This week’s most important polling analysis on the White House race – politicalbetting.com

tlg86 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

96 seats gained in one election.

Johnson is Brown if he had held the election that never was.

He might have been more like May with a GE2017 result: Brown would almost certainly have lost his majority had he held that election in 2007 and his weaknesses would have become apparent during the campaign.

The zeitgeist was simply moving away from Labour by then (and the signs were clearly visible in England in GE2005).

Bottling it gave him an extra 2 1/2 years in office he wouldn't have otherwise had.

He might have lost his majority, but I doubt he'd have lost power (without being ousted by Labour). Would Cameron have survived?

If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

96 seats gained in one election.

My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.

But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.

One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?

I think the most interesting part of the counterfactual is how Blair's second term would have been different if he thought the Tories were breathing down his neck.

The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

And yet...

Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

Or perhaps not.

From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

Starmer will have to walk that same line.

Casino_Royale said:

If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

How would it have settled anything?

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1307721070988976129?s=20

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

311 deaths in France...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/sep/20/coronavirus-live-news-france-sees-another-record-daily-rise-as-victoria-records-14-new-cases

That is bad and doubtless will get worse. Macron will be up the creek without a paddle politically. France worries me.

How come their strict rules don't seem to be working?

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=30&LAB=40&LIB=8&Brexit=3&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=17.4&SCOTLIB=5.5&SCOTBrexit=1.1&SCOTGreen=1.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=53.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019

Lib Dems with close to current support, Tories having dropped off.

That's a bigger swing than Tony Blair achieved in 1997 (!)

And still Labour 5 seats short. Just goes to show the scale of the problem. Though ironically if Scotland were independent Labour would have a majority in that scenario.

The Tories are not going to fall to 30% without Scotland, they got 47% in England last year, even Major in 1997 got 34% in England.

Labour picking up 20 SNP seats gets Starmer to a majority more easily than a Westminster without Scotland would

"Parliament surrendered role over Covid emergency laws, says Lady Hale
Former supreme court president criticises manner in which controls were enacted"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/20/parliament-surrendered-role-over-covid-emergency-laws-says-lady-hale

stodge said:

The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

And yet...

Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

Or perhaps not.

From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

Starmer will have to walk that same line.

I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

How would it have settled anything?

There would have been a referendum. We'd have voted "No". There would have been more concessions. We'd then have renegotiated and signed a looser version, which would have included opt-outs from ever closer union. It might even have precipitated the rejection of the whole treaty across the EU, and to start again, as the French rejection of the EU constitution did in 2005.

This would have lanced the boil.

Brown is a classic example of a politician using their arithmetical advantage to ram through something the UK didn't really want, without a vote, and thus sowed the wind - and ended up reaping the whirlwind.

Johnson should take note of this for his strategy on the way out. Same applies.

So in effect you think it would have been a pathway to us voting for something like Dave's Deal in a referendum...

stodge said:

The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

And yet...

Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

Or perhaps not.

From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

Starmer will have to walk that same line.

Starmer is not going to win a majority next time, most likely if he becomes PM it will be cobbling together a deal with the LDs as Cameron did in 2010 in a hung parliament maybe even with the SNP too if he cannot make inroads in Scotland.

Even Labour gaining 75 seats would see Starmer gain only 6 more seats than the 271 Kinnock got in 1992

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Can I just point out, that a Labour majority likely means Boris Johnson loses his seat.

That would be quite comical

We’re beyond comical; it would be just desserts.

There isn’t, of course, any super injunction.

But if the circumstances ever arose, you can absolutely see why he might seek one. His reputation cannot take any more damage without becoming irretrievable.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

96 seats gained in one election.

My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.

But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.

One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?

If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.

Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.

Hague would have been a fantastic PM.

Had Hague won the 2001 election I expect his friendship with George W Bush would seen us still go to war in Iraq and of course we stayed out of the Euro anyway, the 2005 election would then have been close between Hague and Brown

FrancisUrquhart said:

Of course Labour won't vote for any Brexit deal Boris gets, the reaction of Remain to Brexit has always been like Columbo...just one more thing.

Also, they have nothing to lose if they don't. They can say it was a bad deal. If everything goes ok, nobody will remember, if it is a disaster, they will just say told you so.

Colombo always nailed his adversary, in the end.;)

https://twitter.com/MichaelCBender/status/1307707894595555329?s=19

The more things change.

Mexicanpete said:

stodge said:

The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

And yet...

Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

Or perhaps not.

From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

Starmer will have to walk that same line.

