Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Even the oldies are now giving Johnson negative ratings – politicalbetting.com

1235789

Comments

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,648
    Oregonian -

    Oregon voters on Tuesday slowed the momentum of the Greater Idaho movement.

    Preliminary results show Douglas and Josephine counties voting down measures to study moving those jurisdictions into Idaho. Klamath County voters, however, supported the idea, meaning nine of Oregon’s 36 counties so far have voted to consider adjusting the border.

    Over the past couple of years, the Greater Idaho effort has mostly chalked up successful symbolic votes for its plan to move the vast, sparsely populated rural areas of southern and eastern Oregon into the Gem State. Baker, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Lake, Malheur, Sherman and Union counties have approved measures to look into the border change.

    Morrow and Umatilla counties will vote on Greater Idaho measures in November.

    Greater Idaho’s supporters believe Oregon’s “rural/urban divide” has become unbridgeable, with an increasingly liberal, Democratic-led state legislature running roughshod over the concerns and values of conservative, rural Oregonians.

    Mike McCarter, the La Pine resident who heads up the grassroots political organization Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho, calls the proposed border change “a peaceful revolution” that would make both progressive city dwellers and rural conservatives happier.

    The idea has gained traction among many rural Oregonians and even some political leaders.

    “When I was in the Legislature, I was always jumping up and down about the urban/rural divide,” Josephine County commissioner and former Oregon Senate minority leader Herman Baertschiger Jr. told The Oregonian/OregonLive last year. “It’s two very different lifestyles, two different ways of life.”

    He added: “The people in those rural areas have had it. They want to leave.”

    The ballot initiatives are non-binding. McCarter, a retired agricultural nurseryman, and his fellow volunteers are pursuing them as a means of highlighting rural discontent. They hope to force the state legislatures in Salem and Boise to start negotiating a new border -- a highly unlikely scenario.

    Even if Idaho and Oregon were to agree to a border adjustment, the U.S. Congress would have to sign off on it.

    In unofficial results on Tuesday, 8,688 Douglas County voters, or 57.16%, said no to the “Expand Idaho Border” measure. The measure received 6,512 yes votes, or 42.84%.

    Unofficial results in Josephine County for the “Advisory Question on Becoming Part of Idaho” show 10,319 (54.56%) no votes and 8,593 (45.44%) yes votes.

    That makes four Oregon counties total since the effort started that have voted against studying moving the border.

    The positive news for the Greater Idaho movement this week came in Klamath County, where unofficial results have 8,260 votes (56.11%) in favor of studying the relocation of the border and 6,460 (43.89%) against it.

    https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2022/05/greater-idaho-measures-fall-short-in-2-of-3-oregon-counties-effort-to-adjust-border-continues-in-november.html
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 8,584
    edited May 18

    Scott_xP said:

    EXC UK must accept border on Irish Sea is inevitable, says ex-WTO chief Pascal Lamy in interview with the Guardian. But dispute can be solved if Boris Johnson stops mixing “oil and vinegar issues”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/18/uk-has-to-accept-border-irish-sea-inevitable-ex-wto-chief-pascal-lamy-brexit-boris-johnson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...

    Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
    I certainly don’t trust Boris.
    Why would the EU?

    Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.

    Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
    Quite possibly. I don't trust the EU either, for what its worth. Both sides use everything they can to there advantage.

    The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.

    The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
    Depends what you mean by trust.
    I have no illusions about the EU’s negotiating ruthlessness.

    You are right on sequencing.
    I’m a hardcore Remainer, but the correct approach at the outset was to reject the EU’s preferred sequencing and to threaten to stay and gum up EU proceedings until a compromise could be found.
    The EU were perfectly used to and content with us staying and gumming up proceedings though.

    The reason the EU are irate is the correct approach is what we're doing and they're impotent to handle it. They weaponised the GFA to try and abuse and exploit it to get what they want, but now the government is correctly turning the tide by saying the GFA must come first and if the GFA and the Protocol are contradictory then the GFA is the higher priority. Good for them.

    The government can and should use Article 16 to impose a unilateral GFA-compliant solution that ensures there is no land border, no sea border and no alignment.

    Once that is done, what can the EU do about it? What is the threat to the GFA if that is the situation? How can the EU impose a border from a position that none exists and we're not the ones seeking change and we are OK with the status quo we have imposed?
    I don’t know why you keep trying to pick an argument with me on this, it is one of the very, very rare cases where we vaguely align.

    I would not be starting from here.

    Given where we are, A16 is the least worst option. Disavowing the NIP (which the government is now pledged to do) one of the worst.
    OK the only difference between us then is of the available starting points I would start here.

    Starting on the inside when we are the ones seeking a change is a problem as people (wrongly) come up with the ridiculous "you broke it, you fix it" attitude. Now that we're outside we can dismiss that attitude as the nonsense it is by having a solution then if anyone else wants to fix it the onus is on them to find a better one.

    The problem is some people have never gotten past the fact the public voted for Brexit. If you take the arguments on this matter and displace them from Brexit and were to think instead of Irish Unification as what had been voted for, it would show the weakness and fallacy of the arguments of those arguing against democracy.

    If Northern Ireland had voted for unification and English people were objecting, they'd be told quite rightly that the democratic will of the people must be respected. That is right in Ireland, and it is right in Britain too.

    We need to find the best available solution that respects what the people have voted for.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,567

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,750

    Cyclefree said:

    I see that, according to our current FS, my father's family were just "farmers with turnips". Makes a change, I suppose, from being called Papist terrorists.

    In reality, part of the reason this country is as free as it is is because my father volunteered to become an RAF Squadron Leader during WW2 then worked as a doctor here all his life. My aunt also volunteered to work for the government during the same war, living in London during the Blitz. Before them, their uncle, also a doctor, who worked for a time in Wales and got a further degree from Cambridge University in 1912, volunteered for the RAMC and was killed in September 1915. There were many other Irish men and women who contributed to making this country what it is and has been.

    But hey why worry about facts when ignorant bigotry is available instead.

    You don't have to chat with Liz Truss to get a bit of anti-Irish prejudice, it is alive and well on PB with all the experts who think we should tell all the Paddies south of the border to go and feck themselves, because when it comes to dealing with damn foreigners and Papists we don't care what the consequences are, so long as we Get Brexit Done!
    Oh cut the crap.

    You're just as bigoted and just as ignorant as HYUFD saying that we should repartition Ireland again if there's a reunification referendum.

    Had the referendum gone against Brexit then quite obviously it shouldn't be done. If it goes for Brexit however, then it should. The opinion of other nations comes second to that not because of discrimination but because we are a democratic state - just as Ireland are.

    Democracy should be respected and the will of the people democratically expressed should come first whatever it is they choose, whether that be Brexit or Irish Unification or joining the Euro or anything comparable.

    If people vote for Irish unification we should Get Irish Unification Done because that'd be what they voted for. If people here don't like it, they should be told to mind their own business, the will of the voters should be respected. The same is the case for Brexit.
    Projection again Mr Thompson. I don't need to be told I am bigot thank you by you, the biggest fuckwit bigot on this site. As I have asked you many times, please write on a subject you have some experience of. We all know the problem with that is that you seem to know fuck all about anything, but this does not stop you pontificating. Particularly Ireland, which even by your standards you clearly have sub-zero insight. Go and learn something useful, get some experience, travel, do something, but in God's name stop spouting off on sensitive subjects that you know absolutely NOTHING about. Good evening!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,758

    Scott_xP said:

    EXC UK must accept border on Irish Sea is inevitable, says ex-WTO chief Pascal Lamy in interview with the Guardian. But dispute can be solved if Boris Johnson stops mixing “oil and vinegar issues”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/18/uk-has-to-accept-border-irish-sea-inevitable-ex-wto-chief-pascal-lamy-brexit-boris-johnson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...

    Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
    I certainly don’t trust Boris.
    Why would the EU?

    Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.

    Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
    Quite possibly. I don't trust the EU either, for what its worth. Both sides use everything they can to there advantage.

    The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.

    The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
    Depends what you mean by trust.
    I have no illusions about the EU’s negotiating ruthlessness.

    You are right on sequencing.
    I’m a hardcore Remainer, but the correct approach at the outset was to reject the EU’s preferred sequencing and to threaten to stay and gum up EU proceedings until a compromise could be found.
    The EU were perfectly used to and content with us staying and gumming up proceedings though.

    The reason the EU are irate is the correct approach is what we're doing and they're impotent to handle it. They weaponised the GFA to try and abuse and exploit it to get what they want, but now the government is correctly turning the tide by saying the GFA must come first and if the GFA and the Protocol are contradictory then the GFA is the higher priority. Good for them.

    The government can and should use Article 16 to impose a unilateral GFA-compliant solution that ensures there is no land border, no sea border and no alignment.

    Once that is done, what can the EU do about it? What is the threat to the GFA if that is the situation? How can the EU impose a border from a position that none exists and we're not the ones seeking change and we are OK with the status quo we have imposed?
    I don’t know why you keep trying to pick an argument with me on this, it is one of the very, very rare cases where we vaguely align.

    I would not be starting from here.

    Given where we are, A16 is the least worst option. Disavowing the NIP (which the government is now pledged to do) one of the worst.
    Can you point me to that pledge to Disavow the NIP?

