The specimen date for the 7th is only a couple of thousand behind the fully completed 31st July data, and that's with 3 full days of completion too. We'll be hearing about cases falling on the news now for a bit though whilst the numbers are heading up. And by the time we're hearing about lower cases they'll be falling - with the even more lagged ONS data chucked in for good measure.
It's absolutely infuriating at this point. People are really struggling with "fast, good, cheap" dilemma when it comes to Covid numbers, and not just in the media.
The gold standard for deaths is the ONS death certificate analysis but that's slow and expensive - as a result it is only complete to the 9th of July.
As you say the press has been going on about how cases are totally falling and R is sub 1 based on the ONS numbers (slow and very good) but even the Specimen Data graph is showing an uptick which means cases started rising at last week.
*cough*Exactly as I predicted*cough*
I wouldn't trust the ONS numbers in absolute terms, because I think the kind of people who volunteer for a study like that are very unlikely to be representative of the population as a whole. But for comparisons between different times, different regions and different age groups they should be good.
It's not quite that simple - people are picked randomly (Postcode Address File, I expect) and then asked to consent. You may well be right that those who do not consent are different to those who do, but that will also be accounted for in the analysis (re-weighting to be nationally representative). All that based on working with other ONS surveys, I haven't read the methods for the Covid ones, but would be surprised if much different.
Now, if likelihood of consent depends on likelihood of actually having Covid, beyond that explained by known demographics (missing not at random) then the results may not be representative.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
I'm not sure that's "chaos" - indeed, I suspect it was Cameron's plan. Commit to a referendum in the manifesto for the benefit of the right, sacrifice it in coalition discussions.
Winning a majority was the worst thing that could have happened to Cameron really, with hindsight - it was a nice little situation for him being able to say to the headbangers "I'd love to do whatever you want, but flippin' Clegg and Cable being awkward... so what can I do?"
I don't think so. Before the various EU crises, an EU In/Out referendum would have been won at least 60/40 - more probably 65/35.
You know when the Arts love to lecture everybody on how they are living their lives wrongly and aren't doing enough to stand up against whatever ism last came into their head....
Johnny Depp to get lifetime achievement award from prominent film festival
Can somebody update me on cases and deaths, are we going in the wrong direction
Not really, we're pretty much at equilibrium right now which is much better than expected. By the time we reach October we should have reached 50-52m people that have reached a very high degree of immunity including almost 100% of JCVI groups 1-10.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
If you are referring to me - I'm taking a mad guess here - then I can assure you I am utterly sober, but also monumentally bored.
I have the kind of brain that is affected by boredom the same way it is affected by booze. I start doing stupid things which amuse me (and often no one else)
Do you not have a job?
hahahahahahahaha
Even knapping flint dildos loses its appeal after a time?
Here’s a thought, you could write a book about it. You could start with an artisanal knapper such as yourself, but then talk about his dreams of leading a different life as a transitioning male model, an international thriller writer, a confidante of people on the greatest forum on the internet...
It might have legs.
You forgot confidante to Albanian cab drivers, and travel writer ...
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
I'm not sure that's "chaos" - indeed, I suspect it was Cameron's plan. Commit to a referendum in the manifesto for the benefit of the right, sacrifice it in coalition discussions.
Winning a majority was the worst thing that could have happened to Cameron really, with hindsight - it was a nice little situation for him being able to say to the headbangers "I'd love to do whatever you want, but flippin' Clegg and Cable being awkward... so what can I do?"
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful, strident Scottish woman?
Thing is that this time round, a fair few people would look at that and think "that's not a bad idea..."
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Wouldn't be at all surprised, if they can point to anything that 'Boris Has Done' which works.
I do think, in a weird way, we often forget the possibility of Starmer exceeding expectations. All the betting calculations boil down to 'Will he lose big or small at the next election and when will it be?' While I'm not saying it is likely, we can almost forget the non-negligible (I dunno, 10-15%?) likelihood of him just turning it around and having a big win.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
I do think, in a weird way, we often forget the possibility of Starmer exceeding expectations. All the betting calculations boil down to 'Will he lose big or small at the next election and when will it be?' While I'm not saying it is likely, we can almost forget the non-negligible (I dunno, 10-15%?) likelihood of him just turning it around and having a big win.
I do think, in a weird way, we often forget the possibility of Starmer exceeding expectations. All the betting calculations boil down to 'Will he lose big or small at the next election and when will it be?' While I'm not saying it is likely, we can almost forget the non-negligible (I dunno, 10-15%?) likelihood of him just turning it around and having a big win.
Yes, I agree. While Starmer has underwhelmed so far, he's no fool, and it is possible that he can turn it around and develop a compelling narrative around "how Britain can be better for all its people". Combined with the almost inevitable pratfalls of the current incumbent, it could still be all to play for.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful, strident Scottish woman?
Thing is that this time round, a fair few people would look at that and think "that's not a bad idea..."
I'd hope so, yes. I'm feeling quite bullish now (over 50%) about the Con majority going come the election. There was a compelling reason why they were elected in 2019. Can't see that there will be next time.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
Oh, and the Tories won’t hesitate to swap out the incumbent, if they think he’s going to be an electoral liability.
