FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
Personally I don't mind Trudeau too much, it is the NDP and BQ I am not a fan of in Canadian politics.
O'Toole would be a good friend of Boris' UK if he did manage to produce a shock and lead the Conservatives to most seats but yes I agree a Liberal minority still looks most likely
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.
I suspect the difference is that foreign policy is always relevant to a PM, and Corbyn clearly hadn't changed from those days. Whereas the public doesn't necessarily see Brexit as relevant come 2023/24 and Starmer can more credibly claim to have moved on (i.e. he's not still campaigning with the FBPE crowd like Corbyn was still friends with strange bedfellows).
But you might be right. We'll see in a couple of years, since doubtless the Tories will have a look at this strategy to see if it gains traction.
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.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
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.
--AS
An excellent post - especially as the vaccines have given the politicians the excuse to cause a surge of risky behaviour.
Johnson seems to be rather unpopular in the Blue Wall, I guess that is what happens when you abandon lifelong voters
Yes but there are more Leave voting former Labour seats in the Northern and Midlands Red Wall that have moved to Boris' Tories than Remain voting Tory seats in London and the South that are moving away from Boris' Tories (the South East for example overall narrowly voted Leave too even if less so than England north of Watford)
Why do they need him? They paid all that money for Sancho, who is a younger Ronaldo. What do they want an aging Ronaldo who will cost a fortune in wages for?
A list of buildings Londoners wanted to demolish in 1987. Unsurprisingly, all are modern and most are Brutalist. Yet architects are still in love with these monstrosities.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Don't be bringing those facts in here again, don't you know Starmer actually is a terrorist sympathiser who wants to destroy the UK as we know it???
"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.
Have there been many other pandemics in your life time?
I just can't see any logical argument being given as to why Labour are going to do so well as to deprive a govt with an 80 seat majority another one. It all seems based on Labour voters hatred of Boris,. or some vague hope that something really bad will happen to put people who voted Conservative last time off. But we have had the pandemic, Afghanistan and you could say Brexit, all painted as complete disasters by Labour, yet they aren't doing well enough to be thought of as any danger to another Tory Maj.
And on the three ocassions this year that English people have had chance to vote for them, they have turned out in their lowest number is history, in three very different By Elections
So where is the evidence, any evidence, of Labour doing well somehow? Put me off my Con Maj bet
BREAK: Dominic Raab: "I was deeply saddened to learn that two British nationals and the child of another British national were killed by yesterday’s terror attack, with two more injured." https://twitter.com/JackElsom/status/1431278621629587461
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.
And you won't be at the election either, let's face facts and look them straight in the eye. But if lots of centre right Johnson/Brexit skeptics like you were to vote Lib Dem or abstain we have an interesting contest in store.
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.
Just to add to this:
- the current odds on Conservative majority in 2024 are simply wrong. The real price should be at least 60%, and probably more like 65-70%
- there is a far from non-zero chance that the Conservatives increase their majority. I wouldn't make it 50:50 (mostly because tactical voting tends to increase the longer a party is in power), but given the boundary changes and the strong mid-term position, it is no worse than a one-in-five shot.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
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.
Which is why Labour shouldn't be hiding from it, but developing a policy mix, and a message, to address it, and take the initiative. God knows the implementation is a hideous mess, so they've got plenty of ammunition and plenty of opportunity to say how things can be improved.
Current polling is being over analysed by both sides. What matters is perceptions of Brexit success by 2023/4 amongst Brexiteers, which cannot be deduced from polling or even current Brexit perceptions. Historic mid term swings don't apply.
The Tory vote is essentially the Brexit vote, which is why it is so stable and hard to beat.
I think Labours chances are overstated in the betting markets, but that is nothing to do with polling, more that people are stubborn and whatever evidence there is against Brexit will be successfully blamed on covid and the EU.
However if perceptions change, and they can do quickly, then historic mid term swings will be an irrelevance.
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.
That's not an enjoyable read, David. I will be erasing it from the memory bank.
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they lose in Quebec against the BQ - they lose in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they are neck and neck in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Weekly columnist for the Daily Telegraph seemed to.
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.
And you won't be at the election either, let's face facts and look them straight in the eye. But if lots of centre right Johnson/Brexit skeptics like you were to vote Lib Dem or abstain we have an interesting contest in store.
That is true. And as per @rcs1000's observation also.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
'A criminal defence lawyer' will resonate with about half the lads down the pub. The other's; not so much!
But, if the alternative is a Frankenstein composed of Lab & LibDem & SNP & PC & Green & Ulster Unionist, then I think the Tories will win quite easily.
For Starmer to become PM, I think he really has to get the Labour party in a much, much stronger position before the GE. Starmer has to make it plausible that Labour could construct a manageable & viable coalition that could actually work. Which in practise probably means no more than Lab+LibDem+Green.
Otherwise, I think it will be just too easy for the Tories to demonise Starmer, not as a person, but as leader of the Frankenstein Coalition.
It is really difficult to win an election when -- like Starmer -- you will be fighting without any hope of winning it (i.e., in the sense of getting a Labour majority).
Cameron had an easier job in 2010 (although he did not manage it), He was fighting to win, he was fighting for a Tory Gov't. Unless the polls get a lot closer, Starmer -- at outset -- will not be fighting for a Labour Gov't.
