Howdy, Stranger!

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

Is another CON majority really out of the question? – politicalbetting.com

124»

Comments

  • He is blinkered, but I think he is right on this point.

    If the Tories lose the next election badly, recent history suggests they will lurch to the right and it will taken them a decade or so to come back to the centre.
    I am not yet convinced that will be the outcome, but if it is they may not be in power again
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,548

    He is blinkered, but I think he is right on this point.

    If the Tories lose the next election badly, recent history suggests they will lurch to the right and it will taken them a decade or so to come back to the centre.
    Parties don't seem to be in the right headspace to learn a lesson after their first defeat, and in recent decades the public have seemed inclined to give a new party a good chance. If they are fortunate they do after the second loss.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013

    Extinction event
    Even Corbyn got almost a third of the vote in 2019 and 40% in 2017. If you rally the rightwing or leftwing core vote that gets you about a third of the vote regardless, extinction event would be losing your rightwing or leftwing base and losing centrists too
  • HYUFD said:

    You can claim JSA regardless of savings however, you can only claim UC if you don't have sufficient private savings.

    It's appalling that the UC savings bar applies to everyone claiming UC, for any reason. Someone forced to give up work to care for a disabled spouse, child, etc, is expected to burn though almost all their savings before they can apply for help.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    stodge said:

    I was thinking that's a more recent phenomenon.

    I don't know - after they lost under Douglas-Hume in 1964, the Conservatives did move to the Right and especially after the 1966 defeat - the Selsdon Man manifesto is a more radical document than the first Thatcher Manifesto in 1970.

    It may be more accurate to say parties which lose power after an extended period in office generally move away from the centre. I'm not sure for example how different the Labour Party of 1964 was to that which lost in 1951 - Wilson had served under Attlee and was more traditional Labour than for example Gaitskell who might be regarded as the Blair of his time (or perhaps the Starmer).
    Attlee continued as Leader of the Opposition after 1951 defeat
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884

    It's odd how people using 'Ratner' as a verb seem to have no understanding of Gerald Ratner and what he did to his brand.
    Indeed. "Destroy the brand" is a more accurate description of what Johnson, Truss etc did to the Conservative Party.

    The Conservatives were seen as competent operators, regardless of what you thought of their policies. No more.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    FF43 said:

    Indeed. "Destroy the brand" is a more accurate description of what Johnson, Truss etc did to the Conservative Party.

    The Conservatives were seen as competent operators, regardless of what you thought of their policies. No more.
    OK I see the point, but "ratner" becomes a rather useless verb if you limit it to destroying the brand *in that particular way" because who except GR has ever done that?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    edited August 2023
    kle4 said:

    Parties don't seem to be in the right headspace to learn a lesson after their first defeat, and in recent decades the public have seemed inclined to give a new party a good chance. If they are fortunate they do after the second loss.
    In 1979 Labour lost power under the centrist Callaghan, in 1997 the Tories lost power under the centrist Major and Clarke and in 2024 the Tories may lose power under the relatively centrist Sunak and Hunt. Even in 2010 Gordon Brown had still been a big party of the centrist New Labour project and he also was the PM that led Labour to defeat. That may explain it.

    Of course if the economy is bad under a new government even a non centrist can win, as Thatcher did in 1979
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,588
    FF43 said:

    Indeed. "Destroy the brand" is a more accurate description of what Johnson, Truss etc did to the Conservative Party.

    The Conservatives were seen as competent operators, regardless of what you thought of their policies. No more.
    But if every incoming Labour government commits to maintaining their core policies (1997, 2024?) their work on earth is done.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,236

    It's odd how people using 'Ratner' as a verb seem to have no understanding of Gerald Ratner and what he did to his brand.