They’ve learned that 1997 lesson, as was demonstrated in 2019. If Boris becomes the problem, he’ll be gone by next week.
I do think, in a weird way, we often forget the possibility of Starmer exceeding expectations. All the betting calculations boil down to 'Will he lose big or small at the next election and when will it be?' While I'm not saying it is likely, we can almost forget the non-negligible (I dunno, 10-15%?) likelihood of him just turning it around and having a big win.
Yep. And the market agrees. The Lab majority isn't 25/1, it's 7/1.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
Oh, and the Tories won’t hesitate to swap out the incumbent, if they think he’s going to be an electoral liability.
They’ve learned that 1997 lesson, as was demonstrated in 2019. If Boris becomes the problem, he’ll be gone by next week.
Boris is having a terrible time with self inflicted own goals and looking as if he is becoming a problem
I would be pleased if he was replaced by next week, and hopefully conservative mps will be questioning just how long they are prepared to tolerate his ability to put his foot in it
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
Oh, and the Tories won’t hesitate to swap out the incumbent, if they think he’s going to be an electoral liability.
They’ve learned that 1997 lesson, as was demonstrated in 2019. If Boris becomes the problem, he’ll be gone by next week.
Today's Tory party isn't the Tory party of old though.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
I'm sure he will make a positive case. But part of it has to be exposing this shower. Blair was ra ra, sure, but he didn't hold back on the negative. In fact he was a mean bastard in that regard. He was forever slagging off those Tories.
I do think, in a weird way, we often forget the possibility of Starmer exceeding expectations. All the betting calculations boil down to 'Will he lose big or small at the next election and when will it be?' While I'm not saying it is likely, we can almost forget the non-negligible (I dunno, 10-15%?) likelihood of him just turning it around and having a big win.
Yes, I agree. While Starmer has underwhelmed so far, he's no fool, and it is possible that he can turn it around and develop a compelling narrative around "how Britain can be better for all its people". Combined with the almost inevitable pratfalls of the current incumbent, it could still be all to play for.
Hmm... Starmer hasn't developed a compelling narrative around anything at all so far. He's a dud, I'm afraid; his team is mainly invisible, and when any of them does briefly surface, it's usually just a reminder that they are miles away from being ready for government. I'm pretty sure it's too late for the situation to change.
Which is a disaster for the country, but there we are. We are stuck with the worst government in living memory for some years to come.
To be fair, Coalition 2.0 was never more than an idealistic concept. The LDs were aware in 2013 of increased Conservative activity in their seats but had no response to the question "would you rather have a CON majority or a LAB/SNP coalition?" For some reason, the English (and the Welsh too I suspect) didn't like the idea of Alex Salmond holding the Government by the majorities.
2015 killed the LD party I joined - the party which exists now and has its name is effectively a post-2015 and post-EU Referendum construction (two thirds to three quarters of the members joined after 2015). The Coalition isn't just ancient history, it's someone else's history.
I do think, in a weird way, we often forget the possibility of Starmer exceeding expectations. All the betting calculations boil down to 'Will he lose big or small at the next election and when will it be?' While I'm not saying it is likely, we can almost forget the non-negligible (I dunno, 10-15%?) likelihood of him just turning it around and having a big win.
Yep. And the market agrees. The Lab majority isn't 25/1, it's 7/1.
Yes, I phrased this a bit poorly. As you rightly identify: The market doesn't forget this but it often feels like the 'discourse' does. I'm guilty of this too, I should stress.
I do think, in a weird way, we often forget the possibility of Starmer exceeding expectations. All the betting calculations boil down to 'Will he lose big or small at the next election and when will it be?' While I'm not saying it is likely, we can almost forget the non-negligible (I dunno, 10-15%?) likelihood of him just turning it around and having a big win.
Yep. And the market agrees. The Lab majority isn't 25/1, it's 7/1.
Yes, I phrased this a bit poorly. As you rightly identify: The market doesn't forget this but it often feels like the 'discourse' does. I'm guilty of this too, I should stress.
A Labour majority would be absolutely sensational, however it is achieved.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful, strident Scottish woman?
Thing is that this time round, a fair few people would look at that and think "that's not a bad idea..."
Is Nicola Sturgeon likely to be leader of the SNP in 2024?
I would suggest the odds are against it. If she delivers SindyRefII and loses, she’s toast. If she delivers it and wins, Scotland will be leaving the UK and the threat implicit in that campaign line is lessened. If she holds a wildcat referendum and it’s ruled to be illegal she might be prosecuted; if she fails to hold it or attempt to hold it she might be fired. Or indeed she may decide she’s had enough given she’s already been seven years in post and about to eclipse Salmond as the longest serving FM.
That’s ignoring all the issues around the incompetence and corruption of the Scottish Government on her watch, because it seems neither her voters nor her backbenchers care about that.
The only way she is guaranteed to stay in office is if there’s no referendum and her wilder supporters accept that. That’s not a highly likely scenario.
So factor in a new SNP leader as well. Would Robertson or Forbes be seen as a bogey(wo)man in the way Salmond or Sturgeon are?
