Morning all. So, a new dawn has broken has it not? No, it hasn’t.
It’s still all to play for, with an economic shit-storm coming and Johnson certain to become ever more palpably crass and trivial in how he conducts himself, but with apols to my PB Lab comrades, based on these locals, ‘head over heart’ instructs me to revise my GE central expectation for betting purposes from hung parliament PM Starmer to small Con majority PM Johnson.
I’m sliding back to my previous unwelcome view that Brexit has changed the game by creating a new (and strong) political identity to the benefit of the Cons (so long as they stay Brexity) and the detriment of Labour. There’s enough of this identity in the ‘red wall’ for them to retain a good proportion of the seats they won there in 2019 and enough habitual tory voters in the shires and the south – inc the deeply reprehensible ‘hold the nosers’ - to win plenty there too. And then of course the bizarre Midlands who do a decent impression of actually liking the modern Conservative party, finding it pleasing to the eye with a sunny personality and GSOH.
Add it together and with FPTP doing its crazy thing it’s enough. A Con majority of 15 seats, something like that. False precision, I know, and no spreadsheet as yet, and of course ‘long way to go and only a fool’, but this is the look & feel of it from where I’m sitting (which is in Regents Park, nice day).
London has again voted superbly well (eg my Wandsworth bet landed easily) but I can’t get too excited about this when the rest of the country flops. This seems to have become a pattern and if it continues thoughts will have to turn to independence. A situation whereby we, the capital city, keep having low rent Tory governments foisted upon us is simply not tenable in the long run. Strategy for this? I’m of the ‘gradualist’ persuasion. I don’t want to see Sadiq going for wildcat referendums or the like. Let’s just build the requisite majority for “Yes” over the piece and then hold a legal vote when we’re confident of winning it.
Nice analysis.
Basically, a party doesn't go from the kind of defeat Labour suffered in 2019 straight to government within one parliamentary term. It's a two term project but it's made more difficult by Starmer being dull as dishwater and also being mainly associated with the "People's Vote" shenanigans in the 17-19 Parliament.
One more Con win with a small majority in 2023/2024, Labour ditch Starmer and return to government in 2028/2029 with the 2030's likely to be a Labour decade is my best guess.
Not enjoyable but, you know, a betting post so it has to be detached.
It'd be nice to have a zappier leader but I don't think it's mainly that. I think it's a structural problem created by the Leave Remain split. Labour HAS to be Remain (on values, I mean, not literally a policy to rejoin) - it's where most of us on the centre left are - but this makes it very hard to win enough seats in Leave territory (which is where most marginals are) to beat the Tories to largest party.
A way forward might be to ally with the LDs and rerun Leave v Remain via a GE - fight it on those values. ie do what Johnson did in 2019 but this time consolidate the Remain vote. That (with the SNP) would have a great chance of prevailing and winning power imo.
I leave my good friend Roger to his own predictions
However I cant see how piling up votes in London means he wins. Obviously a Londoners opinion is worth at least 100 times that of some redneck in the sticks, but that' not how our electoral system works.
Chertsey Riverside Conservative Party with 475 votes Addlestone North Green Party with 525 votes Addlestone South Conservative Party with 610 votes Egham Hythe Labour and Co-operative Party with 827 votes (Tory loss) Chertsey St Ann Conservative Party with 502 votes Egham Town Runnymede Independent Residents' Group with 826 votes Englefield Green East Independent with 368 votes (Tory loss) Longcross, Lyne and Chertsey South Liberal Democrat Party with 657 votes
Does this go some way to explain Ukraine's vastly inflated claims of Russian air losses ? https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1522453032285388801 🇺🇦Air Force Command says that on May 5, Ukrainian forced shot down 15 air targets: 🔸1 Russian airplane (the Su-30SM according to preliminary data) 🔸14 Orlan-10 UAVs
This time last year: The Tory hegemony has a rock-solid foundation and will last another decade at least, Labour are marooned on an island of electoral irrelevance. Now: Labour are losing wards in their 169th target seat, this is a disaster for them
SLD tremendous Greens tremendous SLab good SNP meh SCon we want Ruth back!
Our own @RochdalePioneers had a very respectable result for a paper candidate. Well Done him! (probably relieved not to win though
Figures would oblige! (Too lazy to wade through everything! Furthermore Mrs C want's 'help' with 'things"!)
@RochdalePioneers was only eliminated on the 5th stage, just over 200 short of the quota. Its a solid result and he was the last candidate not elected.
Presumably this is just some kind of spoofery, but the mad thing is that these days I can actually conceive of some kind of Tory idiot saying it.
Nope. This is exactly the angle they will be going for. “You don’t really want loony remainer effete liberal woke metropolitan elite Starmer in charge do you? We got Brexit done. They don’t understand you.”
See the GOP playbook, just slightly less blatantly unpleasant.
They then hope that enough of the middle classes in the shires hold their nose and stick with them for fear of Labour for economic reasons.
I hate to say that I think it’s an electoral strategy that they could squeeze a close victory out of.
Starmer needs to prepare himself for the onslaught that is coming. He also needs to put a lot of work into denting some of those attack lines.
I agree with that. He needs to wise-up and he really didn't handle Beergate at all well. He allowed a non-story gain traction and get out of control.
BBC are currently focusing on ignoring London, and suggesting Labour are doing terribly outside London. Jeremy Vine "Labour are firing blanks".
One thing the Govt has yet to address or admit is the degree to which Brexit is fuelling UK inflation. Business leaders say it’s the thing “no one talks about” esp firms who want to keep Govt contracts https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1522477132500381696
Eurozone inflation 7.5% UK inflation 7.0%
Is the degree that Brexit is fuelling UK inflation -0.5% Scott?
If unemployment climbs to 5.5 as predicted, will you let us use the word stagflation?
Thankfully, there’s currently a labour shortage.
A glut of early retirements during the pandemic, and the ending of FoM with the EU, has seen vacancies at record rates, adverts offering sign-on bonuses, and 20% wage premiums on a lot of low-paid work.
The unemployment forecast was the one item that just didn’t look right in the forecast. The inflation is real though, and the China Covid situation is likely to squeeze supply chains for the next year at least.
“ The unemployment forecast was the one item that just didn’t look right in the forecast. “
No it’s not. It’s extremely plausible that in a downturn people can lose their jobs.
You might be wrong on basis how this works to sectors. Certain sectors could be in stagflation where the country overall isn’t.
Were FoM still in place, I’d be inclined to agree with you, but the labour shortage will force firms to invest in both capital and training, especially at the lower end of the labour market.
