How would a “progressive alliance” work? – politicalbetting.com

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019

Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.

Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.

And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.

Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.

Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure for example) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.

I have some sympathy with Labour on this.

What could be a short term win could leave them with long term damage. We have to concede that there are large tracts of the general population who are quite comfortable with the idea of more restrictions, particularly with the view that this will protect the NHS and the vulnerable (personally I think this is viewing things in a vacuum and not really factoring in the negatives of that approach, but let’s just pause that one for now).

Now say Labour vote against restrictions recommended by the government and that the government presents as being put forward by their scientific advisors. The restrictions do not come in. Cases spiral. The NHS creaks and stutters and in the worst case scenario falls over. The press have a field day.

Leaving aside the fact that backbench Tory MPs would have had a part to play in this too, can you imagine the capital that the government could make out of this?

It is far safer to say you did the ‘responsible’ thing.

Note that this isn’t my personal view on lockdown measures, but the politics of the situation.

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Cookie said:

eek said:

Scott_xP said:

B Johnson decides that he can’t decide.. England is not safe under this governing party.
https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1472977186567213058

Boris Johnson interview with the TV pool by ITV

* “Long” discussion in cabinet

* Situation “difficult and arguments finely balanced”

* Right to go fast for Plan B / booster
5:01 PM · Dec 20, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
25
Retweets
26
Quote Tweets
49
Likes

Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
·
12m
Replying to
@SamCoatesSky
Johnson pool 2 /

* Due to uncertainty around hospitality rate, severity and effectiveness we “agreed to keep data under constant review”

* “We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the NHS but in the meantime please exercise caution
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
·
12m
Johnson pool 3/

* Get boosted

* Restrictions? “We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we can rule nothing out”

* Help for hospitality? Packages are already in place and we will keep everything under view
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
·
12m
Johnson pool 4/

* That No10 photograph? “Those were pictures of people at work talking about work”

* Sage says early intervention? Says we moved to plan b quickly and won’t hesitate to act if needed

Wow.
Well hat-tip to @HYUFD who said that Boris was now dependent on the cabinet and that the cabinet wouldn't accept further restrictions.

If Dom was still around the entire Cabinet would have been sacked tonight and replaced with new people who willing to do their master's work.

such as?

SKS.

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?

Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.

On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.

IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.

Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too


https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=31&LAB=39&LIB=8&Reform=6&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=19&SCOTLIB=6.5&SCOTReform=1&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.

In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.

One has to admire the level of crashing and burning.

Yes, and the fact that he has been brought down by cheese and wine.
[He hasn't been brought down by cheese and wine. He's been brought down by serial uselessness. Though thanks for doing the vaccines independently of Europe, Boris.]

BBC interview car crash for Streeting

Scott_xP said:

🚨NEW🚨

London hospitals faced highest daily Covid admissions figures since late March on Friday (Dec 17)

220 Covid patients were admitted to hospital across LDN. March 31 fig was 225.

Hosp. admissions in week to Dec 18: 1,349
to Dec 11: 981
(up 37%)
https://twitter.com/mroliverbarnes/status/1472963545038049286

'Five boroughs in London comprise the UK’s least booster jabbed areas, Evening Standard analysis reveals.

Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney have administered the lowest number of booster vaccine doses nationwide - with less than 20 per cent of residents receiving a third shot in each...
London continues to lag behind the rest of the country on vaccination, with just 61.4 per cent of the capital double-vaccinated and 26.7 per cent booster jabbed.

In the South West of England, the country’s most vaccinated region, 79.1 per cent of residents are double-jabbed and 43.8 per cent have received their booster.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-covid-booster-vaccination-rates-tower-hamlets-newham-hackney-b972414.html

"I detect a cold anger, shorn of much of the agonising, as MPs begin to set their own private deadlines for the narrative of chaos to end."

Boris Johnson needs frank and loyal advisers to restore order,

writes @WilliamJHague https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-boris-johnson-can-survive-his-mps-cold-anger-hlzbmbc3t?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1640020722

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.

One has to admire the level of crashing and burning.

Yes, and the fact that he has been brought down by cheese and wine.
[He hasn't been brought down by cheese and wine. He's been brought down by serial uselessness. Though thanks for doing the vaccines independently of Europe, Boris.]

Doing it separately to EU has meant sod all in the long run

I don't necessarily agree. It means we had vaccines earlier to protect the most vulnerable groups while the novelty was fresh. It also helped us to open up earlier, which may prove to have been very important when all is settled.