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 1h Anti-vaccine radio host in Florida dies of Covid-19 at age 65
Good riddance , got what he deserved.
Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death as a punishment.
Yes, I agree. While Starmer has underwhelmed so far, he's no fool, and it is possible that he can turn it around and develop a compelling narrative around "how Britain can be better for all its people". Combined with the almost inevitable pratfalls of the current incumbent, it could still be all to play for.
Hmm... Starmer hasn't developed a compelling narrative around anything at all so far. He's a dud, I'm afraid; his team is mainly invisible, and when any of them does briefly surface, it's usually just a reminder that they are miles away from being ready for government. I'm pretty sure it's too late for the situation to change.
Which is a disaster for the country, but there we are. We are stuck with the worst government in living memory for some years to come.
A little harsh, Richard, I think.
Had Covid happened with Labour in office and a new Conservative leader as LOTO, do you think such a leader would have done any better? Frankly, I don't - Starmer opted, wisely I think, to adopt the classic position of "constructive Opposition" in the spring of 2020 - supporting the Government at a time of national crisis.
The alternative would have been to adopt a @contrarian like approach - opposing all lockdowns or similar. That would, to quote Sir Humphrey Appleby, have been "courageous" but it would have been a distinctive and largely credible position. However, the polls don't indicate it would have been popular.
To be fair, Coalition 2.0 was never more than an idealistic concept. The LDs were aware in 2013 of increased Conservative activity in their seats but had no response to the question "would you rather have a CON majority or a LAB/SNP coalition?" For some reason, the English (and the Welsh too I suspect) didn't like the idea of Alex Salmond holding the Government by the majorities.
2015 killed the LD party I joined - the party which exists now and has its name is effectively a post-2015 and post-EU Referendum construction (two thirds to three quarters of the members joined after 2015). The Coalition isn't just ancient history, it's someone else's history.
I wonder if Davey, who was after all a Minister in the Coalition Government were to campaign on better and closer relations with the EU, rather than actual rejoining, he'd mop up a lot of Tory Remainer votes.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
Oh, and the Tories won’t hesitate to swap out the incumbent, if they think he’s going to be an electoral liability.
They’ve learned that 1997 lesson, as was demonstrated in 2019. If Boris becomes the problem, he’ll be gone by next week.
Today's Tory party isn't the Tory party of old though.
There are some other problems with the "as soon as Boris becomes a liability, we'll dump him" theory.
First, part of recent Conservative success is because Boris is an incredible brand, with an amazing skill of making people like him. Nobody else comes close.
Second, any potential successor will have beliefs. Once you have someone who believes in stuff, bits of the current Conservative coalition fall off and oppositions have something concrete to oppose.
Third, Boris gets gang dynamics- it's part of his talent for reading people. So he's surrounded himself with weaklings and the compromised because they aren't a threat.
Remember- everyone who has dealings with Boris ends up being done over by him. It just takes time. No reason to think the Conservative Party will be any different.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful, strident Scottish woman?
Thing is that this time round, a fair few people would look at that and think "that's not a bad idea..."
Is Nicola Sturgeon likely to be leader of the SNP in 2024?
I would suggest the odds are against it. If she delivers SindyRefII and loses, she’s toast. If she delivers it and wins, Scotland will be leaving the UK and the threat implicit in that campaign line is lessened. If she holds a wildcat referendum and it’s ruled to be illegal she might be prosecuted; if she fails to hold it or attempt to hold it she might be fired. Or indeed she may decide she’s had enough given she’s already been seven years in post and about to eclipse Salmond as the longest serving FM.
That’s ignoring all the issues around the incompetence and corruption of the Scottish Government on her watch, because it seems neither her voters nor her backbenchers care about that.
The only way she is guaranteed to stay in office is if there’s no referendum and her wilder supporters accept that. That’s not a highly likely scenario.
So factor in a new SNP leader as well. Would Robertson or Forbes be seen as a bogey(wo)man in the way Salmond or Sturgeon are?
I do think, in a weird way, we often forget the possibility of Starmer exceeding expectations. All the betting calculations boil down to 'Will he lose big or small at the next election and when will it be?' While I'm not saying it is likely, we can almost forget the non-negligible (I dunno, 10-15%?) likelihood of him just turning it around and having a big win.
Yes, I agree. While Starmer has underwhelmed so far, he's no fool, and it is possible that he can turn it around and develop a compelling narrative around "how Britain can be better for all its people". Combined with the almost inevitable pratfalls of the current incumbent, it could still be all to play for.
Hmm... Starmer hasn't developed a compelling narrative around anything at all so far. He's a dud, I'm afraid; his team is mainly invisible, and when any of them does briefly surface, it's usually just a reminder that they are miles away from being ready for government. I'm pretty sure it's too late for the situation to change.
Which is a disaster for the country, but there we are. We are stuck with the worst government in living memory for some years to come.
Unusually for you, I think your judgement may be premature, even if it turns out right - I shall store your post for future reference! It's been the strangest of times since Starmer took over 16 months ago, and any opposition leader would struggle to be heard when people really want national unity to defeat Covid.