I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.

However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too

Rawnsley:

The expression on the face of Number 10 is that of a man who never looks where he is going and is then constantly surprised to find that he has stepped in dog excrement. There is an ever lengthening list of things that they could be reasonably expected to have anticipated and yet didn’t.

Multiple debacles, rebellions and reverses have even some of those who were once Boris Johnson’s most fervent cheerleaders in despair. This persistent blundering has flowed from a fundamental inability to read the public mood or get on top of events. Throughout the coronavirus crisis, the government has been constantly behind the curve.

In normal times, this inability to anticipate the consequences of its own decisions would be an embarrassing trait in a government. In the context of the Covid catastrophe, it is a deadly characteristic.

The testing chaos, coming in the wake of so many other fiascos, has the Tory press beginning to wonder whether Mr Johnson is fit to be in Number 10.

This echoes the wail of Tory backbenchers that the prime minister needs to “get a grip” and “rediscover his mojo” and “give us a sense of direction”. The implication is that the remedy for a wretched performance is for Mr Johnson to impose more of his personality on the government. This has it precisely the wrong way round. His character is the central source of the repeated inability to anticipate and address challenges.

His flaws as a prime minister are a revelation only to those who wilfully ignored his biography and his record.

Wow, missed this.

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1307658879149449216?s=19

Alistair said:

https://twitter.com/MichaelCBender/status/1307707894595555329?s=19

The more things change.

Well, its not as if anything has happened in those 6 months...

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

96 seats gained in one election.

My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.

But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.

One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?

If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.

Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.

Hague would have been a fantastic PM.

Post of the day. I’m still chuckling 15 minutes after originally reading it.

Hague would certainly have been one of our brightest PMs, probably the most intelligent PM we have had since Wilson however his judgement was not great

Like Ed Miliband.

Alistair said:

https://twitter.com/MichaelCBender/status/1307707894595555329?s=19

The more things change.

As a previous pb thread noted, and as 538 and also the (paywalled) WSJ suggest if that tweet is any guide, the significance of the Supreme Court issue is that it gives the Trump campaign something to talk about besides what a clusterfuck it has made of Covid-19. Tbh I am doubtful it will make much difference to voters because the ones who care are already determined to vote (though in the event of a contested election as in 2000 it may be the next President is chosen by the three Justices appointed by Trump, so watch your bets!) but we should keep an eye on the polls.

The low number of undecideds in the vast majority of the US polling highlights the deep polarization there . The big difference between this election and the last is Biden constantly scores over 50 in national polling including the undecideds , in much of the state polling he is over 50 in some of the key swing states. Clinton never managed that . If Trump pulls out a win then I don’t think it will be some hidden vote , polling companies have tried to tackle the issue of education in their sampling . The GOP are on the defence in states that he carried in 2016 so Biden’s route to 270 EC votes is wider than Clinton’s .

The current furore over the SC nomination won’t necessarily help him as this is now going to mean there’s more attention on healthcare . A weak point for the GOP which cost them in the 2018 mid terms.

Andy_JS said:

"Hammersmith and Fulham council bans all staff from smoking at their desks while working from home"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752965/Hammersmith-Fulham-council-BANS-staff-smoking-desks-working-home.html

What next? Banning people from knocking one out during conference calls?

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

stodge said:

The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

And yet...

Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

Or perhaps not.

From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

Starmer will have to walk that same line.

I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.

However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too

You are right about the Conservative Party except I think it quite likely Boris himself will want a way out. He does not seem to be enjoying the job; he still seems unwell; and as has been mentioned in the press but was discussed here months ago, Boris is not a wealthy man.

But Farage may be a busted flush. First, most voters have no clearer idea than the Cabinet what a successful Brexit is supposed to look like so will just be confused by arguments about subclauses in the Withdrawal Agreement; second, Farage's electoral success came at the European elections which of course no longer involve Britain. At Westminster, Farage's vehicles have crashed and burned.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer needs to be the next Cameron.

96 seats gained in one election.

My boy Dave (pbuh) gained the Tories 108 seats in on election, he took the party from 198 MPs in 2005 to 306 MPs in 2010.

But it's a much harder task facing Starmer than what was facing Cameron. Although the Tories didn't make all that many gains in 2005, a lot of seats were brought into play.

Obviously everyone starts with 0 votes in all seats, but we all know that past results do matter.

One thread I always keep on planning to right is a what if thread.

Just imagine if William Hague had managed to make say thirty net gains in 2001 instead of just one net gain, and Howard and Cameron made the same number of net gains that they did then in 2010 Dave wins a majority of 20.