He will be fighting for the Frankenstein Coalition. That is a tough sell in the real world (though probably not on pb.com).
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
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.
And you won't be at the election either, let's face facts and look them straight in the eye. But if lots of centre right Johnson/Brexit skeptics like you were to vote Lib Dem or abstain we have an interesting contest in store.
That is true. And as per @rcs1000's observation also.
What do the LibDems stand for again?
I think they're in favour winning more seats at the General Election.
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they come second in Quebec against the BQ - they come second in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they come second in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
The Conservatives actually come third in Quebec behind the Liberals and BQ.
As you say they win huge majorities in the rural West which helped them win the popular vote last time but will likely still fail to win most seats overall.
However on current polling I think there is a possibility the Conservatives could win most seats excluding Quebec next month even if Trudeau narrowly still wins most seats in Canada including Quebec. Much as I think the Conservatives will win a majority excluding Scotland at the next UK general here but could lose their majority including Scotland
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
You say that, but weirdly the plebs seem to like the Boris character as if he is one of them. I don't get it, but there we are.
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.
And you won't be at the election either, let's face facts and look them straight in the eye. But if lots of centre right Johnson/Brexit skeptics like you were to vote Lib Dem or abstain we have an interesting contest in store.
That is true. And as per @rcs1000's observation also.
What do the LibDems stand for again?
I think they're in favour winning more seats at the General Election.
A noble aim. But sadly we have seen with the present incumbent that without a vision things can fall apart pretty quickly.
10-pt lead fall apart you observe? Well yes. After Brexit, after the Pandemic, what is there? Let's see how they handle the levelling up project.
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.
And you won't be at the election either, let's face facts and look them straight in the eye. But if lots of centre right Johnson/Brexit skeptics like you were to vote Lib Dem or abstain we have an interesting contest in store.
That is true. And as per @rcs1000's observation also.
What do the LibDems stand for again?
Fiscal probity, sound money, personal freedom, civil liberties, social justice, the rule of law, just exactly perfect borders and immigration policy, peace on earth and goodwill to all men.
"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.
Have there been many other pandemics in your life time?
I just can't see any logical argument being given as to why Labour are going to do so well as to deprive a govt with an 80 seat majority another one. It all seems based on Labour voters hatred of Boris,. or some vague hope that something really bad will happen to put people who voted Conservative last time off. But we have had the pandemic, Afghanistan and you could say Brexit, all painted as complete disasters by Labour, yet they aren't doing well enough to be thought of as any danger to another Tory Maj.
And on the three ocassions this year that English people have had chance to vote for them, they have turned out in their lowest number is history, in three very different By Elections
So where is the evidence, any evidence, of Labour doing well somehow? Put me off my Con Maj bet
There's no evidence of Labour doing well, you're quite right. But what there is evidence of is quite a lot of Tories and their sympathisers disillusioned with Boris and only voting for him reluctantly, if at all. There's a fair number of them on this site, for instance. So those who travel with a hopeful heart are hoping that Boris will lose enough seats (to Lab and LD) to be in trouble. It would be the anti-Boris vote that counted, not the pro-Labour/LD. Though if Boris were to go before the next GE....
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
You say that, but weirdly the plebs seem to like the Boris character as if he is one of them. I don't get it, but there we are.
God yes absolutely. They like him because there is something unattainable in a non-threatening way about him. A "human rights lawyer" whatever tf that is (ie aren't they all?) brings up visions of Amal Clooney, Hollywood/Metropolitan elite which frankly don't sit well down the pub.
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.
And you won't be at the election either, let's face facts and look them straight in the eye. But if lots of centre right Johnson/Brexit skeptics like you were to vote Lib Dem or abstain we have an interesting contest in store.
That is true. And as per @rcs1000's observation also.
What do the LibDems stand for again?
Fiscal probity, sound money, personal freedom, civil liberties, social justice, the rule of law, just exactly perfect borders and immigration policy, peace on earth and goodwill to all men.
I cannot recommend them highly enough.
You obviously missed this ridiculous policy idea...
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they lose in Quebec against the BQ - they lose in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they are neck and neck in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
Note: I edited this to make it more accurate.
I must admit, I'd not realised how true this was until recently. I can't believe they fell short of a majority in 2008!
The main attack line is likely to be that Labour has too many ideological zealots to be trusted as a party and SKS is weak so can't be trusted to control them plus he is too "woke" himself as a middle class north London type. I also suspect there will be some interesting cases dug up from his time as DPP. Whether the negatives will work or be required nobody can predict with confidence?
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.
And you won't be at the election either, let's face facts and look them straight in the eye. But if lots of centre right Johnson/Brexit skeptics like you were to vote Lib Dem or abstain we have an interesting contest in store.
That is true. And as per @rcs1000's observation also.
What do the LibDems stand for again?
Fiscal probity, sound money, personal freedom, civil liberties, social justice, the rule of law, just exactly perfect borders and immigration policy, peace on earth and goodwill to all men.
I cannot recommend them highly enough.
Actually I think I've seen them. Do they have their pre-AGM drinks at that little bar in Hampstead...
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'.
I am a Cameroon Tory and I would be tempted, but the Lib Dem party members/activists I know don't want a proto-Orange Booker in the party.