    If you are thinking of the Liz Truss statement, I did not hear that - I heard it as a putting in place a power to do it, which I took as preparation for a Plan B, or perhaps Plan C after negotiation Plan A then Article 16 Plan B. But I was only half-listening, so I could have missed it.

    I need to relisten this evening.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,567
    edited May 18
    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 103,034
    48% of Conservative voters have plans to celebrate the Queen's Platinum Jubilee but only 28% of Labour voters

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1526944316542881795?s=20&t=oyaEXxrZq0R-t2CSxAR9JA
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,707
    edited May 18
    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
    I don't think they will be largest party. So they'd need to form a coalition or force an immediate 2nd election (or allow for now an even smaller minority Tory government). I don't see a 5 point mid term poll lead translating to biggest party
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210

    A good column on how the British political and media culture neglects business:

    The British public is in danger of being crushed under an avalanche of political gossip. The faces of big-name pundits — most prominently Andrew Marr and Piers Morgan — stare out from the sides of buses. A dozen national newspapers splash the latest revelations about “party-gate” or “curry-gate” on their front pages as if they are matters of war and peace. The BBC’s quest for a new political editor became a news story in its own right when the corporation took the controversial step of appointing a man, Chris Mason, to the job.

    If good political coverage is the life blood of good government, political gossip is a blood cancer. It blows up minor stories into all-consuming events. How can we have time to think about things that matter — like China’s evolving relationship with Russia — when we are bombarded with news about Keir Starmer’s chicken korma? It creates a debilitating sense of crisis as one breaking story gobbles up another. And it puffs up journalists’ egos as they regurgitate the latest so-called revelation.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-17/the-british-disdain-for-business-will-affect-the-uk-s-place-in-the-world

    Very good
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    Since the Owen Paterson debacle, a Labour minority has been the most likely outcome.

    Depending on economic circs, a Labour majority now looks feasible, if still unlikely.

    Id say the odds are something like

    40% Lab minority
    30% Con minority
    20% Con majority
    10% Lab majority

    All to play for.
    If Keir and Reeves can paint a brighter future, and reassure on the economics, they win.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210
    dixiedean said:

    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.

    I did my tax return seamlessly today but then it was online
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495

    A good column on how the British political and media culture neglects business:

    The British public is in danger of being crushed under an avalanche of political gossip. The faces of big-name pundits — most prominently Andrew Marr and Piers Morgan — stare out from the sides of buses. A dozen national newspapers splash the latest revelations about “party-gate” or “curry-gate” on their front pages as if they are matters of war and peace. The BBC’s quest for a new political editor became a news story in its own right when the corporation took the controversial step of appointing a man, Chris Mason, to the job.

    If good political coverage is the life blood of good government, political gossip is a blood cancer. It blows up minor stories into all-consuming events. How can we have time to think about things that matter — like China’s evolving relationship with Russia — when we are bombarded with news about Keir Starmer’s chicken korma? It creates a debilitating sense of crisis as one breaking story gobbles up another. And it puffs up journalists’ egos as they regurgitate the latest so-called revelation.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-17/the-british-disdain-for-business-will-affect-the-uk-s-place-in-the-world

    Very good
    Yet the main person obsessed with Keir’s Korma on here was…Big G.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,567

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
    I don't think they will be largest party. So they'd need to form a coalition or force an immediate 2nd election (or allow for now an even smaller minority Tory government). I don't see a 5 point mid term poll lead translating to biggest party
    No. I don't either.
    But, if it did I don't see what the advantages are for Lab, SNP or LD's in a formal coalition.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,955

    As someone with a son on the spectrum this makes me very emotional. Autistic people are easy pickings for the terminally unpleasant. I suspect the lad looked "normal" but appeared a bit "odd" so they considered him fair game.

    Such understanding is normalised on this board too when one particular poster, supported by a couple of others accuse politicians they disagree with, and who appear "odd" to them as disparagingly being "probably on the spectrum" for example Mrs May.
    It upset me too, as I have two family members with autism. They are often such gentle and vulnerable souls. Society needs to protect them, not victimise them. These scumbags that did this should be locked up for a lot longer.
    My son whose main fault when he was at school was being extremely polite justified him getting a good kicking and on a regular basis.

    He's a good looking lad who does his thinking out loud, which I suspect worries certain people. If he was being pushed around in a wheelchair I suspect he would have been left alone.

    This is why I get so vexed here when Mrs May's "oddness" (in particular) is explained away as her being on the spectrum. I suspect she is not, but such an accusation has become a normalised term of abuse here.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,178

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    Brexit is both yesterday's and the future's battle. The EU was still an issue 40 years after joining. Post-Brexit will be an issue for as long. Dealing with the question: What sort of post-Brexit future admits of a wide range of answers.

    My guess is that a Lab/LD coalition will be best placed to do the next bit; but, crucially, I think SKS has already decided to go into the next election with no programme at all except retail bits and pieces and broad rhetoric. His big policy will be that he is not a Tory and he is not Corbyn and that no-one else can win. I suspect he will be right strategically to do so. But it is sad for grown up politics.

  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
    I don't think they will be largest party. So they'd need to form a coalition or force an immediate 2nd election (or allow for now an even smaller minority Tory government). I don't see a 5 point mid term poll lead translating to biggest party
    No. I don't either.
    But, if it did I don't see what the advantages are for Lab, SNP or LD's in a formal coalition.
    Assuming the coalition would be stable:

    Lab: SKSIPM for 4 years or more
    SNP: second referendum
    LDs: being in government
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210

    A good column on how the British political and media culture neglects business:

    The British public is in danger of being crushed under an avalanche of political gossip. The faces of big-name pundits — most prominently Andrew Marr and Piers Morgan — stare out from the sides of buses. A dozen national newspapers splash the latest revelations about “party-gate” or “curry-gate” on their front pages as if they are matters of war and peace. The BBC’s quest for a new political editor became a news story in its own right when the corporation took the controversial step of appointing a man, Chris Mason, to the job.

    If good political coverage is the life blood of good government, political gossip is a blood cancer. It blows up minor stories into all-consuming events. How can we have time to think about things that matter — like China’s evolving relationship with Russia — when we are bombarded with news about Keir Starmer’s chicken korma? It creates a debilitating sense of crisis as one breaking story gobbles up another. And it puffs up journalists’ egos as they regurgitate the latest so-called revelation.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-17/the-british-disdain-for-business-will-affect-the-uk-s-place-in-the-world

    Very good
    Yet the main person obsessed with Keir’s Korma on here was…Big G.
    I think you will find it was and still is media driven while you tried to close it down (unsuccessfully) from day 1
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109
    Including USA on these charts really blows out the scaling


    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1526913464790286341/photo/1
    Does not include more general aid
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 103,034
    edited May 18

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    Johnson is the Conservatives most charismatic and successful election winning leader since Thatcher. In 2019 he became the first Tory leader to win a landslide general election victory since Thatcher in 1987.

    Even on current polls and on the local elections NEV Labour are still heading for a hung parliament at best and miles from a majority.

    The Tories would be idiots to remove him. There have been 3 big general election winning party leaders in the last 50 years, Thatcher, Blair and Johnson.

    When the Tories got rid of Thatcher they lost 3 out of 4 of the following general elections. When Labour replaced Blair with Brown they lost all 4 of the following general elections.

    If the Tories removed Boris now it would be the same
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210

    Since the Owen Paterson debacle, a Labour minority has been the most likely outcome.

    Depending on economic circs, a Labour majority now looks feasible, if still unlikely.

    Id say the odds are something like

    40% Lab minority
    30% Con minority
    20% Con majority
    10% Lab majority

    All to play for.
    If Keir and Reeves can paint a brighter future, and reassure on the economics, they win.

    So they are going to lose on that then
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    MattW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXC UK must accept border on Irish Sea is inevitable, says ex-WTO chief Pascal Lamy in interview with the Guardian. But dispute can be solved if Boris Johnson stops mixing “oil and vinegar issues”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/18/uk-has-to-accept-border-irish-sea-inevitable-ex-wto-chief-pascal-lamy-brexit-boris-johnson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...

    Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
    I certainly don’t trust Boris.
    Why would the EU?

    Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.

    Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
    Quite possibly. I don't trust the EU either, for what its worth. Both sides use everything they can to there advantage.

    The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.

    The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
    Depends what you mean by trust.
    I have no illusions about the EU’s negotiating ruthlessness.

    You are right on sequencing.
    I’m a hardcore Remainer, but the correct approach at the outset was to reject the EU’s preferred sequencing and to threaten to stay and gum up EU proceedings until a compromise could be found.
    The EU were perfectly used to and content with us staying and gumming up proceedings though.

    The reason the EU are irate is the correct approach is what we're doing and they're impotent to handle it. They weaponised the GFA to try and abuse and exploit it to get what they want, but now the government is correctly turning the tide by saying the GFA must come first and if the GFA and the Protocol are contradictory then the GFA is the higher priority. Good for them.

    The government can and should use Article 16 to impose a unilateral GFA-compliant solution that ensures there is no land border, no sea border and no alignment.

    Once that is done, what can the EU do about it? What is the threat to the GFA if that is the situation? How can the EU impose a border from a position that none exists and we're not the ones seeking change and we are OK with the status quo we have imposed?
    I don’t know why you keep trying to pick an argument with me on this, it is one of the very, very rare cases where we vaguely align.