    His *personal* brand is much more well known now than it was when he merely ran a jeweler's -- he's practically a household name :-)

  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,472
    HYUFD said:

    Attlee continued as Leader of the Opposition after 1951 defeat
    Yes and after the 1955 defeat as well - Gaitskell hardly represented a "move away from the centre". I suspect had he lived he'd have achieved a greater win over Douglas-Hume than Wilson managed.

    He was a proponent of the mixed economy and opposed to both unilateralism and the Common Market. It seems unlikely Britain would have joined the EEC so soon had he lived. It's perfectly possible he'd have served two terms as Labour Prime Minister.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,548
    FF43 said:

    Indeed. "Destroy the brand" is a more accurate description of what Johnson, Truss etc did to the Conservative Party.

    The Conservatives were seen as competent operators, regardless of what you thought of their policies. No more.
    It is an area where Trussites have a point - had there been a noticable improvement in governance then the damage down by ousting a leader within 2 months (and even more damagingly many looking to reinstall the other leader just ousted) may have been overcome. But because there has only been sporadic examples to point to and otherwise a general sense of decline and low energy defeatism, that benefits of ridding themselves of Truss rather than just pushing on and making the best of it are harder to define.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,207
    Peck said:

    Can I just check. You believe it is nailed on, say p>0.9, that the Tories will lose the election, and you believe that after the election Jacob Rees-Mogg will stand for the leadership and win? Is that an accurate summary of your thoughts on this?

    I believe the Tories will win the election and that regardless of whether they do or don't Jacob Rees-Mogg will never lead the party and quite possibly never even stand for the leadership either.
    Not least because JRM will be picking up* his P45 at the next GE.

    * or sending his nanny to pick it up...
  • PeckPeck Posts: 517
    edited August 2023

    I am not yet convinced that will be the outcome, but if it is they may not be in power again
    People always say that. But many can't see as far ahead as they think.

    What is true is that no Labour government in Britain has ever brought about social reforms that would remove the Tory party's position, even when in opposition, as the "natural party of government" in this country. And because it's not removed, it continues.

    The number of Labour leaders who have actually wanted to do something about this is very small. Aneurin Bevan is on it.

    If it were ever to happen, it would happen fast. If anyone doesn't realise why this is, they could do better than to meditate on the meaning of the word "Establishment".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    edited August 2023
    Peck said:

    Can I just check. You believe it is nailed on, say p>0.9, that the Tories will lose the election, and you believe that after the election Jacob Rees-Mogg will stand for the leadership and win? Is that an accurate summary of your thoughts on this?

    I believe the Tories will win the election and that regardless of whether they do or don't Jacob Rees-Mogg will never lead the party and quite possibly never even stand for the leadership either.
    I would say there is at least a 50% chance Rees Mogg will be Tory Leader within a decade. Maybe not initially after losing power, maybe that will be Steve Barclay or Kemi Badenoch but after a second defeat quite possibly. Remember Corbyn became Labour leader after the defeat of 2015 not the 2010 defeat when Ed Miliband took over
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884
    Miklosvar said:

    OK I see the point, but "ratner" becomes a rather useless verb if you limit it to destroying the brand *in that particular way" because who except GR has ever done that?
    The in-joke with Ratner was that his stuff genuinely was crap. You can't make a piece of fine jewellery for the price of half a sandwich.

    He let the cat out of the bag, to use another phrase, which people do all the time.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,512

    It's appalling that the UC savings bar applies to everyone claiming UC, for any reason. Someone forced to give up work to care for a disabled spouse, child, etc, is expected to burn though almost all their savings before they can apply for help.
    If they give up work to care they can claim Carer's Allowance. It is way too low but it is something.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    edited August 2023
    Peck said:

    People always say that. But many can't see as far ahead as they think.

    What is true is that no Labour government in Britain has ever brought about social reforms that would remove the Tory party's position, even when in opposition, as the "natural party of government" in this country. And because it's not removed, it continues.

    The number of Labour leaders who have actually wanted to do something about this is very small. Aneurin Bevan is on it.

