As a horse racing follower when throughout the summer the going has been heavy and numerous meetings have been called off I am surprised by the comment "overall 2021's summer "is certainly looking drier and warmer than average".
As a horse racing follower when throughout the summer the going has been heavy and numerous meetings have been called off I am surprised by the comment "overall 2021's summer "is certainly looking drier and warmer than average".
It does say that it's driven by Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I think this summer has been pretty rubbish. Not 2007 rubbish, but it's certainly no 2018.
Starmer does not have the passionate supporters Corbyn does and I doubt he will match the 40% Corbyn got in 2017.
However Starmer is not feared like Corbyn is by middle class voters, so I doubt he will fall as low as Corbyn did in 2019 seats wise either and he may be able to pick up more LD tactical voters
As a horse racing follower when throughout the summer the going has been heavy and numerous meetings have been called off I am surprised by the comment "overall 2021's summer "is certainly looking drier and warmer than average".
It does say that it's driven by Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I think this summer has been pretty rubbish. Not 2007 rubbish, but it's certainly no 2018.
It also says the SE has been very wet. We certainly haven't had a wet summer up here in the NE. Quite the opposite.
1. the Tory worm is showing a decline over the last three months, whilst the Labour worm is flatlining, they are not benefiting from that decline.
2. Meanwhile the Tory polling remains resolutely over 40. However, during the election campaign the Tories were absolute genius to steal and own the Brexit party voters - and during that campaign you totalled remain parties polling together and the Tories plus smither of Brexit numbers together, the best remain did was close to even, normally a smaller total. That’s completely changed now - Lab, libdem and green added together is by far the bigger total now. That could indicate there’s a key shift going on as we move into post Brexit politics.
3. Because it was a December election, I’m not sure this is so far after the vote to be mid term, besides which, the Tory success on jabbing and getting us back to normal, and the fact COVID has hampered Starmer’s attempts to raise his profile, I’m not sure it’s going to be a normal mid term. It’s not vital IMO for Labour to be miles ahead mid term anyway, in other countries voters don’t know for sure who the candidate is going to be until months to go to the campaign, it don’t seem to do them any harm.
Mr. Dean, in Yorkshire, until the last few weeks, it's been a mix of very wet and very sunny, leading to more rapid growth of nettles and the like than I can remember happening before.
Those 10 extra seats from the boundary review could be very useful for the Tories.
Taking this into account for me it looks as likely that the Tories will increase their majority at the next election as decrease it. It could go either way but I certainly expect a very comfortable majority. We have an opposition who simply cannot establish a poll lead mid term. They have shown very poor tactical awareness and have really struggled to make much of the various errors, incompetence and scandals that have hit the government. As the Tories know to their cost when being thrashed by Blair oppositions who do not achieve significant leads midterm lose. Those that remain behind lose bigly.
The economy is about to grow faster than it has since the Barber boom of the early 70s, employment will be at record highs again by the end of the year and we just might see the deficit fall faster than we expect. A lot of that growth and new jobs will come in the north of England. Inflation is going to be a minor issue but given our debt mountain range (1 mountain no longer covers it) even that is not an unmixed blessing. Considering what we have been through this will be a really strong record and even now SKS is struggling to explain what he would do differently.
I am very conscious of a particular newspaper article when writing this but I think that I have a lot more reason to be confident than Sion Simon ever did.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
I agree with Mike's main point that Starmer will be harder to demonise than Corbyn. Although of course he probably won't have so many fanatical young footsoldiers either.
Nobody can make robust predictions about the next election (other than the obvious such as "everything depends on how many seat losses") until a few months before said election. As we are two or three years away, I think we'd do as well to read the results in bird guts.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Is that another flight of black swans in the distance?
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
You seem to have a rather binary view of vaccine efficacy. Either 100% or 0% - they either protect everyone perfectly or they do not and thus if you do not believe they protect everyone perfectly, you don't believe in the vaccines.
Is this really the case?
In reality, all vaccines - by training up your immune system - provide a measurable increase in your ability to fight off a virus. From any symptoms at all (Ve versus symptomatic infection), from severe illness (Ve against severe illness) and death (Ve against death).
If Ve against death is about 95% (which is what it seems to be), then the risk of death to an average 75-year-old drops from about 5% to about 0.25%.
Which means that one in four hundred 75-year-olds would still die. It may well be that you're willing to deliberately take a one-in-four-hundred risk of unintentionally causing a 75-year-old relatives death (and, of course, if you have four such relatives, it's up to a one-in-a-hundred chance that you'd cause one of them to die in what is, to be fair, a very unpleasant and frightening way); others may not like that chance. Because, after all, out of every thousand such youngsters, ten would end up living with having seen their relative die in just such a way.
And yes, the vaccines work, which is why it's ten rather than two hundred of the thousand youngsters. Ten is a much smaller number than two hundred and thus is a considerably better outcome. Not having your relatives die in such an unpleasant avoidable way is better still.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
You'd have to compare that number against the median number of infections over the last 21 days. My suspicion is that is in the high 20ks, vs 36k implied by dividing by 21
So it implies the testing is capturing 67-75% of infections. Have no feel for whether that is realistic.
But I don't see how you can justify a lower divisor given the fact that most people are infected for 14-28 days. Unless you argue a massive skew towards the 14 days.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
Were there polls at that time with only a 3 point lead?
I agree with Mike's main point that Starmer will be harder to demonise than Corbyn. Although of course he probably won't have so many fanatical young footsoldiers either.
Nobody can make robust predictions about the next election (other than the obvious such as "everything depends on how many seat losses") until a few months before said election. As we are two or three years away, I think we'd do as well to read the results in bird guts.
For the record I agree with Mike on this point too. SKS is a decent, intelligent, reasonable bore. He is not voter repellent in the way Corbyn was, he's just dull. Whilst that may well attract some Lib Dems to vote tactically I think enthusiasm levels on the Labour side will be low.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Don't the betting odds give them <50% chance of retaining their majority?
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
You seem to have a rather binary view of vaccine efficacy. Either 100% or 0% - they either protect everyone perfectly or they do not and thus if you do not believe they protect everyone perfectly, you don't believe in the vaccines.
Is this really the case?
In reality, all vaccines - by training up your immune system - provide a measurable increase in your ability to fight off a virus. From any symptoms at all (Ve versus symptomatic infection), from severe illness (Ve against severe illness) and death (Ve against death).
If Ve against death is about 95% (which is what it seems to be), then the risk of death to an average 75-year-old drops from about 5% to about 0.25%.