As for Starmer's team not being ready for government; no, they're not. But neither are most of the current government, but they're still there. As it happens, in the key posts I reckon Reeves, Thomas-Symonds and Nandy are more than a match for Sunak, Patel and Raab, taken as a whole. Though of course opinions will differ on this........
I wonder if Davey, who was after all a Minister in the Coalition Government were to campaign on better and closer relations with the EU, rather than actual rejoining, he'd mop up a lot of Tory Remainer votes.
I suspect that's where the LDs will be at the next election (and pretty much where they are now in truth). I'm not quite sure what "better and closer" relations with the EU means in practice but a little less heat and a little more light would be welcome.
To be honest, I don't think "banging on about Europe", to quote a former Conservative leader, is going to be helpful at the next election. I think we will be back to more "bread and butter" issues.
Had Covid happened with Labour in office and a new Conservative leader as LOTO, do you think such a leader would have done any better? Frankly, I don't - Starmer opted, wisely I think, to adopt the classic position of "constructive Opposition" in the spring of 2020 - supporting the Government at a time of national crisis.
The alternative would have been to adopt a @contrarian like approach - opposing all lockdowns or similar. That would, to quote Sir Humphrey Appleby, have been "courageous" but it would have been a distinctive and largely credible position. However, the polls don't indicate it would have been popular.
Perhaps I'm being a tad harsh, but I think I'm being realistic. It's not just Covid. On every policy area, he's all over the place. He has absolutely zero to say on relations with the EU - why for example is he not pointing out the disaster of the government's utterly brain-dead refusal to recognise CE marks, which will hit both our manufacturers and consumers badly when the grace period ends in a few months? Or indeed many other areas where the UK is engaging in huge self-harm. He is not making any effort to put Labour forward as having a coherent alternative to the disastrous implementation of Brexit. He has nothing to say on the economy. He has nothing to say on social care. He flips around on Covid, managing to mangle his messaging so much that he can't decide whether the latest removal of most restrictions was too reckless or not reckless enough. He doesn't seem to understand that he needs a team behind him. Where's the Shadow Chancellor? (Who's the Shadow Chancellor? I know the answer, but I bet most people, even quite well informed people, don't).
By now he should be ahead in the polls and beginning to build up some credibility as a possible government-in-waiting. These things can't be turned around at the last minute.
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 1h Anti-vaccine radio host in Florida dies of Covid-19 at age 65
Good riddance , got what he deserved.
Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death as a punishment.
Gollum, that's telling them!
He repented on his deathbed by some accouts, so not a LOL opportunity.
Starmer becoming PM is an eye-of-the-needle bet. I'm currently moderately against him.
The Burnham to be next Labour leader is another such bet. I've laid that in a decent sum.
For Burnham to be the next Labour leader about 14 different things (I exaggerate slightly but not much) need to occur for it to become true. I really can't see it. However the return on laying that bet just isn't worth the money.
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 1h Anti-vaccine radio host in Florida dies of Covid-19 at age 65
Good riddance , got what he deserved.
Are you really celebrating someone's death
Words fail me no matter how wrong he was
He spread lies about vaccines and contributed to the deaths of others by using his position as a radio host so I won’t apologize for saying good riddance to him.
To be fair, Coalition 2.0 was never more than an idealistic concept. The LDs were aware in 2013 of increased Conservative activity in their seats but had no response to the question "would you rather have a CON majority or a LAB/SNP coalition?" For some reason, the English (and the Welsh too I suspect) didn't like the idea of Alex Salmond holding the Government by the majorities.
2015 killed the LD party I joined - the party which exists now and has its name is effectively a post-2015 and post-EU Referendum construction (two thirds to three quarters of the members joined after 2015). The Coalition isn't just ancient history, it's someone else's history.
I wonder if Davey, who was after all a Minister in the Coalition Government were to campaign on better and closer relations with the EU, rather than actual rejoining, he'd mop up a lot of Tory Remainer votes.
Yes, but everyone around him can’t accept we left and need to plot a new future relationship, they all want to relight old battles.
A Lib Dem party that accepts Brexit, and is prepared to fight in Southern England on the wealth being sent North, has a good opportunity to make progress.
Not that I think they will, I think they’ll go on NIMBYism and rejoining the EU, which will be a huge failure.
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 1h Anti-vaccine radio host in Florida dies of Covid-19 at age 65
Good riddance , got what he deserved.
Are you really celebrating someone's death
Words fail me no matter how wrong he was
He spread lies about vaccines and contributed to the deaths of others by using his position as a radio host so I won’t apologize for saying good riddance to him.
I suspect his impact was negligible. In fact, his death may help save lives, though that may be wishful thinking.
I reckon a lot of the people not getting jabbed are just out of touch and not paying attention. Plenty of people won’t be registered with doctors and won’t have been asked to go for a jab.
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 1h Anti-vaccine radio host in Florida dies of Covid-19 at age 65
Good riddance , got what he deserved.
Are you really celebrating someone's death
Words fail me no matter how wrong he was
He spread lies about vaccines and contributed to the deaths of others by using his position as a radio host so I won’t apologize for saying good riddance to him.