    If it were ever to happen, it would happen fast. If anyone doesn't realise why this is, they could do better than to meditate on the meaning of the word "Establishment".
    What social reforms would do that? Gulags for pensioners and a ban on private schools?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    If they give up work to care they can claim Carer's Allowance. It is way too low but it is something.
    I wonder if it happens to be much cheaper for HMG than funding local authories' social services properly.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,189
    A

    Yes, you must be right. The fulfilment is probably done by Amazon and not directly by JL. And if one depot goes on strike they just switch to a different one.
    I don't think so - the stock control is all John Lewis. Utterly rubbish.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    Foxy said:

    Not least because JRM will be picking up* his P45 at the next GE.

    * or sending his nanny to pick it up...
    I think he will hold on but even if he didn't Tony Benn lost his seat in 1983 but won a by election and was back in Parliament shortly after
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Miklosvar said:

    OK I see the point, but "ratner" becomes a rather useless verb if you limit it to destroying the brand *in that particular way" because who except GR has ever done that?
    Bud Light’s marketing manager gave it a good go earlier this year, when she said she wanted to change the “out of touch” and “too fratty” brand. Bud Light sales are down around 30% in the US in the past three months, and the whole AB InBev company sales are down more than 10% in that market, with their share price off substantially since the debacle.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,207
    FF43 said:

    The in-joke with Ratner was that his stuff genuinely was crap. You can't make a piece of fine jewellery for the price of half a sandwich.

    He let the cat out of the bag, to use another phrase, which people do all the time.
    Mrs Foxys engagement ring came from Ratners in Tooting High St.

    That was 3 years before he made his notorious remarks.
  • HYUFD said:

    I would say there is at least a 50% chance Rees Mogg will be Tory Leader within a decade. Maybe not initially after losing power, maybe that will be Steve Barclay or Kemi Badenoch but after a second defeat quite possibly. Remember Corbyn became Labour leader after the defeat of 2015 not the 2010 defeat when Ed Miliband took over
    Wishing Rees Mogg on us is entirely consistent with your support for Johnson Farage and Trump and would be a terrible day for the conservative party and the country
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,189
    HYUFD said:

    What social reforms would do that? Gulags for pensioners and a ban on private schools?
    The other problem is that the Establishment mutates and changes over time.

    The NHS is a core part of the establishment - as a place for power, jobs etc. The patient stuff is a minor byproduct.

    Similarly, environmental policies are now core Establishment values.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    I think he will hold on but even if he didn't Tony Benn lost his seat in 1983 but won a by election and was back in Parliament shortly after
    I'm not sure who would be more insulted by the attempted congruence.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    FF43 said:

    The in-joke with Ratner was that his stuff genuinely was crap. You can't make a piece of fine jewellery for the price of half a sandwich.

    He let the cat out of the bag, to use another phrase, which people do all the time.
    No, he boasted that it was crap. Bit different from an unintended slip.
  • Carnyx said:

    I'm not sure who would be more insulted by the attempted congruence.
    I dunno.

    Both Eurosceptic. Both "who cares about reality, the important thing is what the people want". Both histrionic attention whores.

    They've got a lot in common.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884
    Foxy said:

    Mrs Foxys engagement ring came from Ratners in Tooting High St.

    That was 3 years before he made his notorious remarks.
    Yes, I know someone whose engagement ring came from Ratners and to this day is highly annoyed by those remarks, as she rather likes her ring.

    Another possible example of ratnering is Alison Rose and Coutts, which had this pretension of being an exclusive bank and very publicly wasn't able to keep riff raff like Nigel Farage out of it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013

    Wishing Rees Mogg on us is entirely consistent with your support for Johnson Farage and Trump and would be a terrible day for the conservative party and the country
    Well he is a conservative, even a hardline one. Why should a Conservative Party not sometimes be led by an ideological Conservative?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884
    Miklosvar said:

    No, he boasted that it was crap. Bit different from an unintended slip.
    I'm sure Ratner didn't intend to destroy his business.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,593
    Foxy said:

    Not least because JRM will be picking up* his P45 at the next GE.