Which means that one in four hundred 75-year-olds would still die. It may well be that you're willing to deliberately take a one-in-four-hundred risk of unintentionally causing a 75-year-old relatives death (and, of course, if you have four such relatives, it's up to a one-in-a-hundred chance that you'd cause one of them to die in what is, to be fair, a very unpleasant and frightening way); others may not like that chance. Because, after all, out of every thousand such youngsters, ten would end up living with having seen their relative die in just such a way.
And yes, the vaccines work, which is why it's ten rather than two hundred of the thousand youngsters. Ten is a much smaller number than two hundred and thus is a considerably better outcome. Not having your relatives die in such an unpleasant avoidable way is better still.
Fine. In which case it is up to the parents to tell the 12-yr olds to have the jab. But ffs don't put it directly to a 12-yr old and lay it on their shoulders.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
In fairness, the situation isn't nearly as bad for Labour as it was for the Tories in 1999. People forget just how dominant Blair was, Labour's polling average only fell below 50% in 2000! Barring the fuel protests it never fell below 40%, and was mostly above 45%, until the 2001 election.
You'd have to compare that number against the median number of infections over the last 21 days. My suspicion is that is in the high 20ks, vs 36k implied by dividing by 21
So it implies the testing is capturing 67-75% of infections. Have no feel for whether that is realistic.
But I don't see how you can justify a lower divisor given the fact that most people are infected for 14-28 days. Unless you argue a massive skew towards the 14 days.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
In fairness, the situation isn't nearly as bad for Labour as it was for the Tories in 1999. People forget just how dominant Blair was, Labour's polling average only fell below 50% in 2000! Barring the fuel protests it never fell below 40%, and was mostly above 45%, until the 2001 election.
(Image from UKPollingReport)
Labour were 2 years in, the Tories are 12 years in, look at Labour after 9 years and compare. I was not suggesting that Hague ever got close i was just using it as an example for the lack of logic being applied here.
Labour should be ahead all the time now if they are going to prevent a Tory Majority, not 3-10 points behind.
Those 10 extra seats from the boundary review could be very useful for the Tories.
Taking this into account for me it looks as likely that the Tories will increase their majority at the next election as decrease it. It could go either way but I certainly expect a very comfortable majority. We have an opposition who simply cannot establish a poll lead mid term. They have shown very poor tactical awareness and have really struggled to make much of the various errors, incompetence and scandals that have hit the government. As the Tories know to their cost when being thrashed by Blair oppositions who do not achieve significant leads midterm lose. Those that remain behind lose bigly.
The economy is about to grow faster than it has since the Barber boom of the early 70s, employment will be at record highs again by the end of the year and we just might see the deficit fall faster than we expect. A lot of that growth and new jobs will come in the north of England. Inflation is going to be a minor issue but given our debt mountain range (1 mountain no longer covers it) even that is not an unmixed blessing. Considering what we have been through this will be a really strong record and even now SKS is struggling to explain what he would do differently.
I am very conscious of a particular newspaper article when writing this but I think that I have a lot more reason to be confident than Sion Simon ever did.
The Labour Party may be fundamentally evil and the Conservatives righteous. (Labour jabber, Conservatives jab). Boris Johnson may be a genius and the Messiah and Starmer a rather foolish Satan, however I cannot see the multi-year post Brexit, post Covid boom that you see. A rather short one yes.
I do not see inflation as the benefit and the quickest way to run down the debt the Boris boys on here do either. Inflation reminds me of increased mortgage rates and the repossessions and negative equity of the early 1990s.
I agree with Mike's main point that Starmer will be harder to demonise than Corbyn. Although of course he probably won't have so many fanatical young footsoldiers either.
Nobody can make robust predictions about the next election (other than the obvious such as "everything depends on how many seat losses") until a few months before said election. As we are two or three years away, I think we'd do as well to read the results in bird guts.
For the record I agree with Mike on this point too. SKS is a decent, intelligent, reasonable bore. He is not voter repellent in the way Corbyn was, he's just dull. Whilst that may well attract some Lib Dems to vote tactically I think enthusiasm levels on the Labour side will be low.
Negative enthusiasm to get Johnstone out may be high. Then again, the Tories may manage a partial rebrand with a new leader.
Really depends how strong you think the Tory voteshare is - and I think it's not as strong as it appears
It's not strong IMO, but at the moment there's no plausible alternative, and no sign that Labour is going to become that plausible alternative in time.
If there were a plausible alternative government-in-waiting, I think the figures would be drastically different.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
In fairness, the situation isn't nearly as bad for Labour as it was for the Tories in 1999. People forget just how dominant Blair was, Labour's polling average only fell below 50% in 2000! Barring the fuel protests it never fell below 40%, and was mostly above 45%, until the 2001 election.
(Image from UKPollingReport)
On topic, I agree with OGH although how significant it will be is unknown at this point. I also think the LDs will benefit a bit, as OGH does, from the Cameroonian Tory vote which they are targeting having less to be scared of by voting for a Lib Dem and perhaps 'Letting Labour in'.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Is that another flight of black swans in the distance?
I would have thought, in normal circumstances, a worldwide pandemic that resulted in 150,000 deaths the government are being blamed for by their critics, and the disaster of Afghanistan, that Labour are blaming the govt for, would be considered black swans - but as they haven't managed to get Labour where they should be if they were going challenge at the next GE (well ahead in the polls both VI and Leader Ratings) they are not considered black enough swans it seems
Really depends how strong you think the Tory voteshare is - and I think it's not as strong as it appears
There are a lot of wandering Cons looking for a home. Look at how many there are on here - zillions, relatively. With Big G coming in and going out and coming in and going out of the group.
But where should we go!?
At present, there are too many policies and personnel in Lab that I simply couldn't vote for. Does Lab want to change that? Probably not otherwise what are they. I could live with strong Union links as long as, as per Sharon's statement, the focus is on empowering workers not running the country along Marxist-Leninist lines. Then there is the anti-semitism thing, then there is the hate the rich thing.
So prob quite a gulf between me and a Lab vote.
So the Cons vote you are right might not be that strong but we atm ain't going to Lab.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
In fairness, the situation isn't nearly as bad for Labour as it was for the Tories in 1999. People forget just how dominant Blair was, Labour's polling average only fell below 50% in 2000! Barring the fuel protests it never fell below 40%, and was mostly above 45%, until the 2001 election.
(Image from UKPollingReport)
Labour were 2 years in, the Tories are 12 years in, look at Labour after 9 years and compare. I was not suggesting that Hague ever got close i was just using it as an example for the lack of logic being applied here.