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.

One has to admire the level of crashing and burning.

Yes, and the fact that he has been brought down by cheese and wine.
[He hasn't been brought down by cheese and wine. He's been brought down by serial uselessness. Though thanks for doing the vaccines independently of Europe, Boris.]

Doing it separately to EU has meant sod all in the long run

I don't necessarily agree. It means we had vaccines earlier to protect the most vulnerable groups while the novelty was fresh. It also helped us to open up earlier, which may prove to have been very important when all is settled.

And it should have allowed for an earlier and faster booster programme. Sadly Boris and the rest of them were too stupid to get one done.

On Topic - Top notch contribution by NPxMP. Have just taken the rare action of actually copying it for future reference.

Splits within the ranks of the Left and the Right are VERY serious business in FPTP electoral systems. With Canada and the UK as prime examples of the impacts both ways at various periods.

Nick's piece provides some solid, basic foundation for more detailed analysis (by someone) in particular of the historical & political record. Including that will o' the wisp, electoral reform and its peculiar and hitherto mostly profitless journey though the bowels of the Great British constitution (save women's suffrage) since 1905.

MaxPB said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.

One has to admire the level of crashing and burning.

Yes, and the fact that he has been brought down by cheese and wine.
[He hasn't been brought down by cheese and wine. He's been brought down by serial uselessness. Though thanks for doing the vaccines independently of Europe, Boris.]

Doing it separately to EU has meant sod all in the long run

I don't necessarily agree. It means we had vaccines earlier to protect the most vulnerable groups while the novelty was fresh. It also helped us to open up earlier, which may prove to have been very important when all is settled.

And it should have allowed for an earlier and faster booster programme. Sadly Boris and the rest of them were too stupid to get one done.

Although even so AIUI we're still well ahead of Europe.

Admittedly that's like saying a tortoise beats a slug.

numbertwelve said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019

Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.

Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.

And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.

Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.

Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure for example) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.

I have some sympathy with Labour on this.

What could be a short term win could leave them with long term damage. We have to concede that there are large tracts of the general population who are quite comfortable with the idea of more restrictions, particularly with the view that this will protect the NHS and the vulnerable (personally I think this is viewing things in a vacuum and not really factoring in the negatives of that approach, but let’s just pause that one for now).

Now say Labour vote against restrictions recommended by the government and that the government presents as being put forward by their scientific advisors. The restrictions do not come in. Cases spiral. The NHS creaks and stutters and in the worst case scenario falls over. The press have a field day.

Leaving aside the fact that backbench Tory MPs would have had a part to play in this too, can you imagine the capital that the government could make out of this?

It is far safer to say you did the ‘responsible’ thing.

Note that this isn’t my personal view on lockdown measures, but the politics of the situation.

Yes I understand that. "For the good of the nation..."

But you are still the Opposition and you need to oppose (unless you follow the @Benpointer school of Opposition). So say for the sake of the national interest we will support this bill on the condition that a finance bill is attached which will give [some reasonable number so no one thinks bad old Labour] to hospitality and affected areas.

Every news prog today has included an interview with someone from British hospitality saying they are already fucked and need help and would be super-fucked with more restrictions.

So Lab could tap into 2x populist desires - lockdown and money for those affected.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?

Well interestingly here in Basingstoke constituency, our household has had direct mail from the Labour Party in recent weeks in the form of a 'personal letter' from Keir Starmer, so I think they are sniffing the possibility at least.

I grew up just down the road from you, hello fellow Hampshire person!

To be honest, I can't see Basingstoke going Labour, and I definitely would bet more than a couple of quid on it. It would need the council estates to get off their backsides and vote.

Old Basing is lovely!

I'd bet on some surprising Lib Dems in the South East next time

Lib Dems in Basingstoke very much confined to more affluent wards in centre, and SE of the town, but not a real force otherwise. Lib Dem down the road in Winchester feels nailed on next GE time - the rural hinterland of that constituency was awash with 'Winning Here' diamonds last time around.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472987674902421506

Dreadful

Yes - Starmer at -8 in this crisis is dreadful

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

Benpointer said:

MoonRabbit said:

Malmesbury said:

UK cases by specimen date

Yey. The Malmesbury Monoliths are starting. Must be time to open the port 🙂

Open the Malmsey surely?

I’m probably not the biggest wine expert here, but isn’t that a dessert wine?

I don't think they Clare.

(Now that's a *really* obscure pun.)

