it will undermine Tory attempts to use the second Referendum argument against the party in England & Wales.
On topic, it's an interesting poll but doesn't offer many clues as to the next GE.
The fall in the Conservative vote, while welcome, isn't likely in and of itself to translate into a lot of seat changes as long as the opposition vote remains fragmented.
We have seen in previous elections how the anti-Conservative vote can, under the right circumstances, be extremely efficient in defeating Conservative incumbents. We also know that while there may be "informal understandings" between the Greens and LDs in particular, there will be no formal electoral alliance nor anything of the kind of a "progressive alliance" (whatever that means).
That said, we also know well-organised and targeted campaigning can be highly effective in bringing the combined anti-Conservative vote under a single banner, be that Green, LD or Labour (or possibly Independent).
That's the challenge for the opposition in 2024 - the Conservatives will be fighting on many fronts in hundreds of seats - the opposition will, if they have any sense, target their resources and messages accordingly and appropriately only working where they can win.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
When it comes to votes, the Conservatives are like the SNP in that, as the SNP has with the pro-independence vote, they have the pro-Brexit / right-learning vote to itself while it’s opposition is split. Hence, even when you have a majority that votes for Unionist parties, the SNP still wins a plurality of seats. And it’s the same for the Tories in England.
Personally, I can’t see the likes of Labour, the Greens and LibDems cooperating especially when there is a view - a bit dormant since B&S but still there - that Labour’s long term future is dire and chunks of its voting base are up for grabs. For example, if I’m a Green and think I can benefit from wealthy, leftie urban professionals switching from Labour to Green, why should I help prolong the Labour Party?
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
Lose 47 seats is a big change. How many times has an incumbent Govt lots 47 seats at a GE,,... not often..Tories 1997. Churchill , coalition tho.it might have been in 1945.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
We are already seeing Labour distancing themselves from the SNP.
This is all part of the dance of course - the Lab-SNP relationship in the event of a Labour minority administration will be fascinating.
The SNP will get their vote but not at once - the vote will be predicated on the fact Labour will be opposed to independence. IF the independence vote is successful, it won't of course mean SNP MPs will be kicked out of Westminster the day after the vote (any more than voting to leave the EU meant the end of UK MEPs).
The process of departure will likely take 3-5 years during which time Scotland remains part of the UK and Scottish MPs will still be able to sit in Westminster. During that time, Labour will continue to use SNP votes to push through its legislation - perhaps some form of electoral reform?
The GE after a successful independence vote will therefore see a contrast between a "smooth separation" (Labour/SNP) and a "tough divorce" (Conservatives) and we'll see which way English voters choose to vote.
In the event of a successful Yes vote there will be immense pressure on the government to change the rules in parliament to prevent Scottish MPs voting on anything that doesn't directly impact Scotland. even then they will be reduced to second class MPs. I suspect that the SNP would stop voting on most issues.
the other thing I suspect will happen is a cross party commission to do the negotiations.
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Wishful thinking.
Anas is doing even worse than Richard, who did worse than Kezia, who did worse than Iain, who did worse than Jim, who…. all the way back to Donald.
Spot a pattern?
Anas did not perform that badly at the Holyrood elections in May. Moreover for Westminster elections I suspect the GB leader is more important anyway.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
I think Labour can realistically gain 30-40 seats from the Tories but will majorly struggle to gain more than that considering that Labour only made a net gain of 30 in 2017. I think the best Labour can hope for is a sort of Con 40 Lab 38 type scenario and hope the Lib Dems somehow do a lot of heavy lifting in the south.
Without Scotland Labour will struggle to get a majority (it'd have to be a landslide in England to do it) that means that the Tories will be able to suppress Labour votes in England with threats of the krankies. it's a lot harder for them to do it than it was for TB.
“The krankies”
Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds
So on that same link 32% of English voters opposed Scottish independence but only 20% support it, ie a 12% margin for No and even bigger than the 10% margin for No Scotland had in 2014
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
Lose 47 seats is a big change. How many times has an incumbent Govt lots 47 seats at a GE,,... not often..Tories 1997. Churchill , coalition tho.it might have been in 1945.
Very often on a change of government. 1964. 1970. 1979. 1997. 2010.
Also, although not a direct change of government, Labour lost 78 seats in 1950.
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
Lose 47 seats is a big change. How many times has an incumbent Govt lots 47 seats at a GE,,... not often..Tories 1997. Churchill , coalition tho.it might have been in 1945.
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
Lose 47 seats is a big change. How many times has an incumbent Govt lots 47 seats at a GE,,... not often..Tories 1997. Churchill , coalition tho.it might have been in 1945.
It happened in 1945 - 1950 - 1964 - 1979 - 1997 - 2010 -
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Corbyn got more votes than Miliband ever got and got more seats in 2017 than he did in 2015 too.
Sounds a bit like Avignon and Antipopes versus Real Popes.
Yes. The story of the Panchen Lama is rather sad. I can only assume the original, real one is alive somewhere, as he hasn't reincarnated. Maybe the Dalai Lama, and Tibet as a whole, has exhausted it's merit. Giving the gift of Tibetan Buddhism to the rest of the world? It's just karma after all.
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
Lose 47 seats is a big change. How many times has an incumbent Govt lots 47 seats at a GE,,... not often..Tories 1997. Churchill , coalition tho.it might have been in 1945.