So we'd have had no coalition, what would politics be like this day? What would have been the outcome of the 2015 GE?

If Hague has made 30 net gains Howard wouldn't have become leader.

Didn't Hague say he had set himself a target of 250 seats or he'd resign.

IIRC in 1999/2000 the Telegraph ran a report with a member of the shadow cabinet privately saying they had at least 100 gains in the bag for the 2001 election.

Hague would have been a fantastic PM.

Post of the day. I’m still chuckling 15 minutes after originally reading it.

Hague would certainly have been one of our brightest PMs, probably the most intelligent PM we have had since Wilson however his judgement was not great

Like Ed Miliband.

Though Ed Miliband got a 2.1, Hague got a 1st

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

stodge said:

The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

And yet...

Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

Or perhaps not.

From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

Starmer will have to walk that same line.

I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.

However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too

You are right about the Conservative Party except I think it quite likely Boris himself will want a way out. He does not seem to be enjoying the job; he still seems unwell; and as has been mentioned in the press but was discussed here months ago, Boris is not a wealthy man.

But Farage may be a busted flush. First, most voters have no clearer idea than the Cabinet what a successful Brexit is supposed to look like so will just be confused by arguments about subclauses in the Withdrawal Agreement; second, Farage's electoral success came at the European elections which of course no longer involve Britain. At Westminster, Farage's vehicles have crashed and burned.

Most Leave voters know enough they want to end free movement and regain control of fishing, fail to do that and it will not be Brexit as far as they are concerned and Farage will stand Brexit candidates at council seats and by elections across the country as UKIP did from 2010 to 2015

CorrectHorseBattery said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

stodge said:

The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

And yet...

Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

Or perhaps not.

From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

Starmer will have to walk that same line.

I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.

However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too

Farage is a busted flush. Don't worry about him.

It is between Labour and the Conservatives, but Labour need help from the LDs.

Johnson is starting to lose out to Starmer's Labour in the South East. The LDs could also benefit in the South and South West as Johnson loses the plot. Sunak/Hunt get these back, at least in the short term.

Despite polls which I do not believe suggesting that Labour are clawing back the Red Wall in the North and Midlands. I believe Johnson retains the Red Wall. Sunak/ Hunt will lose it, simply because they are not working class hero, Johnson.

I do believe Johnson is a very poor Prime Minister, and the longer he remains in office, the worse it gets for the party. After a point, I can't even see an exteral event like a Falklands War pulling it back for him and the Conservatives. You need to get him out of Downing Street, out of Uxbridge and back on the after dinner circuit where he belongs. The sooner you do this the better the long term prospects for your party. But I would say that wouldn't I?

Farage won't be a busted flush if a new Tory leader shifts to EEA, free movement and full EU access to our fishing waters, he will have the biggest comeback since Lazarus.

You are also right on the Red Wall, Labour has a much smaller lead against Boris now in the north than London and the Tories still lead in the Midlands.

The Tories are still at 40%, most Tory leaders would kill for that after 10 years of the party in power, Boris stays until that changes

Why do you think another Tory is going to do this? You mention this daily but I can't see why

To avoid No Deal

Panorama a must view watch tomorrow evening!

Nothing new as many think the big banks are the biggest criminals of all.

Please support the ICIJ who carry out these investigations on a shoestring.

https://www.icij.org/donate/

Gallowgate said:

Well this is weird.
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1307773779272179713?s=21

So what? There is no quarantine for UK travellers to Italy

Patrick O'Flynn thinks Boris could pack it in.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-boris-quit-

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Well this is weird.
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1307773779272179713?s=21

It is a curious story, as there was another event that weekend.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12660174/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-baptism-son/

"Perhaps they'll have a big celebration whenever they get married."
Miaow.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

@HYUFD why do you think Sunak would sign up for EEA though? To get a deal doesn't mean going for EEA, even though I support that.

Just seems to have no upside for the Tories, that's all

It certainly means concessions on fishing and state aid though unless Barnier backs down and that would hit Tory support in fishing ports and ex industrial Red Wall seats

HYUFD said:

Farage won't be a busted flush if a new Tory leader shifts to EEA, free movement and full EU access to our fishing waters, he will have the biggest comeback since Lazarus.

If the Tories are incapable of carrying a policy in the interests of the national economy, what is the point of them?