Had an infected lump in tongue - seemed to clear up but dentist sucked her teeth at it (so to speak) and referred me to the local specialist hospital clinic. Was phoned in 4 days, appt 2 days later, turned up, was poked and prodded and trainee-fodder all of 10 mins late, all clear etc.
Was told that they had plenty of slots at present so generally things ran smoothly (not sure exactly why).
Mask wearing almost 100% (in Scotland, however). What did not impress me, however, was lack of natural ventilation. But that is the architect. One has to hope the air con is doing a reasonable job ...
Desperately sad to learn that British families were among the victims of yesterday’s appalling attacks alongside many, many Afghans and US military who lost their lives. All possible assistance must be extended to those who remain on the ground in the most difficult circumstances https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1431282324684091396
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.
And you won't be at the election either, let's face facts and look them straight in the eye. But if lots of centre right Johnson/Brexit skeptics like you were to vote Lib Dem or abstain we have an interesting contest in store.
That is true. And as per @rcs1000's observation also.
What do the LibDems stand for again?
Fiscal probity, sound money, personal freedom, civil liberties, social justice, the rule of law, just exactly perfect borders and immigration policy, peace on earth and goodwill to all men.
I cannot recommend them highly enough.
You obviously missed this ridiculous policy idea...
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they come second in Quebec against the BQ - they come second in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they come second in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
The Conservatives actually come third in Quebec behind the Liberals and BQ.
As you say they win huge majorities in the rural West which helped them win the popular vote last time but will likely still fail to win most seats overall.
However on current polling I think there is a possibility the Conservatives could win most seats excluding Quebec next month even if Trudeau narrowly still wins most seats in Canada including Quebec. Much as I think the Conservatives will win a majority excluding Scotland at the next UK general here but could lose their majority including Scotland
But Quebec is literally 25% of the country unlike Scotland. And there will be debates in French. O'Toole struggles with a strong accent and poor pronunciation. Trudeau is arguably in his first language. Certainly he is genuinely bilingual. This is a huge advantage.
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.
And you won't be at the election either, let's face facts and look them straight in the eye. But if lots of centre right Johnson/Brexit skeptics like you were to vote Lib Dem or abstain we have an interesting contest in store.
That is true. And as per @rcs1000's observation also.
What do the LibDems stand for again?
Fiscal probity, sound money, personal freedom, civil liberties, social justice, the rule of law, just exactly perfect borders and immigration policy, peace on earth and goodwill to all men.
I cannot recommend them highly enough.
You obviously missed this ridiculous policy idea...
They really don't do themselves any favours with this kind of nonsense.
I groaned when I saw that one. I'm really willing the LDs to be a good alternative, probably voting for them anyway as the least bad option.
I fear they might get themselves caught up with the nutter eco approaches and niche gender issues, rather than focusing on sensible orange book policy ideas.
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'.
I am a Cameroon Tory and I would be tempted, but the Lib Dem party members/activists I know don't want a proto-Orange Booker in the party.
I might do it anyway.
I was a Cameroon and I will be voting LD until The Clown is no longer Tory leader.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
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'.
I am a Cameroon Tory and I would be tempted, but the Lib Dem party members/activists I know don't want a proto-Orange Booker in the party.
I might do it anyway.
I was a Cameroon and I will be voting LD until The Clown is no longer Tory leader.
No surprise, the current Ed Davey LD vote has more who voted for Cameron or Clegg in it in 2015 than those who voted for Charles Kennedy's LDs in 2005
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
To gullible folk such as yourself he is a rock star (and as I have known a few genuine rock stars I can assure you he is nothing like one). To the rest of us he is a twat. A joke who diminishes Britain on the world stage
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they come second in Quebec against the BQ - they come second in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they come second in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
The Conservatives actually come third in Quebec behind the Liberals and BQ.
As you say they win huge majorities in the rural West which helped them win the popular vote last time but will likely still fail to win most seats overall.
However on current polling I think there is a possibility the Conservatives could win most seats excluding Quebec next month even if Trudeau narrowly still wins most seats in Canada including Quebec. Much as I think the Conservatives will win a majority excluding Scotland at the next UK general here but could lose their majority including Scotland
But Quebec is literally 25% of the country unlike Scotland. And there will be debates in French. O'Toole struggles with a strong accent and poor pronunciation. Trudeau is arguably in his first language. Certainly he is genuinely bilingual. This is a huge advantage.
Yes, Trudeau has a Quebec bounce, he is more of a French Canadian while O'Toole is more of a British Canadian. Though both oppose Quebec independence
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
To gullible folk such as yourself he is a rock star (and as I have known a few genuine rock stars I can assure you he is nothing like one). To the rest of us he is a twat. A joke who diminishes Britain on the world stage
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
To gullible folk such as yourself he is a rock star (and as I have known a few genuine rock stars I can assure you he is nothing like one). To the rest of us he is a twat. A joke who diminishes Britain on the world stage
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
To gullible folk such as yourself he is a rock star (and as I have known a few genuine rock stars I can assure you he is nothing like one). To the rest of us he is a twat. A joke who diminishes Britain on the world stage
Yes Nigel.
Which genuine rock stars have you known?