All I can repeat is words fail me no matter how much you disagree with him
Not one of us should celebrate the death of anyone
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
Oh, and the Tories won’t hesitate to swap out the incumbent, if they think he’s going to be an electoral liability.
They’ve learned that 1997 lesson, as was demonstrated in 2019. If Boris becomes the problem, he’ll be gone by next week.
Boris is having a terrible time with self inflicted own goals and looking as if he is becoming a problem
I would be pleased if he was replaced by next week, and hopefully conservative mps will be questioning just how long they are prepared to tolerate his ability to put his foot in it
What is really hurting the tories is 'one rule for us, one rule for you....' On Covid. On climate change.
Boris does not see this, or does not want to see it, but it is extremely toxic.
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 1h Anti-vaccine radio host in Florida dies of Covid-19 at age 65
Good riddance , got what he deserved.
Are you really celebrating someone's death
Words fail me no matter how wrong he was
He spread lies about vaccines and contributed to the deaths of others by using his position as a radio host so I won’t apologize for saying good riddance to him.
All I can repeat is words fail me no matter how much you disagree with him
Not one of us should celebrate the death of anyone
Hmm, I'd absolutely celebrate the death of the Belarus dictator. He's a tyrant and murderer. His presence in the world has brought misery to millions of people and his death would unwind a lot of it.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
Oh, and the Tories won’t hesitate to swap out the incumbent, if they think he’s going to be an electoral liability.
They’ve learned that 1997 lesson, as was demonstrated in 2019. If Boris becomes the problem, he’ll be gone by next week.
Boris is having a terrible time with self inflicted own goals and looking as if he is becoming a problem
I would be pleased if he was replaced by next week, and hopefully conservative mps will be questioning just how long they are prepared to tolerate his ability to put his foot in it
What is really hurting the tories is 'one rule for us, one rule for you....' On Covid. On climate change.
Boris does not see this, or does not want to see it, but it is extremely toxic.
I do think, in a weird way, we often forget the possibility of Starmer exceeding expectations. All the betting calculations boil down to 'Will he lose big or small at the next election and when will it be?' While I'm not saying it is likely, we can almost forget the non-negligible (I dunno, 10-15%?) likelihood of him just turning it around and having a big win.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
Oh, and the Tories won’t hesitate to swap out the incumbent, if they think he’s going to be an electoral liability.
They’ve learned that 1997 lesson, as was demonstrated in 2019. If Boris becomes the problem, he’ll be gone by next week.
Boris is having a terrible time with self inflicted own goals and looking as if he is becoming a problem
I would be pleased if he was replaced by next week, and hopefully conservative mps will be questioning just how long they are prepared to tolerate his ability to put his foot in it
What is really hurting the tories is 'one rule for us, one rule for you....' On Covid. On climate change.
Boris does not see this, or does not want to see it, but it is extremely toxic.
As discussed earlier today, the climate change summit has a big chance of massively backfiring with the general public.
*We* will continue to meet in public, on a hundred private jets, to discuss how *you* need to stop travelling and reduce your carbon emissions.
If the leaders want to actually effect change, rather than enjoy the jolly, then you’ll be engaging Cisco and doing the whole thing on Webex.
John West@JohnWest_JAWS Panorama reveals that David Cameron made £7.2 MILLION from Greensill. Just announced on LBC. 5:24 pm · 9 Aug 2021·Twitter Web App
If the Tories are behind by 10% and poll very poorly in the May 2023 local elections (plus lose a couple of Parliamentary by-elections) then Johnson might possibly have cause for concern about his continuing Premiership/Tory leadership. Until that point, he should have little or no trouble.
Maybe I haven't been paying attention but why is Boris suddenly more unpopular?
I’d like to say it’s because he’s a shit, a liar, totally unsuited to be pm etc, but I suspect it’s more to do with (a) not isolating when his rules said he should, then u turning, now doing it again and (b) maybe not on pb, but there is a sense that Covid is, if not done, then virtually done and so the rally round effect is unwinding, as is the vaccine bounce (finally).
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
Scottish Labour were reduced to 1 seat under Miliband!
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 1h Anti-vaccine radio host in Florida dies of Covid-19 at age 65
Good riddance , got what he deserved.
Are you really celebrating someone's death
Words fail me no matter how wrong he was
He spread lies about vaccines and contributed to the deaths of others by using his position as a radio host so I won’t apologize for saying good riddance to him.
All I can repeat is words fail me no matter how much you disagree with him
Not one of us should celebrate the death of anyone
Hmm, I'd absolutely celebrate the death of the Belarus dictator. He's a tyrant and murderer. His presence in the world has brought misery to millions of people and his death would unwind a lot of it.
I do not disagree that the death of a dictator is in the better good but in this case he was a DJ who no doubt had family and relations and good riddance just grates and is best just left unsaid
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
His own fault. He was one of the three signatories to “The Vow”. There was no coming back from that in Jockland.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
Oh, and the Tories won’t hesitate to swap out the incumbent, if they think he’s going to be an electoral liability.
They’ve learned that 1997 lesson, as was demonstrated in 2019. If Boris becomes the problem, he’ll be gone by next week.