Labour should be ahead all the time now if they are going to prevent a Tory Majority, not 3-10 points behind.
If only the world was a simple as you make it out to be. As we stand, Conservative majority. Ina little under 3 years, who knows?
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Don't the betting odds give them <50% chance of retaining their majority? </p>
Yes, which is why I think its one of the all time great bets
Those 10 extra seats from the boundary review could be very useful for the Tories.
Taking this into account for me it looks as likely that the Tories will increase their majority at the next election as decrease it. It could go either way but I certainly expect a very comfortable majority. We have an opposition who simply cannot establish a poll lead mid term. They have shown very poor tactical awareness and have really struggled to make much of the various errors, incompetence and scandals that have hit the government. As the Tories know to their cost when being thrashed by Blair oppositions who do not achieve significant leads midterm lose. Those that remain behind lose bigly.
The economy is about to grow faster than it has since the Barber boom of the early 70s, employment will be at record highs again by the end of the year and we just might see the deficit fall faster than we expect. A lot of that growth and new jobs will come in the north of England. Inflation is going to be a minor issue but given our debt mountain range (1 mountain no longer covers it) even that is not an unmixed blessing. Considering what we have been through this will be a really strong record and even now SKS is struggling to explain what he would do differently.
I am very conscious of a particular newspaper article when writing this but I think that I have a lot more reason to be confident than Sion Simon ever did.
The Labour Party may be fundamentally evil and the Conservatives righteous. (Labour jabber, Conservatives jab). Boris Johnson may be a genius and the Messiah and Starmer a rather foolish Satan, however I cannot see the multi-year post Brrxit, post Covid boom that you see. A rather short one yes.
I do not see inflation as the benefit and the quickest way to run down the debt the Boris boys on here do either. Inflation reminds me of increased mortgage rates and the repossessions and negative equity of the early 1990s.
Labour under Starmer are definitely not fundamentally evil nor are the Tories overly righteous. But the OECD are forecasting UK growth at 5.5% next year and they are usually pessimistic.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
In fairness, the situation isn't nearly as bad for Labour as it was for the Tories in 1999. People forget just how dominant Blair was, Labour's polling average only fell below 50% in 2000! Barring the fuel protests it never fell below 40%, and was mostly above 45%, until the 2001 election.
(Image from UKPollingReport)
They only turned it around when they chose a leader who wanted to stop banging on about Europe.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
In fairness, the situation isn't nearly as bad for Labour as it was for the Tories in 1999. People forget just how dominant Blair was, Labour's polling average only fell below 50% in 2000! Barring the fuel protests it never fell below 40%, and was mostly above 45%, until the 2001 election.
(Image from UKPollingReport)
Labour were 2 years in, the Tories are 12 years in, look at Labour after 9 years and compare. I was not suggesting that Hague ever got close i was just using it as an example for the lack of logic being applied here.
Labour should be ahead all the time now if they are going to prevent a Tory Majority, not 3-10 points behind.
So I half agree with you, in that I agree the Tories are likely to win another majority and their position is strong. Indeed, I wrote an article making exactly that point (link below to massage my ego). On the other hand, the Tories won their current majority with a vote share lead of 11.5%, so it is plausible that they lose it while still winning the popular vote by 3-5%. And given the strange circumstances we find ourselves in with COVID and so on making politics weird for 18 months I don't think we can assume that swingback is a given.
Those 10 extra seats from the boundary review could be very useful for the Tories.
Taking this into account for me it looks as likely that the Tories will increase their majority at the next election as decrease it. It could go either way but I certainly expect a very comfortable majority. We have an opposition who simply cannot establish a poll lead mid term. They have shown very poor tactical awareness and have really struggled to make much of the various errors, incompetence and scandals that have hit the government. As the Tories know to their cost when being thrashed by Blair oppositions who do not achieve significant leads midterm lose. Those that remain behind lose bigly.
The economy is about to grow faster than it has since the Barber boom of the early 70s, employment will be at record highs again by the end of the year and we just might see the deficit fall faster than we expect. A lot of that growth and new jobs will come in the north of England. Inflation is going to be a minor issue but given our debt mountain range (1 mountain no longer covers it) even that is not an unmixed blessing. Considering what we have been through this will be a really strong record and even now SKS is struggling to explain what he would do differently.
I am very conscious of a particular newspaper article when writing this but I think that I have a lot more reason to be confident than Sion Simon ever did.
The Labour Party may be fundamentally evil and the Conservatives righteous. (Labour jabber, Conservatives jab). Boris Johnson may be a genius and the Messiah and Starmer a rather foolish Satan, however I cannot see the multi-year post Brrxit, post Covid boom that you see. A rather short one yes.
I do not see inflation as the benefit and the quickest way to run down the debt the Boris boys on here do either. Inflation reminds me of increased mortgage rates and the repossessions and negative equity of the early 1990s.
Labour under Starmer are definitely not fundamentally evil nor are the Tories overly righteous. But the OECD are forecasting UK growth at 5.5% next year and they are usually pessimistic.
Although there's new panic about rising #COVID19 cases in Scotland related to schools, probably worth noting that 25/32 regions didn't reopen them until August 17th
Cases were rising in young people (and everyone) well before that, and it takes ~1w for new cases to get detected
Really depends how strong you think the Tory voteshare is - and I think it's not as strong as it appears
There are a lot of wandering Cons looking for a home. Look at how many there are on here - zillions, relatively. With Big G coming in and going out and coming in and going out of the group.
But where should we go!?
At present, there are too many policies and personnel in Lab that I simply couldn't vote for. Does Lab want to change that? Probably not otherwise what are they. I could live with strong Union links as long as, as per Sharon's statement, the focus is on empowering workers not running the country along Marxist-Leninist lines. Then there is the anti-semitism thing, then there is the hate the rich thing.
So prob quite a gulf between me and a Lab vote.
So the Cons vote you are right might not be that strong but we atm ain't going to Lab.
As you know friend, I consider you one of the best sources on such things on this site, so thank you for posting your thoughts.
For what it is worth, as a Labour member myself I really do think the party is moving back to the centre and the people that you refer to are leaving (albeit slowly).
Starmer has a short window between now and this time next year to really build something different, then it's time for him to go if he can not.
Really depends how strong you think the Tory voteshare is - and I think it's not as strong as it appears
It's not strong IMO, but at the moment there's no plausible alternative, and no sign that Labour is going to become that plausible alternative in time.
If there were a plausible alternative government-in-waiting, I think the figures would be drastically different.
