I find the arguments against a Labour majority very unpersuasive.
The only possible way to read the LE results, even with all the caveats around them, is as a determination to punish the Tories.
The Rishi “bounce” - which is real - is not enough to compensate. His government looks increasingly irrelevant, and I think the debate will move on to what a Labour government might look like.
I think 35 is the Tory ceiling, but even if they narrow the gap to 7, ie Labour 42, I think tactical voting delivers a modest Labour majority.
I agree. As of now a modest Labour majority is the most likely outcome. And the chance of a big majority is greater than none at all.
I strongly disagree. The most likely outcome IMHO is Labour somewhere around 310 seats. Cameron couldn't do it on one go, I do not think Starmer will either.
But election after, he will get a big majority, if the Tories self-implode which seems likely.
I felt similar a week ago but my reading of the Locals is Labour are on track for a majority. Long time to go, much can happen, only a fool etc.
To be honest if Labour are going to win the next election I want them to win a majority than be reliant on the Scot Nats.
Labour would need to win less than 300 seats for that to happen. If they get more than 300, then they'd probably only need the Lib Dems (and maybe the SDLP).
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
Is that Davey or Mark Pack? I want to like Davey and I even think he’s more personable than Keir Starmer, but for whatever reason he’s not cutting through.
One of my serious (but mad sounding) suggestions is that he should only wear hiking jackets in interviews. He needs a visual short-hand.
I find the arguments against a Labour majority very unpersuasive.
The only possible way to read the LE results, even with all the caveats around them, is as a determination to punish the Tories.
The Rishi “bounce” - which is real - is not enough to compensate. His government looks increasingly irrelevant, and I think the debate will move on to what a Labour government might look like.
I think 35 is the Tory ceiling, but even if they narrow the gap to 7, ie Labour 42, I think tactical voting delivers a modest Labour majority.
I agree. As of now a modest Labour majority is the most likely outcome. And the chance of a big majority is greater than none at all.
I strongly disagree. The most likely outcome IMHO is Labour somewhere around 310 seats. Cameron couldn't do it on one go, I do not think Starmer will either.
But election after, he will get a big majority, if the Tories self-implode which seems likely.
Cameron had one seat in Scotland though and was unable to win back many of the seats the Tories lost to the Lib Dems in 97, though. By contrast, Starmer will definitely have more seats in Scotland and there isn't a third party he has to win seats from south of the border.
What is the closest thing we have to a Lab/LD marginal? Sheffield Hallum?
There's a universe in which the Tories do worse than 1997 purely because of tactical voting.
It is not my expectation - but it is a possibility.
Well when you have a crap voting system you've got to expect people to game it. The preconditions for doing so were never so favourable, so I agree. We could easily see a result heavily distorted by such voting.
When you have any voting system you have to expect people to game it. FPTP offers some particularly severe repercussions if you reach a tipping point of being gamed.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
Is that Davey or Mark Pack? I want to like Davey and I even think he’s more personable than Keir Starmer, but for whatever reason he’s not cutting through.
One of my serious (but mad sounding) suggestions is that he should only wear hiking jackets in interviews. He needs a visual short-hand.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
Listening to Louise Perry’s extended podcast with Matt Goodwin.
The best bits are behind the paywall.
They just can’t understand why the British conservatives are so reluctant to go full on anti-woke.
I can think of several reasons, none of which occur to either of them.
Interesting discussion, but the sheer lack of intellectual rigour has led me to cancel my subscription.
It’s interesting to know what these people think - and, at times they do make valid critiques of our political culture. But come on, guys. If you’re charging people money for your intellectual output, you need to be rigorous.
PB is smarter than these people.
Pretty sure we can come up with several good reasons as to why the Tory party is hesitant to go full on anti-woke.
I’ll start;
1. Section 28 and its political legacy.
2. It's a cultural appeal which has some effectiveness, not something on which an entire campaign can rest.
3. Cultural issues have much more salience, and much more polarisation, in the US than in the UK.
Doesn’t mean that Matt Walsh’s famous question “What is a woman?” Won’t turn up in a British election debate though. Sunak’s answer is “adult human female”, how will others answer that question?
4. Many Tories don’t actually believe in all the anti-woke stuff themselves, and have personal and family experiences that mean some of it is objectionable to them.
Goodwin seems to assume all right wingers really think like him but just dare not say it out loud. A bit like some lefties think the country really wants a socialist utopia if only they weren’t compromised by false consciousness.
I thinkhe probably started out with some reasonable conclusions, at least from a particular political perspective, but he seems to have elevated it to nearly a religion - it is the cause of or answer to all problems that exist.
He is just awful. He finds anything to support his POV and then pretends he is impartial. He is so utterly boring.
Politicians generally have better political instincts than academics. What they say is that the 'woke' stuff is not a big issue beyond activists. So having a major 'anti-woke' campaign would not be responding to what people actually care about. There are also risks - IE that your own views get misrepresented in a damaging way (ie that you are accused of being a 'racist', 'transphobe', etc).
I think the experience of Scotland has been quite revealing. People aren't interested in 'woke' ideas until they suddenly are, which is when you can do something about them.
Strategically the best idea for the 'anti-woke' is to let the left keep coming up with more and more unpopular ideas (the $1.2 million per person 'reparations' was a particularly useful one) then use this as a way of discrediting them and reducing their power.
There's a universe in which the Tories do worse than 1997 purely because of tactical voting.
It is not my expectation - but it is a possibility.
Well when you have a crap voting system you've got to expect people to game it. The preconditions for doing so were never so favourable, so I agree. We could easily see a result heavily distorted by such voting.
When you have any voting system you have to expect people to game it. FPTP offers some particularly severe repercussions if you reach a tipping point of being gamed.
How would you game it if you had a system of single transferable voting in multi-member constituencies?
About 310 seats would be my my best guess for Labour.
Anything over 300 is a fabulous performance.
They are starting with slightly more seats than Cameron in 2010 but they are up against a more plausible leader in Sunak than Brown was by the end and and have a somewhat less plausible one of their own.
Can they do it? Absolutely. But it's not easy.
They need for Starmer to not do anything stupid and throw it away. It is worth remembering that it was only a few months before the election that Cameron was on course for an overall majority. In a few weeks at the end of 2009 he sliumped from 15-18% leads down to 5-10% leads.
Before my time on PB, but my feelings at the time were that the expenses scandal hurt the Tories more than it hurt Labour.
Well, Duck Man Viggers, Wood Man Steen, and Moat Man Hogg (now holder of a life peerage) were all Tories, so maybe they stuck in the consciousness more.
Though honestly it was the pettier (and attempted) claims that felt more damaging
That’s a Bluegrass trio surely, Duck Man Viggers pickin’ hot on the mandolin etc
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Peter, no. She said she would be the Prime Minister - she was a muppet
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
There really is a balance to this stuff. But I'd rather have the former than the latter.
This new attack has really hit home for me. We have an office, in Dallas, pretty close to that shopping centre, which I visited a few weeks ago.
This is not some backward, far right hicksville, this is a prosperous outer suburb. Hard to think of a London analogy but let’s go with Rayne’s Park or something.
We have folks who have relocated from other places to work in this office, and I wonder how they and their families are feeling.
We’ve just sent out a group email to that team. I’ll find out more when I check in with the office lead this afternoon.