A few along the way. I don't have need to make it up. Rock stars do have friends and acquaintances who are mere business people.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
To gullible folk such as yourself he is a rock star (and as I have known a few genuine rock stars I can assure you he is nothing like one). To the rest of us he is a twat. A joke who diminishes Britain on the world stage
Please don't pretend to speak for 'the rest of us'.
I don't think Boris is a very good PM (I don't think he is terrible either, given the hand he has been dealt so far). I didn't want him to be PM, and didn't vote for him. The Garden Bridge debacle was clear evidence that he wasn't well suited for the role.
But he has an appeal. There seems to be a significant problem where those who truly hate him seem to be utterly blind to the factors that caused him to get a largish majority in 2019. If continued, that will be a mistake that will harm the anti-Boris crowd at the next GE.
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they come second in Quebec against the BQ - they come second in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they come second in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
The Conservatives actually come third in Quebec behind the Liberals and BQ.
As you say they win huge majorities in the rural West which helped them win the popular vote last time but will likely still fail to win most seats overall.
However on current polling I think there is a possibility the Conservatives could win most seats excluding Quebec next month even if Trudeau narrowly still wins most seats in Canada including Quebec. Much as I think the Conservatives will win a majority excluding Scotland at the next UK general here but could lose their majority including Scotland
The big story of 2021, though, isn't the Conservative resurgence (they're up about a percentage point on 2019), it's the NDP's rise.
The NDP are polling around 20%, up from less than 16% in 2019. And there are quite a lot of close Conservative/NDP seats in the West of Canada.
So, yes, the Conservatives might win most seats in Canada excluding Quebec (but even if they do, it's hard to see how they form a government). It's also possible that they suffer from tactical voting and the rise of the NDP, and go backwards.
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they come second in Quebec against the BQ - they come second in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they come second in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
The Conservatives actually come third in Quebec behind the Liberals and BQ.
As you say they win huge majorities in the rural West which helped them win the popular vote last time but will likely still fail to win most seats overall.
However on current polling I think there is a possibility the Conservatives could win most seats excluding Quebec next month even if Trudeau narrowly still wins most seats in Canada including Quebec. Much as I think the Conservatives will win a majority excluding Scotland at the next UK general here but could lose their majority including Scotland
But Quebec is literally 25% of the country unlike Scotland. And there will be debates in French. O'Toole struggles with a strong accent and poor pronunciation. Trudeau is arguably in his first language. Certainly he is genuinely bilingual. This is a huge advantage.
Yes, Trudeau has a Quebec bounce, he is more of a French Canadian while O'Toole is more of a British Canadian. Though both oppose Quebec independence
To win a majority without any Quebec seats you need to win 2/3rds of the seats in Anglo-Canada. This is the basic fact that makes a Tory overall majority very difficult indeed. They won 10 of 78 last time. They need to up that significantly to win.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
To gullible folk such as yourself he is a rock star (and as I have known a few genuine rock stars I can assure you he is nothing like one). To the rest of us he is a twat. A joke who diminishes Britain on the world stage
Yes Nigel.
Which genuine rock stars have you known?
A few along the way. I don't have need to make it up. Rock stars do have friends and acquaintances who are mere business people.
My point is that I, as I imagine you, have been to events when Johnson was speaking/attending. There is a tangible buzz before he arrives and people swoon into their chicken.
That is undeniable. What is also undeniable of course is as you say he is a complete twat. But he is rockstar material also.
Genuinely interested to know which rockstars you have known hence my attempted diversion.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
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.
Just to add to this:
- the current odds on Conservative majority in 2024 are simply wrong. The real price should be at least 60%, and probably more like 65-70%
- there is a far from non-zero chance that the Conservatives increase their majority. I wouldn't make it 50:50 (mostly because tactical voting tends to increase the longer a party is in power), but given the boundary changes and the strong mid-term position, it is no worse than a one-in-five shot.
I would tend to disagree with this view, plausible though it is. In my view: there is more downside than upside potential for the Tories here on in, because of the number of things that can go wrong, chickens coming home to roost etc. The current polls show weaker support for Tories than at the last GE, and Labour have more chance of less going wrong for them.
So IMHO the chance of a Tory majority (326 seats) can't be distinguished form the chance of an NOM, while the chance of Labour being 326 seats + is the chance of a black swan. I put it at 46% Tory, 46% NOM, 8% Lab
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
To gullible folk such as yourself he is a rock star (and as I have known a few genuine rock stars I can assure you he is nothing like one). To the rest of us he is a twat. A joke who diminishes Britain on the world stage
Please don't pretend to speak for 'the rest of us'.
I don't think Boris is a very good PM (I don't think he is terrible either, given the hand he has been dealt so far). I didn't want him to be PM, and didn't vote for him. The Garden Bridge debacle was clear evidence that he wasn't well suited for the role.
But he has an appeal. There seems to be a significant problem where those who truly hate him seem to be utterly blind to the factors that caused him to get a largish majority in 2019. If continued, that will be a mistake that will harm the anti-Boris crowd at the next GE.