    * or sending his nanny to pick it up...
    Rees Mogg’s seat is one that could be won by either Labour or the Lib Dems. There will need to be a difficult conversation about who will be the main contender, because they will both want to be the party that defeats him.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    FF43 said:

    I'm sure Ratner didn't intend to destroy his business.
    Didn't say he did.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,548
    edited August 2023
    HYUFD said:

    Well he is a conservative
    No he's not. He might be a Conservative, but not a conservative - what conservative is supportive of revolutionary redesigning of our constitutional settlements to declare a party's MPs no longer have the right to oust their leader (not just they should not) and the House to therefore signal who should be PM?

    There are genuine revolutionaries who aren't so radical.

    Being posh and wearing oversized jackets doesn't mean he is a conservative, even if he sounds like one - on the big questions clearly anything he wants should happen, no matter how radical.
  • HYUFD said:

    Well he is a conservative, even a hardline one. Why should a Conservative Party not sometimes be led by an ideological Conservative?
    The purpose of the conservative party is to be in power, not a far right ideological platform that appeals to a prejudiced core and would be as relevant as Corbyn is is no time
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    edited August 2023

    I dunno.

    Both Eurosceptic. Both "who cares about reality, the important thing is what the people want". Both histrionic attention whores.

    They've got a lot in common.
    And of course very closely adjacent seats geographically. Though I can't imagine Mr R-M organising a boycott of the Bristol [edit] Bus Company. Perhaps unfairly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    edited August 2023

    Rees Mogg’s seat is one that could be won by either Labour or the Lib Dems. There will need to be a difficult conversation about who will be the main contender, because they will both want to be the party that defeats him.
    Which most likely means they split the opposition vote and re elect him, it is not in the top 100 Labour target seats but is in the top 50 LD target seats. Yet Labour were second in his seat in 2019 not the LDs
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    edited August 2023
    Here we go, first air raid siren of the trip…

    Lights off, sit in the corridor…
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,156
    The Tories deserve to be mullered at the next election for numerous reasons, but I think Starmer could collapse during an election campaign. Increasingly he reminds me of Theresa May.
  • Sandpit said:

    Here we go, first air raid siren of the trip…

    Keep safe
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,807
    Miklosvar said:

    I take it you were 8 in 1991? I, sadly, was not.
    Yes. I wasn't aware of it at the time; I became familiar with the case study later.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    edited August 2023

    The purpose of the conservative party is to be in power, not a far right ideological platform that appeals to a prejudiced core and would be as relevant as Corbyn is is no time
    No the purpose of the Conservative Party is not just to be in power. It is to be in power to implement conservative values.

    There is no point being in power all the time if you are just going to be a government little different to New Labour or a LD led administration
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    kle4 said:

    No he's not. He might be a Conservative, but not a conservative - what conservative is supportive of revolutionary redesigning of our constitutional settlements to declare a party's MPs no longer have the right to oust their leader (not just they should not) and the House to therefore signal who should be PM?

    There are genuine revolutionaries who aren't so radical.

    Being posh and wearing oversized jackets doesn't mean he is a conservative, even if he sounds like one - on the big questions clearly anything he wants should happen, no matter how radical.
    Quite. Oliver Cromwell was positively a centrist dad by comparison.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,189
    edited August 2023
    FF43 said:

    Yes, I know someone whose engagement ring came from Ratners and to this day is highly annoyed by those remarks, as she rather likes her ring.

    Another possible example of ratnering is Alison Rose and Coutts, which had this pretension of being an exclusive bank and very publicly wasn't able to keep riff raff like Nigel Farage out of it.
    Getting Nigel Farage out of the bank would have been trivial*. But, in the classic style of Arrogant Management, she tried to be both vindictive and clever. Which always ends as the special kind of stupid**.