Many pre-pandemic hospitality workers, for example, are now working as drivers or in warehouses, for considerably more than minimum wage.
Broadly I don’t disagree. But you don’t speak for where we are now before change for better from years of investment in training. Rumanian chefs gone home, now can’t get a chef anywhere for example.
What likely to happen, next Tory leader/labour government will allow some bit of FoM to return to address these shortages.
But this is not Brexit. EVERYWHERE in the western world is suffering staff shortages, especially in Hospitality
It was a common theme across the Deep South during my recent trip. There were oyster houses in New Orleans turning away multiple customers "because we one have two waiters, normally we have six". Hotels, cafes, bars, everywhere was begging for staff
Ditto in the EU during my recent visits, and I can see it again here in Turkey, and of course in the UK
Where have they all gone?!
People nearing retirement using the last couple of years as an excuse to bail out a bit early?
Morning all. So, a new dawn has broken has it not? No, it hasn’t.
It’s still all to play for, with an economic shit-storm coming and Johnson certain to become ever more palpably crass and trivial in how he conducts himself, but with apols to my PB Lab comrades, based on these locals, ‘head over heart’ instructs me to revise my GE central expectation for betting purposes from hung parliament PM Starmer to small Con majority PM Johnson.
I’m sliding back to my previous unwelcome view that Brexit has changed the game by creating a new (and strong) political identity to the benefit of the Cons (so long as they stay Brexity) and the detriment of Labour. There’s enough of this identity in the ‘red wall’ for them to retain a good proportion of the seats they won there in 2019 and enough habitual tory voters in the shires and the south – inc the deeply reprehensible ‘hold the nosers’ - to win plenty there too. And then of course the bizarre Midlands who do a decent impression of actually liking the modern Conservative party, finding it pleasing to the eye with a sunny personality and GSOH.
Add it together and with FPTP doing its crazy thing it’s enough. A Con majority of 15 seats, something like that. False precision, I know, and no spreadsheet as yet, and of course ‘long way to go and only a fool’, but this is the look & feel of it from where I’m sitting (which is in Regents Park, nice day).
London has again voted superbly well (eg my Wandsworth bet landed easily) but I can’t get too excited about this when the rest of the country flops. This seems to have become a pattern and if it continues thoughts will have to turn to independence. A situation whereby we, the capital city, keep having low rent Tory governments foisted upon us is simply not tenable in the long run. Strategy for this? I’m of the ‘gradualist’ persuasion. I don’t want to see Sadiq going for wildcat referendums or the like. Let’s just build the requisite majority for “Yes” over the piece and then hold a legal vote when we’re confident of winning it.
Nice analysis.
Basically, a party doesn't go from the kind of defeat Labour suffered in 2019 straight to government within one parliamentary term. It's a two term project but it's made more difficult by Starmer being dull as dishwater and also being mainly associated with the "People's Vote" shenanigans in the 17-19 Parliament.
One more Con win with a small majority in 2023/2024, Labour ditch Starmer and return to government in 2028/2029 with the 2030's likely to be a Labour decade is my best guess.
Not enjoyable but, you know, a betting post so it has to be detached.
It'd be nice to have a zappier leader but I don't think it's mainly that. I think it's a structural problem created by the Leave Remain split. Labour HAS to be Remain (on values, I mean, not literally a policy to rejoin) - it's where most of us on the centre left are - but this makes it very hard to win enough seats in Leave territory (which is where most marginals are) to beat the Tories to largest party.
A way forward might be to ally with the LDs and rerun Leave v Remain via a GE - fight it on those values. ie do what Johnson did in 2019 but this time consolidate the Remain vote. That (with the SNP) would have a great chance of prevailing and winning power imo.
Hello @kinablu, that and your original posts were very good ones. I think both you and GIN are right - this is not going to be a one-term project for Labour given the fundamental issues involved. When it comes to the Leave territory seats, Labour's brand image has been deteriorating not just with the Brexit issue but at least for a decade, and possibly more. That is not the thing you turn around in a heartbeat.
On the alliance with the LDs, I think the Tories would actually enjoy that, even though the maths would suggest that a consolidation of the anti-Tory vote would lead to losses. It would motivate their voting base - particularly in the Leave hinterland - and, for wealthy, Home Counties Remain seats, a lot of voters who might be tempted to go with a LD MP may think that the LDs would essentially allow Labour to set the agenda and so would stick with the Tories.
I would also argue it is wrong to think of two cohorts - Leave vs Remain - and think of three - Leave, Hard Remain (it's their motivating passion) and Soft Remain (i.e. they voted for Brexit but are reconciled to the present and see other issues as more important). Fighting on a Remain vs Leave platform risks allowing the Conservatives to gain the third cohort by focusing on other issues and portraying the other side as fighting the last war.
The clown's behaviour and dishonesty has broken the willingness of a critical mass of voters to continue supporting them. The only consolation for the Tories is that voters haven't settled on who else they want running the country. Nevertheless there's no way back for them under current leadership, and the more thoughtful MPs should start thinking about his replacement.
One thing that is interesting for several weeks now Wales has had the highest rate of COVID in the UK according to the ONS, but the lowest rate according to the Gov-Dashboard, what's going on?
In theory it could be testing availability, but if anything that would push it the other way as testing is still free, for the moment in Wales, but not England.
I think/suspect that because of the restrictions in wales, people as less likely to report that they have tested positive, or perhaps as less likely to get a test as they will have to isolate. (I haven't kept up with the latest rules in wales so happy to be corrected on this)
Presumably this is just some kind of spoofery, but the mad thing is that these days I can actually conceive of some kind of Tory idiot saying it.
Nope. This is exactly the angle they will be going for. “You don’t really want loony remainer effete liberal woke metropolitan elite Starmer in charge do you? We got Brexit done. They don’t understand you.”
See the GOP playbook, just slightly less blatantly unpleasant.
They then hope that enough of the middle classes in the shires hold their nose and stick with them for fear of Labour for economic reasons.
I hate to say that I think it’s an electoral strategy that they could squeeze a close victory out of.
Starmer needs to prepare himself for the onslaught that is coming. He also needs to put a lot of work into denting some of those attack lines.
I agree with that. He needs to wise-up and he really didn't handle Beergate at all well. He allowed a non-story gain traction and get out of control.
BBC are currently focusing on ignoring London, and suggesting Labour are doing terribly outside London. Jeremy Vine "Labour are firing blanks".