Yes, I think that's right. Tory support is a mile wide but an inch deep.
When there's a plausible alternative - and by plausible I don't mean just economically sensible but able to block out people's fears of the radical Left on social and cultural issues - the numbers will change quickly and a lot.
One thing being overlooked, the Tories can demonise Starmer in a different way to Jezza. They can play the Starmer tried to stop Brexit, do you trust him not to try and reverse it. I think that will play well in the red wall.
They don't need to do this nationally, rather targetted in the way Jezza the terrorist sympathizing anti-British danger to national security was deployed in certain places.
Really depends how strong you think the Tory voteshare is - and I think it's not as strong as it appears
There are a lot of wandering Cons looking for a home. Look at how many there are on here - zillions, relatively. With Big G coming in and going out and coming in and going out of the group.
But where should we go!?
At present, there are too many policies and personnel in Lab that I simply couldn't vote for. Does Lab want to change that? Probably not otherwise what are they. I could live with strong Union links as long as, as per Sharon's statement, the focus is on empowering workers not running the country along Marxist-Leninist lines. Then there is the anti-semitism thing, then there is the hate the rich thing.
So prob quite a gulf between me and a Lab vote.
So the Cons vote you are right might not be that strong but we atm ain't going to Lab.
As you know friend, I consider you one of the best sources on such things on this site, so thank you for posting your thoughts.
For what it is worth, as a Labour member myself I really do think the party is moving back to the centre and the people that you refer to are leaving (albeit slowly).
Starmer has a short window between now and this time next year to really build something different, then it's time for him to go if he can not.
Looking very closely at his progress. My vote is up for grabs.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
In fairness, the situation isn't nearly as bad for Labour as it was for the Tories in 1999. People forget just how dominant Blair was, Labour's polling average only fell below 50% in 2000! Barring the fuel protests it never fell below 40%, and was mostly above 45%, until the 2001 election.
(Image from UKPollingReport)
They only turned it around when they chose a leader who wanted to stop banging on about Europe.
No they only turned it round when Labour replaced a political genius (albeit past his prime) with a total dud. And even then, and after a collapse in the economy, Cameron failed to get an overall majority.
Really depends how strong you think the Tory voteshare is - and I think it's not as strong as it appears
There are a lot of wandering Cons looking for a home. Look at how many there are on here - zillions, relatively. With Big G coming in and going out and coming in and going out of the group.
But where should we go!?
At present, there are too many policies and personnel in Lab that I simply couldn't vote for. Does Lab want to change that? Probably not otherwise what are they. I could live with strong Union links as long as, as per Sharon's statement, the focus is on empowering workers not running the country along Marxist-Leninist lines. Then there is the anti-semitism thing, then there is the hate the rich thing.
So prob quite a gulf between me and a Lab vote.
So the Cons vote you are right might not be that strong but we atm ain't going to Lab.
As you know friend, I consider you one of the best sources on such things on this site, so thank you for posting your thoughts.
For what it is worth, as a Labour member myself I really do think the party is moving back to the centre and the people that you refer to are leaving (albeit slowly).
Starmer has a short window between now and this time next year to really build something different, then it's time for him to go if he can not.
It's the economy.
If the economy booms as the PB Tories believe, Johnson wins a handsome majority. If it tanks they might not.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
In fairness, the situation isn't nearly as bad for Labour as it was for the Tories in 1999. People forget just how dominant Blair was, Labour's polling average only fell below 50% in 2000! Barring the fuel protests it never fell below 40%, and was mostly above 45%, until the 2001 election.
(Image from UKPollingReport)
They only turned it around when they chose a leader who wanted to stop banging on about Europe.
I think at the height of his powers, definitely 1998-1999 and quite possibly 2001-2, Blair could have won a referendum to take us into the Euro.
One thing being overlooked, the Tories can demonise Starmer in a different way to Jezza. They can play the Starmer tried to stop Brexit, do you trust him not to try and reverse it. I think that will play well in the red wall.
Maybe, though there is a risk with that strategy that it is too backwards looking. If Starmer just shrugs it off and talks about what he would do differently on other issues I can imagine the government looking like they have no new ideas so are flogging a dead horse.
"We have had an interesting few months with three totally diverse Westminster by-elections. Hartlepool showed the strength of the Tories in so-called red wall areas, Batley & Spen showed Labour’s ability to defend while Chesham & Amersham was a signal of the sort of seat where the LDs can be strong."
Labour got their worst ever vote share in all three. Am I the only one who thinks that is bad for an opposition in by elections?
Really depends how strong you think the Tory voteshare is - and I think it's not as strong as it appears
There are a lot of wandering Cons looking for a home. Look at how many there are on here - zillions, relatively. With Big G coming in and going out and coming in and going out of the group.
But where should we go!?
At present, there are too many policies and personnel in Lab that I simply couldn't vote for. Does Lab want to change that? Probably not otherwise what are they. I could live with strong Union links as long as, as per Sharon's statement, the focus is on empowering workers not running the country along Marxist-Leninist lines. Then there is the anti-semitism thing, then there is the hate the rich thing.
So prob quite a gulf between me and a Lab vote.
So the Cons vote you are right might not be that strong but we atm ain't going to Lab.
As you know friend, I consider you one of the best sources on such things on this site, so thank you for posting your thoughts.
For what it is worth, as a Labour member myself I really do think the party is moving back to the centre and the people that you refer to are leaving (albeit slowly).
Starmer has a short window between now and this time next year to really build something different, then it's time for him to go if he can not.
Looking very closely at his progress. My vote is up for grabs.
And I really hope we can get you onto our team We must work hard to do so and understand what you want Labour to be. My fear with Starmer is that we have not seen enough of that yet.
I do believe Labour is now headed in the right direction and for me I perceive it to be going back towards proper social democracy, which is what my ideology leans into. The 2019 manifesto was too left wing for me.
Really depends how strong you think the Tory voteshare is - and I think it's not as strong as it appears
There are a lot of wandering Cons looking for a home. Look at how many there are on here - zillions, relatively. With Big G coming in and going out and coming in and going out of the group.
But where should we go!?
At present, there are too many policies and personnel in Lab that I simply couldn't vote for. Does Lab want to change that? Probably not otherwise what are they. I could live with strong Union links as long as, as per Sharon's statement, the focus is on empowering workers not running the country along Marxist-Leninist lines. Then there is the anti-semitism thing, then there is the hate the rich thing.
So prob quite a gulf between me and a Lab vote.
So the Cons vote you are right might not be that strong but we atm ain't going to Lab.