    *Switch him to a Nat West account, letter in the post.
    **In a game of Tell The Truth, she lost to Nigel Farage.
  • Rees Mogg’s seat is one that could be won by either Labour or the Lib Dems. There will need to be a difficult conversation about who will be the main contender, because they will both want to be the party that defeats him.
    They will probably both contest it vigorously. The LDs will probably win, with Labour coming second. That would give Labour a good base to start from next time round if the LDs run into difficulties.

    Future Conservative prospects in the constituency will depend on how the Party rebuilds. The crystal ball becomes very foggy when that question is asked.
  • HYUFD said:

    No the purpose of the Conservative Party is not just to be in power. It is to be in power to implement conservative values.

    There is no point being in power all the time if you are just going to be a government little different to New Labour or a LD led administration
    My conservative values are very different to yours
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    No the purpose of the Conservative Party is not just to be in power. It is to be in power to implement conservative values.

    There is no point being in power all the time if you are just going to be a government little different to New Labour or a LD led administration
    But whose values? Henry VIII's? No point the Tories being in power if they want to go back to Divine Right and hanging and drawing in public, as you keep assuring us their members want, as well as doing down the RC Church, as you want to do (vide your complaints about its influence in Scotland thanks to the lack of an Established Church there).
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,295
    Carnyx said:

    But whose values? Henry VIII's? No point the Tories being in power if they want to go back to Divine Right and hanging and drawing in public, as you keep assuring us their members want, as well as doing down the RC Church, as you want to do (vide your complaints about its influence in Scotland thanks to the lack of an Established Church there).
    The values of Tories today, which aren't quite the same as those of the 1530s.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    Carnyx said:

    But whose values? Henry VIII's? No point the Tories being in power if they want to go back to Divine Right and hanging and drawing in public, as you keep assuring us their members want, as well as doing down the RC Church, as you want to do (vide your complaints about its influence in Scotland thanks to the lack of an Established Church there).
    Certainly not yours.

    Low taxes, a smaller state, social conservatism, reduced immigration, tougher law and order and national sovereignty for starters
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,807
    edited August 2023
    Foxy said:

    Or explicitly saying their policies were crap.
    Exactly. Ratner's mistake wasn't producing cheap trinkets, it was giving a public filmed speech taking the piss out of his items and by extension those who purchased them. Leaving policy to one side, the leader who has 'ratnered' the Tory brand the most recently is Rishi Sunak, because he has criticised past leaders and their programmes (albeit not by name) publicly, in a way that neither of his predecessors have. The biggest 'Ratner' in the Tory tale would have to be May, for making a public speech coining the phrase 'the nasty party' - the nearest Ratner parallel I can think of in Conservative history. There are various resignation speeches, but those were intended to damage, so not really the same.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013

    They will probably both contest it vigorously. The LDs will probably win, with Labour coming second. That would give Labour a good base to start from next time round if the LDs run into difficulties.

    Future Conservative prospects in the constituency will depend on how the Party rebuilds. The crystal ball becomes very foggy when that question is asked.
    On current polls the LD vote will be down there on 2019
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884

    Getting Nigel Farage out of the bank would have been trivial*. But, in the classic style of Arrogant Management, she tried to be both vindictive and clever. Which always ends as the special kind of stupid**.

    *Switch him to a Nat West account, letter in the post.
    **In a game of Tell The Truth, she lost to Nigel Farage.
    Nigel Farage wasn't telling the truth. But that's irrelevant. He rang rings round an utterly cack handed bank management.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    Andy_JS said:

    The values of Tories today, which aren't quite the same as those of the 1530s.
    C of E, Established Church, keeping the serfs and the French in their place, divine right of anointed royalty, privatisation of previously public and community resources, enacting penal laws against the unemployed ...
  • PeckPeck Posts: 517
    HYUFD said:

    What social reforms would do that? Gulags for pensioners and a ban on private schools?
    When you ask about gulags for pensioners, you're being silly.

