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

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

logical_song said:

MoonRabbit 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

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

logical_song said:

MoonRabbit 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

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

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

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Some people really are sick scum. They should have been put away for much longer IMO: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/mechanics-chased-autistic-apprentice-and-set-him-on-fire-with-a-blow-torch/ar-AAXnKAa?ocid=entnewsntp

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.

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

logical_song said:

MoonRabbit 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.

Gardenwalker 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.

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

logical_song said:

MoonRabbit 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.

Mexicanpete said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Some people really are sick scum. They should have been put away for much longer IMO: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/mechanics-chased-autistic-apprentice-and-set-him-on-fire-with-a-blow-torch/ar-AAXnKAa?ocid=entnewsntp

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.

Applicant said:

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

logical_song said:

MoonRabbit 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

noneoftheabove said:

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

ajb said:

OldKingCole 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.

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

wooliedyed said:

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

logical_song said:

MoonRabbit 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.

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.

dixiedean said:

Applicant said:

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

logical_song said:

MoonRabbit 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_NorthWales said:

Martin Reynolds being lined up for Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

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

RobD said:

Big_G_NorthWales 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?

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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.

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.

boulay said:

Leon said:

noneoftheabove said:

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

ajb said:

OldKingCole 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.

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

logical_song said:

MoonRabbit 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

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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.

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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?

Gardenwalker said:

Applicant said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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).

Gardenwalker said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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

Gardenwalker said:

Applicant said:

Gardenwalker said:

Applicant said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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.

Taz said:

SandyRentool 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.

Gardenwalker said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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.

Mexicanpete said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Some people really are sick scum. They should have been put away for much longer IMO: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/mechanics-chased-autistic-apprentice-and-set-him-on-fire-with-a-blow-torch/ar-AAXnKAa?ocid=entnewsntp

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.

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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.

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.

wooliedyed said:

Gardenwalker said:

Applicant said:

Gardenwalker said:

Applicant said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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%).

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.

Carnyx said:

wooliedyed said:

Gardenwalker said:

Applicant said:

Gardenwalker said:

Applicant said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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.

Gardenwalker said:

Applicant said:

Gardenwalker said:

Applicant said:

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker 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.

Leon said:

WTF happened to @BartholomewRoberts’ wife?!

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

WTF happened to @BartholomewRoberts’ wife?!

Hit and run. Full story @4:28 pm.

Farooq said:

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.