God forbid that I should speak for your good self! It was more a turn of phrase. I am not blind to his appeal . There are some people who like his bonhomie and general stupidity. The first aspect is useful for a gameshow host and the latter a big problem for an executive leader. I am only one voter, but I don't think I am exactly alone in thinking that Boris Johnson is a fecking disaster area. The only thing he has in his favour is that he is not Jeremy Corbyn
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
To gullible folk such as yourself he is a rock star (and as I have known a few genuine rock stars I can assure you he is nothing like one). To the rest of us he is a twat. A joke who diminishes Britain on the world stage
Yes Nigel.
Which genuine rock stars have you known?
A few along the way. I don't have need to make it up. Rock stars do have friends and acquaintances who are mere business people.
My point is that I, as I imagine you, have been to events when Johnson was speaking/attending. There is a tangible buzz before he arrives and people swoon into their chicken.
That is undeniable. What is also undeniable of course is as you say he is a complete twat. But he is rockstar material also.
Genuinely interested to know which rockstars you have known hence my attempted diversion.
The only rock star I have engaged in polite conversation with (and this is far from known) is Matt Berninger of The National.
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.
That remains to be seen. I can see a handful of Southern seats falling to the LDs.
The Tories are hoping Brexit remains a live issue for the RedWall. They are hoping Brexit is done for the BlueWall.
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.
Well the Johnson/Con vote is the Brexit vote, give or take. If they hold it, give or take, they win another majority.
And what's the biggest single thing Brexit voters have in common?
It's not lack of education. It's not passive aggression. It's not an inferiority complex, nor (its close cousin) the ingrained sense of something very special about this country that is incompatible with membership of the European Single Market and Customs Union.
No, it's quite simply BREXIT. So I think you are bang on with your prediction. Labour will avoid the topic like the plague, the Tories will seek ways to bring it into the conversation.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.
Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
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.
Well the Johnson/Con vote is the Brexit vote, give or take. If they hold it, give or take, they win another majority.
And what's the biggest single thing Brexit voters have in common?
It's not lack of education. It's not passive aggression. It's not an inferiority complex, nor (its close cousin) the ingrained sense of something very special about this country that is incompatible with membership of the European Single Market and Customs Union.
No, it's quite simply BREXIT. So I think you are bang on with your prediction. Labour will avoid the topic like the plague, the Tories will seek ways to bring it into the conversation.
...but not in the leafy suburbs of Southern England they won't.
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they come second in Quebec against the BQ - they come second in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they come second in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
The Conservatives actually come third in Quebec behind the Liberals and BQ.
As you say they win huge majorities in the rural West which helped them win the popular vote last time but will likely still fail to win most seats overall.
However on current polling I think there is a possibility the Conservatives could win most seats excluding Quebec next month even if Trudeau narrowly still wins most seats in Canada including Quebec. Much as I think the Conservatives will win a majority excluding Scotland at the next UK general here but could lose their majority including Scotland
The big story of 2021, though, isn't the Conservative resurgence (they're up about a percentage point on 2019), it's the NDP's rise.
The NDP are polling around 20%, up from less than 16% in 2019. And there are quite a lot of close Conservative/NDP seats in the West of Canada.
So, yes, the Conservatives might win most seats in Canada excluding Quebec (but even if they do, it's hard to see how they form a government). It's also possible that they suffer from tactical voting and the rise of the NDP, and go backwards.
It isn't.
The NDP got 30% in 2011 so are still polling far below that.
Apart from a few seats in the west all a rising NDP vote does, especially in swing seat rich Ontario, is increase the number of Conservative gains from the Liberals under Canadian FPTP as most NDP gains in votes come from the Liberals.
As long as you win most seats in Canada, even without a majority, you tend to lead the government. Hence Harper was PM without a majority from 2006 to 2011 when he finally won a Tory majority even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ combined had more seats than the Conservatives. So if the Conservatives win most seats overall then O'Toole will likely be PM. Though yes they need a few more seats in Quebec to do that as you and dixiedean correctly point out
That was my first thought. And then, how did he catch Ebola?
Seriously, bleeding like that and the rest, is it a syndrome associated with AZ inoculation at all, however rare?
My understanding is that it is the completely opposite symptoms (blood clots) that are associated with AZ, *not* bleeds.
Exactly. So what did he have? @TimT might actually be close to the mark - not Ebola but perhaps dengue or some other haemorrhagic virus. Notably, the original tweet didn't say *where* the chap was or had been.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
To gullible folk such as yourself he is a rock star (and as I have known a few genuine rock stars I can assure you he is nothing like one). To the rest of us he is a twat. A joke who diminishes Britain on the world stage
Yes Nigel.
Which genuine rock stars have you known?
A few along the way. I don't have need to make it up. Rock stars do have friends and acquaintances who are mere business people.
My point is that I, as I imagine you, have been to events when Johnson was speaking/attending. There is a tangible buzz before he arrives and people swoon into their chicken.
That is undeniable. What is also undeniable of course is as you say he is a complete twat. But he is rockstar material also.
Genuinely interested to know which rockstars you have known hence my attempted diversion.
You make a reasonable point. I actually haven't attended any function where he has been speaking, but can imagine that he has that effect. Mind you, I once attended a speech with John Major and you might be surprised to hear he created a similar sounding atmosphere.
As for the rock stars, they are mainly heavy rock and metal musicians who may be known to a few people on here but while they are genuine rock stars they are not really household names. Off stage they are just like normal folk down the pub. But, no I am not going to name them, sorry.