Is there any indication that the people are beginning to work out why these things happen with such regularity?
I note that the cops are looking at the culprits ideology. Might they not consider looking too at other ideologies, starting with the National Rifle Association?
Sadly not.
The cry on the right is we need more guns because if the victims were armed then they would have killed the perpetrators.
Don't gun sales tend to go up after these events? The whole thing seems to be feeding on itself, with a big help from legislatures and the courts suggesting not being able carry an AR-15 down the street is a violation of liberty or something, so it is getting more and more extreme.
No doubt pretty soon not carrying a gun in a classroom or mall or wherever will be presented as a failing of the individual concerned. Don't you want to keep yourself/your family safe? So why didn't you take a handgun to the little league game?
I do sort of see the appeal of owning a proper belt fed machine gun or one of those giant anti-material rifles. Yet the hypocrite I am, I'd struggle with the idea of people around me with concealed .22 handguns.
I find the arguments against a Labour majority very unpersuasive.
The only possible way to read the LE results, even with all the caveats around them, is as a determination to punish the Tories.
The Rishi “bounce” - which is real - is not enough to compensate. His government looks increasingly irrelevant, and I think the debate will move on to what a Labour government might look like.
I think 35 is the Tory ceiling, but even if they narrow the gap to 7, ie Labour 42, I think tactical voting delivers a modest Labour majority.
I agree. As of now a modest Labour majority is the most likely outcome. And the chance of a big majority is greater than none at all.
I strongly disagree. The most likely outcome IMHO is Labour somewhere around 310 seats. Cameron couldn't do it on one go, I do not think Starmer will either.
But election after, he will get a big majority, if the Tories self-implode which seems likely.
Cameron had one seat in Scotland though and was unable to win back many of the seats the Tories lost to the Lib Dems in 97, though. By contrast, Starmer will definitely have more seats in Scotland and there isn't a third party he has to win seats from south of the border.
What is the closest thing we have to a Lab/LD marginal? Sheffield Hallum?
Though it also falls in the list of 3-ways, so it is not a straightforward one. If they didn't lose it in 2019 Lab will not lose it again. And several others were a bit unique and will probably have LDs down next time and Lab win easily.
About 310 seats would be my my best guess for Labour.
Anything over 300 is a fabulous performance.
They are starting with slightly more seats than Cameron in 2010 but they are up against a more plausible leader in Sunak than Brown was by the end and and have a somewhat less plausible one of their own.
Can they do it? Absolutely. But it's not easy.
They need for Starmer to not do anything stupid and throw it away. It is worth remembering that it was only a few months before the election that Cameron was on course for an overall majority. In a few weeks at the end of 2009 he sliumped from 15-18% leads down to 5-10% leads.
Before my time on PB, but my feelings at the time were that the expenses scandal hurt the Tories more than it hurt Labour.
Well, Duck Man Viggers, Wood Man Steen, and Moat Man Hogg (now holder of a life peerage) were all Tories, so maybe they stuck in the consciousness more.
Though honestly it was the pettier (and attempted) claims that felt more damaging
That’s a Bluegrass trio surely, Duck Man Viggers pickin’ hot on the mandolin etc
I believe Moat Man Hogg went on to join the Byrds for a brief period in 1974.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
She started well, but went bonkers in 2019, letting any defector in, and running a terrible campaign.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
Jo Swinson was the worst leader in 2019 by far. She was a big fan of the coalition yet too scared to say so. She hated Jeremy Corbyn more than Johnson but was afraid to say so.
The problem is that Rishi's anti-woke politics might work if the Red Wall was on side but they aren't so right now he has no power base at all in the country.
There's a universe in which the Tories do worse than 1997 purely because of tactical voting.
It is not my expectation - but it is a possibility.
Well when you have a crap voting system you've got to expect people to game it. The preconditions for doing so were never so favourable, so I agree. We could easily see a result heavily distorted by such voting.
When you have any voting system you have to expect people to game it. FPTP offers some particularly severe repercussions if you reach a tipping point of being gamed.
How would you game it if you had a system of single transferable voting in multi-member constituencies?
Parties can attempt to game it by telling their voters how they should transfer.
I much prefer it, but all systems are able to be gamed, some are just much more gameable than others.
Now, there will be a lot on here who won't believe / don't want to believe it, which is fine, but it's worth noting that the allegations have significantly ramped up over the past week and we are only in May 23.
That's not to say Biden won't get the nomination but...
Of course, if further details do come out and the ground looks more perilous, Biden could always do a Nixon and get President Harris to pardon him and his family...
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
I'll take your word for it, GW. Not my Party.
[Actually, I'm not sure what is my Party. Been a dispiritng time for wishy-washy centreists.]
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
Jo Swinson [...] genuinely believed she would be the next PM.
I find that so silly as to be shocking. Has she ever explained why she held such a belief?
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
I'll take your word for it, GW. Not my Party.
[Actually, I'm not sure what is my Party. Been a dispiritng time for wishy-washy centreists.]
To the extent I have a party, they are my party. Tho I’m probably on the party’s right. But not in a Clegg way, who I never liked that much.
There's a universe in which the Tories do worse than 1997 purely because of tactical voting.
It is not my expectation - but it is a possibility.
Well when you have a crap voting system you've got to expect people to game it. The preconditions for doing so were never so favourable, so I agree. We could easily see a result heavily distorted by such voting.
When you have any voting system you have to expect people to game it. FPTP offers some particularly severe repercussions if you reach a tipping point of being gamed.
How would you game it if you had a system of single transferable voting in multi-member constituencies?
Parties can attempt to game it by telling their voters how they should transfer.
I much prefer it, but all systems are able to be gamed, some are just much more gameable than others.
None are perfect but when UKIP wins 13% of the general vote and returns a solitary MP, the system is broken.
[For the benefit of our newer readers I should stress that I am not and have never been a UKIP supporter.]
There's a universe in which the Tories do worse than 1997 purely because of tactical voting.
It is not my expectation - but it is a possibility.
Well when you have a crap voting system you've got to expect people to game it. The preconditions for doing so were never so favourable, so I agree. We could easily see a result heavily distorted by such voting.
When you have any voting system you have to expect people to game it. FPTP offers some particularly severe repercussions if you reach a tipping point of being gamed.
How would you game it if you had a system of single transferable voting in multi-member constituencies?
Parties can attempt to game it by telling their voters how they should transfer.
I much prefer it, but all systems are able to be gamed, some are just much more gameable than others.
None are perfect but when UKIP wins 13% of the general vote and returns a solitary MP, the system is broken.
[For the benefit of our newer readers I should stress that I am not and have never been a UKIP supporter.]
I don't think it is broken - but I think an alternative is preferable and fairer.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
Jo Swinson [...] genuinely believed she would be the next PM.
I find that so silly as to be shocking. Has she ever explained why she held such a belief?
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
Jo Swinson [...] genuinely believed she would be the next PM.
I find that so silly as to be shocking. Has she ever explained why she held such a belief?
Glue-sniffing and horse tranquillisers. A sad case.
Now, there will be a lot on here who won't believe / don't want to believe it, which is fine, but it's worth noting that the allegations have significantly ramped up over the past week and we are only in May 23.
That's not to say Biden won't get the nomination but...