    I would not be starting from here.

    Given where we are, A16 is the least worst option. Disavowing the NIP (which the government is now pledged to do) one of the worst.
    Can you point me to that pledge to Disavow the NIP?

    If you are thinking of the Liz Truss statement, I did not hear that - I heard it as a putting in place a power to do it, which I took as preparation for a Plan B, or perhaps Plan C after negotiation Plan A then Article 16 Plan B. But I was only half-listening, so I could have missed it.

    I need to relisten this evening.

    A good column on how the British political and media culture neglects business:

    The British public is in danger of being crushed under an avalanche of political gossip. The faces of big-name pundits — most prominently Andrew Marr and Piers Morgan — stare out from the sides of buses. A dozen national newspapers splash the latest revelations about “party-gate” or “curry-gate” on their front pages as if they are matters of war and peace. The BBC’s quest for a new political editor became a news story in its own right when the corporation took the controversial step of appointing a man, Chris Mason, to the job.

    If good political coverage is the life blood of good government, political gossip is a blood cancer. It blows up minor stories into all-consuming events. How can we have time to think about things that matter — like China’s evolving relationship with Russia — when we are bombarded with news about Keir Starmer’s chicken korma? It creates a debilitating sense of crisis as one breaking story gobbles up another. And it puffs up journalists’ egos as they regurgitate the latest so-called revelation.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-17/the-british-disdain-for-business-will-affect-the-uk-s-place-in-the-world

    Very good
    Yet the main person obsessed with Keir’s Korma on here was…Big G.
    I think you will find it was and still is media driven while you tried to close it down (unsuccessfully) from day 1
    Of course it was media-driven.
    Targeted at the most gullible in society which sadly is you.

    As I said from day 1 the story is bullshit, and so it shall be proved.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,707
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
    I don't think they will be largest party. So they'd need to form a coalition or force an immediate 2nd election (or allow for now an even smaller minority Tory government). I don't see a 5 point mid term poll lead translating to biggest party
    No. I don't either.
    But, if it did I don't see what the advantages are for Lab, SNP or LD's in a formal coalition.
    No, indeed, but if Labour are not largest party they can't just form a minority administration. They'd need at least a confidence and supply arrangement.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495

    Since the Owen Paterson debacle, a Labour minority has been the most likely outcome.

    Depending on economic circs, a Labour majority now looks feasible, if still unlikely.

    Id say the odds are something like

    40% Lab minority
    30% Con minority
    20% Con majority
    10% Lab majority

    All to play for.
    If Keir and Reeves can paint a brighter future, and reassure on the economics, they win.

    So they are going to lose on that then
    I don’t know.
    I’m not a Keir fan especially but he strikes me as quite a digilent strategist.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,109

    As someone with a son on the spectrum this makes me very emotional. Autistic people are easy pickings for the terminally unpleasant. I suspect the lad looked "normal" but appeared a bit "odd" so they considered him fair game.

    Such understanding is normalised on this board too when one particular poster, supported by a couple of others accuse politicians they disagree with, and who appear "odd" to them as disparagingly being "probably on the spectrum" for example Mrs May.
    It upset me too, as I have two family members with autism. They are often such gentle and vulnerable souls. Society needs to protect them, not victimise them. These scumbags that did this should be locked up for a lot longer.
    My son whose main fault when he was at school was being extremely polite justified him getting a good kicking and on a regular basis.

    He's a good looking lad who does his thinking out loud, which I suspect worries certain people. If he was being pushed around in a wheelchair I suspect he would have been left alone.

    This is why I get so vexed here when Mrs May's "oddness" (in particular) is explained away as her being on the spectrum. I suspect she is not, but such an accusation has become a normalised term of abuse here.
    I think in general there is a tendency to over or casually use such terms. It became a cliche for people online self diagnose asperger's syndrome, and while not offensively meant lots of people might talk about being 'a little OCD'.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,332
    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
    I don't think they will be largest party. So they'd need to form a coalition or force an immediate 2nd election (or allow for now an even smaller minority Tory government). I don't see a 5 point mid term poll lead translating to biggest party
    No. I don't either.
    But, if it did I don't see what the advantages are for Lab, SNP or LD's in a formal coalition.
    Assuming the coalition would be stable:

    Lab: SKSIPM for 4 years or more
    SNP: second referendum
    LDs: being in government
    Also for the SNP: having some influence on UK wide policy meantime.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,567
    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
    I don't think they will be largest party. So they'd need to form a coalition or force an immediate 2nd election (or allow for now an even smaller minority Tory government). I don't see a 5 point mid term poll lead translating to biggest party
    No. I don't either.
    But, if it did I don't see what the advantages are for Lab, SNP or LD's in a formal coalition.
    Assuming the coalition would be stable:

    Lab: SKSIPM for 4 years or more
    SNP: second referendum
    LDs: being in government
    That's a big assumption to be fair. I can't see it tbh.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210

    As someone with a son on the spectrum this makes me very emotional. Autistic people are easy pickings for the terminally unpleasant. I suspect the lad looked "normal" but appeared a bit "odd" so they considered him fair game.

    Such understanding is normalised on this board too when one particular poster, supported by a couple of others accuse politicians they disagree with, and who appear "odd" to them as disparagingly being "probably on the spectrum" for example Mrs May.
    It upset me too, as I have two family members with autism. They are often such gentle and vulnerable souls. Society needs to protect them, not victimise them. These scumbags that did this should be locked up for a lot longer.
    My son whose main fault when he was at school was being extremely polite justified him getting a good kicking and on a regular basis.

    He's a good looking lad who does his thinking out loud, which I suspect worries certain people. If he was being pushed around in a wheelchair I suspect he would have been left alone.

    This is why I get so vexed here when Mrs May's "oddness" (in particular) is explained away as her being on the spectrum. I suspect she is not, but such an accusation has become a normalised term of abuse here.
    I fully support you on this
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,618

    malcolmg said:

    ajb said:


    Leon said:

    I’m sitting on a sunny terrace in Monodendri and some poor she-cat is being brutally raped by a large vicious tom cat right under the table


    I never know what to do in these situations. You see it constantly with ducks. Basically all they do is quack and rape

    Does one intervene, or politely look away?

    How do you know she's not enjoying it. Odd creatures, cats.

    Cats are 'stimulated ovulators' which means the tom has some vicous barbs on the end of his todger, the action of which causes the egg to be released. Cat sex normally starts with the queen asking for it and ends with her beating up the tom. Even it she wanted it at the start (which is normally the case) she probably isn't enjoying it.

    Nature isn't fair unfortunately.
    Now you mention it, I've read that somewhere, but I'd forgotten. Must be careful or I'll go off on to the sex lives of foxes, with their blood curdling screams during the mating season.

    IIRC humans and dolphins are about the only species of mammals which have fun mating. Not sure about bonobos, but I'm certain someone here does.
    Too much cat information for me
    Easy tiger.
    I’m really not sure “humans and dolphins” are the only animals that *enjoy mating*

    Reproduction is the ultimate goal of any organism. It will be accompanied by “pleasure” (however you define it)

    Apparently female weasels orgasm copiously, btw
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,648
    kle4 said:

    Including USA on these charts really blows out the scaling


    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1526913464790286341/photo/1
    Does not include more general aid

    Which would no doubt increase US share even more.

    Will be very interesting to find out - someday - what the timeline was/is for Ukraine receiving aid documented above.

    My guess is that that UK PM's rhetorical support actually exceeded actual support. WIth important caveat that UK gave important aid & comfort to UKR at an extremely critical juncture.

    Also reckon that more was already flowing from USA to UKR than was publically admitted at the time.

    AND that POTUS Biden let PM Johnson break trail on this publically, while getting the USA's ducks in a row AND knocking some heads together in Foggy Bottom AND the Pentagon.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210

    MattW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXC UK must accept border on Irish Sea is inevitable, says ex-WTO chief Pascal Lamy in interview with the Guardian. But dispute can be solved if Boris Johnson stops mixing “oil and vinegar issues”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/18/uk-has-to-accept-border-irish-sea-inevitable-ex-wto-chief-pascal-lamy-brexit-boris-johnson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...

    Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
    I certainly don’t trust Boris.
    Why would the EU?

    Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.

    Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
    Quite possibly. I don't trust the EU either, for what its worth. Both sides use everything they can to there advantage.

    The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.

    The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
    Depends what you mean by trust.
    I have no illusions about the EU’s negotiating ruthlessness.

    You are right on sequencing.
    I’m a hardcore Remainer, but the correct approach at the outset was to reject the EU’s preferred sequencing and to threaten to stay and gum up EU proceedings until a compromise could be found.
    The EU were perfectly used to and content with us staying and gumming up proceedings though.

    The reason the EU are irate is the correct approach is what we're doing and they're impotent to handle it. They weaponised the GFA to try and abuse and exploit it to get what they want, but now the government is correctly turning the tide by saying the GFA must come first and if the GFA and the Protocol are contradictory then the GFA is the higher priority. Good for them.

    The government can and should use Article 16 to impose a unilateral GFA-compliant solution that ensures there is no land border, no sea border and no alignment.