Yes, the media reaction is what matters for the PM. Based on what’s been said so far, and noting NI will take over the narrative soon, he’s got away with it. Queen’s Speech next week week so there’s only one weekend for this to land.
Overall, it feels like there’s not enough here to suggest a Labour win in 2024, nor should one write off the Tories based on the history of midterm results. As we were.
One thing the Govt has yet to address or admit is the degree to which Brexit is fuelling UK inflation. Business leaders say it’s the thing “no one talks about” esp firms who want to keep Govt contracts https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1522477132500381696
Eurozone inflation 7.5% UK inflation 7.0%
Is the degree that Brexit is fuelling UK inflation -0.5% Scott?
If unemployment climbs to 5.5 as predicted, will you let us use the word stagflation?
Thankfully, there’s currently a labour shortage.
A glut of early retirements during the pandemic, and the ending of FoM with the EU, has seen vacancies at record rates, adverts offering sign-on bonuses, and 20% wage premiums on a lot of low-paid work.
The unemployment forecast was the one item that just didn’t look right in the forecast. The inflation is real though, and the China Covid situation is likely to squeeze supply chains for the next year at least.
“ The unemployment forecast was the one item that just didn’t look right in the forecast. “
No it’s not. It’s extremely plausible that in a downturn people can lose their jobs.
You might be wrong on basis how this works to sectors. Certain sectors could be in stagflation where the country overall isn’t.
Were FoM still in place, I’d be inclined to agree with you, but the labour shortage will force firms to invest in both capital and training, especially at the lower end of the labour market.
Many pre-pandemic hospitality workers, for example, are now working as drivers or in warehouses, for considerably more than minimum wage.
Broadly I don’t disagree. But you don’t speak for where we are now before change for better from years of investment in training. Rumanian chefs gone home, now can’t get a chef anywhere for example.
What likely to happen, next Tory leader/labour government will allow some bit of FoM to return to address these shortages.
But this is not Brexit. EVERYWHERE in the western world is suffering staff shortages, especially in Hospitality
It was a common theme across the Deep South during my recent trip. There were oyster houses in New Orleans turning away multiple customers "because we one have two waiters, normally we have six". Hotels, cafes, bars, everywhere was begging for staff
Ditto in the EU during my recent visits, and I can see it again here in Turkey, and of course in the UK
Where have they all gone?!
They’ve all got better-paying jobs, is the answer. In the US especially, wait staff were treated terribly, with a $2.50 minimum wage and having to beg for tips. Amazon are paying $20 for drivers and warehouse workers, with more sociable hours.
The UK would be in a different place with FoM still in place though, as there would be effectively unlimited numbers of Eastern Europeans still coming over to make up the shortfall. We wouldn’t be seeing pay rises at the bottom end, which would add pressure to the government over cost of living.
North Down looks as though it will be 2 Alliance, 1 DUP, ! Independent Unionist (ex DUP) 1 UUP. That's one Independent Unionist gain from DUP and 1 Alliance gain from Green.
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
I prefer pacts to be tacit, and based on targetting seats as per 1997 than not standing a candidate, but pacts are not inconsistent with FPTP, they are a consequence of it.
Not really. Under many non-FPTP schemes, the pacts happen *after* the election, turning what happened in 2010 into the norm.
As I say, not standing candidates is really poor. Not really trying shows that you don't really believe in what you're saying.
This is nonsense. Take an extreme example. 100 candidates of various shades of conservatism and 1 socialist candidate. 102 voters. 2 are socialists the rest various shades of conservatism. Socialist candidate wins with 2 votes and under 2% of the vote. That is your idea of democracy? Wouldn't it be better if the conservatives formed a pact or change from FPTP so they can stand and the most popular conservative gets elected.
Can you give me an example of a UK election where there were '100 candidates of various shades of conservatism and 1 socialist candidate', or is this just a rather extreme fiction?
Well of course it hasn't happened. I'm giving an extreme example (words I actually used) to point out the nonsense of your argument. But a subset of my example happens at every single election if more than 2 people stand. You are objecting to people forming pacts to get around the unfairness of FPTP. In which case change the system. If you won't do that you can't object to pacts. You are objecting to people refusing to spend time and money so as to commit political suicide by ensuring they can't win. You are actually demanding that someone puts the effort in to standing, which will cause the party they most object to winning by splitting the vote. And you can't see why they may not do this? That is totally daft.
It's been the consistent Tory line since about 1983, though.
I am not a Tory. Yesterday I voted two* LD, one*Ind. I don;t think I've voted Conservative at any level since 2017.
Dismissing an argument you don't like as a 'Tory' line is a little silly. I guess you don't actually have a robust argument against what I've said?
SLD tremendous Greens tremendous SLab good SNP meh SCon we want Ruth back!
Our own @RochdalePioneers had a very respectable result for a paper candidate. Well Done him! (probably relieved not to win though
Figures would oblige! (Too lazy to wade through everything! Furthermore Mrs C want's 'help' with 'things"!)
@RochdalePioneers was only eliminated on the 5th stage, just over 200 short of the quota. Its a solid result and he was the last candidate not elected.
As others have said, a very good result for him. Enough to celebrate, but not so good that he has to turn up to the Council. Especially when he's building his business. Probably he's very satisfied indeed.
I could sit on here all day posting individual losses but that would be equally pathetic as you and extremely boring
ie you are in cherry picking denial land
Are you alright?
Whilst I get your point of cheerypicking, that is uncalled for - @CorrectHorseBattery is one of the most polite posters on here and, while he has strong views, he puts it across without becoming personal.
Presumably this is just some kind of spoofery, but the mad thing is that these days I can actually conceive of some kind of Tory idiot saying it.
Nope. This is exactly the angle they will be going for. “You don’t really want loony remainer effete liberal woke metropolitan elite Starmer in charge do you? We got Brexit done. They don’t understand you.”
See the GOP playbook, just slightly less blatantly unpleasant.
They then hope that enough of the middle classes in the shires hold their nose and stick with them for fear of Labour for economic reasons.
I hate to say that I think it’s an electoral strategy that they could squeeze a close victory out of.
Starmer needs to prepare himself for the onslaught that is coming. He also needs to put a lot of work into denting some of those attack lines.
I agree with that. He needs to wise-up and he really didn't handle Beergate at all well. He allowed a non-story gain traction and get out of control.
BBC are currently focusing on ignoring London, and suggesting Labour are doing terribly outside London. Jeremy Vine "Labour are firing blanks".
Bloody hell! Keir Starmer has just off-topiced me!