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
Lose 47 seats is a big change. How many times has an incumbent Govt lots 47 seats at a GE,,... not often..Tories 1997. Churchill , coalition tho.it might have been in 1945.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
They will also want devomax even if they lose indyref2 and if Labour give them that without an English Parliament that creates further problems
Your second scenario is easily rectified. An English Parliament sitting outside London. Not without issues to be resolved, granted. But not beyond the wit and wisdom of someone like yourself.
I have long supported an English Parliament as do many Tory members, Labour don't
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Starmer only gets to play the Michael Howard part - a much less disastrous loser, paving the way for a more electable successor who can strip the Government of its majority at the election after next - if he can begin to rebuild his party's credibility, shore up his electoral base, and make Parliamentary gains. The jury's still out on all of those aims, regardless of what some pretty meaningless mid-term polls say.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
We are already seeing Labour distancing themselves from the SNP.
This is all part of the dance of course - the Lab-SNP relationship in the event of a Labour minority administration will be fascinating.
The SNP will get their vote but not at once - the vote will be predicated on the fact Labour will be opposed to independence. IF the independence vote is successful, it won't of course mean SNP MPs will be kicked out of Westminster the day after the vote (any more than voting to leave the EU meant the end of UK MEPs).
The process of departure will likely take 3-5 years during which time Scotland remains part of the UK and Scottish MPs will still be able to sit in Westminster. During that time, Labour will continue to use SNP votes to push through its legislation - perhaps some form of electoral reform?
The GE after a successful independence vote will therefore see a contrast between a "smooth separation" (Labour/SNP) and a "tough divorce" (Conservatives) and we'll see which way English voters choose to vote.
In the event of a successful Yes vote there will be immense pressure on the government to change the rules in parliament to prevent Scottish MPs voting on anything that doesn't directly impact Scotland. even then they will be reduced to second class MPs. I suspect that the SNP would stop voting on most issues.
the other thing I suspect will happen is a cross party commission to do the negotiations.
The SNP already do not vote on issues that don't affect Scotland.
It's the Tory Party - of all people - which has abolished their own EVEL.
Sounds a bit like Avignon and Antipopes versus Real Popes.
Yes. The story of the Panchen Lama is rather sad. I can only assume the original, real one is alive somewhere, as he hasn't reincarnated. Maybe the Dalai Lama, and Tibet as a whole, has exhausted it's merit. Giving the gift of Tibetan Buddhism to the rest of the world? It's just karma after all.
Sounds a bit like Avignon and Antipopes versus Real Popes.
Yes. The story of the Panchen Lama is rather sad. I can only assume the original, real one is alive somewhere, as he hasn't reincarnated. Maybe the Dalai Lama, and Tibet as a whole, has exhausted it's merit. Giving the gift of Tibetan Buddhism to the rest of the world? It's just karma after all.
Om manu padme hom.
Edit: should be padmi. Apols for the typo.
Sorry, belay that: should be mani. Too much Australian red with venison burgers for dinner.
Only because she is currently doing sod all about indyref2 and has ruled out UDI, hence some hardline nationalists have left the SNP for Alba.
If she started pushing indyref2 hard again her popularity in England would collapse
Yes and that's the "dance" that works both for her and for the Prime Minister.
Nicola Sturgeon doesn't really want independence - she may say she does and her unthinking acolytes may believe it but the status quo suits her perfectly.
She can shout for independence safe in the knowledge people like you and Boris Johnson will refuse. Thay strengthens her as she can turn to her supporters and blame "the English Tories" for not giving a second independence vote.
In the same way as you enforce and support Nicola Sturgeon, she also enforces and supports the Conservatives. Every time she kicks off about independence and Boris Johnson slaps her down, it plays well to the Conservative camp.
Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon are in a symbiotic relationship - each needs the other and each is supported and strengthened by the other. The current political status quo suits them both so why would they want it changed?
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
Lose 47 seats is a big change. How many times has an incumbent Govt lots 47 seats at a GE,,... not often..Tories 1997. Churchill , coalition tho.it might have been in 1945.
2005 (48) and 2010 (91).
1992 lost 40. Which would be fraught.
I ignored 2005 because Labour were still in power and 2010 wasn't a clear victory either. I should have been.more precise but was working on OGH's priority of getting rid of Boris and the Tories
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
This is true, but as the election gets nearer it will become obvious to non political Tories that there are only two governing possibilities: Tories or a fairly unknowable and unpredictable alliance, with the only certainty being that the SNP will have to be part of it. I do not say this will dishearten the centre left vote, but it will shore up the centre right vote, which, with remarkable simplicity will only have one box, and not 3 boxes, to choose from about where to put the X.
It is possible that the single key to which way it goes (currently 50/50 in my view) will be the centre left position on relations with EU, where, however reluctantly, they will have to choose between: endorse or slightly amend Boris; EFTA/EEA/; SM and FOM; Rejoin; Unicorn; Fudge.
The question is fascinating. My tentative half guess is that they will veer between Unicorn and Fudge and thus lose the election. If they took a bold view then we would have a proper box office election like no other.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
We are already seeing Labour distancing themselves from the SNP.
This is all part of the dance of course - the Lab-SNP relationship in the event of a Labour minority administration will be fascinating.
The SNP will get their vote but not at once - the vote will be predicated on the fact Labour will be opposed to independence. IF the independence vote is successful, it won't of course mean SNP MPs will be kicked out of Westminster the day after the vote (any more than voting to leave the EU meant the end of UK MEPs).
The process of departure will likely take 3-5 years during which time Scotland remains part of the UK and Scottish MPs will still be able to sit in Westminster. During that time, Labour will continue to use SNP votes to push through its legislation - perhaps some form of electoral reform?