    Once that is done, what can the EU do about it? What is the threat to the GFA if that is the situation? How can the EU impose a border from a position that none exists and we're not the ones seeking change and we are OK with the status quo we have imposed?
    I don’t know why you keep trying to pick an argument with me on this, it is one of the very, very rare cases where we vaguely align.

    I would not be starting from here.

    Given where we are, A16 is the least worst option. Disavowing the NIP (which the government is now pledged to do) one of the worst.
    Can you point me to that pledge to Disavow the NIP?

    If you are thinking of the Liz Truss statement, I did not hear that - I heard it as a putting in place a power to do it, which I took as preparation for a Plan B, or perhaps Plan C after negotiation Plan A then Article 16 Plan B. But I was only half-listening, so I could have missed it.

    I need to relisten this evening.

    A good column on how the British political and media culture neglects business:

    The British public is in danger of being crushed under an avalanche of political gossip. The faces of big-name pundits — most prominently Andrew Marr and Piers Morgan — stare out from the sides of buses. A dozen national newspapers splash the latest revelations about “party-gate” or “curry-gate” on their front pages as if they are matters of war and peace. The BBC’s quest for a new political editor became a news story in its own right when the corporation took the controversial step of appointing a man, Chris Mason, to the job.

    If good political coverage is the life blood of good government, political gossip is a blood cancer. It blows up minor stories into all-consuming events. How can we have time to think about things that matter — like China’s evolving relationship with Russia — when we are bombarded with news about Keir Starmer’s chicken korma? It creates a debilitating sense of crisis as one breaking story gobbles up another. And it puffs up journalists’ egos as they regurgitate the latest so-called revelation.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-17/the-british-disdain-for-business-will-affect-the-uk-s-place-in-the-world

    Very good
    Yet the main person obsessed with Keir’s Korma on here was…Big G.
    I think you will find it was and still is media driven while you tried to close it down (unsuccessfully) from day 1
    Of course it was media-driven.
    Targeted at the most gullible in society which sadly is you.

    As I said from day 1 the story is bullshit, and so it shall be proved.
    20 questionnaires being issued today by Durham Police is hardly a 'bullshit' story
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
    I don't think they will be largest party. So they'd need to form a coalition or force an immediate 2nd election (or allow for now an even smaller minority Tory government). I don't see a 5 point mid term poll lead translating to biggest party
    No. I don't either.
    But, if it did I don't see what the advantages are for Lab, SNP or LD's in a formal coalition.
    No, indeed, but if Labour are not largest party they can't just form a minority administration. They'd need at least a confidence and supply arrangement.
    Not necessarily, just a commitment from the third and/or fourth parties to vote against a Boris Queen's Speech and in favour of a SKS Queen's Speech immediately after the election. That's enough to make SKS PM.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    edited May 18

    MattW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXC UK must accept border on Irish Sea is inevitable, says ex-WTO chief Pascal Lamy in interview with the Guardian. But dispute can be solved if Boris Johnson stops mixing “oil and vinegar issues”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/18/uk-has-to-accept-border-irish-sea-inevitable-ex-wto-chief-pascal-lamy-brexit-boris-johnson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...

    Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
    I certainly don’t trust Boris.
    Why would the EU?

    Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.

    Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
    Quite possibly. I don't trust the EU either, for what its worth. Both sides use everything they can to there advantage.

    The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.

    The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
    Depends what you mean by trust.
    I have no illusions about the EU’s negotiating ruthlessness.

    You are right on sequencing.
    I’m a hardcore Remainer, but the correct approach at the outset was to reject the EU’s preferred sequencing and to threaten to stay and gum up EU proceedings until a compromise could be found.
    The EU were perfectly used to and content with us staying and gumming up proceedings though.

    The reason the EU are irate is the correct approach is what we're doing and they're impotent to handle it. They weaponised the GFA to try and abuse and exploit it to get what they want, but now the government is correctly turning the tide by saying the GFA must come first and if the GFA and the Protocol are contradictory then the GFA is the higher priority. Good for them.

    The government can and should use Article 16 to impose a unilateral GFA-compliant solution that ensures there is no land border, no sea border and no alignment.

    Once that is done, what can the EU do about it? What is the threat to the GFA if that is the situation? How can the EU impose a border from a position that none exists and we're not the ones seeking change and we are OK with the status quo we have imposed?
    I don’t know why you keep trying to pick an argument with me on this, it is one of the very, very rare cases where we vaguely align.

    I would not be starting from here.

    Given where we are, A16 is the least worst option. Disavowing the NIP (which the government is now pledged to do) one of the worst.
    Can you point me to that pledge to Disavow the NIP?

    If you are thinking of the Liz Truss statement, I did not hear that - I heard it as a putting in place a power to do it, which I took as preparation for a Plan B, or perhaps Plan C after negotiation Plan A then Article 16 Plan B. But I was only half-listening, so I could have missed it.

    I need to relisten this evening.

    A good column on how the British political and media culture neglects business:

    The British public is in danger of being crushed under an avalanche of political gossip. The faces of big-name pundits — most prominently Andrew Marr and Piers Morgan — stare out from the sides of buses. A dozen national newspapers splash the latest revelations about “party-gate” or “curry-gate” on their front pages as if they are matters of war and peace. The BBC’s quest for a new political editor became a news story in its own right when the corporation took the controversial step of appointing a man, Chris Mason, to the job.

    If good political coverage is the life blood of good government, political gossip is a blood cancer. It blows up minor stories into all-consuming events. How can we have time to think about things that matter — like China’s evolving relationship with Russia — when we are bombarded with news about Keir Starmer’s chicken korma? It creates a debilitating sense of crisis as one breaking story gobbles up another. And it puffs up journalists’ egos as they regurgitate the latest so-called revelation.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-17/the-british-disdain-for-business-will-affect-the-uk-s-place-in-the-world

    Very good
    Yet the main person obsessed with Keir’s Korma on here was…Big G.
    I think you will find it was and still is media driven while you tried to close it down (unsuccessfully) from day 1
    Of course it was media-driven.
    Targeted at the most gullible in society which sadly is you.

    As I said from day 1 the story is bullshit, and so it shall be proved.
    20 questionnaires being issued today by Durham Police is hardly a 'bullshit' story
    Of course it is. It’s utter drivel, the sort of stuff you were daft enough to “like” a post complaining about upthread.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,648
    dixiedean said:

    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.

    Sounds like you could be #14,001 for today? That is, you are NOT alone.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,178
    edited May 18

    Since the Owen Paterson debacle, a Labour minority has been the most likely outcome.

    Depending on economic circs, a Labour majority now looks feasible, if still unlikely.

    Id say the odds are something like

    40% Lab minority
    30% Con minority
    20% Con majority
    10% Lab majority

    All to play for.
    If Keir and Reeves can paint a brighter future, and reassure on the economics, they win.

    Agree in general with the total maths - about an equal chance of Tory or Labour led future after the next GE. Though I think the landing ground for a Tory government is smaller and the chance of a Tory majority larger. And I still think Lab majority (over half the seats) is less than 10% chance. Winning 126 seats to Labour alone looks hard. Though to the fair the Tories seem to be doing their best to help this along.

    Does some % figure need to be allowed for a result in which no coherent government can be formed and a fresh election has to be called very quickly?

    The bookies still make Tory Majority the favourite, 15/8 last time I looked.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210
    Martin Reynolds being lined up for Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    I assume this is the same Martin Reynolds who was involved in partygate
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,567
    dixiedean said:

    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
    I don't think they will be largest party. So they'd need to form a coalition or force an immediate 2nd election (or allow for now an even smaller minority Tory government). I don't see a 5 point mid term poll lead translating to biggest party
    No. I don't either.
    But, if it did I don't see what the advantages are for Lab, SNP or LD's in a formal coalition.
    Assuming the coalition would be stable:

    Lab: SKSIPM for 4 years or more
    SNP: second referendum
    LDs: being in government
    That's a big assumption to be fair. I can't see it tbh.
    Why not just legislate for a referendum in 4 years? That's government locked in.
    Can't see the LD's being over desperate to get in government after last time.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    dixiedean said:

    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
    I don't think they will be largest party. So they'd need to form a coalition or force an immediate 2nd election (or allow for now an even smaller minority Tory government). I don't see a 5 point mid term poll lead translating to biggest party
    No. I don't either.
    But, if it did I don't see what the advantages are for Lab, SNP or LD's in a formal coalition.
    Assuming the coalition would be stable:

    Lab: SKSIPM for 4 years or more
    SNP: second referendum
    LDs: being in government
    That's a big assumption to be fair. I can't see it tbh.
    That's also true. But if it ends up something like:

    Con 290
    Lab 270
    SNP 50
    LD 20
    Oth 20

    then a coalition of the losers might be stable enough to get through a full parliament.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    algarkirk said:

    Since the Owen Paterson debacle, a Labour minority has been the most likely outcome.

    Depending on economic circs, a Labour majority now looks feasible, if still unlikely.

    Id say the odds are something like

    40% Lab minority
    30% Con minority
    20% Con majority
    10% Lab majority

    All to play for.
    If Keir and Reeves can paint a brighter future, and reassure on the economics, they win.