As you know friend, I consider you one of the best sources on such things on this site, so thank you for posting your thoughts.
For what it is worth, as a Labour member myself I really do think the party is moving back to the centre and the people that you refer to are leaving (albeit slowly).
Starmer has a short window between now and this time next year to really build something different, then it's time for him to go if he can not.
There is no alternative Labour leader in Parliament who would do better than Starmer and most would do worse.
Burnham or David Miliband might do better but neither are currently MPs
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Absolutely, its like having a thread header in 1999 that William Hague was going to prevent a Labour Majority.
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
In fairness, the situation isn't nearly as bad for Labour as it was for the Tories in 1999. People forget just how dominant Blair was, Labour's polling average only fell below 50% in 2000! Barring the fuel protests it never fell below 40%, and was mostly above 45%, until the 2001 election.
(Image from UKPollingReport)
Labour were 2 years in, the Tories are 12 years in, look at Labour after 9 years and compare. I was not suggesting that Hague ever got close i was just using it as an example for the lack of logic being applied here.
Labour should be ahead all the time now if they are going to prevent a Tory Majority, not 3-10 points behind.
But we should also compare the current leaders with Blair and Hague.
LOTOs - In retrospect Hague was better than he appeared at the time, but he came across as inexperienced and a bit ridiculous - a bit like Ed Miliband, perhaps. Starmer is more experienced in life at least, and comes across as more capable, if a bit dull. Personally I would rate him as a better candidate than either Miliband or Hague. And maybe by 2024 dull will be in fashion again.
PMs - Blair on the other hand (in 2001) was running a competent government and personally had more ability in his little finger than the useless dolt in charge now. And I say this as someone with no great love for either. Although I would agree they are probably of equal charisma, in their own way.
So overall I think we have a slightly stronger LOTO up against a very much weaker PM, and once politics returns to normal by next summer I think Johnson will be in trouble unless things go well. And for that reason I think he will be disposed of so the Tories can reinvent themselves again before the next election, and win again.
Those 10 extra seats from the boundary review could be very useful for the Tories.
Taking this into account for me it looks as likely that the Tories will increase their majority at the next election as decrease it. It could go either way but I certainly expect a very comfortable majority. We have an opposition who simply cannot establish a poll lead mid term. They have shown very poor tactical awareness and have really struggled to make much of the various errors, incompetence and scandals that have hit the government. As the Tories know to their cost when being thrashed by Blair oppositions who do not achieve significant leads midterm lose. Those that remain behind lose bigly.
The economy is about to grow faster than it has since the Barber boom of the early 70s, employment will be at record highs again by the end of the year and we just might see the deficit fall faster than we expect. A lot of that growth and new jobs will come in the north of England. Inflation is going to be a minor issue but given our debt mountain range (1 mountain no longer covers it) even that is not an unmixed blessing. Considering what we have been through this will be a really strong record and even now SKS is struggling to explain what he would do differently.
I am very conscious of a particular newspaper article when writing this but I think that I have a lot more reason to be confident than Sion Simon ever did.
The Labour Party may be fundamentally evil and the Conservatives righteous. (Labour jabber, Conservatives jab). Boris Johnson may be a genius and the Messiah and Starmer a rather foolish Satan, however I cannot see the multi-year post Brrxit, post Covid boom that you see. A rather short one yes.
I do not see inflation as the benefit and the quickest way to run down the debt the Boris boys on here do either. Inflation reminds me of increased mortgage rates and the repossessions and negative equity of the early 1990s.
Labour under Starmer are definitely not fundamentally evil nor are the Tories overly righteous. But the OECD are forecasting UK growth at 5.5% next year and they are usually pessimistic.
Is that 5.5% over 2019 stats?
It's 5.5% over 2021 but by the end of 2021 we will be very close to the 2019 pre-Covid peak so not far off that.
One thing being overlooked, the Tories can demonise Starmer in a different way to Jezza. They can play the Starmer tried to stop Brexit, do you trust him not to try and reverse it. I think that will play well in the red wall.
Maybe, though there is a risk with that strategy that it is too backwards looking. If Starmer just shrugs it off and talks about what he would do differently on other issues I can imagine the government looking like they have no new ideas so are flogging a dead horse.
There is loads of ammunition they can deploy on this, same as Jezza can say he isn't a terrorist sympathizer anymore, that was all years ago taken out of context.
One thing being overlooked, the Tories can demonise Starmer in a different way to Jezza. They can play the Starmer tried to stop Brexit, do you trust him not to try and reverse it. I think that will play well in the red wall.
They don't need to do this nationally, rather targetted in the way Jezza the terrorist sympathizing anti-British danger to national security was deployed in certain places.
They will no doubt try that but my guess is that with the UK clearly growing faster than the EU, with the stories of post brexit recessions, mass unemployment and disruption being rightly ridiculed, there won't be a lot of traction in it. Brexit will have ceased to be a contentious issue.
Really depends how strong you think the Tory voteshare is - and I think it's not as strong as it appears
There are a lot of wandering Cons looking for a home. Look at how many there are on here - zillions, relatively. With Big G coming in and going out and coming in and going out of the group.
But where should we go!?
At present, there are too many policies and personnel in Lab that I simply couldn't vote for. Does Lab want to change that? Probably not otherwise what are they. I could live with strong Union links as long as, as per Sharon's statement, the focus is on empowering workers not running the country along Marxist-Leninist lines. Then there is the anti-semitism thing, then there is the hate the rich thing.
So prob quite a gulf between me and a Lab vote.
So the Cons vote you are right might not be that strong but we atm ain't going to Lab.
As you know friend, I consider you one of the best sources on such things on this site, so thank you for posting your thoughts.
For what it is worth, as a Labour member myself I really do think the party is moving back to the centre and the people that you refer to are leaving (albeit slowly).
Starmer has a short window between now and this time next year to really build something different, then it's time for him to go if he can not.
It's the economy.
If the economy booms as the PB Tories believe, Johnson wins a handsome majority. If it tanks they might not.
I think the idea we are going to sail easily into 2024 seems absurd. We've just had Afghanistan appear which few would have predicted even six months ago.
Johnson is now constantly unpopular and has been for some time (net approval is very much in the red). The issue is that Starmer is at best as unpopular, at worst more unpopular - he needs to do something about that.
I can't understand how Starmer is so unpopular to be honest, he doesn't seem to have done much notable publicly at all - but perhaps others who are less biased than me can explain that.