Of course, if further details do come out and the ground looks more perilous, Biden could always do a Nixon and get President Harris to pardon him and his family...
From your link:-
Comer’s subpoena gives FBI Director Christopher Wray until May 10 to produce the following: “All FD-1023 forms, including within any open, closed or restricted access case files, created or modified in June 2020, containing the term ‘Biden,’ including all accompanying attachments and documents to those FD-1023 forms.” This particular form is used by FBI agents to record statements made by informants and the specified date range suggests that Biden had been reported for taking bribes from a foreign national and that the file was “tidied up” right around the time he nailed down the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
It's a fishing expedition. If there had been anything in it, Biden would have been stopped four years ago before he gained the nomination, let alone the White House.
Now, there will be a lot on here who won't believe / don't want to believe it, which is fine, but it's worth noting that the allegations have significantly ramped up over the past week and we are only in May 23.
That's not to say Biden won't get the nomination but...
Of course, if further details do come out and the ground looks more perilous, Biden could always do a Nixon and get President Harris to pardon him and his family...
From your link:-
Comer’s subpoena gives FBI Director Christopher Wray until May 10 to produce the following: “All FD-1023 forms, including within any open, closed or restricted access case files, created or modified in June 2020, containing the term ‘Biden,’ including all accompanying attachments and documents to those FD-1023 forms.” This particular form is used by FBI agents to record statements made by informants and the specified date range suggests that Biden had been reported for taking bribes from a foreign national and that the file was “tidied up” right around the time he nailed down the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
It's a fishing expedition. If there had been anything in it, Biden would have been stopped four years ago before he gained the nomination, let alone the White House.
Not so sure about that. After all, the CIA and FBI allowed Trump to become President even though he was under Russian influence (allegedly).
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
Jo Swinson [...] genuinely believed she would be the next PM.
I find that so silly as to be shocking. Has she ever explained why she held such a belief?
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Peter, no. She said she would be the Prime Minister - she was a muppet
She was up against two bigger Muppets. They said dafter things. It was just that the public was so scared of the Red Muppet that it had to vote for the Lying Self-Serving Fake-Brexiteer Muppet.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
Jo Swinson [...] genuinely believed she would be the next PM.
I find that so silly as to be shocking. Has she ever explained why she held such a belief?
Glue-sniffing and horse tranquillisers. A sad case.
That’s a terrible libel on the retails of horse tranquillisers as a recreational drug.
There really is a balance to this stuff. But I'd rather have the former than the latter.
This new attack has really hit home for me. We have an office, in Dallas, pretty close to that shopping centre, which I visited a few weeks ago.
This is not some backward, far right hicksville, this is a prosperous outer suburb. Hard to think of a London analogy but let’s go with Rayne’s Park or something.
We have folks who have relocated from other places to work in this office, and I wonder how they and their families are feeling.
We’ve just sent out a group email to that team. I’ll find out more when I check in with the office lead this afternoon.
Is there any indication that the people are beginning to work out why these things happen with such regularity?
I note that the cops are looking at the culprits ideology. Might they not consider looking too at other ideologies, starting with the National Rifle Association?
I’m not an expert.
I struggle to make any sense, for example, of the polling that shows Biden losing to Trump and DeSantis.
I would like to just shrug and say, Americans are crazy, but it’s obviously more complicated than that.
Having said that, I finally finished “Before the Storm” by Rick Perlstein, which is an exceptional account of the ill-fated Goldwater Presidential run. It’s obvious there is has been a thick seam in quite bizarre political opinion in the USA since…forever.
Perlstein, while he clearly has a particular viewpoint, is really good at laying out a persuasive case for the antecedents of the current right wing strangeness in the US.
Speaking of which… Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt wants to shut down public television station OETA in part because of a scene from Clifford the Big Red Dog. (Watch it at the end of this video.) https://twitter.com/davidhth/status/1653029019883798528
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
I'm not so sure. The Greens seem the natural party for those to the left of Labour and their success was, for me, perhaps the biggest long term story if there is now a cohort of voters willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The LDs natural home seem more as a more liberal version of the Tories for people who don't like the Tory brand but don't want high taxes or other such policies. The problem for the LDs is their activist base is quite left wing
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
I'll take your word for it, GW. Not my Party.
[Actually, I'm not sure what is my Party. Been a dispiritng time for wishy-washy centreists.]
To the extent I have a party, they are my party. Tho I’m probably on the party’s right. But not in a Clegg way, who I never liked that much.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
Jo Swinson [...] genuinely believed she would be the next PM.
I find that so silly as to be shocking. Has she ever explained why she held such a belief?
Actually, when you see the clip what she says makes sense: Corbyn and Johnson are so terrible that it's not that far fetched for her to be given a go. (And it was clearly meant as joke anyway, so let's not get any more hung up over it.)
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
Jo Swinson [...] genuinely believed she would be the next PM.
I find that so silly as to be shocking. Has she ever explained why she held such a belief?
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
I'm not so sure. The Greens seem the natural party for those to the left of Labour and their success was, for me, perhaps the biggest long term story if there is now a cohort of voters willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The LDs natural home seem more as a more liberal version of the Tories for people who don't like the Tory brand but don't want high taxes or other such policies. The problem for the LDs is their activist base is quite left wing
Yes, but mostly left wing on social issues, so not out of line with the Blue Wall at all.
Indeed, while we have endlessly discussed how older social conservatives are taking over the demographics of the old coalfields, we have spent little time on how the towns and villages of South East Shire England have adopted the mores of the metropolis.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
Jo Swinson [...] genuinely believed she would be the next PM.
I find that so silly as to be shocking. Has she ever explained why she held such a belief?
Glue-sniffing and horse tranquillisers. A sad case.
One could do an infographic over which party does which drugs, and how it's changed from the days of opium and laudanum.
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
One thing that Davey has been successful at is being honest about the party sitting in the centre. That means we can attract people who are centre left (like me) and centre right. As most voters occupy the centre that *should* mean that we can both scalp the Tories across the blue wall, and also not scare the horses for Labour voters looking for options where Labour won't get close.
Territory on Labour's left is for the Greens to go after.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
Jo Swinson [...] genuinely believed she would be the next PM.
I find that so silly as to be shocking. Has she ever explained why she held such a belief?
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
I'm not so sure. The Greens seem the natural party for those to the left of Labour and their success was, for me, perhaps the biggest long term story if there is now a cohort of voters willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The LDs natural home seem more as a more liberal version of the Tories for people who don't like the Tory brand but don't want high taxes or other such policies. The problem for the LDs is their activist base is quite left wing
I think the space for LDs is probably socially to the left of and fiscally largely in the same place as Labour.
There’s also something to be said of a certain kind of centrist populism which Keir is currently eliminating from Labour. Things like threatening (if not promising) the re-nationalisation the water industry and such.
The locals and the latest poll could be branded as bad for Labour. "look" I hear the Dan Hodges of this world say, "Labour aren't winning everywhere which means they won't win."
But the opposite is true. Labour can't defeat Tories like Michael Gove, but we can.
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
I'm not so sure. The Greens seem the natural party for those to the left of Labour and their success was, for me, perhaps the biggest long term story if there is now a cohort of voters willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The LDs natural home seem more as a more liberal version of the Tories for people who don't like the Tory brand but don't want high taxes or other such policies. The problem for the LDs is their activist base is quite left wing
There is clear territory - and always will be - on the *Liberal* side.