    Agree in general with the total maths - about an equal chance of Tory or Labour led future after the next GE. Though I think the landing ground for a Tory government is smaller and the chance of a Tory majority larger. And I still think Lab majority (over half the seats) is less than 10% chance. Winning 126 seats to Labour alone looks hard. Though to the fair the Tories seem to be doing their best to help this along.

    Does some % figure need to be allowed for a result in which no coherent government can be formed and a fresh election has to be called very quickly?

    The bookies still make Tory Majority the favourite, 15/8 last time I looked.

    My numbers are for electoral outcomes rather than governments.

    In reality, because the Tory’s are “uncoalitionable”, a Labour government of some form is more than a 50% likelihood in my opinion. (Something like 55%).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803

    Martin Reynolds being lined up for Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    I assume this is the same Martin Reynolds who was involved in partygate

    Anyone got that scene from Yes Minister handy?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,178

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    RobD said:

    Martin Reynolds being lined up for Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    I assume this is the same Martin Reynolds who was involved in partygate

    Anyone got that scene from Yes Minister handy?
    This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-aibUV-Ltg
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,955

    Martin Reynolds being lined up for Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    I assume this is the same Martin Reynolds who was involved in partygate

    His reward for being on the lash is to be sent to a dry country.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,763
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    ajb said:


    Leon said:

    I’m sitting on a sunny terrace in Monodendri and some poor she-cat is being brutally raped by a large vicious tom cat right under the table


    I never know what to do in these situations. You see it constantly with ducks. Basically all they do is quack and rape

    Does one intervene, or politely look away?

    How do you know she's not enjoying it. Odd creatures, cats.

    Cats are 'stimulated ovulators' which means the tom has some vicous barbs on the end of his todger, the action of which causes the egg to be released. Cat sex normally starts with the queen asking for it and ends with her beating up the tom. Even it she wanted it at the start (which is normally the case) she probably isn't enjoying it.

    Nature isn't fair unfortunately.
    Now you mention it, I've read that somewhere, but I'd forgotten. Must be careful or I'll go off on to the sex lives of foxes, with their blood curdling screams during the mating season.

    IIRC humans and dolphins are about the only species of mammals which have fun mating. Not sure about bonobos, but I'm certain someone here does.
    Too much cat information for me
    Easy tiger.
    I’m really not sure “humans and dolphins” are the only animals that *enjoy mating*

    Reproduction is the ultimate goal of any organism. It will be accompanied by “pleasure” (however you define it)

    Apparently female weasels orgasm copiously, btw
    I thought we had moved on from the whole “jizz with Liz” thing.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,618
    dixiedean said:

    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.

    They’re all working from fucking home. We tried to tell you. It’s shit
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    It's not credible, though. The idea that the SNP would favour the Tories over Labour?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 8,584
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    ajb said:


    Leon said:

    I’m sitting on a sunny terrace in Monodendri and some poor she-cat is being brutally raped by a large vicious tom cat right under the table


    I never know what to do in these situations. You see it constantly with ducks. Basically all they do is quack and rape

    Does one intervene, or politely look away?

    How do you know she's not enjoying it. Odd creatures, cats.

    Cats are 'stimulated ovulators' which means the tom has some vicous barbs on the end of his todger, the action of which causes the egg to be released. Cat sex normally starts with the queen asking for it and ends with her beating up the tom. Even it she wanted it at the start (which is normally the case) she probably isn't enjoying it.

    Nature isn't fair unfortunately.
    Now you mention it, I've read that somewhere, but I'd forgotten. Must be careful or I'll go off on to the sex lives of foxes, with their blood curdling screams during the mating season.

    IIRC humans and dolphins are about the only species of mammals which have fun mating. Not sure about bonobos, but I'm certain someone here does.
    Too much cat information for me
    Easy tiger.
    I’m really not sure “humans and dolphins” are the only animals that *enjoy mating*

    Reproduction is the ultimate goal of any organism. It will be accompanied by “pleasure” (however you define it)

    Apparently female weasels orgasm copiously, btw
    I thought we had moved on from the whole “jizz with Liz” thing.
    The Jubilee is going to some great lengths isn't it?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,332

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    That only applies in Scotland. Where Labour is pretty crap at present in MP terms. One almost Tory MP in Morningside of all places. And Labour victories over SNP do nothing to reduce the Tory majority. Plus at the same time, Slab is pretending not to ally with Tories but is doing so all over the country?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,595
    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.

    Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.

    That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.

    I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?

    Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?

    In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.

    However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
    You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories?
    No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
    Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
    No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.

    The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
    It doesn't.

    The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.

    The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
    Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
    Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.

    Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
    There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.

    If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
    This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/cure-for-the-blues-the-tories-mid-term-plight-in-perspective

    This is a good, final, point:

    "Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
    Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
    "in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
    I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
    Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
    I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
    The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment
    1) reduced Tory majority
    2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
    3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
    My money's on a Labour minority not a coalition if such a situation arose.
    Simply implement the bits popular with other Parties for a while.
    Then call an election at convenience. Can't see what advantages a formal coalition would offer anyone at all
    Yes, I don't think a formal coalition is required, just a positive attitude to the Labour policies that they agree with from the SNP, LD and others.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    It's not credible, though. The idea that the SNP would favour the Tories over Labour?
    It is credible.

    If Scotland still voted Labour, Keir’s mountain-to-climb would be more a gentle foot-hill.

    SNP/Labour waverers are critical to the next election (one of five key profiles who are).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,342

    Martin Reynolds being lined up for Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    I assume this is the same Martin Reynolds who was involved in partygate

    His reward for being on the lash is to be sent to a dry country.
    They are building a $500bn new city with its own laws which is likely to allow boozing to attract foreign tourists like Dubai.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,199
    From the header, it is very depressing to see that I am classed as "55-64". Old fartdom starts here!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    That only applies in Scotland. Where Labour is pretty crap at present in MP terms. One almost Tory MP in Morningside of all places. And Labour victories over SNP do nothing to reduce the Tory majority. Plus at the same time, Slab is pretending not to ally with Tories but is doing so all over the country?
    I don’t know why Labour are allying with the Tories in Scotland. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,523

    Martin Reynolds being lined up for Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    I assume this is the same Martin Reynolds who was involved in partygate

    His reward for being on the lash is to be sent to a dry country.
    Boris and his sense of humour......
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    It's not credible, though. The idea that the SNP would favour the Tories over Labour?
    It is credible.

    If Scotland still voted Labour, Keir’s mountain-to-climb would be more a gentle foot-hill.

    SNP/Labour waverers are critical to the next election (one of five key profiles who are).
    SNP MPs are just as reliable supporters of SKS over Boris as PM as Labour MPs are.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    That only applies in Scotland. Where Labour is pretty crap at present in MP terms. One almost Tory MP in Morningside of all places. And Labour victories over SNP do nothing to reduce the Tory majority. Plus at the same time, Slab is pretending not to ally with Tories but is doing so all over the country?
    I don’t know why Labour are allying with the Tories in Scotland. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.
    SNP is the common enemy and seems very practical politics
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    edited May 18
    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    It's not credible, though. The idea that the SNP would favour the Tories over Labour?
    It is credible.

    If Scotland still voted Labour, Keir’s mountain-to-climb would be more a gentle foot-hill.

    SNP/Labour waverers are critical to the next election (one of five key profiles who are).
    SNP MPs are just as reliable supporters of SKS over Boris as PM as Labour MPs are.
    You (and other posters) are confusing separate issues.

    To win, SKS needs to convince English voters that he will not be beholden to the SNP.

    Therefore, he must campaign hard against the SNP, even if - within the Scottish context - it has minor electoral pay-off.

    Anyway, he would be right to do so, as every Labour win against the SNP makes a Labour led government more likely because it *increases the Labour tally relatively* against the Tory tally.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    edited May 18

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    That only applies in Scotland. Where Labour is pretty crap at present in MP terms. One almost Tory MP in Morningside of all places. And Labour victories over SNP do nothing to reduce the Tory majority. Plus at the same time, Slab is pretending not to ally with Tories but is doing so all over the country?
    I don’t know why Labour are allying with the Tories in Scotland. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.
    SNP is the common enemy and seems very practical politics
    I am not Scottish but my read is that the most salient (ie motivating) schism in Scottish politics is pro / anti Tory, not pro / anti Indy.

    Labour wins SNP waverers by attacking the Tories.

    SNP wins Labour waverers by suggesting the Labour are with the Tories.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,821

    From the header, it is very depressing to see that I am classed as "55-64". Old fartdom starts here!

    Embrace it Sandy. I felt the same when it happened to me 18 months ago.

    Now I can be grumpy. I can be how I’ve always been on the inside. Victor Meldrew. It’s great.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,707
    edited May 18

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    It's not credible, though. The idea that the SNP would favour the Tories over Labour?
    It is credible.

    If Scotland still voted Labour, Keir’s mountain-to-climb would be more a gentle foot-hill.

    SNP/Labour waverers are critical to the next election (one of five key profiles who are).
    SNP MPs are just as reliable supporters of SKS over Boris as PM as Labour MPs are.
    You (and other posters) are confusing separate issues.

    To win, SKS needs to convince English voters that he will not be beholden to the SNP.

    Therefore, he must campaign hard against the SNP, even if - within the Scottish context - it has minor electoral pay-off.