Which reminds me. Sun is over the yardarm; now to head downstairs to fridge.

The sun was over the yardarm around 11am.....

It always is somewhere on Earth.

eek said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?

Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.

On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.

IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.

Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too


https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=31&LAB=39&LIB=8&Reform=6&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=19&SCOTLIB=6.5&SCOTReform=1&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.

In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.

The safest Tory seats are less regional but generally rural, Leave voting seats (North Shropshire excepted, on that swing the Tories would have less than 10 MPs left).

On this poll almost every London seat except those in Havering and Bexley and Orpington, most Tory city and large town seats in the South and London commuter belt and most of the RedWall would be at risk of falling to Starmer Labour or the LDs

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019

That's because the Tories are tackling the tough questions, while Labour just stand back, point and laugh.

That's the benefit of being in the Opposition in the midterms, but its not a credible alternative government.

Labour just stand back, point and laugh? Can't really blame them at the moment, I think.

True.

But if they ever wish to progress beyond Ed Miliband polling levels and become a serious, credible alternative government then they'll need more than that.

Rishi could still be the Tory saviour however

All Net Approval Ratings (20 Dec):

Rishi Sunak: +11% (-4)
Keir Starmer: -8% (-)
Boris Johnson: -29% (-7)

Changes +/- 13 Dec
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472987674902421506?s=20

Benpointer said:

TOPPING said:

Benpointer said:

TOPPING said:

Benpointer said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019

Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.

Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.

And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.

Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.

Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.

Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.

There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.

Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.

Yes good point. It's much better if the Opposition supports the government in every vote it holds. Let them serve out their full term, that'll show them.

Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.

Good grief are you stupid?

Please explain to me how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?

LOL. Yes I must be stupid. I simply can't understand why previous Labour Oppositions have voted against the government.

And as I understand it you applaud Labour voting with the government for the past two years and not, say, attaching a measure to any of the bills before they did so.

Blimey talking about stupid you might have me voting Cons again at the next election for the simple reason that it would be dangerous for the country to have people as moronic as the Labour Party anywhere near power.

So you cannot answer my question: how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?

And do you really believe Labour has voted with the Government for the past two years? You really think that?!

It would have led to the demise of Boris, not the government. Which is a net negative for Labour.

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?

Well interestingly here in Basingstoke constituency, our household has had direct mail from the Labour Party in recent weeks in the form of a 'personal letter' from Keir Starmer, so I think they are sniffing the possibility at least.

I grew up just down the road from you, hello fellow Hampshire person!

To be honest, I can't see Basingstoke going Labour, and I definitely would bet more than a couple of quid on it. It would need the council estates to get off their backsides and vote.

Old Basing is lovely!

I'd bet on some surprising Lib Dems in the South East next time

Lib Dems in Basingstoke very much confined to more affluent wards in centre, and SE of the town, but not a real force otherwise. Lib Dem down the road in Winchester feels nailed on next GE time - the rural hinterland of that constituency was awash with 'Winning Here' diamonds last time around.

Guildford, Winchester nailed on I reckon.

My theory is look for Lib Dem gain in medium size towns on main/suburban railway lines away from London south, west, and north-ish, but not into Kent/Essex, so 'Remainia' essentially.

General election gains for the LDs under Davey will be few. Their main problem is that nobody (especially the LDs )has the foggiest idea about their policies. I genuinely couldn't tell you one.

HYUFD said:

Rishi could still be the Tory saviour however

All Net Approval Ratings (20 Dec):

Rishi Sunak: +11% (-4)
Keir Starmer: -8% (-)
Boris Johnson: -29% (-7)

Changes +/- 13 Dec
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472987674902421506?s=20

I have said that for months but looking at the conservative party today and especially the members I fear they would vote in Truss

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Rishi could still be the Tory saviour however

All Net Approval Ratings (20 Dec):

Rishi Sunak: +11% (-4)
Keir Starmer: -8% (-)
Boris Johnson: -29% (-7)

Changes +/- 13 Dec
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472987674902421506?s=20

I have said that for months but looking at the conservative party today and especially the members I fear they would vote in Truss

Would be close between Sunak and Truss though Truss might not make the final 2.

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

Benpointer said:

MoonRabbit said:

Malmesbury said:

UK cases by specimen date

Yey. The Malmesbury Monoliths are starting. Must be time to open the port 🙂

Open the Malmsey surely?

I’m probably not the biggest wine expert here, but isn’t that a dessert wine?