Presumably this is just some kind of spoofery, but the mad thing is that these days I can actually conceive of some kind of Tory idiot saying it.
Nope. This is exactly the angle they will be going for. “You don’t really want loony remainer effete liberal woke metropolitan elite Starmer in charge do you? We got Brexit done. They don’t understand you.”
See the GOP playbook, just slightly less blatantly unpleasant.
They then hope that enough of the middle classes in the shires hold their nose and stick with them for fear of Labour for economic reasons.
I hate to say that I think it’s an electoral strategy that they could squeeze a close victory out of.
Starmer needs to prepare himself for the onslaught that is coming. He also needs to put a lot of work into denting some of those attack lines.
I agree with that. He needs to wise-up and he really didn't handle Beergate at all well. He allowed a non-story gain traction and get out of control.
BBC are currently focusing on ignoring London, and suggesting Labour are doing terribly outside London. Jeremy Vine "Labour are firing blanks".
Yes, the media reaction is what matters for the PM. Based on what’s been said so far, and noting NI will take over the narrative soon, he’s got away with it. Queen’s Speech next week week so there’s only one weekend for this to land.
Overall, it feels like there’s not enough here to suggest a Labour win in 2024, nor should one write off the Tories based on the history of midterm results. As we were.
I expect media coverage of the Queen's speech will be dominated by speculation about the Queen's absence, if she's unable to attend.
She's never missed it before, except twice for pregnancy, so for her to miss it now could be significant.
Presumably this is just some kind of spoofery, but the mad thing is that these days I can actually conceive of some kind of Tory idiot saying it.
Nope. This is exactly the angle they will be going for. “You don’t really want loony remainer effete liberal woke metropolitan elite Starmer in charge do you? We got Brexit done. They don’t understand you.”
See the GOP playbook, just slightly less blatantly unpleasant.
They then hope that enough of the middle classes in the shires hold their nose and stick with them for fear of Labour for economic reasons.
I hate to say that I think it’s an electoral strategy that they could squeeze a close victory out of.
Starmer needs to prepare himself for the onslaught that is coming. He also needs to put a lot of work into denting some of those attack lines.
I agree with that. He needs to wise-up and he really didn't handle Beergate at all well. He allowed a non-story gain traction and get out of control.
BBC are currently focusing on ignoring London, and suggesting Labour are doing terribly outside London. Jeremy Vine "Labour are firing blanks".
Yes, the media reaction is what matters for the PM. Based on what’s been said so far, and noting NI will take over the narrative soon, he’s got away with it. Queen’s Speech next week week so there’s only one weekend for this to land.
Overall, it feels like there’s not enough here to suggest a Labour win in 2024, nor should one write off the Tories based on the history of midterm results. As we were.
I believe that is wrong, it looks like (with this snapshot) that Starmer will be a minority/ coalition Prime Minister.
Tories lose a third seat in Runnymede Another Runnymede result: Englefield Green West has elected Abby King of the Labour and Co-operative Party with 403 votes. That was previously a Conservative seat, so that's now three seats they have lost in the borough, two of which have been to Labour. It also means that both Englefield Green seats that the Conservatives were defending have been lost.
It looks as if the the willingness of SDLP to support the extension of abortion rights to Northern Ireland has driven some of its voters over to Aontu. Apparently, quite a few priests have been urging a vote for Aontu.
North Down looks as though it will be 2 Alliance, 1 DUP, ! Independent Unionist (ex DUP) 1 UUP. That's one Independent Unionist gain from DUP and 1 Alliance gain from Green.
On a knife edge in South Belfast. Second Alliance v Green incumbent. Alliance doing well. Caveat. These are all rumours. Still short of a result
North Down looks as though it will be 2 Alliance, 1 DUP, ! Independent Unionist (ex DUP) 1 UUP. That's one Independent Unionist gain from DUP and 1 Alliance gain from Green.
On a knife edge in South Belfast. Second Alliance v Green incumbent. Alliance doing well. Caveat. These are all rumours. Still short of a result
Alliance and Greens are competing for the same voters.
Tory councillor David Meikle defeated in Pollokshields
Husband of Natalie McGarry, currently on trial for embezzlement. Not to pile more misery on them but I wouldn't be surprised if that contributed.
Indeed. I understand Tories expect the embezzlers on their side to be good enough to get away with it and call themselves accountants and bankers.
Natalie McGarry is an ex SNP MSP. Several worthies of the party including Humza Yousaf have been reluctantly drawn to give evidence in that case which has been a source of considerable entertainment for the last 3 weeks.
Presumably this is just some kind of spoofery, but the mad thing is that these days I can actually conceive of some kind of Tory idiot saying it.
Nope. This is exactly the angle they will be going for. “You don’t really want loony remainer effete liberal woke metropolitan elite Starmer in charge do you? We got Brexit done. They don’t understand you.”
See the GOP playbook, just slightly less blatantly unpleasant.
They then hope that enough of the middle classes in the shires hold their nose and stick with them for fear of Labour for economic reasons.
I hate to say that I think it’s an electoral strategy that they could squeeze a close victory out of.
Starmer needs to prepare himself for the onslaught that is coming. He also needs to put a lot of work into denting some of those attack lines.
I agree with that. He needs to wise-up and he really didn't handle Beergate at all well. He allowed a non-story gain traction and get out of control.
BBC are currently focusing on ignoring London, and suggesting Labour are doing terribly outside London. Jeremy Vine "Labour are firing blanks".
Yes, the media reaction is what matters for the PM. Based on what’s been said so far, and noting NI will take over the narrative soon, he’s got away with it. Queen’s Speech next week week so there’s only one weekend for this to land.
Overall, it feels like there’s not enough here to suggest a Labour win in 2024, nor should one write off the Tories based on the history of midterm results. As we were.
I expect media coverage of the Queen's speech will be dominated by speculation about the Queen's absence, if she's unable to attend.
She's never missed it before, except twice for pregnancy, so for her to miss it now could be significant.
Very true. Any news that isn’t the Ukraine is about to focus on her, noting the Jubilee as well.
Morning all. So, a new dawn has broken has it not? No, it hasn’t.
It’s still all to play for, with an economic shit-storm coming and Johnson certain to become ever more palpably crass and trivial in how he conducts himself, but with apols to my PB Lab comrades, based on these locals, ‘head over heart’ instructs me to revise my GE central expectation for betting purposes from hung parliament PM Starmer to small Con majority PM Johnson.