Labour has authoritarian instincts, and centralising instincts. They are hamstrung on Europe by their need to win back and retain the red wall. They are also rather inconsistent on the environment, though they do seem to be saying all the right things these days.
The Lib Dem core offer is, and has for a long time been:
- Civil liberties - Electoral reform - Pro EU and pro multilateralism - Local Devolution - Green policies at local and national level
It then builds its left/right, economic and social policies - which tend to vary a bit more - around this core.
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
One thing that Davey has been successful at is being honest about the party sitting in the centre. That means we can attract people who are centre left (like me) and centre right. As most voters occupy the centre that *should* mean that we can both scalp the Tories across the blue wall, and also not scare the horses for Labour voters looking for options where Labour won't get close.
Territory on Labour's left is for the Greens to go after.
Certainly not for a party whose leader has sat in a Cabinet with Cameron and Clegg.
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
One thing that Davey has been successful at is being honest about the party sitting in the centre. That means we can attract people who are centre left (like me) and centre right. As most voters occupy the centre that *should* mean that we can both scalp the Tories across the blue wall, and also not scare the horses for Labour voters looking for options where Labour won't get close.
Territory on Labour's left is for the Greens to go after.
I don’t agree with this. Of course, broadly speaking, the Lib Dems are a centrist party who attract support from left and right.
But I’m not convinced that the public really understand this spectrum and I don’t think they’re particularly responsive to appeals to centrality (moderation, maybe).
I also think that if the LDs leave the left-of-Labour to the Greens they will ultimately be cannibalised. In many ways the Greens are their most dangerous enemy and they need to take them head on.
Finally I don’t think it’s super hard to be slightly left of Labour these days when you listen to Starmer, Streeting and even Lammy.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
Is that Davey or Mark Pack? I want to like Davey and I even think he’s more personable than Keir Starmer, but for whatever reason he’s not cutting through.
One of my serious (but mad sounding) suggestions is that he should only wear hiking jackets in interviews. He needs a visual short-hand.
Yes, Mark Pack too.
He's an idiot. That the party's IT guy became president is hardly a testament to its standing.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
Is that Davey or Mark Pack? I want to like Davey and I even think he’s more personable than Keir Starmer, but for whatever reason he’s not cutting through.
One of my serious (but mad sounding) suggestions is that he should only wear hiking jackets in interviews. He needs a visual short-hand.
Yes, Mark Pack too.
He's an idiot. That the party's IT guy became president is hardly a testament to its standing.
He might be an idiot but he seems to be able to win by-elections, and, now, local elections.
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
One thing that Davey has been successful at is being honest about the party sitting in the centre. That means we can attract people who are centre left (like me) and centre right. As most voters occupy the centre that *should* mean that we can both scalp the Tories across the blue wall, and also not scare the horses for Labour voters looking for options where Labour won't get close.
Territory on Labour's left is for the Greens to go after.
I don’t agree with this. Of course, broadly speaking, the Lib Dems are a centrist party who attract support from left and right.
But I’m not convinced that the public really understand this spectrum and I don’t think they’re particularly responsive to appeals to centrality (moderation, maybe).
I also think that if the LDs leave the left-of-Labour to the Greens they will ultimately be cannibalised. In many ways the Greens are their most dangerous enemy and they need to take them head on.
Finally I don’t think it’s super hard to be slightly left of Labour these days when you listen to Starmer, Streeting and even Lammy.
How about picking policies on merit, rather than 'positioning'?
The LibDem problem is that 55% of the voters are locked up by “to the death” party loyalty. 25% each for Labour and the Conservatives and 5% for the LibDems themselves.
Swinson was hoping that Brexit would cause an extinction level event for either of or both the main parties.
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
One thing that Davey has been successful at is being honest about the party sitting in the centre. That means we can attract people who are centre left (like me) and centre right. As most voters occupy the centre that *should* mean that we can both scalp the Tories across the blue wall, and also not scare the horses for Labour voters looking for options where Labour won't get close.
Territory on Labour's left is for the Greens to go after.
I don’t agree with this. Of course, broadly speaking, the Lib Dems are a centrist party who attract support from left and right.
But I’m not convinced that the public really understand this spectrum and I don’t think they’re particularly responsive to appeals to centrality (moderation, maybe).
I also think that if the LDs leave the left-of-Labour to the Greens they will ultimately be cannibalised. In many ways the Greens are their most dangerous enemy and they need to take them head on.
Finally I don’t think it’s super hard to be slightly left of Labour these days when you listen to Starmer, Streeting and even Lammy.
How about picking policies on merit, rather than 'positioning'?
You think that might work?
One would hope the policies have merit, but the fashioning of a narrative and a position is a massive part of politics. Unrealistic to pretend otherwise.
On election day LDs won't be a factor in more than 100 constituencies. Like all elections, it will feature a loud Conservative-Labour air war. All but the most loyal LD partisans will reduce to the main options, outside those 100 constituencies. Even the protest votes will go elsewhere.
There really is a balance to this stuff. But I'd rather have the former than the latter.
This new attack has really hit home for me. We have an office, in Dallas, pretty close to that shopping centre, which I visited a few weeks ago.
This is not some backward, far right hicksville, this is a prosperous outer suburb. Hard to think of a London analogy but let’s go with Rayne’s Park or something.
We have folks who have relocated from other places to work in this office, and I wonder how they and their families are feeling.
We’ve just sent out a group email to that team. I’ll find out more when I check in with the office lead this afternoon.
I don't quite know what to say about that. Sympathies, obviously.
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
One thing that Davey has been successful at is being honest about the party sitting in the centre. That means we can attract people who are centre left (like me) and centre right. As most voters occupy the centre that *should* mean that we can both scalp the Tories across the blue wall, and also not scare the horses for Labour voters looking for options where Labour won't get close.
Territory on Labour's left is for the Greens to go after.
I don’t agree with this. Of course, broadly speaking, the Lib Dems are a centrist party who attract support from left and right.
But I’m not convinced that the public really understand this spectrum and I don’t think they’re particularly responsive to appeals to centrality (moderation, maybe).
I also think that if the LDs leave the left-of-Labour to the Greens they will ultimately be cannibalised. In many ways the Greens are their most dangerous enemy and they need to take them head on.
Finally I don’t think it’s super hard to be slightly left of Labour these days when you listen to Starmer, Streeting and even Lammy.
I entirely agree - most normals do not identify in political pigeon-holes. Which is why people can happily vote Tory then Labour then back again. We have seen some seats where all three parties have held the seat in quick succession. We have seen voters move from Labour to UKIP/BXP then Tory. When parties are seen to shift position the concept is that voters are left in place and a different party is now their best fit as the Overton Window shifts.
My point is that Labour and Tory activists tend to position everyone or everything as fitting either into their camp or into the other camp. Any other party is either laughed at or dismissed as a waste. But if voters can switch Labour to Tory to Labour, a party which covers this gap makes sense - providing the LDs aren't also batshit.
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
One thing that Davey has been successful at is being honest about the party sitting in the centre. That means we can attract people who are centre left (like me) and centre right. As most voters occupy the centre that *should* mean that we can both scalp the Tories across the blue wall, and also not scare the horses for Labour voters looking for options where Labour won't get close.