I don't think they Clare.

(Now that's a *really* obscure pun.)

Which reminds me. Sun is over the yardarm; now to head downstairs to fridge.

The sun was over the yardarm around 11am.....

It always is somewhere on Earth.

[Ant]Arctic...
Actually that's a complete non point

On the plus side it has just struck 8 bells in the noon watch or whatever. Nunc est bibendum.

I was in Edale on Friday. The south side of the valley got no sun at all all day. I assume the sun sets sometime in November and doesn't rise again until February.
Edale itself on the north side of the valley was very sunny and pleasant however.

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?

Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.

On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.

IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.

Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too


https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=31&LAB=39&LIB=8&Reform=6&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=19&SCOTLIB=6.5&SCOTReform=1&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.

In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.

The safest Tory seats are less regional but generally rural, Leave voting seats (North Shropshire excepted, on that swing the Tories would have less than 10 MPs left).

On this poll however almost every London seat except those in Havering and Bexley and Orpington, most Tory city and large town seats in the South and London commuter belt and most of the RedWall would be at risk of falling to Starmer Labour or the LDs

North Shropshire is back to safe Con for the general, don't you think?

Even on tonight's poll with an 8% Labour lead nationally and the LDs on 13%, the Tories would regain North Shropshire at the general election yes

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cameron's hated here but really was an extremely successful politician in terms of seat winning, all told

His reputation has diminished post office with his grubby lobbying.

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?

Well interestingly here in Basingstoke constituency, our household has had direct mail from the Labour Party in recent weeks in the form of a 'personal letter' from Keir Starmer, so I think they are sniffing the possibility at least.

I grew up just down the road from you, hello fellow Hampshire person!

To be honest, I can't see Basingstoke going Labour, and I definitely would bet more than a couple of quid on it. It would need the council estates to get off their backsides and vote.

Old Basing is lovely!

I'd bet on some surprising Lib Dems in the South East next time

Lib Dems in Basingstoke very much confined to more affluent wards in centre, and SE of the town, but not a real force otherwise. Lib Dem down the road in Winchester feels nailed on next GE time - the rural hinterland of that constituency was awash with 'Winning Here' diamonds last time around.

Guildford, Winchester nailed on I reckon.

My theory is look for Lib Dem gain in medium size towns on main/suburban railway lines away from London south, west, and north-ish, but not into Kent/Essex, so 'Remainia' essentially.

The LDs have an outside shot of taking Chelmsford in Essex and Tunbridge Wells in Kent. Otherwise they have few chances of any seats in Kent and Essex, even if lots of LD targets in Surrey, Oxfordshire and Bucks and Berkshire and a few in Sussex (St Albans in Hertfordshire already LD).

A modest suggestion to replace the current Justice Secretary.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-12-mass-human-brain-cells-petri.html

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?

Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.

On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.

IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.

Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too


https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=31&LAB=39&LIB=8&Reform=6&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=19&SCOTLIB=6.5&SCOTReform=1&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.

In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.

The safest Tory seats are less regional but generally rural, Leave voting seats (North Shropshire excepted, on that swing the Tories would have less than 10 MPs left).

On this poll however almost every London seat except those in Havering and Bexley and Orpington, most Tory city and large town seats in the South and London commuter belt and most of the RedWall would be at risk of falling to Starmer Labour or the LDs

North Shropshire is back to safe Con for the general, don't you think?

Even on tonight's poll with an 8% Labour lead nationally and the LDs on 13%, the Tories would regain North Shropshire at the general election yes

It would be normal and reasonale for the NS voters to give Hleen Morgan another spin at the next GE, but after that it will surely revert to type.

Might depend on who the Tories put up. If it's a local candidate one of her key strengths would be neutralised.

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Rishi could still be the Tory saviour however

All Net Approval Ratings (20 Dec):

Rishi Sunak: +11% (-4)
Keir Starmer: -8% (-)
Boris Johnson: -29% (-7)

Changes +/- 13 Dec
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472987674902421506?s=20

Sunak needs to move fast. The economy is going to be a problem for him over the next two years.

Actually for all of us

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BBC interview car crash for Streeting

Just listened to it. Totally not a car-crash. Seemed pretty sensible answers to me.

He didn't give any

Omnium said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldBasing said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?

Well interestingly here in Basingstoke constituency, our household has had direct mail from the Labour Party in recent weeks in the form of a 'personal letter' from Keir Starmer, so I think they are sniffing the possibility at least.