I’m sliding back to my previous unwelcome view that Brexit has changed the game by creating a new (and strong) political identity to the benefit of the Cons (so long as they stay Brexity) and the detriment of Labour. There’s enough of this identity in the ‘red wall’ for them to retain a good proportion of the seats they won there in 2019 and enough habitual tory voters in the shires and the south – inc the deeply reprehensible ‘hold the nosers’ - to win plenty there too. And then of course the bizarre Midlands who do a decent impression of actually liking the modern Conservative party, finding it pleasing to the eye with a sunny personality and GSOH.
Add it together and with FPTP doing its crazy thing it’s enough. A Con majority of 15 seats, something like that. False precision, I know, and no spreadsheet as yet, and of course ‘long way to go and only a fool’, but this is the look & feel of it from where I’m sitting (which is in Regents Park, nice day).
London has again voted superbly well (eg my Wandsworth bet landed easily) but I can’t get too excited about this when the rest of the country flops. This seems to have become a pattern and if it continues thoughts will have to turn to independence. A situation whereby we, the capital city, keep having low rent Tory governments foisted upon us is simply not tenable in the long run. Strategy for this? I’m of the ‘gradualist’ persuasion. I don’t want to see Sadiq going for wildcat referendums or the like. Let’s just build the requisite majority for “Yes” over the piece and then hold a legal vote when we’re confident of winning it.
Nice analysis.
Basically, a party doesn't go from the kind of defeat Labour suffered in 2019 straight to government within one parliamentary term. It's a two term project but it's made more difficult by Starmer being dull as dishwater and also being mainly associated with the "People's Vote" shenanigans in the 17-19 Parliament.
One more Con win with a small majority in 2023/2024, Labour ditch Starmer and return to government in 2028/2029 with the 2030's likely to be a Labour decade is my best guess.
Not enjoyable but, you know, a betting post so it has to be detached.
It'd be nice to have a zappier leader but I don't think it's mainly that. I think it's a structural problem created by the Leave Remain split. Labour HAS to be Remain (on values, I mean, not literally a policy to rejoin) - it's where most of us on the centre left are - but this makes it very hard to win enough seats in Leave territory (which is where most marginals are) to beat the Tories to largest party.
A way forward might be to ally with the LDs and rerun Leave v Remain via a GE - fight it on those values. ie do what Johnson did in 2019 but this time consolidate the Remain vote. That (with the SNP) would have a great chance of prevailing and winning power imo.
Hello @kinablu, that and your original posts were very good ones. I think both you and GIN are right - this is not going to be a one-term project for Labour given the fundamental issues involved. When it comes to the Leave territory seats, Labour's brand image has been deteriorating not just with the Brexit issue but at least for a decade, and possibly more. That is not the thing you turn around in a heartbeat.
On the alliance with the LDs, I think the Tories would actually enjoy that, even though the maths would suggest that a consolidation of the anti-Tory vote would lead to losses. It would motivate their voting base - particularly in the Leave hinterland - and, for wealthy, Home Counties Remain seats, a lot of voters who might be tempted to go with a LD MP may think that the LDs would essentially allow Labour to set the agenda and so would stick with the Tories.
I would also argue it is wrong to think of two cohorts - Leave vs Remain - and think of three - Leave, Hard Remain (it's their motivating passion) and Soft Remain (i.e. they voted for Brexit but are reconciled to the present and see other issues as more important). Fighting on a Remain vs Leave platform risks allowing the Conservatives to gain the third cohort by focusing on other issues and portraying the other side as fighting the last war.
Well there's hard and soft Leave as well. And I don't mean refight the Ref as such, I mean fight the election as a binary battle of values. Progressive liberal internationalist vs Trad parochial nationalist. That sort of thing. I think the first would likely win. Just musing, really, but it has to be worth considering if Brexit has left the Cons with a structural FPTP advantage against a divided opposition. Which is my sense of things atm.
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
I prefer pacts to be tacit, and based on targetting seats as per 1997 than not standing a candidate, but pacts are not inconsistent with FPTP, they are a consequence of it.
Not really. Under many non-FPTP schemes, the pacts happen *after* the election, turning what happened in 2010 into the norm.
As I say, not standing candidates is really poor. Not really trying shows that you don't really believe in what you're saying.
This is nonsense. Take an extreme example. 100 candidates of various shades of conservatism and 1 socialist candidate. 102 voters. 2 are socialists the rest various shades of conservatism. Socialist candidate wins with 2 votes and under 2% of the vote. That is your idea of democracy? Wouldn't it be better if the conservatives formed a pact or change from FPTP so they can stand and the most popular conservative gets elected.
Can you give me an example of a UK election where there were '100 candidates of various shades of conservatism and 1 socialist candidate', or is this just a rather extreme fiction?
Well of course it hasn't happened. I'm giving an extreme example (words I actually used) to point out the nonsense of your argument. But a subset of my example happens at every single election if more than 2 people stand. You are objecting to people forming pacts to get around the unfairness of FPTP. In which case change the system. If you won't do that you can't object to pacts. You are objecting to people refusing to spend time and money so as to commit political suicide by ensuring they can't win. You are actually demanding that someone puts the effort in to standing, which will cause the party they most object to winning by splitting the vote. And you can't see why they may not do this? That is totally daft.
So you couldn't thin of a better example, one that had actually happened? Whereas I gave an example where it had happened. Having a choice of just three was crass.
After 2010, there were plenty of Labour supporters - I think on here, but it was just before I stopped lurking - who complained about the 'stitch-up' in the coalition negotiations. 'Fairness' seems very much to depend on whether something advantages you or not.
Not standing also has other disadvantages: it pi**es people off who might have voted for your party (i.e. there's no way in heck I'd vote Green in our constituency at the next GE, however good the candidate), you 'lose' solid voters who would vote for you next time, and you lose real data on how many people in a constituency currently support your party.
Sorry you say I can't think of an actual example? As I pointed out every election where more than 2 people have stood is an example and if you want some extreme examples Stockton in the Alliance years, the Scottish constituency (North East) where in the past it has been a 4 way fight with just hundreds of votes in it, etc. But in fact 100s of the seats are ones where a party standing or standing down can change the result.
I'm sorry JJ, whereas I like most of your posts I find these appallingly arrogant. It takes a lot of work and money to stand and it is also difficult to find people to do so, so to expect someone to do that who has no chance of winning and who will almost certainly then cause their next preferred candidate to lose is asking a lot. Good on those that do, but don't criticize those that don't.
As I said if you don't like what happens (And I don't also. I would prefer more to stand and have a greater choice), don't blame the candidates and the parties, blame the system that drives that outcome.