The GE after a successful independence vote will therefore see a contrast between a "smooth separation" (Labour/SNP) and a "tough divorce" (Conservatives) and we'll see which way English voters choose to vote.
In the event of a successful Yes vote there will be immense pressure on the government to change the rules in parliament to prevent Scottish MPs voting on anything that doesn't directly impact Scotland. even then they will be reduced to second class MPs. I suspect that the SNP would stop voting on most issues.
the other thing I suspect will happen is a cross party commission to do the negotiations.
The SNP already do not vote on issues that don't affect Scotland.
It's the Tory Party - of all people - which has abolished their own EVEL.
true to a certain extent, but that list of things that doesn't impact Scotland suddenly grows significantly. it also would impact LD/Con/Lab MPs in Scotland.
What I meant to say (and didn't before) is that there'd be no way that the SNP would vote to change the electoral system in the rUK when they were leaving and Labour wouldn't be in a position to even attempt it.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
We are already seeing Labour distancing themselves from the SNP.
This is all part of the dance of course - the Lab-SNP relationship in the event of a Labour minority administration will be fascinating.
The SNP will get their vote but not at once - the vote will be predicated on the fact Labour will be opposed to independence. IF the independence vote is successful, it won't of course mean SNP MPs will be kicked out of Westminster the day after the vote (any more than voting to leave the EU meant the end of UK MEPs).
The process of departure will likely take 3-5 years during which time Scotland remains part of the UK and Scottish MPs will still be able to sit in Westminster. During that time, Labour will continue to use SNP votes to push through its legislation - perhaps some form of electoral reform?
The GE after a successful independence vote will therefore see a contrast between a "smooth separation" (Labour/SNP) and a "tough divorce" (Conservatives) and we'll see which way English voters choose to vote.
In the event of a successful Yes vote there will be immense pressure on the government to change the rules in parliament to prevent Scottish MPs voting on anything that doesn't directly impact Scotland. even then they will be reduced to second class MPs. I suspect that the SNP would stop voting on most issues.
the other thing I suspect will happen is a cross party commission to do the negotiations.
The SNP already do not vote on issues that don't affect Scotland.
It's the Tory Party - of all people - which has abolished their own EVEL.
true to a certain extent, but that list of things that doesn't impact Scotland suddenly grows significantly. it also would impact LD/Con/Lab MPs in Scotland.
What I meant to say (and didn't before) is that there'd be no way that the SNP would vote to change the electoral system in the rUK when they were leaving and Labour wouldn't be in a position to even attempt it.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Labour of course put Foot in as Opposition leader rather than Healey after their 1979 defeat too.
However if Healey had become Labour leader in 1979, or Clarke become Tory leader in 1997 would they have beaten Thatcher and Blair in 1983 and 2001? Almost certainly not, at most they might have narrowed the margin of defeat.
Similarly had Portillo become Tory leader in 2005 would he have won? No, at most he might have deprived Blair of his majority but the LDs would still have backed Labour in a hung parliament anyway.
Had David Miliband been elected Labour leader in 2010 would he have beaten Cameron in 2015? No again, at most he might have prevented Cameron winning a majority and the Cameron-Clegg coalition would have continued (though that would have meant no Brexit).
If Burnham had become Labour leader in 2017 too he might like Corbyn have got a hung parliament but again I doubt he would have beaten May and Boris I suspect would have beaten Burnham in 2019 too albeit not by the landslide he beat Corbyn by
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
This is true, but as the election gets nearer it will become obvious to non political Tories that there are only two governing possibilities: Tories or a fairly unknowable and unpredictable alliance, with the only certainty being that the SNP will have to be part of it. I do not say this will dishearten the centre left vote, but it will shore up the centre right vote, which, with remarkable simplicity will only have one box, and not 3 boxes, to choose from about where to put the X.
It is possible that the single key to which way it goes (currently 50/50 in my view) will be the centre left position on relations with EU, where, however reluctantly, they will have to choose between: endorse or slightly amend Boris; EFTA/EEA/; SM and FOM; Rejoin; Unicorn; Fudge.
The question is fascinating. My tentative half guess is that they will veer between Unicorn and Fudge and thus lose the election. If they took a bold view then we would have a proper box office election like no other.
Hard to play the Coalition of Chaos card again IMO. "We already have a coalition of chaos - it's the Tories..." would be an effective response.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
We are already seeing Labour distancing themselves from the SNP.
This is all part of the dance of course - the Lab-SNP relationship in the event of a Labour minority administration will be fascinating.
The SNP will get their vote but not at once - the vote will be predicated on the fact Labour will be opposed to independence. IF the independence vote is successful, it won't of course mean SNP MPs will be kicked out of Westminster the day after the vote (any more than voting to leave the EU meant the end of UK MEPs).
The process of departure will likely take 3-5 years during which time Scotland remains part of the UK and Scottish MPs will still be able to sit in Westminster. During that time, Labour will continue to use SNP votes to push through its legislation - perhaps some form of electoral reform?
The GE after a successful independence vote will therefore see a contrast between a "smooth separation" (Labour/SNP) and a "tough divorce" (Conservatives) and we'll see which way English voters choose to vote.
In the event of a successful Yes vote there will be immense pressure on the government to change the rules in parliament to prevent Scottish MPs voting on anything that doesn't directly impact Scotland. even then they will be reduced to second class MPs. I suspect that the SNP would stop voting on most issues.
the other thing I suspect will happen is a cross party commission to do the negotiations.