    But yes, abolish the private schools. Abolish the monarchy. Abolish beneficial ownership. (Do those three on Day 1.) Income tax of a much more heavily progressive character. Crack down on medics and their racket, and pharmaceutical interests, so as to build a decent-quality state health service. (Erode deference, right?) Real encouragement of real potential (which everybody has) and the flushing of the ideology that some are born superior to others down the toilet where it belongs. Expose the City of London. Open the windows on many other nests of clientelism and corruption too so as to expose where the money has really been going, while the country has slid further and further downhill for the past 40+ years.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,945
    Without reading four pages of Vanilla (sorry):

    I've said it before and I'll say it again.
    This isn't 1992, or 1997. Each election turns on its own.
    Labour start on 202 seats, the Conservatives on 365.

    For Labour, that's pretty much 1983. For the Conservatives that somewhere between 1987 and 1992.

    The Conservatives lose 40 seats or less - majority still.
    The Conservatives lose 40-50 seats - whilst not a majority, the DUP will bail them out, and combined with Sinn Fein's abstention, they're the only game in town.
    The Conservatives lose 50-80 seats, and it's likely they're STILL the largest party (though putting together a coalition is extremely unlikely).
    Only at losses of over 80 seats is it likely they'll lose largest party status.

    Labour gain less than 80 - its likely they're still behind the Conservatives in seats.
    Labour gain 80-120 - it's still a hung parliament.
    Only at gains above 120 can they secure a majority. [1]

    Only one election post war produced such a large swing in seats (I'm not going to count 1945 itself). Tony Blair and 1997 with 147 seat gains.
    The next is Cameron in 2010 who got 93 seats.
    Put simply, Starmer has to replace Cameron and make his swing the second best post war swing.

    What's to stop Sunak deciding to simply throw everything at 350 defendable seats, and paper candidate the rest with only the air war to fight?

    He won't win them all, but he might get 300. Add in a few shock surprises in seats he didn't expect to win, and that might leave the Conservatives as the only game in town..........

    [1] I realise that due to both the SNP and Lib Dems, its not likely a straight switch from Conservative to Labour. The Conservatives could lose 90 seats, but if 30 of them are to the LD and only 60 to Labour, the Conservatives will remain the largest party at 375 against 362.
    Likewise, if the Conservatives only lose 70, Labour can still overtake them as the largest party if they can smash the SNP.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly not yours.

    Low taxes, a smaller state, social conservatism, reduced immigration, tougher law and order and national sovereignty for starters
    Shane your party has been selling the country off to foreigners and encouraging immigration even more now, as well as running the defences down.

    And lower taxes? Maybe pensioners, but for sure not the working folk.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    Peck said:

    When you ask about gulags for pensioners, you're being silly.

    But yes, abolish the private schools. Abolish the monarchy. Abolish beneficial ownership. (Do those three on Day 1.) Income tax of a much more heavily progressive character. Crack down on medics and their racket, and pharmaceutical interests, so as to build a decent-quality state health service. (Erode deference, right?) Real encouragement of real potential (which everybody has) and the flushing of the ideology that some are born superior to others down the toilet where it belongs. Expose the City of London. Open the windows on many other nests of clientelism and corruption too so as to expose where the money has really been going, while the country has slid further and further downhill for the past 40+ years.
    Even Corbyn didn't go that far, why not nationalise the entire FTSE 100 too to complete the set?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,807
    ..
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,207
    FF43 said:

    Yes, I know someone whose engagement ring came from Ratners and to this day is highly annoyed by those remarks, as she rather likes her ring.

    Another possible example of ratnering is Alison Rose and Coutts, which had this pretension of being an exclusive bank and very publicly wasn't able to keep riff raff like Nigel Farage out of it.
    Mrs Foxy had the stones reset, with a few extras in a more modern style for our Silver wedding anniversary.