I grew up just down the road from you, hello fellow Hampshire person!

To be honest, I can't see Basingstoke going Labour, and I definitely would bet more than a couple of quid on it. It would need the council estates to get off their backsides and vote.

Old Basing is lovely!

I'd bet on some surprising Lib Dems in the South East next time

Lib Dems in Basingstoke very much confined to more affluent wards in centre, and SE of the town, but not a real force otherwise. Lib Dem down the road in Winchester feels nailed on next GE time - the rural hinterland of that constituency was awash with 'Winning Here' diamonds last time around.

Guildford, Winchester nailed on I reckon.

My theory is look for Lib Dem gain in medium size towns on main/suburban railway lines away from London south, west, and north-ish, but not into Kent/Essex, so 'Remainia' essentially.

General election gains for the LDs under Davey will be few. Their main problem is that nobody (especially the LDs )has the foggiest idea about their policies. I genuinely couldn't tell you one.

Sounds like the perfect receptacle for none of the above votes.

TOPPING said:

numbertwelve said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019

Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.

Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.

And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.

Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.

Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure for example) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.

I have some sympathy with Labour on this.

What could be a short term win could leave them with long term damage. We have to concede that there are large tracts of the general population who are quite comfortable with the idea of more restrictions, particularly with the view that this will protect the NHS and the vulnerable (personally I think this is viewing things in a vacuum and not really factoring in the negatives of that approach, but let’s just pause that one for now).

Now say Labour vote against restrictions recommended by the government and that the government presents as being put forward by their scientific advisors. The restrictions do not come in. Cases spiral. The NHS creaks and stutters and in the worst case scenario falls over. The press have a field day.

Leaving aside the fact that backbench Tory MPs would have had a part to play in this too, can you imagine the capital that the government could make out of this?

It is far safer to say you did the ‘responsible’ thing.

Note that this isn’t my personal view on lockdown measures, but the politics of the situation.

Yes I understand that. "For the good of the nation..."

But you are still the Opposition and you need to oppose (unless you follow the @Benpointer school of Opposition). So say for the sake of the national interest we will support this bill on the condition that a finance bill is attached which will give [some reasonable number so no one thinks bad old Labour] to hospitality and affected areas.

Every news prog today has included an interview with someone from British hospitality saying they are already fucked and need help and would be super-fucked with more restrictions.

So Lab could tap into 2x populist desires - lockdown and money for those affected.

I'm not sure your (and others) argument holds water. If Labour had proposed an amendment to the Bill attaching a finance package, what do you think would have happened? Tories (including the 100 rebels on the main Bill) would have voted down the amendment, so back to square one.

Northern_Al said:

TOPPING said:

numbertwelve said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019

Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.

Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.

And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.

Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.

Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure for example) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.

I have some sympathy with Labour on this.

What could be a short term win could leave them with long term damage. We have to concede that there are large tracts of the general population who are quite comfortable with the idea of more restrictions, particularly with the view that this will protect the NHS and the vulnerable (personally I think this is viewing things in a vacuum and not really factoring in the negatives of that approach, but let’s just pause that one for now).

Now say Labour vote against restrictions recommended by the government and that the government presents as being put forward by their scientific advisors. The restrictions do not come in. Cases spiral. The NHS creaks and stutters and in the worst case scenario falls over. The press have a field day.

Leaving aside the fact that backbench Tory MPs would have had a part to play in this too, can you imagine the capital that the government could make out of this?

It is far safer to say you did the ‘responsible’ thing.

Note that this isn’t my personal view on lockdown measures, but the politics of the situation.

Yes I understand that. "For the good of the nation..."

But you are still the Opposition and you need to oppose (unless you follow the @Benpointer school of Opposition). So say for the sake of the national interest we will support this bill on the condition that a finance bill is attached which will give [some reasonable number so no one thinks bad old Labour] to hospitality and affected areas.

Every news prog today has included an interview with someone from British hospitality saying they are already fucked and need help and would be super-fucked with more restrictions.

So Lab could tap into 2x populist desires - lockdown and money for those affected.

I'm not sure your (and others) argument holds water. If Labour had proposed an amendment to the Bill attaching a finance package, what do you think would have happened? Tories (including the 100 rebels on the main Bill) would have voted down the amendment, so back to square one.

But Lab would have maintained their integrity as an Opposition and been able to oppose the main bill with honour. No money no vote.