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they come second in Quebec against the BQ - they come second in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they come second in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
The Conservatives actually come third in Quebec behind the Liberals and BQ.
As you say they win huge majorities in the rural West which helped them win the popular vote last time but will likely still fail to win most seats overall.
However on current polling I think there is a possibility the Conservatives could win most seats excluding Quebec next month even if Trudeau narrowly still wins most seats in Canada including Quebec. Much as I think the Conservatives will win a majority excluding Scotland at the next UK general here but could lose their majority including Scotland
The big story of 2021, though, isn't the Conservative resurgence (they're up about a percentage point on 2019), it's the NDP's rise.
The NDP are polling around 20%, up from less than 16% in 2019. And there are quite a lot of close Conservative/NDP seats in the West of Canada.
So, yes, the Conservatives might win most seats in Canada excluding Quebec (but even if they do, it's hard to see how they form a government). It's also possible that they suffer from tactical voting and the rise of the NDP, and go backwards.
It isn't.
The NDP got 30% in 2011 so are still polling far below that.
Apart from a few seats in the west all a rising NDP vote does, especially in swing seat rich Ontario, is increase the number of Conservative gains from the Liberals under Canadian FPTP.
As long as you win most seats in Canada, even without a majority, you tend to lead the government. Hence Harper was PM without a majority from 2006 to 2011 when he finally won a Tory majority even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ combined had more seats than the Conservatives.
The NDP lost six seats to the Conservatives in 2019, as their vote share fell from 20% to 15.6%. Given the current change in vote shares, they're on target to win all these back in 2021.
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they come second in Quebec against the BQ - they come second in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they come second in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
The Conservatives actually come third in Quebec behind the Liberals and BQ.
As you say they win huge majorities in the rural West which helped them win the popular vote last time but will likely still fail to win most seats overall.
However on current polling I think there is a possibility the Conservatives could win most seats excluding Quebec next month even if Trudeau narrowly still wins most seats in Canada including Quebec. Much as I think the Conservatives will win a majority excluding Scotland at the next UK general here but could lose their majority including Scotland
The big story of 2021, though, isn't the Conservative resurgence (they're up about a percentage point on 2019), it's the NDP's rise.
The NDP are polling around 20%, up from less than 16% in 2019. And there are quite a lot of close Conservative/NDP seats in the West of Canada.
So, yes, the Conservatives might win most seats in Canada excluding Quebec (but even if they do, it's hard to see how they form a government). It's also possible that they suffer from tactical voting and the rise of the NDP, and go backwards.
It isn't.
The NDP got 30% in 2011 so are still polling far below that.
Apart from a few seats in the west all a rising NDP vote does, especially in swing seat rich Ontario, is increase the number of Conservative gains from the Liberals under Canadian FPTP.
As long as you win most seats in Canada, even without a majority, you tend to lead the government. Hence Harper was PM without a majority from 2006 to 2011 when he finally won a Tory majority even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ combined had more seats than the Conservatives.
If you wish hard enough (Johnson landslide, Corbyn collapse) it will come true, but then the stats were on your side. Sometimes even when you wish very hard it doesn't (Trump second term)when the stats weren't on your side. I think you are wishing and hoping here too
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.
Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
Who was it who said politics is show biz for ugly people?
FPT - very long way to go yet, and Canadian voters are notoriously fickle, but I hope Trudeau gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
I doubt Erin O'Toole has what it takes though, so I expect another Lib minority sadly.
It's difficult to get a Conservative government in Canada without them being five or six points higher in the polls than now. Simply, FPTP really works against them:
- they come second in Quebec against the BQ - they come second in the West and the big cities against the NDP - they come second in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
The Conservatives actually come third in Quebec behind the Liberals and BQ.
As you say they win huge majorities in the rural West which helped them win the popular vote last time but will likely still fail to win most seats overall.
However on current polling I think there is a possibility the Conservatives could win most seats excluding Quebec next month even if Trudeau narrowly still wins most seats in Canada including Quebec. Much as I think the Conservatives will win a majority excluding Scotland at the next UK general here but could lose their majority including Scotland
The big story of 2021, though, isn't the Conservative resurgence (they're up about a percentage point on 2019), it's the NDP's rise.
The NDP are polling around 20%, up from less than 16% in 2019. And there are quite a lot of close Conservative/NDP seats in the West of Canada.
So, yes, the Conservatives might win most seats in Canada excluding Quebec (but even if they do, it's hard to see how they form a government). It's also possible that they suffer from tactical voting and the rise of the NDP, and go backwards.
It isn't.
The NDP got 30% in 2011 so are still polling far below that.
Apart from a few seats in the west all a rising NDP vote does, especially in swing seat rich Ontario, is increase the number of Conservative gains from the Liberals under Canadian FPTP.
As long as you win most seats in Canada, even without a majority, you tend to lead the government. Hence Harper was PM without a majority from 2006 to 2011 when he finally won a Tory majority even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ combined had more seats than the Conservatives.
The NDP lost six seats to the Conservatives in 2019, as their vote share fell from 20% to 15.6%. Given the current change in vote shares, they're on target to win all these back in 2021.