The SNP already do not vote on issues that don't affect Scotland.
It's the Tory Party - of all people - which has abolished their own EVEL.
true to a certain extent, but that list of things that doesn't impact Scotland suddenly grows significantly. it also would impact LD/Con/Lab MPs in Scotland.
What I meant to say (and didn't before) is that there'd be no way that the SNP would vote to change the electoral system in the rUK when they were leaving and Labour wouldn't be in a position to even attempt it.
Plus I suspect many if not most Labour MPs would vote against PR anyway as many Labour MPs elected under FPTP would lose their seats under PR to the LDs and Greens
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
This is true, but as the election gets nearer it will become obvious to non political Tories that there are only two governing possibilities: Tories or a fairly unknowable and unpredictable alliance, with the only certainty being that the SNP will have to be part of it. I do not say this will dishearten the centre left vote, but it will shore up the centre right vote, which, with remarkable simplicity will only have one box, and not 3 boxes, to choose from about where to put the X.
It is possible that the single key to which way it goes (currently 50/50 in my view) will be the centre left position on relations with EU, where, however reluctantly, they will have to choose between: endorse or slightly amend Boris; EFTA/EEA/; SM and FOM; Rejoin; Unicorn; Fudge.
The question is fascinating. My tentative half guess is that they will veer between Unicorn and Fudge and thus lose the election. If they took a bold view then we would have a proper box office election like no other.
Better the devil you know than the one you don't..is often the rule of thumb....except for Brown who was absolutely and utterly abysmal.
wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.
Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
In the event of a successful Yes vote there will be immense pressure on the government to change the rules in parliament to prevent Scottish MPs voting on anything that doesn't directly impact Scotland. even then they will be reduced to second class MPs. I suspect that the SNP would stop voting on most issues.
the other thing I suspect will happen is a cross party commission to do the negotiations.
Did that happen to British MEPs in the European Parliament?
It doesn't work like that, pressure or no pressure. IF Scotland were to vote to leave the UK, they wouldn't leave the next day. In truth, they would remain members of the UK (with all that goes with it) until the day an independent Scotland is created.
The example of how Britain left the EU could be informative in terms of Scotland leaving the UK.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
The Tories will be able to go with the line 'Vote Labour and get IndyRef2' as that will be the price the Krankies will want for a confidence and supply agreement.
We are already seeing Labour distancing themselves from the SNP.
This is all part of the dance of course - the Lab-SNP relationship in the event of a Labour minority administration will be fascinating.
The SNP will get their vote but not at once - the vote will be predicated on the fact Labour will be opposed to independence. IF the independence vote is successful, it won't of course mean SNP MPs will be kicked out of Westminster the day after the vote (any more than voting to leave the EU meant the end of UK MEPs).
The process of departure will likely take 3-5 years during which time Scotland remains part of the UK and Scottish MPs will still be able to sit in Westminster. During that time, Labour will continue to use SNP votes to push through its legislation - perhaps some form of electoral reform?
The GE after a successful independence vote will therefore see a contrast between a "smooth separation" (Labour/SNP) and a "tough divorce" (Conservatives) and we'll see which way English voters choose to vote.
In the event of a successful Yes vote there will be immense pressure on the government to change the rules in parliament to prevent Scottish MPs voting on anything that doesn't directly impact Scotland. even then they will be reduced to second class MPs. I suspect that the SNP would stop voting on most issues.
the other thing I suspect will happen is a cross party commission to do the negotiations.
The SNP already do not vote on issues that don't affect Scotland.
It's the Tory Party - of all people - which has abolished their own EVEL.
true to a certain extent, but that list of things that doesn't impact Scotland suddenly grows significantly. it also would impact LD/Con/Lab MPs in Scotland.
What I meant to say (and didn't before) is that there'd be no way that the SNP would vote to change the electoral system in the rUK when they were leaving and Labour wouldn't be in a position to even attempt it.
Plus I suspect many if not most Labour MPs would vote against PR anyway as many Labour MPs elected under FPTP would lose their seats under PR to the LDs and Greens
For example in 1997 rather than 63% of MPs being Labour under FPTP, only 43% of MPs would have been Labour under PR
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
This is true, but as the election gets nearer it will become obvious to non political Tories that there are only two governing possibilities: Tories or a fairly unknowable and unpredictable alliance, with the only certainty being that the SNP will have to be part of it. I do not say this will dishearten the centre left vote, but it will shore up the centre right vote, which, with remarkable simplicity will only have one box, and not 3 boxes, to choose from about where to put the X.
It is possible that the single key to which way it goes (currently 50/50 in my view) will be the centre left position on relations with EU, where, however reluctantly, they will have to choose between: endorse or slightly amend Boris; EFTA/EEA/; SM and FOM; Rejoin; Unicorn; Fudge.
The question is fascinating. My tentative half guess is that they will veer between Unicorn and Fudge and thus lose the election. If they took a bold view then we would have a proper box office election like no other.
There's the rub though isn't it. SNP/LD will be rejoin PC/Greens will also be veering that way. it's not predictable how Labour will go because they don't have a defined policy at the moment. Anything other than 'Improve Boris' will alienate Brexit voting left leaning voters in seats that they need to keep hold of. It will make it much easier for the Tories to hold onto power
2017 saw a swing to Labour of just over 2%. A Tory lead in 2023/2024 of 2% would represent a pro-Labour swing of circa 5% and would see almost 50 gains from the Tories. Were the election to be that close, I would also expect Labour to make progress in Scotland.