"We have had an interesting few months with three totally diverse Westminster by-elections. Hartlepool showed the strength of the Tories in so-called red wall areas, Batley & Spen showed Labour’s ability to defend while Chesham & Amersham was a signal of the sort of seat where the LDs can be strong."
Labour got their worst ever vote share in all three. Am I the only one who thinks that is bad for an opposition in by elections?
Never in my life time has an incumbent Government been hosing the voters with free, no-strings-,attached money and for so long. When that stops maybe they might not be so much fun. Strange times.
"We have had an interesting few months with three totally diverse Westminster by-elections. Hartlepool showed the strength of the Tories in so-called red wall areas, Batley & Spen showed Labour’s ability to defend while Chesham & Amersham was a signal of the sort of seat where the LDs can be strong."
Labour got their worst ever vote share in all three. Am I the only one who thinks that is bad for an opposition in by elections?
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
You seem to have a rather binary view of vaccine efficacy. Either 100% or 0% - they either protect everyone perfectly or they do not and thus if you do not believe they protect everyone perfectly, you don't believe in the vaccines.
Is this really the case?
In reality, all vaccines - by training up your immune system - provide a measurable increase in your ability to fight off a virus. From any symptoms at all (Ve versus symptomatic infection), from severe illness (Ve against severe illness) and death (Ve against death).
If Ve against death is about 95% (which is what it seems to be), then the risk of death to an average 75-year-old drops from about 5% to about 0.25%.
Which means that one in four hundred 75-year-olds would still die. It may well be that you're willing to deliberately take a one-in-four-hundred risk of unintentionally causing a 75-year-old relatives death (and, of course, if you have four such relatives, it's up to a one-in-a-hundred chance that you'd cause one of them to die in what is, to be fair, a very unpleasant and frightening way); others may not like that chance. Because, after all, out of every thousand such youngsters, ten would end up living with having seen their relative die in just such a way.
And yes, the vaccines work, which is why it's ten rather than two hundred of the thousand youngsters. Ten is a much smaller number than two hundred and thus is a considerably better outcome. Not having your relatives die in such an unpleasant avoidable way is better still.
Andy, are you talking about the conditional or unconditional death risk for a 75-year old?
One of the things which slightly concerns me is that the conditional reduction in death risk is probably nearer 75% than 95%. And there's a huge difference between vaccination giving (say) 80% of people 100% protection against infection versus it giving 100% of people 80% less chance of infection on each opportunity, or somewhere in between. These are largely indistinguishable with the data we currently have. Yet in the latter case there are still going to be, over time, a lot more COVID deaths to come.
Really depends how strong you think the Tory voteshare is - and I think it's not as strong as it appears
There are a lot of wandering Cons looking for a home. Look at how many there are on here - zillions, relatively. With Big G coming in and going out and coming in and going out of the group.
But where should we go!?
At present, there are too many policies and personnel in Lab that I simply couldn't vote for. Does Lab want to change that? Probably not otherwise what are they. I could live with strong Union links as long as, as per Sharon's statement, the focus is on empowering workers not running the country along Marxist-Leninist lines. Then there is the anti-semitism thing, then there is the hate the rich thing.
So prob quite a gulf between me and a Lab vote.
So the Cons vote you are right might not be that strong but we atm ain't going to Lab.
As you know friend, I consider you one of the best sources on such things on this site, so thank you for posting your thoughts.
For what it is worth, as a Labour member myself I really do think the party is moving back to the centre and the people that you refer to are leaving (albeit slowly).
Starmer has a short window between now and this time next year to really build something different, then it's time for him to go if he can not.
Looking very closely at his progress. My vote is up for grabs.
And I really hope we can get you onto our team We must work hard to do so and understand what you want Labour to be. My fear with Starmer is that we have not seen enough of that yet.
I do believe Labour is now headed in the right direction and for me I perceive it to be going back towards proper social democracy, which is what my ideology leans into. The 2019 manifesto was too left wing for me.
As several posters on here point out there is a danger of listening to what "the enemy" want your side to be. Cons posters saying XYZ would be a great Lab leader, etc when there is no real intention to vote Lab by them.
But we really are in a place where there are a lot of disaffected Cons ex-voters and ex-party members out there so developments will be vitally important.
If you could save me from having to vote for a party run by Boris Johnson then that would be fantastic.
The Tories always try to demonise the Labour leader. It's what they do. All Labour leaders get this. The trick is to win anyway.
Labour never do this? I thinks its more honest to say they both do.
Labour leaders do seem to get extra special treatment. Whatever their politics Labour leaders get labelled as communists, crypto-communists or related to communists. When that isn't on, Tories compare them to the devil.
One thing being overlooked, the Tories can demonise Starmer in a different way to Jezza. They can play the Starmer tried to stop Brexit, do you trust him not to try and reverse it. I think that will play well in the red wall.
They don't need to do this nationally, rather targetted in the way Jezza the terrorist sympathizing anti-British danger to national security was deployed in certain places.
They will no doubt try that but my guess is that with the UK clearly growing faster than the EU, with the stories of post brexit recessions, mass unemployment and disruption being rightly ridiculed, there won't be a lot of traction in it. Brexit will have ceased to be a contentious issue.
Isn't that an even stronger message... don't risk it giving this up, its going ok.
"We have had an interesting few months with three totally diverse Westminster by-elections. Hartlepool showed the strength of the Tories in so-called red wall areas, Batley & Spen showed Labour’s ability to defend while Chesham & Amersham was a signal of the sort of seat where the LDs can be strong."
Labour got their worst ever vote share in all three. Am I the only one who thinks that is bad for an opposition in by elections?
Never in my life time has an incumbent Government been hosing the voters with free, no-strings-,attached money and for so long. When that stops maybe they might not be so much fun. Strange times.
If Johnson stops, it'll be because there's no free money left to hose people with.
"We have had an interesting few months with three totally diverse Westminster by-elections. Hartlepool showed the strength of the Tories in so-called red wall areas, Batley & Spen showed Labour’s ability to defend while Chesham & Amersham was a signal of the sort of seat where the LDs can be strong."
Labour got their worst ever vote share in all three. Am I the only one who thinks that is bad for an opposition in by elections?
Never in my life time has an incumbent Government been hosing the voters with free, no-strings-,attached money and for so long. When that stops maybe they might not be so much fun. Strange times.
If Johnson stops, it'll be because there's no free money left to hose people with.
And then what's Labour's selling point?
Well this is why I think Labour will try to go on economic competence, which might be laughed at.
My understanding from those in the know - and this is just friends of friends who know Starmer, so I wouldn't take much from it - is that Starmer won't promise to spend a lot of money outside of a few very key areas.