I don't believe it's arrogant. I want a healthy, robust democracy, with free speech and lots of different candidates with different ideas. I also believe that the party system has a little too much power atm. These sorts of stitch-ups make our democracy weaker, not stronger. They reduce choice for the voters, and take power away from them into the parties.
I've said many times passim that I appreciate *everyone* who stands for an election - a point I've made to every candidate I've met during this election (it's been a bit hotter around here than normal, esp. between the Conservatives and LDs). Standing for election takes guts, good communication skills and a willingness to undergo public scrutiny that I just do not possess.
I want to see more of that, not less. And ideally I want political parties to have less power.
North Down looks as though it will be 2 Alliance, 1 DUP, ! Independent Unionist (ex DUP) 1 UUP. That's one Independent Unionist gain from DUP and 1 Alliance gain from Green.
On a knife edge in South Belfast. Second Alliance v Green incumbent. Alliance doing well. Caveat. These are all rumours. Still short of a result
Alliance and Greens are competing for the same voters.
North Down looks as though it will be 2 Alliance, 1 DUP, ! Independent Unionist (ex DUP) 1 UUP. That's one Independent Unionist gain from DUP and 1 Alliance gain from Green.
On a knife edge in South Belfast. Second Alliance v Green incumbent. Alliance doing well. Caveat. These are all rumours. Still short of a result
Alliance and Greens are competing for the same voters.
Well. Yes and no. Because they're also competing for transfers too.
Tories lose a third seat in Runnymede Another Runnymede result: Englefield Green West has elected Abby King of the Labour and Co-operative Party with 403 votes. That was previously a Conservative seat, so that's now three seats they have lost in the borough, two of which have been to Labour. It also means that both Englefield Green seats that the Conservatives were defending have been lost.
Surrey is turning away from the tories. This is going to send shockwaves through the party. There are big hitting MPs in Surrey who are NOT going to be happy.
Thrasher and Curtice decided on the narrative last night and seem reluctant to accept that it’s a mixed picture further north with Labour doing better today in the Red Wall areas .
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
I prefer pacts to be tacit, and based on targetting seats as per 1997 than not standing a candidate, but pacts are not inconsistent with FPTP, they are a consequence of it.
Not really. Under many non-FPTP schemes, the pacts happen *after* the election, turning what happened in 2010 into the norm.
As I say, not standing candidates is really poor. Not really trying shows that you don't really believe in what you're saying.
This is nonsense. Take an extreme example. 100 candidates of various shades of conservatism and 1 socialist candidate. 102 voters. 2 are socialists the rest various shades of conservatism. Socialist candidate wins with 2 votes and under 2% of the vote. That is your idea of democracy? Wouldn't it be better if the conservatives formed a pact or change from FPTP so they can stand and the most popular conservative gets elected.
Can you give me an example of a UK election where there were '100 candidates of various shades of conservatism and 1 socialist candidate', or is this just a rather extreme fiction?
Well of course it hasn't happened. I'm giving an extreme example (words I actually used) to point out the nonsense of your argument. But a subset of my example happens at every single election if more than 2 people stand. You are objecting to people forming pacts to get around the unfairness of FPTP. In which case change the system. If you won't do that you can't object to pacts. You are objecting to people refusing to spend time and money so as to commit political suicide by ensuring they can't win. You are actually demanding that someone puts the effort in to standing, which will cause the party they most object to winning by splitting the vote. And you can't see why they may not do this? That is totally daft.
It's been the consistent Tory line since about 1983, though.
I am not a Tory. Yesterday I voted two* LD, one*Ind. I don;t think I've voted Conservative at any level since 2017.
Dismissing an argument you don't like as a 'Tory' line is a little silly. I guess you don't actually have a robust argument against what I've said?
No, I was responding to kjh, and not you - simply pointing out that the Conservative party has celebrated the utility of FPTP in keeping them in power for extended periods of time on a minority vote. I wouldn't presume to know how you vote.
This was the bit that prompted my reply about Tories making the same argument since 1983: ...You are objecting to people forming pacts to get around the unfairness of FPTP. In which case change the system. If you won't do that you can't object to pacts...
North Down looks as though it will be 2 Alliance, 1 DUP, ! Independent Unionist (ex DUP) 1 UUP. That's one Independent Unionist gain from DUP and 1 Alliance gain from Green.
On a knife edge in South Belfast. Second Alliance v Green incumbent. Alliance doing well. Caveat. These are all rumours. Still short of a result
Alliance and Greens are competing for the same voters.
North Down looks as though it will be 2 Alliance, 1 DUP, ! Independent Unionist (ex DUP) 1 UUP. That's one Independent Unionist gain from DUP and 1 Alliance gain from Green.
On a knife edge in South Belfast. Second Alliance v Green incumbent. Alliance doing well. Caveat. These are all rumours. Still short of a result
Alliance and Greens are competing for the same voters.
Well. Yes and no. Because they're also competing for transfers too.
Fair enough.
My guess is that it will be a very good election for Alliance, but in part, due to hoovering up votes from the Greens and SDLP. A very good election for Sinn Fein, but with a smaller overall nationalist vote share. And a very good election for TUV, at the expense of the DUP.
So I was defeated as expected, but came 3rd on first preference votes (ahead of the 2nd Tory who won) and ran it to 5 rounds of counting before a result was declared.
So I was defeated as expected, but came 3rd on first preference votes (ahead of the 2nd Tory who won) and ran it to 5 rounds of counting before a result was declared.
So I was defeated as expected, but came 3rd on first preference votes (ahead of the 2nd Tory who won) and ran it to 5 rounds of counting before a result was declared.
North Down looks as though it will be 2 Alliance, 1 DUP, ! Independent Unionist (ex DUP) 1 UUP. That's one Independent Unionist gain from DUP and 1 Alliance gain from Green.
On a knife edge in South Belfast. Second Alliance v Green incumbent. Alliance doing well. Caveat. These are all rumours. Still short of a result
What's the read out across NI? Unionist <-> Unionist or Unionist <-> Nationalist changes?
So I was defeated as expected, but came 3rd on first preference votes (ahead of the 2nd Tory who won) and ran it to 5 rounds of counting before a result was declared.
Not bad for a paper candidate...
Sounds like you did OK, well done, though glad the Tory won
I could sit on here all day posting individual losses but that would be equally pathetic as you and extremely boring
ie you are in cherry picking denial land
Are you alright?