Scotland has changed. progress would mean 6-12 seats rather than the 40 or so they'd need to get a majority. National polls are no longer reflective to outcomes in Scotland as the SNP have taken the 'progressive' vote and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
That may be so - and 10 - 15 seats would be a substantial recovery. If Labour looks close to ousting the Tories across GB, I suspect that Scotland will wish to 'join the party' , and many who vote SNP for Holyrood are likely to switch back to Labour - something we saw there in 2017.
Labour does not need to oust the Tories - all that needs to happen is for the Tories to lose 47 seats which would make it difficult for Johnson to continue as PM. First vote of the new parliament would be a confidence one which he would lose in that situation
This is true, but as the election gets nearer it will become obvious to non political Tories that there are only two governing possibilities: Tories or a fairly unknowable and unpredictable alliance, with the only certainty being that the SNP will have to be part of it. I do not say this will dishearten the centre left vote, but it will shore up the centre right vote, which, with remarkable simplicity will only have one box, and not 3 boxes, to choose from about where to put the X.
It is possible that the single key to which way it goes (currently 50/50 in my view) will be the centre left position on relations with EU, where, however reluctantly, they will have to choose between: endorse or slightly amend Boris; EFTA/EEA/; SM and FOM; Rejoin; Unicorn; Fudge.
The question is fascinating. My tentative half guess is that they will veer between Unicorn and Fudge and thus lose the election. If they took a bold view then we would have a proper box office election like no other.
Hard to play the Coalition of Chaos card again IMO. "We already have a coalition of chaos - it's the Tories..." would be an effective response.
True. Between the two current possibilities of the next government I think it is 50/50. One of the factors in favour of a centre left alliance victory is 'Time for a change', and this is the only change available.
I still think the Labour approach to the EU is going to be tricky and important. There is no one EU policy they can have which is all of: populist, majority, possible, not Tory.
Plus I suspect many if not most Labour MPs would vote against PR anyway as many Labour MPs elected under FPTP would lose their seats under PR to the LDs and Greens
For example in 1997 rather than 63% of MPs being Labour under FPTP, only 43% of MPs would have been Labour under PR
That's the thing. Labour has had multiple chances of changing the voting system but only when the current one works in their favour, they only want to change it when it doesn't work in their favour.
wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.
Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
@Leon will tell you that Sanliurfa is the closest large town to Gobekli Tepe, one of the oldest human settlements ever.
Only because she is currently doing sod all about indyref2 and has ruled out UDI, hence some hardline nationalists have left the SNP for Alba.
If she started pushing indyref2 hard again her popularity in England would collapse
Yes and that's the "dance" that works both for her and for the Prime Minister.
Nicola Sturgeon doesn't really want independence - she may say she does and her unthinking acolytes may believe it but the status quo suits her perfectly.
She can shout for independence safe in the knowledge people like you and Boris Johnson will refuse. Thay strengthens her as she can turn to her supporters and blame "the English Tories" for not giving a second independence vote.
In the same way as you enforce and support Nicola Sturgeon, she also enforces and supports the Conservatives. Every time she kicks off about independence and Boris Johnson slaps her down, it plays well to the Conservative camp.
Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon are in a symbiotic relationship - each needs the other and each is supported and strengthened by the other. The current political status quo suits them both so why would they want it changed?
Of course Nicola Sturgeon wants independence. Her overriding problem is how badly the Scottish electorate is split on the matter.
As things stand, if she calls a referendum she either loses or wins narrowly. I'm not sure which prospect, from her point of view, is worse. Lose and independence is probably a dead duck for the remainder of her lifetime (and it's also the end of her political career.) Win and she has to negotiate a separation vastly more difficult and complex than Brexit that almost half her people didn't want.
Five years on from the EU Referendum, we know that the fallout of Brexit isn't anywhere close to being resolved, and that a substantial fraction both of the ruling class and the electorate remains deeply uneasy about the decision and is hardly reticent to blame it for anything and everything that goes wrong in the nation's affairs. Scexit would be an order of magnitude worse.
If you're lining yourself up for trouble like that, then you at least want to have a reasonable expectation that you'll not only win a vote but win it well, so that the outcome is demonstrably the settled will of the Scottish people. At the moment Sturgeon lacks that, hence the impasse.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Starmer only gets to play the Michael Howard part - a much less disastrous loser, paving the way for a more electable successor who can strip the Government of its majority at the election after next - if he can begin to rebuild his party's credibility, shore up his electoral base, and make Parliamentary gains. The jury's still out on all of those aims, regardless of what some pretty meaningless mid-term polls say.
Than whom was Michael Howard a less disastrous loser? Under IDS the Conservatives had gained 800 seats at the locals. At the 2005 election, Conservatives scored 32% of the vote which is where (or slightly below) the party had been polling under IDS. It is victors' propaganda to claim that Howard did better than IDS.
Is there going to be a good news for the Tories thread anytime soon. Even if there is good news, I rather feel its going to slip by unnoticed....
Not if you can be arsed to write one...
It's just an excuse for a whinge - we all know the only thread more boring than one criticising the Government is one praising it.
I note you are not critical of the endless stream of threads critical.of the Govt. I wasn't looking for a laudatory thread, just some that looked at things via a pair of glasses at 20 20.
wrt where Roman legions came from, isn't there evidence up near Newcastle indicating that the soldiers stationed there came from Iraqi marshlands.