Boris is having a terrible time with self inflicted own goals and looking as if he is becoming a problem
I would be pleased if he was replaced by next week, and hopefully conservative mps will be questioning just how long they are prepared to tolerate his ability to put his foot in it
What is really hurting the tories is 'one rule for us, one rule for you....' On Covid. On climate change.
Boris does not see this, or does not want to see it, but it is extremely toxic.
As discussed earlier today, the climate change summit has a big chance of massively backfiring with the general public.
*We* will continue to meet in public, on a hundred private jets, to discuss how *you* need to stop travelling and reduce your carbon emissions.
If the leaders want to actually effect change, rather than enjoy the jolly, then you’ll be engaging Cisco and doing the whole thing on Webex.
I try my best to resist the worst of the 'we're going to be reduced to serfdom while they fly around in private jets' stuff, but well, hmmn.
1/ There have been increasing claims, mainly in North American news outlets, that the #SARSCoV2 DELTA variant is causing more severe #COVID19 in kids compared to previous variants
Well, everything we know so far indicates that’s it’s *not* true. Here’s why…🧵
Apparently David Cameron made £7m out of Greensill Capital. They didn’t get much for their money.
Though given the extent to which what was left of his reputation has been trashed, it looks like Dave lost out in the deal as well.
I dunno, £7m is reputation-trashing money. He never needs to work again, and neither do any of his children.
That said, there needs to be a proper enquiry, as to what exactly he did for the money, and what he was expected to do for it. Former ministers should either maintain their dignity or forfeit their pensions.
Can the psephologists out there tell us: is it not fairly standard that a leader of the Opposition needs a whacking great mid term lead to have the faintest hope of winning the subsequent GE?
Even Howard had a lead at some point didn’t he?
Starmer hasn’t even come close.
Yes, he’s like Ed Miliband, without the poll leads
When it comes to the campaign, Boris will extend his lead/reduce the deficit if there is one, so Sir Keir’s party best have a 6-7 point lead by then
In retrospect, Miliband was great! That is, in comparison with Johnson, Starmer, Corbyn, May and Cameron.
The only other leader of the Westminster duopoly who I also think more warmly of with the passing of time is John Major. Last decent Tory. Did bloody well in Scotland I seem to recall. Didn’t interfere too much in the affairs of the Scottish Office. Old school.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." David Cameron, 4th May 2015.
Thank goodness Britain opted for stability and strong Government, otherwise the past six years would've been a total sh1t-show.
Although had it been NOM, we would have the chaos of Cameron promising a referendum, the Lib Dem’s saying no, Ed saying Hell No, and UKIP demanding one.
Cameron won his majority by shafting the LD's.He actually lost seats to Labour, although only a net of 1. What upset Milliband's applecart was the losses to the SNP.
They'll be running that one again, I'd imagine. What do you want, Middle England, strong government with Boris continuing to Get Things Done, or weak and feeble Starmer in the pocket of that frightful Scottish woman?
Of course they will, which is why Starmer needs to be making a positive case.
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
Oh, and the Tories won’t hesitate to swap out the incumbent, if they think he’s going to be an electoral liability.
They’ve learned that 1997 lesson, as was demonstrated in 2019. If Boris becomes the problem, he’ll be gone by next week.
Boris is having a terrible time with self inflicted own goals and looking as if he is becoming a problem
I would be pleased if he was replaced by next week, and hopefully conservative mps will be questioning just how long they are prepared to tolerate his ability to put his foot in it
What is really hurting the tories is 'one rule for us, one rule for you....' On Covid. On climate change.
Boris does not see this, or does not want to see it, but it is extremely toxic.
As discussed earlier today, the climate change summit has a big chance of massively backfiring with the general public.
*We* will continue to meet in public, on a hundred private jets, to discuss how *you* need to stop travelling and reduce your carbon emissions.
If the leaders want to actually effect change, rather than enjoy the jolly, then you’ll be engaging Cisco and doing the whole thing on Webex.
No, they still need to meet face to face. Let them all come by sailboat
To be fair, Coalition 2.0 was never more than an idealistic concept. The LDs were aware in 2013 of increased Conservative activity in their seats but had no response to the question "would you rather have a CON majority or a LAB/SNP coalition?" For some reason, the English (and the Welsh too I suspect) didn't like the idea of Alex Salmond holding the Government by the majorities.
2015 killed the LD party I joined - the party which exists now and has its name is effectively a post-2015 and post-EU Referendum construction (two thirds to three quarters of the members joined after 2015). The Coalition isn't just ancient history, it's someone else's history.
I wonder if Davey, who was after all a Minister in the Coalition Government were to campaign on better and closer relations with the EU, rather than actual rejoining, he'd mop up a lot of Tory Remainer votes.
Yes, but everyone around him can’t accept we left and need to plot a new future relationship, they all want to relight old battles.
A Lib Dem party that accepts Brexit, and is prepared to fight in Southern England on the wealth being sent North, has a good opportunity to make progress.
Not that I think they will, I think they’ll go on NIMBYism and rejoining the EU, which will be a huge failure.
That would be a rather tawdry platform - opposing wealth being sent from the South to the less affluent North.