Cookie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

Benpointer said:

MoonRabbit said:

Malmesbury said:

UK cases by specimen date

Yey. The Malmesbury Monoliths are starting. Must be time to open the port 🙂

Open the Malmsey surely?

I’m probably not the biggest wine expert here, but isn’t that a dessert wine?

I don't think they Clare.

(Now that's a *really* obscure pun.)

Which reminds me. Sun is over the yardarm; now to head downstairs to fridge.

The sun was over the yardarm around 11am.....

It always is somewhere on Earth.

[Ant]Arctic...
Actually that's a complete non point

On the plus side it has just struck 8 bells in the noon watch or whatever. Nunc est bibendum.

I was in Edale on Friday. The south side of the valley got no sun at all all day. I assume the sun sets sometime in November and doesn't rise again until February.
Edale itself on the north side of the valley was very sunny and pleasant however.

I hope they have a very tall yardarm!

numbertwelve said:

Reading the tea leaves of this cabinet saga then:

1. There’s a big enough pushback from some quarters of the cabinet against restrictions to make it very, very difficult to get them through.

My suspicion is that you wouldn’t hold a full cabinet meeting if you didn’t want to discuss a proposal for further restrictions. So coming out with “nothing to see here” does suggest some form of cabinet rift. To have a meeting for over two hours just to land on “wait and see,” usually means there’s strong disagreement from some quarters.

2. It’s going to be mighty hard to get any further restrictions approved before Christmas. Probably impossible given that the Commons needs to vote on them. Getting MPs back to Westminster on Christmas Eve isn’t going to be a popular move, and post-event ratification even less popular among the Tory rebels. You probably need to give 48 hours for a recall. So unless something dramatic changes overnight it looks like Christmas weekend is steady as you were.

3. Post-Christmas is also going to be tricky. If you’re seeking to impose restrictions from the 27th you’re going to have to announce them on Boxing Day and again get subsequent ratification. 28th-30th might still be a goer but again there will have to be a compelling argument. If hospitalisations don’t explode between now and next week the government is going to be in the same pickle as they were today. Inertia could win the day.

Do I dare to dream we might escape December without a lockdown?

My dream is that we hang on long enough until it becomes apparent that the peak in cases has passed and the peak in hospitalisations will not be disastrous. There's still a chance we make it there.

Richard_Nabavi said:

One very encouraging thing (except for my place in the guess-the-maximum competition) is that we're not yet seeing any slowdown in the jabbing programme as a result of too many of the health workers and volunteers being off sick or isolating as a result of an Omicron surge. Whilst we probably won't make the target the government has set, it is going very well, and we're certainly going to have made a big dent in the proportion of those most, or even somewhat, at risk from a large number Omicron cases.

I think we'll get through this with probably a difficult, but not disastrous, impact on the NHS in the post-Xmas period. Fingers crossed that it's no worse than that.

I think the government needs to ease isolation rules for triple jabbed people from the middle of Jan when everyone has had a reasonable opportunity to have a third dose. Three doses means no isolation on contact with a positive person and a two doses is daily testing and less than that is full isolation.

Flatlander said:

Cookie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

Benpointer said:

MoonRabbit said:

Malmesbury said:

UK cases by specimen date

Yey. The Malmesbury Monoliths are starting. Must be time to open the port 🙂

Open the Malmsey surely?

I’m probably not the biggest wine expert here, but isn’t that a dessert wine?

I don't think they Clare.

(Now that's a *really* obscure pun.)

Which reminds me. Sun is over the yardarm; now to head downstairs to fridge.

The sun was over the yardarm around 11am.....

It always is somewhere on Earth.

[Ant]Arctic...
Actually that's a complete non point

On the plus side it has just struck 8 bells in the noon watch or whatever. Nunc est bibendum.

I was in Edale on Friday. The south side of the valley got no sun at all all day. I assume the sun sets sometime in November and doesn't rise again until February.
Edale itself on the north side of the valley was very sunny and pleasant however.

I suspect the worst village in the UK for this is Kinlochleven, which definitely sees no sun at all for a long period in winter. I don't know if there is a large settlement anywhere that is worse?

Kinlochleven receives precious little sun even in the summer!

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

One very encouraging thing (except for my place in the guess-the-maximum competition) is that we're not yet seeing any slowdown in the jabbing programme as a result of too many of the health workers and volunteers being off sick or isolating as a result of an Omicron surge. Whilst we probably won't make the target the government has set, it is going very well, and we're certainly going to have made a big dent in the proportion of those most, or even somewhat, at risk from a large number Omicron cases.