Poor bastards, not sure ancient, foresty, swampy, Britain was a deserved posting for anyone.
As opposed to tropical swampy malaria-ridden Basra?
Yeah, but they'd be used to that and it'd be warmer.
There was certainly a unit of Tigris boatmen stationed at South Shields. The regular garrison was originally Gaulish though.
About a decade ago I flew from Şanlıurfa (Turkey, well East of the Euphrates) to Inverness (not direct). A hell of a long journey, but scarcely leaving the Roman empire. It would have taken a Roman about a year.
Depends on the Roman, surely? An ordinary person on foot, perhaps. A courier could probably have managed it in four weeks.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Starmer only gets to play the Michael Howard part - a much less disastrous loser, paving the way for a more electable successor who can strip the Government of its majority at the election after next - if he can begin to rebuild his party's credibility, shore up his electoral base, and make Parliamentary gains. The jury's still out on all of those aims, regardless of what some pretty meaningless mid-term polls say.
Than whom was Michael Howard a less disastrous loser? Under IDS the Conservatives had gained 800 seats at the locals. At the 2005 election, Conservatives scored 32% of the vote which is where (or slightly below) the party had been polling under IDS. It is victors' propaganda to claim that Howard did better than IDS.
Howard improved the Conservative position in the Commons, which is ultimately what counts.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Starmer only gets to play the Michael Howard part - a much less disastrous loser, paving the way for a more electable successor who can strip the Government of its majority at the election after next - if he can begin to rebuild his party's credibility, shore up his electoral base, and make Parliamentary gains. The jury's still out on all of those aims, regardless of what some pretty meaningless mid-term polls say.
Than whom was Michael Howard a less disastrous loser? Under IDS the Conservatives had gained 800 seats at the locals. At the 2005 election, Conservatives scored 32% of the vote which is where (or slightly below) the party had been polling under IDS. It is victors' propaganda to claim that Howard did better than IDS.
IDS was on for a major defeat. in the same region as 1997 and 2001. Howard was finally able to rebuild the base from which a credible government could be built. that is the job that Starmer now has, whether it's him that takes that base and goes forward with is an unknowable at this point.
This account of Deborah Mattinson's unsurprising analysis of Labour's position contains one of the largest collections of 'Did you know the pope is a Catholic' type findings I have ever seen in a short space.
It kind of ends just where anyone who knows anything at all about Labour's position would begin. Plus one or two egregious misconceptions. Worth a glance.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Starmer only gets to play the Michael Howard part - a much less disastrous loser, paving the way for a more electable successor who can strip the Government of its majority at the election after next - if he can begin to rebuild his party's credibility, shore up his electoral base, and make Parliamentary gains. The jury's still out on all of those aims, regardless of what some pretty meaningless mid-term polls say.
Than whom was Michael Howard a less disastrous loser? Under IDS the Conservatives had gained 800 seats at the locals. At the 2005 election, Conservatives scored 32% of the vote which is where (or slightly below) the party had been polling under IDS. It is victors' propaganda to claim that Howard did better than IDS.
IDS was on for a major defeat. in the same region as 1997 and 2001. Howard was finally able to rebuild the base from which a credible government could be built. that is the job that Starmer now has, whether it's him that takes that base and goes forward with is an unknowable at this point.
No he wasn't, IDS' final poll as Tory leader was Labour 38% and Tories 33% from ICM, so the Tories doing about as well as under Howard and better than some polls have Starmer doing
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Starmer only gets to play the Michael Howard part - a much less disastrous loser, paving the way for a more electable successor who can strip the Government of its majority at the election after next - if he can begin to rebuild his party's credibility, shore up his electoral base, and make Parliamentary gains. The jury's still out on all of those aims, regardless of what some pretty meaningless mid-term polls say.
Than whom was Michael Howard a less disastrous loser? Under IDS the Conservatives had gained 800 seats at the locals. At the 2005 election, Conservatives scored 32% of the vote which is where (or slightly below) the party had been polling under IDS. It is victors' propaganda to claim that Howard did better than IDS.
Howard improved the Conservative position in the Commons, which is ultimately what counts.
Well, Howard did stop all the plots against IDS, so there's that.
Losing 47 seats is only reversing the gains of 2019 effectively whilst not really eating into core Tory territory. The latter can certainly happen.
If Labour gained 47 seats, they would end up almost exactly where they were in 2010.
Except, of course, they would be a different 259 seats. Instead of 191 in England, you would expect it to be around 235.
Indeed so. Even in the wake of the 2019 disaster, Labour remains stronger in England than was true in 1983 and 1987 - though the distribution of its strength is very different.
If that is true, why hasn't the SNP spent the last 14 years making Scotland lean and mean, so that the problems of independence melt away?
They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.
If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.
If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.
Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Starmer only gets to play the Michael Howard part - a much less disastrous loser, paving the way for a more electable successor who can strip the Government of its majority at the election after next - if he can begin to rebuild his party's credibility, shore up his electoral base, and make Parliamentary gains. The jury's still out on all of those aims, regardless of what some pretty meaningless mid-term polls say.
Than whom was Michael Howard a less disastrous loser? Under IDS the Conservatives had gained 800 seats at the locals. At the 2005 election, Conservatives scored 32% of the vote which is where (or slightly below) the party had been polling under IDS. It is victors' propaganda to claim that Howard did better than IDS.
Howard improved the Conservative position in the Commons, which is ultimately what counts.