Territory on Labour's left is for the Greens to go after.
I don’t agree with this. Of course, broadly speaking, the Lib Dems are a centrist party who attract support from left and right.
But I’m not convinced that the public really understand this spectrum and I don’t think they’re particularly responsive to appeals to centrality (moderation, maybe).
I also think that if the LDs leave the left-of-Labour to the Greens they will ultimately be cannibalised. In many ways the Greens are their most dangerous enemy and they need to take them head on.
Finally I don’t think it’s super hard to be slightly left of Labour these days when you listen to Starmer, Streeting and even Lammy.
The LD’s job is to hold principled and sensible positions that are different to the other two parties and grounded in liberalism - the balance is in how far those two goals can end up being credibly stretched. Opposition to the Blair & Bush’s special military operation is a good example; it’s not particularly of the left or the right, but was critical of government.
They all need to be a viable protest vote on both left and right, especially for those fed up with their party but would never vote for the other lot.
All that, and do a decent job at local level. I think going to the left of Labour would be a strategic mistake, compounded by the fact that that’s not where most of their members, voters and elected officials are.
On election day LDs won't be a factor in more than 100 constituencies. Like all elections, it will feature a loud Conservative-Labour air war. All but the most loyal LD partisans will reduce to the main options, outside those 100 constituencies. Even the protest votes will go elsewhere.
The irony is that when LDs are in constituencies where they aren't a player, even their partisans tactically vote for someone else. At least thats what someone very high up told me...
The LibDem problem is that 55% of the voters are locked up by “to the death” party loyalty. 25% each for Labour and the Conservatives and 5% for the LibDems themselves.
Swinson was hoping that Brexit would cause an extinction level event for either of or both the main parties.
To a point.
The thought was that Brexit would cause a schism within either the Conservatives or Labour (both had been traditionally deeply divided) and the resulting re-alignment would create a new pro-EU centrist party which would challenge the rump "leavers" in both the Conservative and Labour parties.
Further, it was thought Labour would split in the face of Corbyn's policies (that was a misreading of the Labour Party of 2019 which wasn't the same party as 1981).
As a final thought, there's, I think, growing evidence old party loyalties have and are breaking down - the Conservative "heartland" now seems to be the Midlands and Eastern England while the south is breaking away and we may see more evidence of that at the next GE.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
She started well, but went bonkers in 2019, letting any defector in, and running a terrible campaign.
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
One thing that Davey has been successful at is being honest about the party sitting in the centre. That means we can attract people who are centre left (like me) and centre right. As most voters occupy the centre that *should* mean that we can both scalp the Tories across the blue wall, and also not scare the horses for Labour voters looking for options where Labour won't get close.
Territory on Labour's left is for the Greens to go after.
I don’t agree with this. Of course, broadly speaking, the Lib Dems are a centrist party who attract support from left and right.
But I’m not convinced that the public really understand this spectrum and I don’t think they’re particularly responsive to appeals to centrality (moderation, maybe).
I also think that if the LDs leave the left-of-Labour to the Greens they will ultimately be cannibalised. In many ways the Greens are their most dangerous enemy and they need to take them head on.
Finally I don’t think it’s super hard to be slightly left of Labour these days when you listen to Starmer, Streeting and even Lammy.
The LD’s job is to hold principled and sensible positions that are different to the other two parties and grounded in liberalism - the balance is in how far those two goals can end up being credibly stretched. Opposition to the Blair & Bush’s special military operation is a good example; it’s not particularly of the left or the right, but was critical of government.
They all need to be a viable protest vote on both left and right, especially for those fed up with their party but would never vote for the other lot.
All that, and do a decent job at local level. I think going to the left of Labour would be a strategic mistake, compounded by the fact that that’s not where most of their members, voters and elected officials are.
It's tough being in the centre, as you get nibbled at by both of the big two instead of just one (and some more extreme but also generally smaller ones to the other side). Sometimes it feels like the LDs really don't want that and would like to align more clearly away from the centre, as being potentially more fruitful for them.
Maybe, but there's also more competition there. It's a go big strategy where they could get crushed or at least in theory eclipse the traditional party off that centre. Whereas a delicate balancing act in the centre probably secures them some level of representation, at least locally, but has a low ceiling as well, since they cannot depart too far without losing a big chunk of voters.
One opportunity for the LDs is that there’s clear territory opening up to Labour’s *left*.
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
One thing that Davey has been successful at is being honest about the party sitting in the centre. That means we can attract people who are centre left (like me) and centre right. As most voters occupy the centre that *should* mean that we can both scalp the Tories across the blue wall, and also not scare the horses for Labour voters looking for options where Labour won't get close.
Territory on Labour's left is for the Greens to go after.
The Yellows and Greens - in the English council elections, at least - share many commonalities, with a particular emphasis on targeting ageing suburban and rural Tory voters who are reflexively anti-Labour and despise new building projects. The Liberal Democrats have already cornered much of this market in the South, but the Greens have worked assiduously to get their teeth into places where the Lib Dem vote hasn't historically been as strong.
The results of this are visible in the diet proposed by the Greens in their new star prize of Mid Suffolk, which might best be summarised as no roads, no houses, and (entirely contrary to the socialist leanings of most of the party membership) no council tax rises. The local Greens clearly know their target audience very well and, provided that they don't screw up bin collections in the same manner as their colleagues in Brighton, they ought to prosper. Indeed, it is entirely realistic to envisage a situation in which delighted residents of the district throw all of the remaining Tory councillors out in the next round of elections, if the Greens are successful in seeing off plans for new houses and other unwanted development. We see in Vale of White Horse, for example, that areas that have previously been quite well deposed to the Tories are perfectly happy to wipe them all out once they no longer have any use for them.
Whether the Greens can translate this into mounting a real challenge in these kinds of places in a General Election remains to be seen. One of the Green co-leaders is apparently intending to stand in the proposed new Waveney Valley constituency, so it looks like they are going to try. But to get anywhere close to winning, they're going to need to get a manifesto liable to include highly progressive measures on both taxation and social policy, along with very challenging targets for decarbonisation, past old ducks who have thus far backed them only to sit on lower tier local authorities with very limited powers. I'm not convinced, but we shall see.
The LibDem problem is that 55% of the voters are locked up by “to the death” party loyalty. 25% each for Labour and the Conservatives and 5% for the LibDems themselves.
Swinson was hoping that Brexit would cause an extinction level event for either of or both the main parties.
To a point.
The thought was that Brexit would cause a schism within either the Conservatives or Labour (both had been traditionally deeply divided) and the resulting re-alignment would create a new pro-EU centrist party which would challenge the rump "leavers" in both the Conservative and Labour parties.
Further, it was thought Labour would split in the face of Corbyn's policies (that was a misreading of the Labour Party of 2019 which wasn't the same party as 1981).
As a final thought, there's, I think, growing evidence old party loyalties have and are breaking down - the Conservative "heartland" now seems to be the Midlands and Eastern England while the south is breaking away and we may see more evidence of that at the next GE.
Brexit DID cause a schism. Just not a lengthy one. The Conservative government expelled so many of its own MPs that it became significantly short of a majority. Labour saw a rebellion of most MPs against the leadership, and I know that all kinds of contingencies were discussed.