I think we'll get through this with probably a difficult, but not disastrous, impact on the NHS in the post-Xmas period. Fingers crossed that it's no worse than that.

I think the government needs to ease isolation rules for triple jabbed people from the middle of Jan when everyone has had a reasonable opportunity to have a third dose. Three doses means no isolation on contact with a positive person and a two doses is daily testing and less than that is full isolation.

I doubt if anyone's looking that far ahead, TBH.

Philip_Thompson said:

@JosiasJessop let me rephrase this in a way you may understand.

If "being in shit" is all you care about then having an unnecessary lockdown destroying livelihoods and damaging lives when it is unnecessary is "being in shit".

So the models showing that lockdowns are unnecessary should be shown, as otherwise you could end up in shit because that shit wasn't warned about.

I do understand it, thanks - it's you who is misunderstanding it.

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

Northern_Al said:

TOPPING said:

numbertwelve said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019

Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.

Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.

And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.

Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.

Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure for example) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.

I have some sympathy with Labour on this.

What could be a short term win could leave them with long term damage. We have to concede that there are large tracts of the general population who are quite comfortable with the idea of more restrictions, particularly with the view that this will protect the NHS and the vulnerable (personally I think this is viewing things in a vacuum and not really factoring in the negatives of that approach, but let’s just pause that one for now).

Now say Labour vote against restrictions recommended by the government and that the government presents as being put forward by their scientific advisors. The restrictions do not come in. Cases spiral. The NHS creaks and stutters and in the worst case scenario falls over. The press have a field day.

Leaving aside the fact that backbench Tory MPs would have had a part to play in this too, can you imagine the capital that the government could make out of this?

It is far safer to say you did the ‘responsible’ thing.

Note that this isn’t my personal view on lockdown measures, but the politics of the situation.

Yes I understand that. "For the good of the nation..."

But you are still the Opposition and you need to oppose (unless you follow the @Benpointer school of Opposition). So say for the sake of the national interest we will support this bill on the condition that a finance bill is attached which will give [some reasonable number so no one thinks bad old Labour] to hospitality and affected areas.

Every news prog today has included an interview with someone from British hospitality saying they are already fucked and need help and would be super-fucked with more restrictions.

So Lab could tap into 2x populist desires - lockdown and money for those affected.

I'm not sure your (and others) argument holds water. If Labour had proposed an amendment to the Bill attaching a finance package, what do you think would have happened? Tories (including the 100 rebels on the main Bill) would have voted down the amendment, so back to square one.

But Lab would have maintained their integrity as an Opposition and been able to oppose the main bill with honour. No money no vote.

And getting a couple of billion in a short terms support package for hospitality would have been a big win for Labour because there's no way the government wouldn't have caved.

Every news prog today has included someone from "British Hospitality" saying we need cash. Your local pub, restaurant, cafe, etc. Would have been hugely popular and as you say not possible, very unlikely, for the govt to have refused.

..

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JosiasJessop said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JosiasJessop said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JosiasJessop said:

Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?"
Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus."
Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss."
Scientist: "Yes."
Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?"
Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst."
Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit."
Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do."
Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?"
Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."

That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.

What a load of crap.

If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.

It's not (see TimT's reply).

It is.

If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information.
'
If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?

They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.

"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"

But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.

Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.

If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.

I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.

There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.

The probabilities may come later.

I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.

No this is utterly wrong. If you have a whole range of possible scenarios and you only present the ones that result in action then you are taking the responsibility for decision making away from the politicians and giving it to the unelected scientists. By removing the scenarios where nothing needs to be done you are forcing the politicians into a position where they either do something - even if it is probably unnecessary - or they can be accused of ignoring the evidence as it was presented to them. It is absolutely vital that the advisors present all possible scenarios and weigh them for the decision makers.

I think, people are confusing probabilities that occur within the scenarios, ie variables within the models, with the probability of those scenarios happening. Nelson had heard that Omicron might be less virulent than Delta and thought lower virulence Omicron should be modelled as a separate scenario.

The chair of the Sage modelling committee asked, why would you want to do this, presumably because it doesn't make sense. The scenarios are testing hypotheses that you can control, ie different levels of restrictions. It's unfortunate he didn't explain that properly.