Whilst I get your point of cheerypicking, that is uncalled for - @CorrectHorseBattery is one of the most polite posters on here and, while he has strong views, he puts it across without becoming personal.
Restarting the power stations has been policy since forever. The problem is that it's not the central government's decision: Local governors have to sign off, and if activists are able to poke a hole in the emergency planning they can get a court to stop it. For instance there's a plant near me with a load of hospitals nearby, and they have to show that a hospital with hundreds of patients can be evacuated. They'd need dozens of ambulances, and they only have one...
Is the message of this election largely "Who runs Britain?"
"Whatevs, but not you."
Interesting and shows the changes post Brexit. In the dying years of the Major government Westminster, Wandsworth and Huntingdonshire were some of the few councils which stayed blue and resisted the New Labour tide. Now all have gone Labour or NOC.
However in other more pro Brexit areas like Harlow and Swindon which were Labour in the 1990s, the Conservatives are still in control
“The SNP look set to win the vast majority of seats in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats given their position in the polls should do extremely well. We expect Caroline Lucas and the Green Party to hang on to her seat.
“We could have more than 100 MPs that do not belong to either of the other two parties”
This time last year: The Tory hegemony has a rock-solid foundation and will last another decade at least, Labour are marooned on an island of electoral irrelevance. Now: Labour are losing wards in their 169th target seat, this is a disaster for them
The lesson from that has passed you by sadly. Things change over time and not always the way you like,.
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
I prefer pacts to be tacit, and based on targetting seats as per 1997 than not standing a candidate, but pacts are not inconsistent with FPTP, they are a consequence of it.
Not really. Under many non-FPTP schemes, the pacts happen *after* the election, turning what happened in 2010 into the norm.
As I say, not standing candidates is really poor. Not really trying shows that you don't really believe in what you're saying.
This is nonsense. Take an extreme example. 100 candidates of various shades of conservatism and 1 socialist candidate. 102 voters. 2 are socialists the rest various shades of conservatism. Socialist candidate wins with 2 votes and under 2% of the vote. That is your idea of democracy? Wouldn't it be better if the conservatives formed a pact or change from FPTP so they can stand and the most popular conservative gets elected.
Can you give me an example of a UK election where there were '100 candidates of various shades of conservatism and 1 socialist candidate', or is this just a rather extreme fiction?
Well of course it hasn't happened. I'm giving an extreme example (words I actually used) to point out the nonsense of your argument. But a subset of my example happens at every single election if more than 2 people stand. You are objecting to people forming pacts to get around the unfairness of FPTP. In which case change the system. If you won't do that you can't object to pacts. You are objecting to people refusing to spend time and money so as to commit political suicide by ensuring they can't win. You are actually demanding that someone puts the effort in to standing, which will cause the party they most object to winning by splitting the vote. And you can't see why they may not do this? That is totally daft.
So you couldn't thin of a better example, one that had actually happened? Whereas I gave an example where it had happened. Having a choice of just three was crass.
After 2010, there were plenty of Labour supporters - I think on here, but it was just before I stopped lurking - who complained about the 'stitch-up' in the coalition negotiations. 'Fairness' seems very much to depend on whether something advantages you or not.
Not standing also has other disadvantages: it pi**es people off who might have voted for your party (i.e. there's no way in heck I'd vote Green in our constituency at the next GE, however good the candidate), you 'lose' solid voters who would vote for you next time, and you lose real data on how many people in a constituency currently support your party.
Sorry you say I can't think of an actual example? As I pointed out every election where more than 2 people have stood is an example and if you want some extreme examples Stockton in the Alliance years, the Scottish constituency (North East) where in the past it has been a 4 way fight with just hundreds of votes in it, etc. But in fact 100s of the seats are ones where a party standing or standing down can change the result.
I'm sorry JJ, whereas I like most of your posts I find these appallingly arrogant. It takes a lot of work and money to stand and it is also difficult to find people to do so, so to expect someone to do that who has no chance of winning and who will almost certainly then cause their next preferred candidate to lose is asking a lot. Good on those that do, but don't criticize those that don't.
As I said if you don't like what happens (And I don't also. I would prefer more to stand and have a greater choice), don't blame the candidates and the parties, blame the system that drives that outcome.
I don't believe it's arrogant. I want a healthy, robust democracy, with free speech and lots of different candidates with different ideas. I also believe that the party system has a little too much power atm. These sorts of stitch-ups make our democracy weaker, not stronger. They reduce choice for the voters, and take power away from them into the parties.
I've said many times passim that I appreciate *everyone* who stands for an election - a point I've made to every candidate I've met during this election (it's been a bit hotter around here than normal, esp. between the Conservatives and LDs). Standing for election takes guts, good communication skills and a willingness to undergo public scrutiny that I just do not possess.
I want to see more of that, not less. And ideally I want political parties to have less power.
Well I agree with you re parties. I would like to see them weakened also. I would like to see more Indies. I also would like to see the whipping process weakened. However as I have said if you want to see that then you need to get rid of FPTP because it drives the opposite of all that. It creates a 2 party system.
This time last year: The Tory hegemony has a rock-solid foundation and will last another decade at least, Labour are marooned on an island of electoral irrelevance. Now: Labour are losing wards in their 169th target seat, this is a disaster for them
I think you're a bit over excited by this, local and national elections don't correlate brilliantly. The Lib Dems will tell you that from bitter experience in 2015.
This time last year: The Tory hegemony has a rock-solid foundation and will last another decade at least, Labour are marooned on an island of electoral irrelevance. Now: Labour are losing wards in their 169th target seat, this is a disaster for them
I think you're a bit over excited by this, local and national elections don't correlate brilliantly. The Lib Dems will tell you that from bitter experience in 2015.
So I was defeated as expected, but came 3rd on first preference votes (ahead of the 2nd Tory who won) and ran it to 5 rounds of counting before a result was declared.
Comments
LAB: 58.1% (+3.8)
GRN: 16.0% (+5.6)
CON: 11.6% (-1.7)
LDM: 9.8% (+1.6)
TUSC: 2.4% (NEW)
CPA: 1.5% (NEW)
IND: 0.8% (NEW)
Labour HOLD
opros.co.uk/le2022
(Changes with 2018 Election)
#LE2022
#COVID19 infections decreased across the whole of the UK http://ow.ly/tTp450J14QQ
1 in:
England: 35
Wales: 25
NI: 40
Scot: 30
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1522531877822906369
I said I wasn't sure about their new methodology - which somebody else here agreed with.
I like Chris Curtice, he speaks objectively.