Which is largely irrelevant to the Conservatives given the much more than 6 seats they would gain from the Liberals in Ontario if the NDP really eat into the Liberal vote there.
Remember the Conservatives won a majority in 2011 when the NDP were on 30%
People will be asked to take 'personal action' including wearing face masks in public places and socially distance where possible, according to a letter from @NadineDorries which has been seen by @Plymouth_Live
The 'escalated response' will remain in force for four weeks, with a warning of a "re-escalation" of measures if rates don't fall. All subject from sign-off from Number 10.
----
How long until wider lockdown enhanced personal action?
Had an infected lump in tongue - seemed to clear up but dentist sucked her teeth at it (so to speak) and referred me to the local specialist hospital clinic. Was phoned in 4 days, appt 2 days later, turned up, was poked and prodded and trainee-fodder all of 10 mins late, all clear etc.
Was told that they had plenty of slots at present so generally things ran smoothly (not sure exactly why).
Mask wearing almost 100% (in Scotland, however). What did not impress me, however, was lack of natural ventilation. But that is the architect. One has to hope the air con is doing a reasonable job ...
Did you let on that you were a Nat? Might have been useful diagnostically.
But only optional? It's not clear, and the talk of 'personal action' isn't particularly illuminating.
"they are trusting people to be responsible and to act with caution and common sense, as they have done throughout this pandemic, and to make decisions about how best to protect themselves and their loved ones, informed by the risks"
Had an infected lump in tongue - seemed to clear up but dentist sucked her teeth at it (so to speak) and referred me to the local specialist hospital clinic. Was phoned in 4 days, appt 2 days later, turned up, was poked and prodded and trainee-fodder all of 10 mins late, all clear etc.
Was told that they had plenty of slots at present so generally things ran smoothly (not sure exactly why).
Mask wearing almost 100% (in Scotland, however). What did not impress me, however, was lack of natural ventilation. But that is the architect. One has to hope the air con is doing a reasonable job ...
Did you let on that you were a Nat? Might have been useful diagnostically.
No. (That's an unusually acid dig from you - not like you at all. Did a cleg get you on the bottom or something?)
Comments
O'Toole would be a good friend of Boris' UK if he did manage to produce a shock and lead the Conservatives to most seats but yes I agree a Liberal minority still looks most likely
But you might be right. We'll see in a couple of years, since doubtless the Tories will have a look at this strategy to see if it gains traction.
It has to be brought out.
https://londonist.com/london/londoners-in-1987-wanted-to-demolish-these-buildings?fbclid=IwAR2sXk5yclVkf8GLoLFFeCB1w2bqrabiVNvpWSDuQ4hRWnbS-hbvvuVpTro
A list of buildings Londoners wanted to demolish in 1987. Unsurprisingly, all are modern and most are Brutalist. Yet architects are still in love with these monstrosities.
I just can't see any logical argument being given as to why Labour are going to do so well as to deprive a govt with an 80 seat majority another one. It all seems based on Labour voters hatred of Boris,. or some vague hope that something really bad will happen to put people who voted Conservative last time off. But we have had the pandemic, Afghanistan and you could say Brexit, all painted as complete disasters by Labour, yet they aren't doing well enough to be thought of as any danger to another Tory Maj.
And on the three ocassions this year that English people have had chance to vote for them, they have turned out in their lowest number is history, in three very different By Elections
So where is the evidence, any evidence, of Labour doing well somehow? Put me off my Con Maj bet
https://twitter.com/JackElsom/status/1431278621629587461
- the current odds on Conservative majority in 2024 are simply wrong. The real price should be at least 60%, and probably more like 65-70%
- there is a far from non-zero chance that the Conservatives increase their majority. I wouldn't make it 50:50 (mostly because tactical voting tends to increase the longer a party is in power), but given the boundary changes and the strong mid-term position, it is no worse than a one-in-five shot.
They could, in fact, start here:
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/10/brexit-undoing-some-of-the-damage-part-1-the-principles/
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/11/brexit-undoing-some-of-the-damage-part-2-from-principles-to-policies/
But I don't expect they will. I expect Starmer to continue his rabbit-frozen-in-the-headlights act.
The Tory vote is essentially the Brexit vote, which is why it is so stable and hard to beat.
I think Labours chances are overstated in the betting markets, but that is nothing to do with polling, more that people are stubborn and whatever evidence there is against Brexit will be successfully blamed on covid and the EU.
However if perceptions change, and they can do quickly, then historic mid term swings will be an irrelevance.
- they lose in Quebec against the BQ
- they lose in the West and the big cities against the NDP
- they are neck and neck in the suburbs to the Liberals
It's only in rural Albert and Saskatchewan (population bugger all), that they can really feel comfortable.
Indeed, given tactical voting, it's far from impossible the Conservatives go backwards this time around.
Note: I edited this to make it more accurate.
What do the LibDems stand for again?
But, if the alternative is a Frankenstein composed of Lab & LibDem & SNP & PC & Green & Ulster Unionist, then I think the Tories will win quite easily.
For Starmer to become PM, I think he really has to get the Labour party in a much, much stronger position before the GE. Starmer has to make it plausible that Labour could construct a manageable & viable coalition that could actually work. Which in practise probably means no more than Lab+LibDem+Green.