Shadsy is having a think about this market.

https://twitter.com/twitonatrain/status/1307776014462976001?s=19

This piece by Dr Michael Yeadon is absolutely devastating, if correct. It utterly blows the current covid panic and crisis completely and utterly out of the water. We are being deluged with case figures and scary graphs showing huge leaps and seeing demands for lockdown 2.0, when

"The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89-94%, or near-certainty."

https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/


I'm really hoping some other scientists can show the flaw in his workings, because if not then we are living through easily the biggest public policy disaster since the War. We are about to cause more untold misery, mental health breakdowns, smashing our economy to pieces and killing many through neglect and lack of normal NHS treatment based on numbers that are a false. Not by a bit, but massively, massively wrong.


What tests are they using in other countries?

I want to see a public debate on this next week. I want MPs demanding answers from Hancock on this.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

stodge said:

The question du soir seems to be "can Labour under Starmer win the next election?"

Under "normal" circumstances, you'd say overturning an 80-seat majority would be a really hard challenge. As others have no doubt said, it doesn't happen that often.

And yet...

Churchill's Conservatives lost 186 seats in 1945 while Douglas-Hume shipped 59 in 1964. Wilson lost 75 in 1970, Major lost 40 in 1992 and Brown 75 in 2010.

Covid-19 is an unprecedented event and its longer-term political impacts aren't easy to work out. The Conservatives have been the leading party of Government since 2010 and the longer they remain in office the louder the calls for a "change" will get. To be fair, the Party has re-invented itself considerably in office but that only gets you so far.

Starmer has correctly worked out Corbyn-style radicalism doesn't help but that's not to say Britain has not had radical Governments and perhaps it's time for a new radicalism. Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all spaced by about 40 years so perhaps Starmerism (you heard it here first !!) might be the creed of the mid-2020s and beyond.

Or perhaps not.

From the outside, Labour has always seemed to have a similar issue to the Conservatives in trying to reconcile a modernity and social liberalism on one side and a more traditional socially conservative aspect on the other.

Starmer will have to walk that same line.

I keep thinking with a change of leader, the Conservatives can put Covid behind them. Covid underwrites Johnson, rather than the Conservative Party.

A bad Brexit outcome tied to post Covid economic issues may well change that dynamic considerably in Starmer's favour.

However if a new leader shifts to EEA style Brexit and loses more hard Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party than they regain Remainers from Starmer Labour then it is more trouble than it is worth.

There is only a point replacing Boris if Labour take the lead and polling shows a Sunak led Tory Party taking it back, it was such polling showing a Maggie led Tories trailing Kinnock Labour in 1990 but a Major or Heseltine led Tory Party beating Kinnock Labour that led to her downfall just as in 2019 it was polling showing May's Tories trailing Corbyn Labour but a Boris led Tories comfortably beating Corbyn Labour that led to her being forced out too

Farage is a busted flush. Don't worry about him.

It is between Labour and the Conservatives, but Labour need help from the LDs.

Johnson is starting to lose out to Starmer's Labour in the South East. The LDs could also benefit in the South and South West as Johnson loses the plot. Sunak/Hunt get these back, at least in the short term.

Despite polls which I do not believe suggesting that Labour are clawing back the Red Wall in the North and Midlands. I believe Johnson retains the Red Wall. Sunak/ Hunt will lose it, simply because they are not working class hero, Johnson.

I do believe Johnson is a very poor Prime Minister, and the longer he remains in office, the worse it gets for the party. After a point, I can't even see an exteral event like a Falklands War pulling it back for him and the Conservatives. You need to get him out of Downing Street, out of Uxbridge and back on the after dinner circuit where he belongs. The sooner you do this the better the long term prospects for your party. But I would say that wouldn't I?

Farage won't be a busted flush if a new Tory leader shifts to EEA, free movement and full EU access to our fishing waters, he will have the biggest comeback since Lazarus.

You are also right on the Red Wall, Labour has a much smaller lead against Boris now in the north than London and the Tories still lead in the Midlands.

The Tories are still at 40%, most Tory leaders would kill for that after 10 years of the party in power, Boris stays until that changes

The general trajectory is still in descent, although yes, you have stubbornly remained in the 40s. The Tories may bobble up and down a shade but they are still heading South.

It can only get worse as the economic climate chills. A new leader can turn this around for a short time,, particularly seeing sense when it comes to a trade deal with the EU, but with or without this, the worst is yet to come. I would be genuinely surprised if the Conservatives don't get an absolute pasting at the next election.

I don't dispute I could be very, very wrong.