The Tories best leader in the Commons in my lifetime was Hague but he also led the party to its second worst defeat since 1932 in 2001 and without the redeeming feature of winning an election as well as Major had in 1992
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
I disagree. Countries with PR rarely have this kind of corruption. Constantly having to negotiate with other parties keeps you on your toes.
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
Probably a fair point about PR.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Starmer only gets to play the Michael Howard part - a much less disastrous loser, paving the way for a more electable successor who can strip the Government of its majority at the election after next - if he can begin to rebuild his party's credibility, shore up his electoral base, and make Parliamentary gains. The jury's still out on all of those aims, regardless of what some pretty meaningless mid-term polls say.
Than whom was Michael Howard a less disastrous loser? Under IDS the Conservatives had gained 800 seats at the locals. At the 2005 election, Conservatives scored 32% of the vote which is where (or slightly below) the party had been polling under IDS. It is victors' propaganda to claim that Howard did better than IDS.
Howard improved the Conservative position in the Commons, which is ultimately what counts.
The Tories best leader in the Commons in my lifetime was Hague but he also led the party to its second worst defeat since 1932 in 2001 and without the redeeming feature of winning an election as well as Major had in 1992
'led the party to its second worst defeat since 1832 in 2001'
Comments
Indeed in many respects Thatcher had more in common with Gladstone and Peel than she did with Derby and Disraeli, Boris is much more of a Disraeli type, populist, taken us out of the single market and pro global Britain punching above its weight on the world stage.
Gladstone was never an Imperialist as Disraeli was but Disraeli like Boris was much more willing to countenance state intervention
I can only assume the original, real one is alive somewhere, as he hasn't reincarnated.
Maybe the Dalai Lama, and Tibet as a whole, has exhausted it's merit. Giving the gift of Tibetan Buddhism to the rest of the world?
It's just karma after all.
Most of the food we eat - wheat, oats, rice, barley, sugar etc - were safe in their wild forms, and the aim of cultivating them was simply to make them bigger, to produce better yields.
But potatoes and tomatoes are from the Belladonna family and are poisonous in their wild forms. But the meso-americans somehow cultivated them to reduce the alkaloid solanine, to make them safe to eat.
We don't know how they did this because Cortes burnt all their books, including their agricultural and scientific books.
And then, what sort of mindset looks at a poisonous plant and thinks "I'll make that safe to eat", instead of just concentrating on cultivating plants already safe in their wild form? You wouldn't even accidently find a wild plant with reduced solanine, because if a plant gets a reputation for being poisonous, there is a taboo against eating it. You wouldn't gamble and eat it on the off chance that one in 10,000 might have reduced poison so you weren't guaranteed to die. Did their cruelty help them here where they forced prisoners to eat poisonous stuff and someone survived, so they found the single plant that had reduced poison and cultivated it?
Even with modern science and genetic modification, science is still focused on making safe foods bigger, or less susceptible to pests. Nobody looks at poisonous stuff and thinks, "I'll make that safe". But that is what the meso-americans did, and their legacy is that massive chunks of the planet live on potatoes and tomatoes.
I think Rallings and Thrasher produced the BBC version of the previous election outcome
Abolishing the monarchy and totally neutering the nobility would also help.
I think there was an Antipope who had same name and regnal number as a proper Pope.
As records from that era were messy it is entirely possible the biography of the real Pope is actually of the Antipope.
Kind of makes Elizabth II's wealth look like crap. Charles is doing pretty well considering he hasn't inherited yet though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_royalty_by_net_worth
https://hir.harvard.edu/dirty-hands-italian-corruption-and-voter-apathy/
I would also suggest constitutional monarchy Sweden and Japan and the Netherlands have been very well run, as indeed we have compared to most of the republics in the world
Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/
If she started pushing indyref2 hard again her popularity in England would collapse
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/28/exclusive-fifth-english-voters-oppose-scottish-independence/
This is all part of the dance of course - the Lab-SNP relationship in the event of a Labour minority administration will be fascinating.
The SNP will get their vote but not at once - the vote will be predicated on the fact Labour will be opposed to independence. IF the independence vote is successful, it won't of course mean SNP MPs will be kicked out of Westminster the day after the vote (any more than voting to leave the EU meant the end of UK MEPs).
The process of departure will likely take 3-5 years during which time Scotland remains part of the UK and Scottish MPs will still be able to sit in Westminster. During that time, Labour will continue to use SNP votes to push through its legislation - perhaps some form of electoral reform?
The GE after a successful independence vote will therefore see a contrast between a "smooth separation" (Labour/SNP) and a "tough divorce" (Conservatives) and we'll see which way English voters choose to vote.
The centre left has to deal with: An alliance with the SNP (in some form) is unavoidable mathematically. What does this mean for the ordinary voter.
And it has to deal with tying hands behind its back. In nearly every important seat the centre right will have one candidate, the centre left 3 (and in Scotland 4). Until they all realise that in current conditions this is bonkers they start quite a lot of seats down.
But the other issue is that political parties are tending to spend longer in the self-indulgent part of the please ourselves / please the country grief cycle.
When the Conservatives lost in '64, they put someone plausible in charge a year later. Much the same in 1975. After the 1997 defeat, it took eight years and two general election defeats to come up with a leader who you could look at and think "yes, I could imagine them in Downing Street".
Labour have refined the new Conservative playbook since 2010; MiliEd, like Hague is someone you can see the point of without quite seeing him as PM, whereas Corbyn was pure fanservice for the membership. At least IDS wasn't allowed near the electorate.