Yvette Cooper doing well
It'd be nice to have a zappier leader but I don't think it's mainly that. I think it's a structural problem created by the Leave Remain split. Labour HAS to be Remain (on values, I mean, not literally a policy to rejoin) - it's where most of us on the centre left are - but this makes it very hard to win enough seats in Leave territory (which is where most marginals are) to beat the Tories to largest party.
A way forward might be to ally with the LDs and rerun Leave v Remain via a GE - fight it on those values. ie do what Johnson did in 2019 but this time consolidate the Remain vote. That (with the SNP) would have a great chance of prevailing and winning power imo.
LAB: 62.2% (+24.7)
GRN: 21.4% (+15.1)
CON: 16.4% (+9.8)
Labour GAIN from IND.
No IND (-49.6) As Previous.
Huge result in Wakefield
"We will utilise nuclear reactors with safety assurances to contribute to worldwide reduction of dependence on Russian energy”
https://twitter.com/HelloMrBond/status/1522455717105618945
The Conservatives won 45% in 2019, and their NEV is 34% or so, but general elections are not local elections.
However I cant see how piling up votes in London means he wins. Obviously a Londoners opinion is worth at least 100 times that of some redneck in the sticks, but that' not how our electoral system works.
Chertsey Riverside Conservative Party with 475 votes
Addlestone North Green Party with 525 votes
Addlestone South Conservative Party with 610 votes
Egham Hythe Labour and Co-operative Party with 827 votes (Tory loss)
Chertsey St Ann Conservative Party with 502 votes
Egham Town Runnymede Independent Residents' Group with 826 votes
Englefield Green East Independent with 368 votes (Tory loss)
Longcross, Lyne and Chertsey South Liberal Democrat Party with 657 votes
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1522453032285388801
🇺🇦Air Force Command says that on May 5, Ukrainian forced shot down 15 air targets:
🔸1 Russian airplane (the Su-30SM according to preliminary data)
🔸14 Orlan-10 UAVs
BBC are currently focusing on ignoring London, and suggesting Labour are doing terribly outside London. Jeremy Vine "Labour are firing blanks".
And then everyone else shuffles up a level.
London Gains are greater than 36
Therefore you are Cherry Picking
I could sit on here all day posting individual losses but that would be equally pathetic as you and extremely boring
ie you are in cherry picking denial land
Are you alright?
On the alliance with the LDs, I think the Tories would actually enjoy that, even though the maths would suggest that a consolidation of the anti-Tory vote would lead to losses. It would motivate their voting base - particularly in the Leave hinterland - and, for wealthy, Home Counties Remain seats, a lot of voters who might be tempted to go with a LD MP may think that the LDs would essentially allow Labour to set the agenda and so would stick with the Tories.
I would also argue it is wrong to think of two cohorts - Leave vs Remain - and think of three - Leave, Hard Remain (it's their motivating passion) and Soft Remain (i.e. they voted for Brexit but are reconciled to the present and see other issues as more important). Fighting on a Remain vs Leave platform risks allowing the Conservatives to gain the third cohort by focusing on other issues and portraying the other side as fighting the last war.
In theory it could be testing availability, but if anything that would push it the other way as testing is still free, for the moment in Wales, but not England.
I think/suspect that because of the restrictions in wales, people as less likely to report that they have tested positive, or perhaps as less likely to get a test as they will have to isolate. (I haven't kept up with the latest rules in wales so happy to be corrected on this)
Any other thoughts?
Overall, it feels like there’s not enough here to suggest a Labour win in 2024, nor should one write off the Tories based on the history of midterm results. As we were.
The UK would be in a different place with FoM still in place though, as there would be effectively unlimited numbers of Eastern Europeans still coming over to make up the shortfall. We wouldn’t be seeing pay rises at the bottom end, which would add pressure to the government over cost of living.
Dismissing an argument you don't like as a 'Tory' line is a little silly. I guess you don't actually have a robust argument against what I've said?
She's never missed it before, except twice for pregnancy, so for her to miss it now could be significant.
Tories lose a third seat in Runnymede
Another Runnymede result: Englefield Green West has elected Abby King of the Labour and Co-operative Party with 403 votes. That was previously a Conservative seat, so that's now three seats they have lost in the borough, two of which have been to Labour. It also means that both Englefield Green seats that the Conservatives were defending have been lost.
Alliance doing well.
Caveat. These are all rumours. Still short of a result
Went to the funeral yesterday of a long standing CP resident; even there people described themselves as Canvey or not Canvey!
https://twitter.com/threshedthought/status/1522486976422850561?s=21&t=_L4RuF-WHlQwaCbRw5jXVw
I've said many times passim that I appreciate *everyone* who stands for an election - a point I've made to every candidate I've met during this election (it's been a bit hotter around here than normal, esp. between the Conservatives and LDs). Standing for election takes guts, good communication skills and a willingness to undergo public scrutiny that I just do not possess.
I want to see more of that, not less. And ideally I want political parties to have less power.
Lotsa independents
Is the message of this election largely
"Who runs Britain?"
"Whatevs, but not you."
A: It'll be a while before they're allowed anywhere near the net again
Johnson's days could still be numbered.
I wouldn't presume to know how you vote.
This was the bit that prompted my reply about Tories making the same argument since 1983:
...You are objecting to people forming pacts to get around the unfairness of FPTP. In which case change the system. If you won't do that you can't object to pacts...
Just under a fifth. Looking at somewhere around the 250 mark pro rata. A little worse than I was expecting tbh.
My guess is that it will be a very good election for Alliance, but in part, due to hoovering up votes from the Greens and SDLP. A very good election for Sinn Fein, but with a smaller overall nationalist vote share. And a very good election for TUV, at the expense of the DUP.
Not bad for a paper candidate...
He says the 18 locals are a superb performance for St Jeremy but the results today are a disaster for Labour.
Let's face it, he made up his mind yesterday.
John Curtice did not have his finest night.
LAB: 13 (=)
CON: 4 (-1)
GRN: 1 (+1)
Council Now: LAB 39, CON 14, GRN 1.
Labour HOLD.
Full results:
However in other more pro Brexit areas like Harlow and Swindon which were Labour in the 1990s, the Conservatives are still in control
Yes, he did.
“The SNP look set to win the vast majority of seats in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats given their position in the polls should do extremely well. We expect Caroline Lucas and the Green Party to hang on to her seat.
“We could have more than 100 MPs that do not belong to either of the other two parties”
Grn +150%
SLD +70%
SLab + 17%
SNP -2%
Ind -13%
SCon -21%