Ultimately though both rebellions fizzled. TIGfC was a fiasco and that will kill stone dead any repetition as long as we retain FPTP.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
The LibDem problem is that 55% of the voters are locked up by “to the death” party loyalty. 25% each for Labour and the Conservatives and 5% for the LibDems themselves.
Swinson was hoping that Brexit would cause an extinction level event for either of or both the main parties.
I wouldn't say I'm locked in to voting Tory. There's a lot I don't like about them. But it is rare that either of the other big parties come anywhere near me. To be fair, the Lib Dems did themselvea sone credit in my eyes in the face of the worrying authoritarianism of covid (and indeed other bits of worrying authoritarianism), and Labour under Starmer have generally not been nearly so far away from me as they were under Corbyn.
On topic, I’m starting to warm to the view that a majority for Labour is becoming more likely than not.
I think some elements the press will begin to turn before long, and the idea of it being simply time for a change will cement itself in the mind of the public. A year is a long time and Labour have it all to play for; the Tories on the other hand are a series of accidents waiting to happen.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
She started well, but went bonkers in 2019, letting any defector in, and running a terrible campaign.
She only became leader in July 2019.
Yes, but the first few months were OK, winning the Brecon by-election for example. It went wrong when Johnson became Leader, and she grossly over reacted.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
His credible long term plan involves moving to LA to try and revive his financial career. I wish he'd go and get someone in who actually wants the job.
And off-topic… Stockport County ended up missing out on automatic promotion, but fourth place in your first season back in the league is nowt to sneeze at. A playoff final is a decent prospect now though - fingers crossed I’ll be taking my lad for his first trip to Wembley in a few weeks.
To be honest, another season in League Two would probably be fine, but I’m not sure I can bear sharing a league with bloody Wrexham.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
I don’t think most have picked up yet that inflation has remained somewhat more stubborn in the UK, and the knock on effect is higher mortgages for longer.
Just a few months ago, analysts were expecting mortgage rates to start heading down in Q4.
Isn't it rather cruel to allow hope to grow in the hearts of Everton fans?
It’s possible this will be enough to keep them up. Leeds and Leicester are that bad.
Schadenfreude re Leicester. Esp as Lineker is or was deeply involved with the club
Nah, we've been crap all season, indeed got just 1 point from our first 7 games.
It's been a good decade in the top flight, winning PL and FA Cup, reaching the QF of the CL, playing in the Europa and Europa Conference Leagues. I have had my money's worth out of my season ticket.
We will not be back for a few years, but it's been a wild ride.
One decent poll and suddenly everyone wants to talk about the Liberal Democrats. There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about as Oscar Wilde informed us and I'm sure the Lib Dems would agree.
Tonight's Redfield & Wilton is an extraordinary poll and in stark contrast to Omnisis which had Labour at 48% and the LDs at 7%. The England sub sample with R&W has Labour on 42%, Conservatives on 30% and the Liberal Democrats on 17%, Reform on 5.5% and Greens on 4.5%.
The result of the 2019 GE in England was Conservative 47%, Labour 34% and Liberal Democrats 12.5% so the swing from Conservative to Labour is 12% and the swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat is just shy of 11%.
The elephant in the room is and remains tactical voting - the base line numbers aren't much removed from the 1997 swing of 10.7% but the damage to the Conservatives then came from Labour and Liberal Democrat voters being prepared to support another non-Conservative candidate in a Conservative seat in order to defeat the incumbent MP. On that occasion, we saw higher swings (up to 19%) so assuming UNS as a basis for determining a Labour majority can't be won looks a risky betting strategy.
To what extent, for example, were the Conservative losses augmented by both tactical voting and tactical candidate selection where anti-Conservative parties opted not to directly compete or, as in @NickPalmer's seat, one candidate from each of the LDs, Greens and Labour stood against and defeated three Conservatives?
As was often said after 1997, in the absence of an electoral pact, the voters created one - the same might happen next time.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
Ed Davey is low profile, but an excellent organiser. We seem to be a competent party again.
He's also a lucky General.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
Jo Swinson was terrible. Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
She started well, but went bonkers in 2019, letting any defector in, and running a terrible campaign.
The LibDem problem is that 55% of the voters are locked up by “to the death” party loyalty. 25% each for Labour and the Conservatives and 5% for the LibDems themselves.
Swinson was hoping that Brexit would cause an extinction level event for either of or both the main parties.
To a point.
The thought was that Brexit would cause a schism within either the Conservatives or Labour (both had been traditionally deeply divided) and the resulting re-alignment would create a new pro-EU centrist party which would challenge the rump "leavers" in both the Conservative and Labour parties.
Further, it was thought Labour would split in the face of Corbyn's policies (that was a misreading of the Labour Party of 2019 which wasn't the same party as 1981).
As a final thought, there's, I think, growing evidence old party loyalties have and are breaking down - the Conservative "heartland" now seems to be the Midlands and Eastern England while the south is breaking away and we may see more evidence of that at the next GE.
Brexit DID cause a schism. Just not a lengthy one. The Conservative government expelled so many of its own MPs that it became significantly short of a majority. Labour saw a rebellion of most MPs against the leadership, and I know that all kinds of contingencies were discussed.
Ultimately though both rebellions fizzled. TIGfC was a fiasco and that will kill stone dead any repetition as long as we retain FPTP.
Yet last Thursday we saw FPTP work against the Conservatives. In places like Bracknell Forest and Waverley, more people voted Conservative than for the opposition parties but by not running against each other and concentrating on their strongholds, the Conservative votes were overcome and the opposition candidates romped home.
One decent poll and suddenly everyone wants to talk about the Liberal Democrats. There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about as Oscar Wilde informed us and I'm sure the Lib Dems would agree.
Tonight's Redfield & Wilton is an extraordinary poll and in stark contrast to Omnisis which had Labour at 48% and the LDs at 7%. The England sub sample with R&W has Labour on 42%, Conservatives on 30% and the Liberal Democrats on 17%, Reform on 5.5% and Greens on 4.5%.
The result of the 2019 GE in England was Conservative 47%, Labour 34% and Liberal Democrats 12.5% so the swing from Conservative to Labour is 12% and the swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat is just shy of 11%.
The elephant in the room is and remains tactical voting - the base line numbers aren't much removed from the 1997 swing of 10.7% but the damage to the Conservatives then came from Labour and Liberal Democrat voters being prepared to support another non-Conservative candidate in a Conservative seat in order to defeat the incumbent MP. On that occasion, we saw higher swings (up to 19%) so assuming UNS as a basis for determining a Labour majority can't be won looks a risky betting strategy.
To what extent, for example, were the Conservative losses augmented by both tactical voting and tactical candidate selection where anti-Conservative parties opted not to directly compete or, as in @NickPalmer's seat, one candidate from each of the LDs, Greens and Labour stood against and defeated three Conservatives?
As was often said after 1997, in the absence of an electoral pact, the voters created one - the same might happen next time.
Might.
OTOH, no two elections are exactly alike. And, to borrow from a more recent example, 2017 tells us a thing or two about what can happen when wooden leaders with seemingly unassailable polling leads make contact with general election campaigns.
One minor correction - the Cons did NOT do better than their current polling. Lab's lead was smaller but owing to the fact the LDs and Greens did far better than their current polling. As they always do in Locals. Which is why you can't just calculate a UNS on the raw votes and expect it to play out that way at the GE. The real point is comparison with LEs of the past.. The two largest parties will NOT poll barely 60% at the next GE
Anyway - at the moment I know who are feeling better about their chances!