    Anyway, he would be right to do so, as every Labour win against the SNP makes a Labour led government more likely because it *increases the Labour tally relatively* against the Tory tally.
    He needs the unionists in Scotland to flock to him.
    If he takes votes directly off the SNP then a standing still Scot Tory party would benefit before SLab start to - potentially in the 3 Ayrshire seats, Stirling etc.
    The Scottish Tories would probably settle for third in the popular vote (on say 20%) if the SNP decline into the 30s as they can come through the middle in a handful of seats
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,787
    Taz said:

    From the header, it is very depressing to see that I am classed as "55-64". Old fartdom starts here!

    Embrace it Sandy. I felt the same when it happened to me 18 months ago.

    Now I can be grumpy. I can be how I’ve always been on the inside. Victor Meldrew. It’s great.
    I'm towards the top end of that band. Can't wait for the next slot when I receive my OA pension.

    :smiley:
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,661
    Taz said:

    From the header, it is very depressing to see that I am classed as "55-64". Old fartdom starts here!

    Embrace it Sandy. I felt the same when it happened to me 18 months ago.

    Now I can be grumpy. I can be how I’ve always been on the inside. Victor Meldrew. It’s great.
    Pah! You are mere flibbertigibbet children.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,567
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.

    They’re all working from fucking home. We tried to tell you. It’s shit
    You don't need to be sitting in an office to answer a phone.
    That's just an excuse.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,057
    We were discussing the economics of grocery delivery services the other day, but didn’t talk about the real scumbags which are the restaurant delivery apps.

    Well, restaurant app Grubhub managed to piss off half of New York yesterday, with a modern version of buying a Hoover to get free flights.

    They offered everyone in the city a “Free Lunch”, more specifically a $15 discount code, between 11am and 2pm, but without notifying the restaurants directly. You can probably guess what happened next…

    https://fortune.com/2022/05/18/grubhub-chaos-offer-free-lunch-new-york-city-crashes-system-leaves-countless-customers-hungry/
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,178
    edited May 18

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    That only applies in Scotland. Where Labour is pretty crap at present in MP terms. One almost Tory MP in Morningside of all places. And Labour victories over SNP do nothing to reduce the Tory majority. Plus at the same time, Slab is pretending not to ally with Tories but is doing so all over the country?
    I don’t know why Labour are allying with the Tories in Scotland. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.
    Because politics is not one thing. Several games are being played on the same pitch. In the UK unionist cricket, Tories and Labour form one team. In the centre left lacrosse, played on the same pitch, Labour and SNP form one team.

    Brexit involves such complications of this that the ice hockey players got tangled up with the croquet and the rule book has been lost.

    Enjoy the spectacle and be glad you don't live in North Korea.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,503
    Cyclefree said:

    I see that, according to our current FS, my father's family were just "farmers with turnips". Makes a change, I suppose, from being called Papist terrorists.

    In reality, part of the reason this country is as free as it is is because my father volunteered to become an RAF Squadron Leader during WW2 then worked as a doctor here all his life. My aunt also volunteered to work for the government during the same war, living in London during the Blitz. Before them, their uncle, also a doctor, who worked for a time in Wales and got a further degree from Cambridge University in 1912, volunteered for the RAMC and was killed in September 1915. There were many other Irish men and women who contributed to making this country what it is and has been.

    But hey why worry about facts when ignorant bigotry is available instead.

    She seems to have a bit of a thing about people with turnips. When she was nearly deselected for banging Mark Field during the Tory Party conference a few years back her critics were dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' (probably by her, although officially it was by her mates at the Mail).

    I'm not sure whether to hope she never meets @malcolmg or that she does...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    Sandpit said:

    We were discussing the economics of grocery delivery services the other day, but didn’t talk about the real scumbags which are the restaurant delivery apps.

    Well, restaurant app Grubhub managed to piss off half of New York yesterday, with a modern version of buying a Hoover to get free flights.

    They offered everyone in the city a “Free Lunch”, more specifically a $15 discount code, between 11am and 2pm, but without notifying the restaurants directly. You can probably guess what happened next…

    https://fortune.com/2022/05/18/grubhub-chaos-offer-free-lunch-new-york-city-crashes-system-leaves-countless-customers-hungry/

    I am quite annoyed I missed this.

    Grubhub etc is shit compared with Deliveroo, btw.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,618

    As someone with a son on the spectrum this makes me very emotional. Autistic people are easy pickings for the terminally unpleasant. I suspect the lad looked "normal" but appeared a bit "odd" so they considered him fair game.

    Such understanding is normalised on this board too when one particular poster, supported by a couple of others accuse politicians they disagree with, and who appear "odd" to them as disparagingly being "probably on the spectrum" for example Mrs May.
    It upset me too, as I have two family members with autism. They are often such gentle and vulnerable souls. Society needs to protect them, not victimise them. These scumbags that did this should be locked up for a lot longer.
    My son whose main fault when he was at school was being extremely polite justified him getting a good kicking and on a regular basis.

    He's a good looking lad who does his thinking out loud, which I suspect worries certain people. If he was being pushed around in a wheelchair I suspect he would have been left alone.

    This is why I get so vexed here when Mrs May's "oddness" (in particular) is explained away as her being on the spectrum. I suspect she is not, but such an accusation has become a normalised term of abuse here.
    She’s almost certainly on the “ASD” spectrum (it explains too much of her quirky and asocial behaviour to be obviously wrong)., It is NOT a term of abuse any more than saying someone is “notably short sighted” or “given to risk taking behaviour”

    Many of us are on this spectrum (arguably all), and PB is surely Spectrum Central

    It might actually aid you if you stop seeing it as a “term of abuse”
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,897

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    That only applies in Scotland. Where Labour is pretty crap at present in MP terms. One almost Tory MP in Morningside of all places. And Labour victories over SNP do nothing to reduce the Tory majority. Plus at the same time, Slab is pretending not to ally with Tories but is doing so all over the country?
    I don’t know why Labour are allying with the Tories in Scotland. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.
    Because they're both unionist parties perhaps.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    That only applies in Scotland. Where Labour is pretty crap at present in MP terms. One almost Tory MP in Morningside of all places. And Labour victories over SNP do nothing to reduce the Tory majority. Plus at the same time, Slab is pretending not to ally with Tories but is doing so all over the country?
    I don’t know why Labour are allying with the Tories in Scotland. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.
    SNP is the common enemy and seems very practical politics
    I am not Scottish but my read is that the most salient (ie motivating) schism in Scottish politics is pro / anti Tory, not pro / anti Indy.

    Labour wins SNP waverers by attacking the Tories.

    SNP wins Labour waverers by suggesting the Labour are with the Tories.
    The schism is independence but also the failure of the SNP policies

    It is practical politics in Scotland and ironically if it succeeds then the Labour party should win seats over SNP
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,115
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.

    They’re all working from fucking home. We tried to tell you. It’s shit
    You don't need to be sitting in an office to answer a phone.
    That's just an excuse.
    About 20 months ago (say mid-late 2020) I thought I'd apply for a railcard. There was literally no one there answering the phones and when I tried a couple of tangential numbers they said that people just weren't doing any of the work. Extraordinary. OK so a minor bit of the civil service/MOD (I was applying for a veteran's railcard) but amazing that simply nothing was happening. No answering a phone from home, nothing.

    It took me all in about a year to get it. Great now, though, 1/3 off all rail fares.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,115
    @BartholomewRoberts super sorry to hear about your wife I hope she makes a full recovery body & soul and the fuckers that did it are put away.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,503

    Martin Reynolds being lined up for Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    I assume this is the same Martin Reynolds who was involved in partygate

    Send a man famous for illegal boozy parties to a state that doesn't allow alcohol? What could possibly go wrong there?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,707
    edited May 18
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I see that, according to our current FS, my father's family were just "farmers with turnips". Makes a change, I suppose, from being called Papist terrorists.

    In reality, part of the reason this country is as free as it is is because my father volunteered to become an RAF Squadron Leader during WW2 then worked as a doctor here all his life. My aunt also volunteered to work for the government during the same war, living in London during the Blitz. Before them, their uncle, also a doctor, who worked for a time in Wales and got a further degree from Cambridge University in 1912, volunteered for the RAMC and was killed in September 1915. There were many other Irish men and women who contributed to making this country what it is and has been.

    But hey why worry about facts when ignorant bigotry is available instead.

    She seems to have a bit of a thing about people with turnips. When she was nearly deselected for banging Mark Field during the Tory Party conference a few years back her critics were dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' (probably by her, although officially it was by her mates at the Mail).

    I'm not sure whether to hope she never meets @malcolmg or that she does...
    It was the 2010 election when they tried to oust her after she was imposed on SW Norfolk.
    She was parachuted in after Fraser stood down after his buying trees on expenses Farrago
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,567
    TOPPING said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.

    They’re all working from fucking home. We tried to tell you. It’s shit
    You don't need to be sitting in an office to answer a phone.
    That's just an excuse.
    About 20 months ago (say mid-late 2020) I thought I'd apply for a railcard. There was literally no one there answering the phones and when I tried a couple of tangential numbers they said that people just weren't doing any of the work. Extraordinary. OK so a minor bit of the civil service/MOD (I was applying for a veteran's railcard) but amazing that simply nothing was happening. No answering a phone from home, nothing.