Anas is doing even worse than Richard, who did worse than Kezia, who did worse than Iain, who did worse than Jim, who…. all the way back to Donald.
Spot a pattern?
Personally, I can’t see the likes of Labour, the Greens and LibDems cooperating especially when there is a view - a bit dormant since B&S but still there - that Labour’s long term future is dire and chunks of its voting base are up for grabs. For example, if I’m a Green and think I can benefit from wealthy, leftie urban professionals switching from Labour to Green, why should I help prolong the Labour Party?
the other thing I suspect will happen is a cross party commission to do the negotiations.
1964. 1970. 1979. 1997. 2010.
Also, although not a direct change of government, Labour lost 78 seats in 1950.
So it’s more than feasible.
IDS also generally polled better than Hague
It's the Tory Party - of all people - which has abolished their own EVEL.
Nicola Sturgeon doesn't really want independence - she may say she does and her unthinking acolytes may believe it but the status quo suits her perfectly.
She can shout for independence safe in the knowledge people like you and Boris Johnson will refuse. Thay strengthens her as she can turn to her supporters and blame "the English Tories" for not giving a second independence vote.
In the same way as you enforce and support Nicola Sturgeon, she also enforces and supports the Conservatives. Every time she kicks off about independence and Boris Johnson slaps her down, it plays well to the Conservative camp.
Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon are in a symbiotic relationship - each needs the other and each is supported and strengthened by the other. The current political status quo suits them both so why would they want it changed?
It is possible that the single key to which way it goes (currently 50/50 in my view) will be the centre left position on relations with EU, where, however reluctantly, they will have to choose between: endorse or slightly amend Boris; EFTA/EEA/; SM and FOM; Rejoin; Unicorn; Fudge.
The question is fascinating. My tentative half guess is that they will veer between Unicorn and Fudge and thus lose the election. If they took a bold view then we would have a proper box office election like no other.
What I meant to say (and didn't before) is that there'd be no way that the SNP would vote to change the electoral system in the rUK when they were leaving and Labour wouldn't be in a position to even attempt it.
However if Healey had become Labour leader in 1979, or Clarke become Tory leader in 1997 would they have beaten Thatcher and Blair in 1983 and 2001? Almost certainly not, at most they might have narrowed the margin of defeat.
Similarly had Portillo become Tory leader in 2005 would he have won? No, at most he might have deprived Blair of his majority but the LDs would still have backed Labour in a hung parliament anyway.
Had David Miliband been elected Labour leader in 2010 would he have beaten Cameron in 2015? No again, at most he might have prevented Cameron winning a majority and the Cameron-Clegg coalition would have continued (though that would have meant no Brexit).
If Burnham had become Labour leader in 2017 too he might like Corbyn have got a hung parliament but again I doubt he would have beaten May and Boris I suspect would have beaten Burnham in 2019 too albeit not by the landslide he beat Corbyn by
That took them from 554 seats to 429...
It doesn't work like that, pressure or no pressure. IF Scotland were to vote to leave the UK, they wouldn't leave the next day. In truth, they would remain members of the UK (with all that goes with it) until the day an independent Scotland is created.
The example of how Britain left the EU could be informative in terms of Scotland leaving the UK.
I still think the Labour approach to the EU is going to be tricky and important. There is no one EU policy they can have which is all of: populist, majority, possible, not Tory.
Except, of course, they would be a different 259 seats. Instead of 191 in England, you would expect it to be around 235.
As things stand, if she calls a referendum she either loses or wins narrowly. I'm not sure which prospect, from her point of view, is worse. Lose and independence is probably a dead duck for the remainder of her lifetime (and it's also the end of her political career.) Win and she has to negotiate a separation vastly more difficult and complex than Brexit that almost half her people didn't want.
Five years on from the EU Referendum, we know that the fallout of Brexit isn't anywhere close to being resolved, and that a substantial fraction both of the ruling class and the electorate remains deeply uneasy about the decision and is hardly reticent to blame it for anything and everything that goes wrong in the nation's affairs. Scexit would be an order of magnitude worse.
If you're lining yourself up for trouble like that, then you at least want to have a reasonable expectation that you'll not only win a vote but win it well, so that the outcome is demonstrably the settled will of the Scottish people. At the moment Sturgeon lacks that, hence the impasse.
https://twitter.com/DOLWOAS/status/1421506491278938113
"It's a scam to make genocide easier for Globalist controlled Govt."
It kind of ends just where anyone who knows anything at all about Labour's position would begin. Plus one or two egregious misconceptions. Worth a glance.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/31/keir-starmers-aide-warns-labour-has-lost-touch-with-target-voters
https://youtu.be/u34rnwBnll4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2005_United_Kingdom_general_election
They've had the Irish model in front of them - a state that makes people pay for everything from calling out the fire brigade to going to see a GP. But the upside of that is that they run surpluses.
If Scotland had moved to becoming a lean, mean machine in the last 14 years, they'd easily shrug off concerns about budget deficits of 9% and so on. If you are in a surplus situation, not only do you not need subsidies from Westminster, but launching your own currency is not a problem either.
If you use Brexit as an analogy, Britain was a net contributor to the EU and thus felt confident about leaving, whereas Greece is a net recipient and was so terrified of losing their subsidy that they put up with a lot of abuse from the other member states.
Sturgeon hasn't made any attempt to make sure Scotland isn't financially dependent on largess from England. She's gone in the opposite direction - free tuition fees, baby boxes, council tax freezes and the like - all things designed to make Scotland's fiscal position weak and independence painful.