One thing being overlooked, the Tories can demonise Starmer in a different way to Jezza. They can play the Starmer tried to stop Brexit, do you trust him not to try and reverse it. I think that will play well in the red wall.
Maybe, though there is a risk with that strategy that it is too backwards looking. If Starmer just shrugs it off and talks about what he would do differently on other issues I can imagine the government looking like they have no new ideas so are flogging a dead horse.
Yes. I think you're right. Starmer has shown a grim determination to avoid the B word at all costs. If the Tories over do it at the next election, Labour can legitimately enquire why they keep "banging on about Brexit", seven or eight years after the referendum.
One thing being overlooked, the Tories can demonise Starmer in a different way to Jezza. They can play the Starmer tried to stop Brexit, do you trust him not to try and reverse it. I think that will play well in the red wall.
They don't need to do this nationally, rather targetted in the way Jezza the terrorist sympathizing anti-British danger to national security was deployed in certain places.
They will no doubt try that but my guess is that with the UK clearly growing faster than the EU, with the stories of post brexit recessions, mass unemployment and disruption being rightly ridiculed, there won't be a lot of traction in it. Brexit will have ceased to be a contentious issue.
Isn't that an even stronger message... don't risk it giving this up, its going ok.
If Brexit is a total shitshow, all bets are off.
I just don't think anyone will want to hear about it any more. Well, apart from @Scott_xP , obviously.
One thing being overlooked, the Tories can demonise Starmer in a different way to Jezza. They can play the Starmer tried to stop Brexit, do you trust him not to try and reverse it. I think that will play well in the red wall.
Maybe, though there is a risk with that strategy that it is too backwards looking. If Starmer just shrugs it off and talks about what he would do differently on other issues I can imagine the government looking like they have no new ideas so are flogging a dead horse.
Yes. I think you're right. Starmer has shown a grim determination to avoid the B word at all costs. If the Tories over do it at the next election, Labour can legitimately enquire why they keep "banging on about Brexit".
It is a dead cert that the Tories will do their best to make Brexit a thing at the next election.
The worst polls for the Tories have them as the largest party, but probably no majority, the best polls for them see them with an 80 seat majority.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Sorry but I have to completely and utterly agree with you. My scores on the doors for the 3 contenders right now are -
Celebrate Good Times C'Mon 5% Stuck In the Middle With You 35% Desolation Row 60%
So that last one is the value bet at current odds.
The Tories always try to demonise the Labour leader. It's what they do. All Labour leaders get this. The trick is to win anyway.
Labour never do this? I thinks its more honest to say they both do.
Labour leaders do seem to get extra special treatment. Whatever their politics Labour leaders get labelled as communists, crypto-communists or related to communists. When that isn't on, Tories compare them to the devil.
I think your personal bias are showing.
Tories always get labelled as racist, baby eating, hate the poor, etc. When Boris ran for London Mayor there was a huge push to scare people that he was going to be ethnically clensing the city as he is such a massive racist.
I agree with Mike's main point that Starmer will be harder to demonise than Corbyn. Although of course he probably won't have so many fanatical young footsoldiers either.
Nobody can make robust predictions about the next election (other than the obvious such as "everything depends on how many seat losses") until a few months before said election. As we are two or three years away, I think we'd do as well to read the results in bird guts.
For the record I agree with Mike on this point too. SKS is a decent, intelligent, reasonable bore. He is not voter repellent in the way Corbyn was, he's just dull. Whilst that may well attract some Lib Dems to vote tactically I think enthusiasm levels on the Labour side will be low.
Conversely, I think it makes it easier for soft Tories to vote LibDem, because they aren't concerned about letting Corbyn in.
My rough guess for 2024 (or even 2023) is that the Conservatives are north of 40%, but still probably down 2-3 percentage points. I also assume there is a mild increase in tactical voting, as memory of the coalition fades in Labour memories.
Under this scenario (and adding the ten seats that come through the boundary changes), Labour probably picks up 10 to 15 seats from the Conservatives, while the LibDems gain 4 to 6. It's not clear, given Scotland loses seats, that the SNP will actually end up with greater Westminster representation next time around.
The Tories always try to demonise the Labour leader. It's what they do. All Labour leaders get this. The trick is to win anyway.
Labour never do this? I thinks its more honest to say they both do.
Labour leaders do seem to get extra special treatment. Whatever their politics Labour leaders get labelled as communists, crypto-communists or related to communists. When that isn't on, Tories compare them to the devil.
I think your personal bias are showing.
Tories always get labelled as racist, baby eating, hate the poor, etc.
How Tories talk about each other is none of my business.
Johnson seems to be rather unpopular in the Blue Wall, I guess that is what happens when you abandon lifelong voters
Nonsense. Blue wall voters have not been abandoned as you put it. There are some v unpopular decisions esp over housing and triple lock, but abandonent is a ludocrous hyperbole.
Comments
As a horse racing follower when throughout the summer the going has been heavy and numerous meetings have been called off I am surprised by the comment "overall 2021's summer "is certainly looking drier and warmer than average".
Can anyone advise what we need to divide 756,900 by to get an indication of daily infection rates?
7?
10?
14?
However Starmer is not feared like Corbyn is by middle class voters, so I doubt he will fall as low as Corbyn did in 2019 seats wise either and he may be able to pick up more LD tactical voters
1. the Tory worm is showing a decline over the last three months, whilst the Labour worm is flatlining, they are not benefiting from that decline.
2. Meanwhile the Tory polling remains resolutely over 40. However, during the election campaign the Tories were absolute genius to steal and own the Brexit party voters - and during that campaign you totalled remain parties polling together and the Tories plus smither of Brexit numbers together, the best remain did was close to even, normally a smaller total. That’s completely changed now - Lab, libdem and green added together is by far the bigger total now. That could indicate there’s a key shift going on as we move into post Brexit politics.
3. Because it was a December election, I’m not sure this is so far after the vote to be mid term, besides which, the Tory success on jabbing and getting us back to normal, and the fact COVID has hampered Starmer’s attempts to raise his profile, I’m not sure it’s going to be a normal mid term. It’s not vital IMO for Labour to be miles ahead mid term anyway, in other countries voters don’t know for sure who the candidate is going to be until months to go to the campaign, it don’t seem to do them any harm.
Lower limit, I'd say, is 14, upper 21.