Yes. In fact you can say the Conservatives did far, far worse than current polling indicated they should have done. Hence how they blew past their "of course we're not actually going to do as badly as this" expectations management 1000 lost seats.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
Goldman Sachs also say the growth picture is a more constructive one than the Bank of England has been painting, though.
I've almost given up trying to second guess the inflation figures, but I'd be surprised if interest rates go up too much more if inflation does start to come down.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
The LibDem problem is that 55% of the voters are locked up by “to the death” party loyalty. 25% each for Labour and the Conservatives and 5% for the LibDems themselves.
Swinson was hoping that Brexit would cause an extinction level event for either of or both the main parties.
A reasonable hope too. If Labour (under a leader who'd become very unpopular) hadn't pivoted to a 2nd Brexit referendum for GE19 and thus left the whole of the Remain lane to the LDs there could well have been a wipe out for the party. This is why the pivot happened.
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
At the top end of my expectation. But again it is the Tories that suffer here, not Labour.
Ed Davey has understood after a decade, which voters to target. It also helps that Lib Dem voters quite like Keir Starmer and the Tories keep going on about penises whilst destroying the economy.
61 is too high for the LDs.
I agree.
Now: Will the LDs benefit from more tactical voting that in 2015, 2017 or 2019? Yes. Will the Conservative vote be lower than 2019? Yes. Will the LDs get more votes than last time around? Probably.
But even putting all those together, I think getting above 35 is going to be a real struggle, and a more likely outcome is a result in the high 20s.
Let us also not forget that there are boundary changes. That makes the "vote tactical" message that little bit harder. Will voters believe that the LDs are the actual challengers in Little Whingeing?
I don't know what's going to happen in Autumn 2024 but an improving economic situation isn't going to shift many votes, I think. People aren't going to forget the cost of living crisis, even if it ends, and, to some extent, it ending might make it even safer to vote Labour.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
I see Goldman Sachs is expecting interest rates to reach 5% this summer. That is going to squeeze a lot of people as they remortgage.
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
I don’t think most have picked up yet that inflation has remained somewhat more stubborn in the UK, and the knock on effect is higher mortgages for longer.
Just a few months ago, analysts were expecting mortgage rates to start heading down in Q4.
Our pretend Government has done nothing to increase supply of energy or food in order to drive prices down, so that's hardly surprising. On the contrary, they have acted with malice against the UK hydrocarbons industry.
Comments
I want to like Davey and I even think he’s more personable than Keir Starmer, but for whatever reason he’s not cutting through.
One of my serious (but mad sounding) suggestions is that he should only wear hiking jackets in interviews. He needs a visual short-hand.
TSE please explain.
Jo Swinson was an unlucky one. There was nothing much wrong with her policies or performance, but she got caught in a classic two Party squeeze.
I don't see that happening next time round.
I think the experience of Scotland has been quite revealing. People aren't interested in 'woke' ideas until they suddenly are, which is when you can do something about them.
Strategically the best idea for the 'anti-woke' is to let the left keep coming up with more and more unpopular ideas (the $1.2 million per person 'reparations' was a particularly useful one) then use this as a way of discrediting them and reducing their power.
Starmer leads on ALL leadership characteristics including:
Can bring British people together (46% | 26%)
Represents change (47% | 27%)
Tells the truth (34% | 22%)
Can build a strong economy (38% | 37%)
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1655611093685870593
Her presentation was poor, my heart sunk when she became Leader. And her policies also stank, notably the idea that no referendum would be necessary to Remain should the LDs form a government - a proposal that required suspension of at least two separate beliefs.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-marginality/
Though it also falls in the list of 3-ways, so it is not a straightforward one.
If they didn't lose it in 2019 Lab will not lose it again. And several others were a bit unique and will probably have LDs down next time and Lab win easily.
Called it.
She genuinely believed she would be the next PM.
Terrible choice.
- no one cares about small boats
- lib dems did well because they campaigned on sewage
- rishi has a year to slip up
hmm
https://twitter.com/NatashaC/status/1655612125690167298
The problem is that Rishi's anti-woke politics might work if the Red Wall was on side but they aren't so right now he has no power base at all in the country.
I much prefer it, but all systems are able to be gamed, some are just much more gameable than others.
https://spectator.org/bribery-probe-may-sink-biden-reelection-bid/
Now, there will be a lot on here who won't believe / don't want to believe it, which is fine, but it's worth noting that the allegations have significantly ramped up over the past week and we are only in May 23.
That's not to say Biden won't get the nomination but...
Of course, if further details do come out and the ground looks more perilous, Biden could always do a Nixon and get President Harris to pardon him and his family...
[Actually, I'm not sure what is my Party. Been a dispiritng time for wishy-washy centreists.]
How the LDs square that with their position on the ground in leafy and even elderly southern electorates is hopefully keeping their best and brightest busy.
Tho I’m probably on the party’s right.
But not in a Clegg way, who I never liked that much.
In short, we’re largely in the same position…
[For the benefit of our newer readers I should stress that I am not and have never been a UKIP supporter.]
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/05/i-can-be-next-pm-says-jo-swinson-as-she-launches-election-campaign
A sad case.
Comer’s subpoena gives FBI Director Christopher Wray until May 10 to produce the following: “All FD-1023 forms, including within any open, closed or restricted access case files, created or modified in June 2020, containing the term ‘Biden,’ including all accompanying attachments and documents to those FD-1023 forms.” This particular form is used by FBI agents to record statements made by informants and the specified date range suggests that Biden had been reported for taking bribes from a foreign national and that the file was “tidied up” right around the time he nailed down the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
It's a fishing expedition. If there had been anything in it, Biden would have been stopped four years ago before he gained the nomination, let alone the White House.
The more plausible Muppet never stood a chance.
Then again - https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/middle-class-ketamine-users-risk-delusions-of-cool-201111184562
Speaking of which…
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt wants to shut down public television station OETA in part because of a scene from Clifford the Big Red Dog. (Watch it at the end of this video.)
https://twitter.com/davidhth/status/1653029019883798528
The LDs natural home seem more as a more liberal version of the Tories for people who don't like the Tory brand but don't want high taxes or other such policies. The problem for the LDs is their activist base is quite left wing
I tend to agree that she was unlucky, while also being a little unimpressive. I did feel sorry for her when she lost her seat.
Indeed, while we have endlessly discussed how older social conservatives are taking over the demographics of the old coalfields, we have spent little time on how the towns and villages of South East Shire England have adopted the mores of the metropolis.
Territory on Labour's left is for the Greens to go after.
There’s also something to be said of a certain kind of centrist populism which Keir is currently eliminating from Labour. Things like threatening (if not promising) the re-nationalisation the water industry and such.
But the opposite is true. Labour can't defeat Tories like Michael Gove, but we can.
Paul Krishnamurthy article from Betfair re the locals
Labour has authoritarian instincts, and centralising instincts. They are hamstrung on Europe by their need to win back and retain the red wall. They are also rather inconsistent on the environment, though they do seem to be saying all the right things these days.