10pm embargo on papers tonight. Ohhh!

rottenborough said:

This piece by Dr Michael Yeadon is absolutely devastating, if correct. It utterly blows the current covid panic and crisis completely and utterly out of the water. We are being deluged with case figures and scary graphs showing huge leaps and seeing demands for lockdown 2.0, when

"The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89-94%, or near-certainty."

https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/


I'm really hoping some other scientists can show the flaw in his workings, because if not then we are living through easily the biggest public policy disaster since the War. We are about to cause more untold misery, mental health breakdowns, smashing our economy to pieces and killing many through neglect and lack of normal NHS treatment based on numbers that are a false. Not by a bit, but massively, massively wrong.


What tests are they using in other countries?

I want to see a public debate on this next week. I want MPs demanding answers from Hancock on this.

That makes no sense given the change in positive rates in recent weeks in the ONS survey and elsewhere.

Yes false positives may be an issue, but why would the positivity rate have gone up? That is the question that needs answering.

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

How would it have settled anything?

There would have been a referendum. We'd have voted "No". There would have been more concessions. We'd then have renegotiated and signed a looser version, which would have included opt-outs from ever closer union. It might even have precipitated the rejection of the whole treaty across the EU, and to start again, as the French rejection of the EU constitution did in 2005.

This would have lanced the boil.

Brown is a classic example of a politician using their arithmetical advantage to ram through something the UK didn't really want, without a vote, and thus sowed the wind - and ended up reaping the whirlwind.

Johnson should take note of this for his strategy on the way out. Same applies.

So in effect you think it would have been a pathway to us voting for something like Dave's Deal in a referendum...

No.

Cameron was in a weak position in 2015/16. He was trying to eek concessions out of a new European Union that had already been established by the Lisbon Treaty solely to satisfy a domestic mandate.

Had the UK been the whole obstacle to the whole Lisbon Treaty being ratified (remember: unanimity was required) then far more fundamental options would have been on the table.

They'd have had to be.

HYUFD said:

nico679 said:

The low number of undecideds in the vast majority of the US polling highlights the deep polarization there . The big difference between this election and the last is Biden constantly scores over 50 in national polling including the undecideds , in much of the state polling he is over 50 in some of the key swing states. Clinton never managed that . If Trump pulls out a win then I don’t think it will be some hidden vote , polling companies have tried to tackle the issue of education in their sampling . The GOP are on the defence in states that he carried in 2016 so Biden’s route to 270 EC votes is wider than Clinton’s .

The current furore over the SC nomination won’t necessarily help him as this is now going to mean there’s more attention on healthcare . A weak point for the GOP which cost them in the 2018 mid terms.

Biden's national poll average has now fallen below 50% to 49.4%
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

I didn’t say he scored over 50 in every poll. But he’s a lot higher than Clinton on average. Still 6 weeks to go so things can change . I’m certainly not ruling out a Trump win .

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

If he'd made decent gains and had Brown's balls in a vice, in a hung parliament, then I think so - yes.

It would have been better, IMHO, for the UK had that happened because Brown would have been forced to make more concessions to get the Lisbon Treaty through, including a referendum.

It's worth noting Cameron was very vocal in demanding a referendum at the time, and there was significant Labour rebellion - and even Lib Dem rebellion - on that - with over 40 of them voting with the Tories.

If it had been done right, we'd have settled the European question then & there - and no Brexit.

How would it have settled anything?

There would have been a referendum. We'd have voted "No". There would have been more concessions. We'd then have renegotiated and signed a looser version, which would have included opt-outs from ever closer union. It might even have precipitated the rejection of the whole treaty across the EU, and to start again, as the French rejection of the EU constitution did in 2005.

This would have lanced the boil.

Brown is a classic example of a politician using their arithmetical advantage to ram through something the UK didn't really want, without a vote, and thus sowed the wind - and ended up reaping the whirlwind.

Johnson should take note of this for his strategy on the way out. Same applies.

So in effect you think it would have been a pathway to us voting for something like Dave's Deal in a referendum...

No.

Cameron was in a weak position in 2015/16. He was trying to eek concessions out of a new European Union that had already been established by the Lisbon Treaty solely to satisfy a domestic mandate.

Had the UK been the whole obstacle to the whole Lisbon Treaty being ratified (remember: unanimity was required) then far more fundamental options would have been on the table.

They'd have had to be.

Indeed we could have vetoed the entire Lisbon Treaty unless they made us happy.

It was vandalism by Blair and Brown to throw that opportunity away and just sneak off to sign it behind our backs. That led to everything which has followed.