The economy is about to grow faster than it has since the Barber boom of the early 70s, employment will be at record highs again by the end of the year and we just might see the deficit fall faster than we expect. A lot of that growth and new jobs will come in the north of England. Inflation is going to be a minor issue but given our debt mountain range (1 mountain no longer covers it) even that is not an unmixed blessing. Considering what we have been through this will be a really strong record and even now SKS is struggling to explain what he would do differently.
I am very conscious of a particular newspaper article when writing this but I think that I have a lot more reason to be confident than Sion Simon ever did.
Mid term, with lots of bad headlines in the papers, but with a leader that is more well liked and charismatic than the LotO I can't see how any reasoned analysis can see past a Con maj as by far the most likely outcome
Nobody can make robust predictions about the next election (other than the obvious such as "everything depends on how many seat losses") until a few months before said election. As we are two or three years away, I think we'd do as well to read the results in bird guts.
You cant trivially get from that to "new infections per day"
Logical and intelligent people on here seem to letting their heart rule their head.
We are mid term in the 12th year of a Tory Government and every poll has them leading (and has done for months) with some pointing to a huge majority, yet peoples readings from this is that Labour will be making huge gains.
Now they may end up being right but based on the current evidence there is no way you can conclude that.
So it implies the testing is capturing 67-75% of infections. Have no feel for whether that is realistic.
But I don't see how you can justify a lower divisor given the fact that most people are infected for 14-28 days. Unless you argue a massive skew towards the 14 days.
(Image from UKPollingReport)
I think we can conclude that we have not yet reached 100,000 cases per day by any measure.
I was thinking that if it is appropriate to divide by 7 then we had.
Labour should be ahead all the time now if they are going to prevent a Tory Majority, not 3-10 points behind.
I do not see inflation as the benefit and the quickest way to run down the debt the Boris boys on here do either. Inflation reminds me of increased mortgage rates and the repossessions and negative equity of the early 1990s.
BBC News - Time's Up: Boss quits over ties to scandal-hit governor Andrew Cuomo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58354600
If there were a plausible alternative government-in-waiting, I think the figures would be drastically different.
But where should we go!?
At present, there are too many policies and personnel in Lab that I simply couldn't vote for. Does Lab want to change that? Probably not otherwise what are they. I could live with strong Union links as long as, as per Sharon's statement, the focus is on empowering workers not running the country along Marxist-Leninist lines. Then there is the anti-semitism thing, then there is the hate the rich thing.
So prob quite a gulf between me and a Lab vote.
So the Cons vote you are right might not be that strong but we atm ain't going to Lab.
This is a recurring claim.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/22/it-looks-like-theres-major-mispricing-in-the-majority-market/
England cases still flat....for the moment.
Cases were rising in young people (and everyone) well before that, and it takes ~1w for new cases to get detected
https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1431261610715267074?s=20
For what it is worth, as a Labour member myself I really do think the party is moving back to the centre and the people that you refer to are leaving (albeit slowly).
Starmer has a short window between now and this time next year to really build something different, then it's time for him to go if he can not.
When there's a plausible alternative - and by plausible I don't mean just economically sensible but able to block out people's fears of the radical Left on social and cultural issues - the numbers will change quickly and a lot.
They don't need to do this nationally, rather targetted in the way Jezza the terrorist sympathizing anti-British danger to national security was deployed in certain places.
If the economy booms as the PB Tories believe, Johnson wins a handsome majority. If it tanks they might not.
Labour got their worst ever vote share in all three. Am I the only one who thinks that is bad for an opposition in by elections?
I do believe Labour is now headed in the right direction and for me I perceive it to be going back towards proper social democracy, which is what my ideology leans into. The 2019 manifesto was too left wing for me.
Burnham or David Miliband might do better but neither are currently MPs
LOTOs - In retrospect Hague was better than he appeared at the time, but he came across as inexperienced and a bit ridiculous - a bit like Ed Miliband, perhaps. Starmer is more experienced in life at least, and comes across as more capable, if a bit dull. Personally I would rate him as a better candidate than either Miliband or Hague. And maybe by 2024 dull will be in fashion again.
PMs - Blair on the other hand (in 2001) was running a competent government and personally had more ability in his little finger than the useless dolt in charge now. And I say this as someone with no great love for either. Although I would agree they are probably of equal charisma, in their own way.
So overall I think we have a slightly stronger LOTO up against a very much weaker PM, and once politics returns to normal by next summer I think Johnson will be in trouble unless things go well. And for that reason I think he will be disposed of so the Tories can reinvent themselves again before the next election, and win again.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
Johnson is now constantly unpopular and has been for some time (net approval is very much in the red). The issue is that Starmer is at best as unpopular, at worst more unpopular - he needs to do something about that.
I can't understand how Starmer is so unpopular to be honest, he doesn't seem to have done much notable publicly at all - but perhaps others who are less biased than me can explain that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Brent_East_by-election
But it's only Chesham and Amersham...
One of the things which slightly concerns me is that the conditional reduction in death risk is probably nearer 75% than 95%. And there's a huge difference between vaccination giving (say) 80% of people 100% protection against infection versus it giving 100% of people 80% less chance of infection on each opportunity, or somewhere in between. These are largely indistinguishable with the data we currently have. Yet in the latter case there are still going to be, over time, a lot more COVID deaths to come.
--AS
But we really are in a place where there are a lot of disaffected Cons ex-voters and ex-party members out there so developments will be vitally important.
If you could save me from having to vote for a party run by Boris Johnson then that would be fantastic.
They aren't close to their Winter peaks unless I am reading the data wrong.
If Brexit is a total shitshow, all bets are off.
Labour Governments have been fantastic at wrecking the public finances and throwing open the borders to all and sundry.
And then what's Labour's selling point?
My understanding from those in the know - and this is just friends of friends who know Starmer, so I wouldn't take much from it - is that Starmer won't promise to spend a lot of money outside of a few very key areas.
Celebrate Good Times C'Mon 5%
Stuck In the Middle With You 35%
Desolation Row 60%
So that last one is the value bet at current odds.
Tories always get labelled as racist, baby eating, hate the poor, etc. When Boris ran for London Mayor there was a huge push to scare people that he was going to be ethnically clensing the city as he is such a massive racist.
My rough guess for 2024 (or even 2023) is that the Conservatives are north of 40%, but still probably down 2-3 percentage points. I also assume there is a mild increase in tactical voting, as memory of the coalition fades in Labour memories.
Under this scenario (and adding the ten seats that come through the boundary changes), Labour probably picks up 10 to 15 seats from the Conservatives, while the LibDems gain 4 to 6. It's not clear, given Scotland loses seats, that the SNP will actually end up with greater Westminster representation next time around.