    I lost my wedding ring a few years into our marriage, not sure how, but I was rather drunk at a friend's wedding. I now wear my great grandfather's wedding ring, resized to fit.
  • HYUFD said:

    On current polls the LD vote will be down there on 2019
    Electoral Calculus has it as a fairly comfortable Labour gain, but this is where its mechanistic approach tends to fall down.

    If the Conservative vote collapses, the LDs are much the more likely beneficiary in that kind of seat.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,641

    The Tories deserve to be mullered at the next election for numerous reasons, but I think Starmer could collapse during an election campaign. Increasingly he reminds me of Theresa May.

    I was listening to him after the recent by-election win and thinking "It'd 'Brucie'! Without the charisma!".

    "Didn't he do well?!"...

    And now I can't unhear it...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,207
    edited August 2023

    Without reading four pages of Vanilla (sorry):

    I've said it before and I'll say it again.
    This isn't 1992, or 1997. Each election turns on its own.
    Labour start on 202 seats, the Conservatives on 365.

    For Labour, that's pretty much 1983. For the Conservatives that somewhere between 1987 and 1992.

    The Conservatives lose 40 seats or less - majority still.
    The Conservatives lose 40-50 seats - whilst not a majority, the DUP will bail them out, and combined with Sinn Fein's abstention, they're the only game in town.
    The Conservatives lose 50-80 seats, and it's likely they're STILL the largest party (though putting together a coalition is extremely unlikely).
    Only at losses of over 80 seats is it likely they'll lose largest party status.

    Labour gain less than 80 - its likely they're still behind the Conservatives in seats.
    Labour gain 80-120 - it's still a hung parliament.
    Only at gains above 120 can they secure a majority. [1]

    Only one election post war produced such a large swing in seats (I'm not going to count 1945 itself). Tony Blair and 1997 with 147 seat gains.
    The next is Cameron in 2010 who got 93 seats.
    Put simply, Starmer has to replace Cameron and make his swing the second best post war swing.

    What's to stop Sunak deciding to simply throw everything at 350 defendable seats, and paper candidate the rest with only the air war to fight?

    He won't win them all, but he might get 300. Add in a few shock surprises in seats he didn't expect to win, and that might leave the Conservatives as the only game in town..........

    [1] I realise that due to both the SNP and Lib Dems, its not likely a straight switch from Conservative to Labour. The Conservatives could lose 90 seats, but if 30 of them are to the LD and only 60 to Labour, the Conservatives will remain the largest party at 375 against 362.
    Likewise, if the Conservatives only lose 70, Labour can still overtake them as the largest party if they can smash the SNP.

    I expect that will be the Tory strategy, but where are those 350 seats to be found? 150 fairly easy and 250 perhaps possible, but 350? No chance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    edited August 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Shane your party has been selling the country off to foreigners and encouraging immigration even more now, as well as running the defences down.

    And lower taxes? Maybe pensioners, but for sure not the working folk.
    It did end EU free movement but yes needs to do more to stop the boats. Boris also provided the weapons to help Ukraine contain Putin.

    Truss to be fair to her did cut national insurance and stamp duty and cut the basic and top rates of income tax and duties on beer, wine and spirits but she didn't cut spending at the same time. Hence the markets reacted badly
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,207
    ohnotnow said:

    I was listening to him after the recent by-election win and thinking "It'd 'Brucie'! Without the charisma!".

    "Didn't he do well?!"...

    And now I can't unhear it...
    Yes, he is wooden and timid, but doesn't that still beat petulant and patronising Sunak? Certainly that is what the polling says.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,807
    FF43 said:

    Yes, I know someone whose engagement ring came from Ratners and to this day is highly annoyed by those remarks, as she rather likes her ring.

    Another possible example of ratnering is Alison Rose and Coutts, which had this pretension of being an exclusive bank and very publicly wasn't able to keep riff raff like Nigel Farage out of it.
    Again, I don't think that's really an example of 'ratnering' a brand. It is damaging to the brand certainly.