The Lib Dem core offer is, and has for a long time been:
- Civil liberties
- Electoral reform
- Pro EU and pro multilateralism
- Local Devolution
- Green policies at local and national level
It then builds its left/right, economic and social policies - which tend to vary a bit more - around this core.
Of course, broadly speaking, the Lib Dems are a centrist party who attract support from left and right.
But I’m not convinced that the public really understand this spectrum and I don’t think they’re particularly responsive to appeals to centrality (moderation, maybe).
I also think that if the LDs leave the left-of-Labour to the Greens they will ultimately be cannibalised. In many ways the Greens are their most dangerous enemy and they need to take them head on.
Finally I don’t think it’s super hard to be slightly left of Labour these days when you listen to Starmer, Streeting and even Lammy.
Brighton 0 Everton 3
You think that might work?
Swinson was hoping that Brexit would cause an extinction level event for either of or both the main parties.
My point is that Labour and Tory activists tend to position everyone or everything as fitting either into their camp or into the other camp. Any other party is either laughed at or dismissed as a waste. But if voters can switch Labour to Tory to Labour, a party which covers this gap makes sense - providing the LDs aren't also batshit.
They all need to be a viable protest vote on both left and right, especially for those fed up with their party but would never vote for the other lot.
All that, and do a decent job at local level. I think going to the left of Labour would be a strategic mistake, compounded by the fact that that’s not where most of their members, voters and elected officials are.
The thought was that Brexit would cause a schism within either the Conservatives or Labour (both had been traditionally deeply divided) and the resulting re-alignment would create a new pro-EU centrist party which would challenge the rump "leavers" in both the Conservative and Labour parties.
Further, it was thought Labour would split in the face of Corbyn's policies (that was a misreading of the Labour Party of 2019 which wasn't the same party as 1981).
As a final thought, there's, I think, growing evidence old party loyalties have and are breaking down - the Conservative "heartland" now seems to be the Midlands and Eastern England while the south is breaking away and we may see more evidence of that at the next GE.
Maybe, but there's also more competition there. It's a go big strategy where they could get crushed or at least in theory eclipse the traditional party off that centre. Whereas a delicate balancing act in the centre probably secures them some level of representation, at least locally, but has a low ceiling as well, since they cannot depart too far without losing a big chunk of voters.
Well done.
The results of this are visible in the diet proposed by the Greens in their new star prize of Mid Suffolk, which might best be summarised as no roads, no houses, and (entirely contrary to the socialist leanings of most of the party membership) no council tax rises. The local Greens clearly know their target audience very well and, provided that they don't screw up bin collections in the same manner as their colleagues in Brighton, they ought to prosper. Indeed, it is entirely realistic to envisage a situation in which delighted residents of the district throw all of the remaining Tory councillors out in the next round of elections, if the Greens are successful in seeing off plans for new houses and other unwanted development. We see in Vale of White Horse, for example, that areas that have previously been quite well deposed to the Tories are perfectly happy to wipe them all out once they no longer have any use for them.
Whether the Greens can translate this into mounting a real challenge in these kinds of places in a General Election remains to be seen. One of the Green co-leaders is apparently intending to stand in the proposed new Waveney Valley constituency, so it looks like they are going to try. But to get anywhere close to winning, they're going to need to get a manifesto liable to include highly progressive measures on both taxation and social policy, along with very challenging targets for decarbonisation, past old ducks who have thus far backed them only to sit on lower tier local authorities with very limited powers. I'm not convinced, but we shall see.
Ultimately though both rebellions fizzled. TIGfC was a fiasco and that will kill stone dead any repetition as long as we retain FPTP.
Best thing Rishi can do is perform sensible Government, fixing problems and issues for floaters, and lay out a credible and visionary long-term plan - the bit he's missing at the moment.
More general link
To be fair, the Lib Dems did themselvea sone credit in my eyes in the face of the worrying authoritarianism of covid (and indeed other bits of worrying authoritarianism), and Labour under Starmer have generally not been nearly so far away from me as they were under Corbyn.
I think some elements the press will begin to turn before long, and the idea of it being simply time for a change will cement itself in the mind of the public. A year is a long time and Labour have it all to play for; the Tories on the other hand are a series of accidents waiting to happen.
To be honest, another season in League Two would probably be fine, but I’m not sure I can bear sharing a league with bloody Wrexham.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/08/bank-of-england-may-have-to-raise-interest-rates-this-summer-says-goldman-sachs-inflation
Indeed it is intended to squeeze people, so consumer demand is suppressed.
Just a few months ago, analysts were expecting mortgage rates to start heading down in Q4.
It's been a good decade in the top flight, winning PL and FA Cup, reaching the QF of the CL, playing in the Europa and Europa Conference Leagues. I have had my money's worth out of my season ticket.
We will not be back for a few years, but it's been a wild ride.
One decent poll and suddenly everyone wants to talk about the Liberal Democrats. There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about as Oscar Wilde informed us and I'm sure the Lib Dems would agree.
Tonight's Redfield & Wilton is an extraordinary poll and in stark contrast to Omnisis which had Labour at 48% and the LDs at 7%. The England sub sample with R&W has Labour on 42%, Conservatives on 30% and the Liberal Democrats on 17%, Reform on 5.5% and Greens on 4.5%.
The result of the 2019 GE in England was Conservative 47%, Labour 34% and Liberal Democrats 12.5% so the swing from Conservative to Labour is 12% and the swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat is just shy of 11%.
The elephant in the room is and remains tactical voting - the base line numbers aren't much removed from the 1997 swing of 10.7% but the damage to the Conservatives then came from Labour and Liberal Democrat voters being prepared to support another non-Conservative candidate in a Conservative seat in order to defeat the incumbent MP. On that occasion, we saw higher swings (up to 19%) so assuming UNS as a basis for determining a Labour majority can't be won looks a risky betting strategy.
To what extent, for example, were the Conservative losses augmented by both tactical voting and tactical candidate selection where anti-Conservative parties opted not to directly compete or, as in @NickPalmer's seat, one candidate from each of the LDs, Greens and Labour stood against and defeated three Conservatives?
As was often said after 1997, in the absence of an electoral pact, the voters created one - the same might happen next time.
Lab 419
Con 138
LD 45
SNP 26
(*e.g. in this scenario Lab still get 10% in Taunton; LDs get 6% in Amber Valley - i.e. a realistic level of tactical voting).
https://twitter.com/Beyond_Topline/status/1655628034467147799
OTOH, no two elections are exactly alike. And, to borrow from a more recent example, 2017 tells us a thing or two about what can happen when wooden leaders with seemingly unassailable polling leads make contact with general election campaigns.
I've almost given up trying to second guess the inflation figures, but I'd be surprised if interest rates go up too much more if inflation does start to come down.
The rates might be sticky for a while, though.
The ratio of owned outright to owned with a mortgage has changed considerably.
And now those who have paid off their mortgage will benefit from higher interest rates on their savings.
Now:
Will the LDs benefit from more tactical voting that in 2015, 2017 or 2019? Yes.
Will the Conservative vote be lower than 2019? Yes.
Will the LDs get more votes than last time around? Probably.
But even putting all those together, I think getting above 35 is going to be a real struggle, and a more likely outcome is a result in the high 20s.
Let us also not forget that there are boundary changes. That makes the "vote tactical" message that little bit harder. Will voters believe that the LDs are the actual challengers in Little Whingeing?