And it's making the assumption that it will be. Unlikely, I'd have thought.
Short overview, green screen and the Unreal Game engine powering the scenario, all in all a cheap version of how the Mandalorin was done.
Not really comparable to Mandalorin tech. Like saying an Indy game is a cheap version of the latest AAA game.
Both are powered by the same Unreal engine - which is the point I wanted to make.
The Mandalorin uses screens to display the background images, (they then add props as appropriate to flesh things out. The BBC uses a green screen and added the images later, so it's a far cheaper alternative...
To be fair, Coalition 2.0 was never more than an idealistic concept. The LDs were aware in 2013 of increased Conservative activity in their seats but had no response to the question "would you rather have a CON majority or a LAB/SNP coalition?" For some reason, the English (and the Welsh too I suspect) didn't like the idea of Alex Salmond holding the Government by the majorities.
2015 killed the LD party I joined - the party which exists now and has its name is effectively a post-2015 and post-EU Referendum construction (two thirds to three quarters of the members joined after 2015). The Coalition isn't just ancient history, it's someone else's history.
Che peccato. You brought it on yourselves. I mean, my God, coalition with the Tories! What on earth were you thinking. Turkeys voting for Christmas.
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 1h Anti-vaccine radio host in Florida dies of Covid-19 at age 65
Good riddance , got what he deserved.
Are you really celebrating someone's death
Words fail me no matter how wrong he was
He spread lies about vaccines and contributed to the deaths of others by using his position as a radio host so I won’t apologize for saying good riddance to him.
I suspect his impact was negligible. In fact, his death may help save lives, though that may be wishful thinking.
I reckon a lot of the people not getting jabbed are just out of touch and not paying attention. Plenty of people won’t be registered with doctors and won’t have been asked to go for a jab.
But this is about Florida, where his impact (and that of others like him) isn't negligible. The take-up of vaccines in the US amongst older cohorts is poor compared with the UK, France, Israel and other comparable nations, and quite a lot of that is due to the anti-vaxx loons of the Trumpish right. People are certainly dying unnecessarily in the US as a direct result of the bizarre politicisation of vaccination.
This is of course a tragedy for the families affected. Nonetheless, Oscar WIlde's quip on the death of Little Nell does inevitably come to mind all the same,
At the risk of getting shouted down, I think the UK is currently losing the battle against covid. The evidence is growing. Anecdotally I also know several people who have caught it in the past fortnight whereas I've only known one in the previous 18 months.
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 1h Anti-vaccine radio host in Florida dies of Covid-19 at age 65
Good riddance , got what he deserved.
Are you really celebrating someone's death
Words fail me no matter how wrong he was
He spread lies about vaccines and contributed to the deaths of others by using his position as a radio host so I won’t apologize for saying good riddance to him.
I suspect his impact was negligible. In fact, his death may help save lives, though that may be wishful thinking.
I reckon a lot of the people not getting jabbed are just out of touch and not paying attention. Plenty of people won’t be registered with doctors and won’t have been asked to go for a jab.
But this is about Florida, where his impact (and that of others like him) isn't negligible. The take-up of vaccines in the US amongst older cohorts is poor compared with the UK, France, Israel and other comparable nations, and quite a lot of that is due to the anti-vaxx loons of the Trumpish right. People are certainly dying unnecessarily in the US as a direct result of the bizarre politicisation of vaccination.
This is of course a tragedy for the families affected. Nonetheless, Oscar WIlde's quip on the death of Little Nell does inevitably come to mind all the same,
Governor DeSantis is pro-vaccination and Florida is not a particularly low vaxx state.
Comments
Conservative 40% (-1)
Labour 37% (+3)
Liberal Democrat 9% (-2)
Green 6% (–)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 Aug
CON: 40% (-1)
LAB: 37% (+3)
GRN: 6% (-)
REFUK: 3% (-)
via @RedfieldWilton, 09 Aug
Chgs. w/ 02 Aug
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-9-august-2021/#love-from-britain-elects
I am able to access the main site for the first time in quite a while.
ego tripparty chose a name that shortens to Refuck.Conservative 40% (-1)
Labour 37% (+3)
Liberal Democrat 9% (-2)
Green 6% (–)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 Aug
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1424762416064249865
Now, if likelihood of consent depends on likelihood of actually having Covid, beyond that explained by known demographics (missing not at random) then the results may not be representative.
I blame the Lib Dems.
Short version -
- Cases seem to be rising slightly
- Hospitalisations are falling
- Deaths are plateauing
Assuming he thinks...
If he wants to play negative politics about the Evil Tories, then he’s going to lose that game against more experienced players.
Like it or not, they need to look to how Blair managed to convince a huge majority of constituencies to vote for him in 1997.
BoJo having a disaster
@cjsnowdon
·
1h
Anti-vaccine radio host in Florida dies of Covid-19 at age 65
They’ve learned that 1997 lesson, as was demonstrated in 2019. If Boris becomes the problem, he’ll be gone by next week.
I would be pleased if he was replaced by next week, and hopefully conservative mps will be questioning just how long they are prepared to tolerate his ability to put his foot in it
Words fail me no matter how wrong he was
Which is a disaster for the country, but there we are. We are stuck with the worst government in living memory for some years to come.