    It took me all in about a year to get it. Great now, though, 1/3 off all rail fares.
    20% civil service job cuts will help with all this of course.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,332

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    It's not credible, though. The idea that the SNP would favour the Tories over Labour?
    It is credible.

    If Scotland still voted Labour, Keir’s mountain-to-climb would be more a gentle foot-hill.

    SNP/Labour waverers are critical to the next election (one of five key profiles who are).
    SNP MPs are just as reliable supporters of SKS over Boris as PM as Labour MPs are.
    You (and other posters) are confusing separate issues.

    To win, SKS needs to convince English voters that he will not be beholden to the SNP.

    Therefore, he must campaign hard against the SNP, even if - within the Scottish context - it has minor electoral pay-off.

    Anyway, he would be right to do so, as every Labour win against the SNP makes a Labour led government more likely because it *increases the Labour tally relatively* against the Tory tally.
    He needs the unionists in Scotland to flock to him.
    If he takes votes directly off the SNP then a standing still Scot Tory party would benefit before SLab start to - potentially in the 3 Ayrshire seats, Stirling etc.
    The Scottish Tories would probably settle for third in the popular vote (on say 20%) if the SNP decline into the 30s as they can come through the middle in a handful of seats
    I was going to raise that - but you have done it. Trying to win against the SNP is dangerously counterproductive in the big picture at Westminster.

    There is also a furhter issue: whether Slab actually pay any attention to SKS. He rather blotted his copybook, ISTR, by attacking the tories on one of his first major speeches in Scotland, rather than the SNP. Cue lots of hurt Tories and unhappy Slab.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,821

    Taz said:

    From the header, it is very depressing to see that I am classed as "55-64". Old fartdom starts here!

    Embrace it Sandy. I felt the same when it happened to me 18 months ago.

    Now I can be grumpy. I can be how I’ve always been on the inside. Victor Meldrew. It’s great.
    Pah! You are mere flibbertigibbet children.
    😂😂😂😂
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,332

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    That only applies in Scotland. Where Labour is pretty crap at present in MP terms. One almost Tory MP in Morningside of all places. And Labour victories over SNP do nothing to reduce the Tory majority. Plus at the same time, Slab is pretending not to ally with Tories but is doing so all over the country?
    I don’t know why Labour are allying with the Tories in Scotland. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.
    SNP is the common enemy and seems very practical politics
    I am not Scottish but my read is that the most salient (ie motivating) schism in Scottish politics is pro / anti Tory, not pro / anti Indy.

    Labour wins SNP waverers by attacking the Tories.

    SNP wins Labour waverers by suggesting the Labour are with the Tories.
    The schism is independence but also the failure of the SNP policies

    It is practical politics in Scotland and ironically if it succeeds then the Labour party should win seats over SNP
    But the Tories may win even more. Which is what you like.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,381
    First to post from the sunny Italian Alps
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,178

    algarkirk said:

    Since the Owen Paterson debacle, a Labour minority has been the most likely outcome.

    Depending on economic circs, a Labour majority now looks feasible, if still unlikely.

    Id say the odds are something like

    40% Lab minority
    30% Con minority
    20% Con majority
    10% Lab majority

    All to play for.
    If Keir and Reeves can paint a brighter future, and reassure on the economics, they win.

    Agree in general with the total maths - about an equal chance of Tory or Labour led future after the next GE. Though I think the landing ground for a Tory government is smaller and the chance of a Tory majority larger. And I still think Lab majority (over half the seats) is less than 10% chance. Winning 126 seats to Labour alone looks hard. Though to the fair the Tories seem to be doing their best to help this along.

    Does some % figure need to be allowed for a result in which no coherent government can be formed and a fresh election has to be called very quickly?

    The bookies still make Tory Majority the favourite, 15/8 last time I looked.

    My numbers are for electoral outcomes rather than governments.

    In reality, because the Tory’s are “uncoalitionable”, a Labour government of some form is more than a 50% likelihood in my opinion. (Something like 55%).
    Thanks. Good point. Do you have a view on the probabilities of the formation of the next government?

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,897
    No bar at BBC HQ. Sums up the po-facedness of the organisation these days.

    "Steve Rider exclusive: 'The BBC is soul-destroying - their HQ doesn't even have a bar'
    Rider's disappointment in the BBC is as clear as his forthright views on the changing landscape of TV broadcasting"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2022/05/18/steve-rider-exclusive-bbc-nervous-soul-destroying-hq-doesnt/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,618
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.

    They’re all working from fucking home. We tried to tell you. It’s shit
    You don't need to be sitting in an office to answer a phone.
    That's just an excuse.
    But this is why this shit is happening. It is a disaster for the British economy, if it continues

    As an international flintic dildo maker and salesman, I can say it is clearly impacting my industry (seriously). The people that are back in the office are On their Game, they respond quickly, they do their job. The people who are WFH reply much slower, they are less alert in general, and less aware of industry news and gossip, and they are hard to hear on phone calls (“Oh sorry that’s my husband slapping the dog” - GO BACK TO THE FUCKING OFFICE THEN)

    I reckon we are about to discover there is a reason we have big cities and complex offices, and the cities and offices that function properly will entirely out-compete the people sitting in their stupid gardens. This is not an invention of the Tory party because of its commercial property owning donors
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,057
    ydoethur said:

    Martin Reynolds being lined up for Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    I assume this is the same Martin Reynolds who was involved in partygate

    Send a man famous for illegal boozy parties to a state that doesn't allow alcohol? What could possibly go wrong there?
    The UK Embassy in Riyadh used to be known as a good party destination a few years back.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,618
    WTF happened to @BartholomewRoberts’ wife?!
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 641
    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Labour doesn't need a deal with the SNP. It just needs them to be too fraught to bring down a Labour minority government and to abstain on legislation which has been devolved in Scotland. Labour just needs to be either the largest party in a hung parliament or be willing to do a C&S deal with the Lib Dems to give them more MPs combined than the Tories. Starmer probably only needs 75-80 gains for that to be feasible.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,707
    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    It's not credible, though. The idea that the SNP would favour the Tories over Labour?
    It is credible.

    If Scotland still voted Labour, Keir’s mountain-to-climb would be more a gentle foot-hill.

    SNP/Labour waverers are critical to the next election (one of five key profiles who are).
    SNP MPs are just as reliable supporters of SKS over Boris as PM as Labour MPs are.
    You (and other posters) are confusing separate issues.

    To win, SKS needs to convince English voters that he will not be beholden to the SNP.

    Therefore, he must campaign hard against the SNP, even if - within the Scottish context - it has minor electoral pay-off.

    Anyway, he would be right to do so, as every Labour win against the SNP makes a Labour led government more likely because it *increases the Labour tally relatively* against the Tory tally.
    He needs the unionists in Scotland to flock to him.
    If he takes votes directly off the SNP then a standing still Scot Tory party would benefit before SLab start to - potentially in the 3 Ayrshire seats, Stirling etc.
    The Scottish Tories would probably settle for third in the popular vote (on say 20%) if the SNP decline into the 30s as they can come through the middle in a handful of seats
    I was going to raise that - but you have done it. Trying to win against the SNP is dangerously counterproductive in the big picture at Westminster.

    There is also a furhter issue: whether Slab actually pay any attention to SKS. He rather blotted his copybook, ISTR, by attacking the tories on one of his first major speeches in Scotland, rather than the SNP. Cue lots of hurt Tories and unhappy Slab.
    Tories best hope of progress is, ironically, partial labour recovery.
    I think Lab and Con nationally in the UK still don't 'get' Scotland
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,648
    Oregon Public Broadcasting - Top Oregon election official blasts lack of ‘urgency’ in Clackamas County vote counting

    As election results poured in from around Oregon Tuesday night, nothing arrived from one of the state’s most populous counties.

    Clackamas County reported earlier this month it found problems with printed ballots sent to voters, and elections leaders warned they would significantly slow down the counting process and public reporting of unofficial vote totals. On Election Night, with candidates claiming victory and others conceding defeat, uncertainty hung over some races without vote totals from Clackamas.

    The lack of results was alarming to Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, the supervisor of elections in Oregon and a resident of Clackamas County.

    “I am deeply concerned about the delay in reporting from Clackamas County Elections,” Fagan said in a statement released late Tuesday. “While I am confident that the process they are following is secure, transparent and the results will be accurate, the county’s reporting delays tonight are unacceptable. Voters have done their jobs, and now it’s time for Clackamas County Elections to do theirs.”

    Clackamas County elections officials did not comment publicly Tuesday night on the lack of vote tallies. County Clerk Sherry Hall discussed the problems at a May 12 Board of County Commissioners meeting after Chair Tootie Smith issued a statement saying she was “aghast” at the ballot problems.

    An official with the Oregon Secretary of State’s office told OPB Tuesday night they had been told Clackamas results would begin to be posted early Wednesday. Fagan said she was “disappointed” at not seeing “more urgency” from Clackamas County, and said state elections officials were ready to help.

    “In recent days, my office and other counties have offered extra personnel to help with timely reporting. We eagerly await a response from county elections officials on how we can aid in the timely processing of results,” Fagan said.