Omicron virulence is a variable within the models for each of the three scenarios for different levels of restrictions. The modellers, assumed Omicron has similar virulence as Delta on claimed evidence. They did however illustrate within the report what effect lower levels of virulence would have on cases, hospitalisations and deaths for the three scenarios. The modellers did note the effect of vaccines on Omicron and the degree to which people would comply with restrictions as much more uncertain variables than virulence.

Arguably the modellers should have included different probabilities of Omicron virulence within the headline numbers for the three models. Which presumably would have made the ranges of outcomes even bigger, with the lower bound being reduced and the upper bound remaining where it was. These are the kind of calls modellers make. At best t models are approximate and at worst they are wrong.

Omnium said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Rishi could still be the Tory saviour however

All Net Approval Ratings (20 Dec):

Rishi Sunak: +11% (-4)
Keir Starmer: -8% (-)
Boris Johnson: -29% (-7)

Changes +/- 13 Dec
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472987674902421506?s=20

I have said that for months but looking at the conservative party today and especially the members I fear they would vote in Truss

I don't think that's the case Big G.

If there's a change it's Hunt or Patel for me.

Hunt seems a safe choice, and I'd have voted for him ahead of Boris last time round if I hadn't feared he'd get stuck in the Brexit loop. Easily my first choice.

Patel would I think make a great PM. She's a little too acerbic for her own good, and has an unfortunate tendency to look smiley. (Brilliant in life - not great in PMship)

Zahawi and Raab are too long (betting-wise).

The Steve Baker types just represent the end of the road for the party should they become leader.

I agree with your last sentence but not on Patel but neutral on Hunt

"We shall go on to the end. We shall hesitate in France, we shall hesitate on the seas and oceans, we shall hesitate with growing indecision and growing equivocation in the air. We are still trying to work out whether to defend our Island, and awaiting expert advice on what the cost may be. We shall hesitate on the beaches, we shall hesitate on the landing grounds, we shall hesitate in the fields and in the streets, we shall hesitate in the hills. We shall never make a decision!"

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

One very encouraging thing (except for my place in the guess-the-maximum competition) is that we're not yet seeing any slowdown in the jabbing programme as a result of too many of the health workers and volunteers being off sick or isolating as a result of an Omicron surge. Whilst we probably won't make the target the government has set, it is going very well, and we're certainly going to have made a big dent in the proportion of those most, or even somewhat, at risk from a large number Omicron cases.

I think we'll get through this with probably a difficult, but not disastrous, impact on the NHS in the post-Xmas period. Fingers crossed that it's no worse than that.

I think the government needs to ease isolation rules for triple jabbed people from the middle of Jan when everyone has had a reasonable opportunity to have a third dose. Three doses means no isolation on contact with a positive person and a two doses is daily testing and less than that is full isolation.

I doubt if anyone's looking that far ahead, TBH.

Which is why we are where we are. In July no one was looking at the possible worst case scenario and advocating that we get our booster programme completed the week before Xmas. Even if we do another 7m this week that takes us to 35m, that's 10m short and a week too late. At the current rate we could have got it done had our surge stated the day after the JCVI announcement.

There's a criminal lack of forwards planning by the government. I've never seen anything like it.

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?

Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.

On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.

IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.

Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too


https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=31&LAB=39&LIB=8&Reform=6&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=19&SCOTLIB=6.5&SCOTReform=1&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.

In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.

The safest Tory seats are less regional but generally rural, Leave voting seats (North Shropshire excepted, on that swing the Tories would have less than 10 MPs left).

On this poll however almost every London seat except those in Havering and Bexley and Orpington, most Tory city and large town seats in the South and London commuter belt and most of the RedWall would be at risk of falling to Starmer Labour or the LDs

North Shropshire is back to safe Con for the general, don't you think?

Even on tonight's poll with an 8% Labour lead nationally and the LDs on 13%, the Tories would regain North Shropshire at the general election yes

Was there ever (and I do mean ever) a poll on which the Tories would lose North Shropshire, prior to the Tories, you know, losing North Shropshire?

Given that Labour underpolled against the polling in 1997, and came reasonably quite close then in North Shropshire, and then had a honeymoon period afterwards, you might just find that there was.

Chris said:

"We shall go on to the end. We shall hesitate in France, we shall hesitate on the seas and oceans, we shall hesitate with growing indecision and growing equivocation in the air. We are still trying to work out whether to defend our Island, and awaiting expert advice on what the cost may be. We shall hesitate on the beaches, we shall hesitate on the landing grounds, we shall hesitate in the fields and in the streets, we shall hesitate in the hills. We shall never make a decision!"

They are decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.