2015 killed the LD party I joined - the party which exists now and has its name is effectively a post-2015 and post-EU Referendum construction (two thirds to three quarters of the members joined after 2015). The Coalition isn't just ancient history, it's someone else's history.
I would suggest the odds are against it. If she delivers SindyRefII and loses, she’s toast. If she delivers it and wins, Scotland will be leaving the UK and the threat implicit in that campaign line is lessened. If she holds a wildcat referendum and it’s ruled to be illegal she might be prosecuted; if she fails to hold it or attempt to hold it she might be fired. Or indeed she may decide she’s had enough given she’s already been seven years in post and about to eclipse Salmond as the longest serving FM.
That’s ignoring all the issues around the incompetence and corruption of the Scottish Government on her watch, because it seems neither her voters nor her backbenchers care about that.
The only way she is guaranteed to stay in office is if there’s no referendum and her wilder supporters accept that. That’s not a highly likely scenario.
So factor in a new SNP leader as well. Would Robertson or Forbes be seen as a bogey(wo)man in the way Salmond or Sturgeon are?
Which is a disaster for the country, but there we are. We are stuck with the worst government in living memory for some years to come.
A little harsh, Richard, I think.
Had Covid happened with Labour in office and a new Conservative leader as LOTO, do you think such a leader would have done any better? Frankly, I don't - Starmer opted, wisely I think, to adopt the classic position of "constructive Opposition" in the spring of 2020 - supporting the Government at a time of national crisis.
The alternative would have been to adopt a @contrarian like approach - opposing all lockdowns or similar. That would, to quote Sir Humphrey Appleby, have been "courageous" but it would have been a distinctive and largely credible position. However, the polls don't indicate it would have been popular.
So if the Tories do fall behind then Sunak is the obvious heir apparent
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-08-09-as-the-olympics-concludes-bbc-tours-its-unreal-engine-powered-studio
Short overview, green screen and the Unreal Game engine powering the scenario, all in all a cheap version of how the Mandalorin was done.
First, part of recent Conservative success is because Boris is an incredible brand, with an amazing skill of making people like him. Nobody else comes close.
Second, any potential successor will have beliefs. Once you have someone who believes in stuff, bits of the current Conservative coalition fall off and oppositions have something concrete to oppose.
Third, Boris gets gang dynamics- it's part of his talent for reading people. So he's surrounded himself with weaklings and the compromised because they aren't a threat.
Remember- everyone who has dealings with Boris ends up being done over by him. It just takes time. No reason to think the Conservative Party will be any different.
The Burnham to be next Labour leader is another such bet. I've laid that in a decent sum.
As for Starmer's team not being ready for government; no, they're not. But neither are most of the current government, but they're still there. As it happens, in the key posts I reckon Reeves, Thomas-Symonds and Nandy are more than a match for Sunak, Patel and Raab, taken as a whole. Though of course opinions will differ on this........
To be honest, I don't think "banging on about Europe", to quote a former Conservative leader, is going to be helpful at the next election. I think we will be back to more "bread and butter" issues.
By now he should be ahead in the polls and beginning to build up some credibility as a possible government-in-waiting. These things can't be turned around at the last minute.
He repented on his deathbed by some accouts, so not a LOL opportunity.
A Lib Dem party that accepts Brexit, and is prepared to fight in Southern England on the wealth being sent North, has a good opportunity to make progress.
Not that I think they will, I think they’ll go on NIMBYism and rejoining the EU, which will be a huge failure.
I reckon a lot of the people not getting jabbed are just out of touch and not paying attention. Plenty of people won’t be registered with doctors and won’t have been asked to go for a jab.
Not one of us should celebrate the death of anyone
Boris does not see this, or does not want to see it, but it is extremely toxic.
*We* will continue to meet in public, on a hundred private jets, to discuss how *you* need to stop travelling and reduce your carbon emissions.
If the leaders want to actually effect change, rather than enjoy the jolly, then you’ll be engaging Cisco and doing the whole thing on Webex.
John West@JohnWest_JAWS
Panorama reveals that David Cameron made £7.2 MILLION from Greensill.
Just announced on LBC.
5:24 pm · 9 Aug 2021·Twitter Web App
Well, everything we know so far indicates that’s it’s *not* true. Here’s why…🧵
https://twitter.com/shamezladhani/status/1424748537523355649?s=21
That said, there needs to be a proper enquiry, as to what exactly he did for the money, and what he was expected to do for it. Former ministers should either maintain their dignity or forfeit their pensions.
And it's making the assumption that it will be. Unlikely, I'd have thought.
The Mandalorin uses screens to display the background images, (they then add props as appropriate to flesh things out. The BBC uses a green screen and added the images later, so it's a far cheaper alternative...
This is of course a tragedy for the families affected. Nonetheless, Oscar WIlde's quip on the death of Little Nell does inevitably come to mind all the same,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9877119/Britains-daily-increase-Covid-cases-SPEEDING-UP.html
Governor DeSantis is pro-vaccination and Florida is not a particularly low vaxx state.