    The lack of results from Clackamas County wasn’t the only cause for uncertainty at this week’s election. This is the first major election in Oregon since ballots could be accepted based on an Election Day postmark. That rule change means ballots received over the next few days could still count toward races in the May primary.

    Among the races in which the Clackamas delays caused uncertainty were the Republican primary for governor and the Democratic primary for the 5th Congressional District. Candidates who were ahead in early returns in those races opted not to declare victory in case the numbers from Clackamas County changed the results dramatically.

    https://www.opb.org/article/2022/05/17/clackamas-county-oregon-lack-of-election-results/
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.

    They’re all working from fucking home. We tried to tell you. It’s shit
    You don't need to be sitting in an office to answer a phone.
    That's just an excuse.
    But this is why this shit is happening. It is a disaster for the British economy, if it continues

    As an international flintic dildo maker and salesman, I can say it is clearly impacting my industry (seriously). The people that are back in the office are On their Game, they respond quickly, they do their job. The people who are WFH reply much slower, they are less alert in general, and less aware of industry news and gossip, and they are hard to hear on phone calls (“Oh sorry that’s my husband slapping the dog” - GO BACK TO THE FUCKING OFFICE THEN)

    I reckon we are about to discover there is a reason we have big cities and complex offices, and the cities and offices that function properly will entirely out-compete the people sitting in their stupid gardens. This is not an invention of the Tory party because of its commercial property owning donors
    I moderately agree with this.

    Some sectors are coping well with WFH,
    Others, not. Customer service generally is down, not just in the public sector.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,261
    ydoethur said:

    Martin Reynolds being lined up for Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    I assume this is the same Martin Reynolds who was involved in partygate

    Send a man famous for illegal boozy parties to a state that doesn't allow alcohol? What could possibly go wrong there?
    As with everything else, Yes, Minister got there first;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16sT4yV43Cs

    Stand by for urgent calls from Mr Haig.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,332

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    It's not credible, though. The idea that the SNP would favour the Tories over Labour?
    It is credible.

    If Scotland still voted Labour, Keir’s mountain-to-climb would be more a gentle foot-hill.

    SNP/Labour waverers are critical to the next election (one of five key profiles who are).
    SNP MPs are just as reliable supporters of SKS over Boris as PM as Labour MPs are.
    You (and other posters) are confusing separate issues.

    To win, SKS needs to convince English voters that he will not be beholden to the SNP.

    Therefore, he must campaign hard against the SNP, even if - within the Scottish context - it has minor electoral pay-off.

    Anyway, he would be right to do so, as every Labour win against the SNP makes a Labour led government more likely because it *increases the Labour tally relatively* against the Tory tally.
    He can do that just as well if the SNP win every seat in Scotland. He only has 1 MP. The Tories have an order of magnitude as many. And, unless things change a lot, he won't expect to get many seats whatever happens.

    It would be more logical for him to go full anti-Scot - how dare those Scots expect to have any role in a UK government just because they elect MPs? - to neutralise the similar Tory position and let Scotland take care of the Tories in its own way. Even if it means sacrificing Slab to the resulting Scottish indignation.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,495
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Since the Owen Paterson debacle, a Labour minority has been the most likely outcome.

    Depending on economic circs, a Labour majority now looks feasible, if still unlikely.

    Id say the odds are something like

    40% Lab minority
    30% Con minority
    20% Con majority
    10% Lab majority

    All to play for.
    If Keir and Reeves can paint a brighter future, and reassure on the economics, they win.

    Agree in general with the total maths - about an equal chance of Tory or Labour led future after the next GE. Though I think the landing ground for a Tory government is smaller and the chance of a Tory majority larger. And I still think Lab majority (over half the seats) is less than 10% chance. Winning 126 seats to Labour alone looks hard. Though to the fair the Tories seem to be doing their best to help this along.

    Does some % figure need to be allowed for a result in which no coherent government can be formed and a fresh election has to be called very quickly?

    The bookies still make Tory Majority the favourite, 15/8 last time I looked.

    My numbers are for electoral outcomes rather than governments.

    In reality, because the Tory’s are “uncoalitionable”, a Labour government of some form is more than a 50% likelihood in my opinion. (Something like 55%).
    Thanks. Good point. Do you have a view on the probabilities of the formation of the next government?

    No, I’d need to work it out.
    It’s multi-factorial and hard to figure, hence I am inclined to go with my gut which says labour minority.

    Of course, I was wrong about the last two by-elections, so…
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,567
    Leon said:

    WTF happened to @BartholomewRoberts’ wife?!

    Hit and run. Full story @4:28 pm.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,504
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.

    They’re all working from fucking home. We tried to tell you. It’s shit
    You don't need to be sitting in an office to answer a phone.
    That's just an excuse.
    But this is why this shit is happening. It is a disaster for the British economy, if it continues

    As an international flintic dildo maker and salesman, I can say it is clearly impacting my industry (seriously). The people that are back in the office are On their Game, they respond quickly, they do their job. The people who are WFH reply much slower, they are less alert in general, and less aware of industry news and gossip, and they are hard to hear on phone calls (“Oh sorry that’s my husband slapping the dog” - GO BACK TO THE FUCKING OFFICE THEN)

    I reckon we are about to discover there is a reason we have big cities and complex offices, and the cities and offices that function properly will entirely out-compete the people sitting in their stupid gardens. This is not an invention of the Tory party because of its commercial property owning donors
    Can't speak for other people's workplaces, but at my work the people on calls who have the most background noise are the ones in the office.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,261

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Has anyone else tried contacting HMRC recently?
    Tried three times today. Simply say they are too busy. Goodbye.
    Not even the joy of an hour on hold
    They've deducted me money for a tax credit overpayment completely without warning.

    They’re all working from fucking home. We tried to tell you. It’s shit
    You don't need to be sitting in an office to answer a phone.
    That's just an excuse.
    But this is why this shit is happening. It is a disaster for the British economy, if it continues

    As an international flintic dildo maker and salesman, I can say it is clearly impacting my industry (seriously). The people that are back in the office are On their Game, they respond quickly, they do their job. The people who are WFH reply much slower, they are less alert in general, and less aware of industry news and gossip, and they are hard to hear on phone calls (“Oh sorry that’s my husband slapping the dog” - GO BACK TO THE FUCKING OFFICE THEN)

    I reckon we are about to discover there is a reason we have big cities and complex offices, and the cities and offices that function properly will entirely out-compete the people sitting in their stupid gardens. This is not an invention of the Tory party because of its commercial property owning donors
    I moderately agree with this.

    Some sectors are coping well with WFH,
    Others, not. Customer service generally is down, not just in the public sector.
    Question is how much of that is down to WFH, and how much of that is becuase customer service has been skimped on for a couple of decades. Much cheaper (sorry, more efficient) to put a chatbot on a website.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,618
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    WTF happened to @BartholomewRoberts’ wife?!

    Hit and run. Full story @4:28 pm.
    Just read it. Nasty. Who does a hit and run?!

    Drugs or booze or crime, presumably

    Sympax to @BartholomewRoberts and the Mrs
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,332

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour can’t win if voters think they will rely on the SNP.

    Keir needs to go all out on them.

    There is a problem here as things stand. If the Tories carry on committing suicide then SKS anti SNP stance may be possible. But assuming some sort of normal can break out in government, Labour will not be able to get to a majority without counting in the SNP in some form. They simply hold too many seats.

    SKS may need us to believe something that he in fact does not. So we might not either.

    Yes, it’s a problem or a paradox.

    This is why I advocate a very public anti-SNP approach from Labour from now until the next election.

    Vote SNP, get Tory.
    It's not credible, though. The idea that the SNP would favour the Tories over Labour?
    It is credible.

    If Scotland still voted Labour, Keir’s mountain-to-climb would be more a gentle foot-hill.

    SNP/Labour waverers are critical to the next election (one of five key profiles who are).
    SNP MPs are just as reliable supporters of SKS over Boris as PM as Labour MPs are.
    You (and other posters) are confusing separate issues.

    To win, SKS needs to convince English voters that he will not be beholden to the SNP.

    Therefore, he must campaign hard against the SNP, even if - within the Scottish context - it has minor electoral pay-off.

    Anyway, he would be right to do so, as every Labour win against the SNP makes a Labour led government more likely because it *increases the Labour tally relatively* against the Tory tally.
    He needs the unionists in Scotland to flock to him.
    If he takes votes directly off the SNP then a standing still Scot Tory party would benefit before SLab start to - potentially in the 3 Ayrshire seats, Stirling etc.
    The Scottish Tories would probably settle for third in the popular vote (on say 20%) if the SNP decline into the 30s as they can come through the middle in a handful of seats
    I was going to raise that - but you have done it. Trying to win against the SNP is dangerously counterproductive in the big picture at Westminster.

    There is also a furhter issue: whether Slab actually pay any attention to SKS. He rather blotted his copybook, ISTR, by attacking the tories on one of his first major speeches in Scotland, rather than the SNP. Cue lots of hurt Tories and unhappy Slab.
    Tories best hope of progress is, ironically, partial labour recovery.
    I think Lab and Con nationally in the UK still don't 'get' Scotland
    OTOH that assumes all the switching is SNP to Lab. It could also mean less Unionist tactical voting for Tories, is Lab back to Lab, so it is complex.
This discussion has been closed.