Otherwise, I think it will be just too easy for the Tories to demonise Starmer, not as a person, but as leader of the Frankenstein Coalition.
It is really difficult to win an election when -- like Starmer -- you will be fighting without any hope of winning it (i.e., in the sense of getting a Labour majority).
Cameron had an easier job in 2010 (although he did not manage it), He was fighting to win, he was fighting for a Tory Gov't. Unless the polls get a lot closer, Starmer -- at outset -- will not be fighting for a Labour Gov't.
He will be fighting for the Frankenstein Coalition. That is a tough sell in the real world (though probably not on pb.com).
As you say they win huge majorities in the rural West which helped them win the popular vote last time but will likely still fail to win most seats overall.
However on current polling I think there is a possibility the Conservatives could win most seats excluding Quebec next month even if Trudeau narrowly still wins most seats in Canada including Quebec. Much as I think the Conservatives will win a majority excluding Scotland at the next UK general here but could lose their majority including Scotland
10-pt lead fall apart you observe? Well yes. After Brexit, after the Pandemic, what is there? Let's see how they handle the levelling up project.
I cannot recommend them highly enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/26/lib-dems-propose-ban-on-new-listings-of-fossil-fuel-companies-on-lse-london-climate-change
They really don't do themselves any favours with this kind of nonsense.
I might do it anyway.
Had an infected lump in tongue - seemed to clear up but dentist sucked her teeth at it (so to speak) and referred me to the local specialist hospital clinic. Was phoned in 4 days, appt 2 days later, turned up, was poked and prodded and trainee-fodder all of 10 mins late, all clear etc.
Was told that they had plenty of slots at present so generally things ran smoothly (not sure exactly why).
Mask wearing almost 100% (in Scotland, however). What did not impress me, however, was lack of natural ventilation. But that is the architect. One has to hope the air con is doing a reasonable job ...
https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1431282324684091396
One day later I felt fine.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk
This is a huge advantage.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
Which genuine rock stars have you known?
I don't think Boris is a very good PM (I don't think he is terrible either, given the hand he has been dealt so far). I didn't want him to be PM, and didn't vote for him. The Garden Bridge debacle was clear evidence that he wasn't well suited for the role.
But he has an appeal. There seems to be a significant problem where those who truly hate him seem to be utterly blind to the factors that caused him to get a largish majority in 2019. If continued, that will be a mistake that will harm the anti-Boris crowd at the next GE.
The NDP are polling around 20%, up from less than 16% in 2019. And there are quite a lot of close Conservative/NDP seats in the West of Canada.
So, yes, the Conservatives might win most seats in Canada excluding Quebec (but even if they do, it's hard to see how they form a government). It's also possible that they suffer from tactical voting and the rise of the NDP, and go backwards.
They won 10 of 78 last time. They need to up that significantly to win.
@Carnyx got there first...
That is undeniable. What is also undeniable of course is as you say he is a complete twat. But he is rockstar material also.
Genuinely interested to know which rockstars you have known hence my attempted diversion.
Edit: investigation into nether parts excepted. That is probably psychological, if not psychiatric in the circs.
So IMHO the chance of a Tory majority (326 seats) can't be distinguished form the chance of an NOM, while the chance of Labour being 326 seats + is the chance of a black swan. I put it at 46% Tory, 46% NOM, 8% Lab
The Tories are hoping Brexit remains a live issue for the RedWall. They are hoping Brexit is done for the BlueWall.
And what's the biggest single thing Brexit voters have in common?
It's not lack of education. It's not passive aggression. It's not an inferiority complex, nor (its close cousin) the ingrained sense of something very special about this country that is incompatible with membership of the European Single Market and Customs Union.
No, it's quite simply BREXIT. So I think you are bang on with your prediction. Labour will avoid the topic like the plague, the Tories will seek ways to bring it into the conversation.
Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
The NDP got 30% in 2011 so are still polling far below that.
Apart from a few seats in the west all a rising NDP vote does, especially in swing seat rich Ontario, is increase the number of Conservative gains from the Liberals under Canadian FPTP as most NDP gains in votes come from the Liberals.
As long as you win most seats in Canada, even without a majority, you tend to lead the government. Hence Harper was PM without a majority from 2006 to 2011 when he finally won a Tory majority even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ combined had more seats than the Conservatives. So if the Conservatives win most seats overall then O'Toole will likely be PM. Though yes they need a few more seats in Quebec to do that as you and dixiedean correctly point out
As for the rock stars, they are mainly heavy rock and metal musicians who may be known to a few people on here but while they are genuine rock stars they are not really household names. Off stage they are just like normal folk down the pub. But, no I am not going to name them, sorry.
Ah, I see the tiers are back
Remember the Conservatives won a majority in 2011 when the NDP were on 30%
The 'escalated response' will remain in force for four weeks, with a warning of a "re-escalation" of measures if rates don't fall. All subject from sign-off from Number 10.
----
How long until wider
lockdownenhanced personal action?"they are trusting people to be responsible and to act with caution and common sense, as they have done throughout this pandemic, and to make decisions about how best to protect themselves and their loved ones, informed by the risks"
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/devon-cornwall-set-enhanced-response-5841949
Edit: @FrancisUrquhart got there first!