    I don't think Ratner's stuff was probably all that crap. Jewellery tends to have a massive mark up because jewellery shop owners tend to sell very few items and they have rent to pay. Ratner was disrupting that industry. He just gave into the temptation of being in the boy's club chuckling at his customers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,013
    Foxy said:

    Yes, he is wooden and timid, but doesn't that still beat petulant and patronising Sunak? Certainly that is what the polling says.
    He will probably end up a British Hollande to Sunak's Sarkozy and if he does become PM like Hollande as President of France will soon become very unpopular and not last beyond a term
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,641
    Carnyx said:

    Shane your party has been selling the country off to foreigners and encouraging immigration even more now, as well as running the defences down.

    And lower taxes? Maybe pensioners, but for sure not the working folk.
    I find the modern Tories quite puzzling. I can wrap my head around the rhetoric as in HY's reply - but that's not what they are now.

    They're almost at a MiniTrue stage. "The State has gotten smaller by 20%! Rejoice!" :: state increases by 20%, taxes on working people go up by 20% ::

    Labour _used_ to at least be honest about this stuff. And the Tories _used_ to be honest about what a small state/low-tax country meant - which gave you a straight choice on your tick.
  • HYUFD said:

    He will probably end up a British Hollande to Sunak's Sarkozy and if he does become PM like Hollande as President of France will soon become very unpopular and not last beyond a term
    Starmer has a mistress?!

    Don't let it out. He'll sweep the country at the next election.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,641
    Foxy said:

    Yes, he is wooden and timid, but doesn't that still beat petulant and patronising Sunak? Certainly that is what the polling says.
    It might well do. I'm not sure it fills me with a sense of hope and optimism though. "Not petulant and patronising - tick!". Amazing. Almost 200 years of Socialist thought and here's where we are.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,295
    edited August 2023

    Without reading four pages of Vanilla (sorry):

    I've said it before and I'll say it again.
    This isn't 1992, or 1997. Each election turns on its own.
    Labour start on 202 seats, the Conservatives on 365.

    For Labour, that's pretty much 1983. For the Conservatives that somewhere between 1987 and 1992.

    The Conservatives lose 40 seats or less - majority still.
    The Conservatives lose 40-50 seats - whilst not a majority, the DUP will bail them out, and combined with Sinn Fein's abstention, they're the only game in town.
    The Conservatives lose 50-80 seats, and it's likely they're STILL the largest party (though putting together a coalition is extremely unlikely).
    Only at losses of over 80 seats is it likely they'll lose largest party status.

    Labour gain less than 80 - its likely they're still behind the Conservatives in seats.
    Labour gain 80-120 - it's still a hung parliament.
    Only at gains above 120 can they secure a majority. [1]

    Only one election post war produced such a large swing in seats (I'm not going to count 1945 itself). Tony Blair and 1997 with 147 seat gains.
    The next is Cameron in 2010 who got 93 seats.
    Put simply, Starmer has to replace Cameron and make his swing the second best post war swing.

    What's to stop Sunak deciding to simply throw everything at 350 defendable seats, and paper candidate the rest with only the air war to fight?

    He won't win them all, but he might get 300. Add in a few shock surprises in seats he didn't expect to win, and that might leave the Conservatives as the only game in town..........

    [1] I realise that due to both the SNP and Lib Dems, its not likely a straight switch from Conservative to Labour. The Conservatives could lose 90 seats, but if 30 of them are to the LD and only 60 to Labour, the Conservatives will remain the largest party at 375 against 362.
    Likewise, if the Conservatives only lose 70, Labour can still overtake them as the largest party if they can smash the SNP.

    After boundary changes the Tories will probably start on around 376 and Labour about 197.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2023.html
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,915

    Again, I don't think that's really an example of 'ratnering' a brand. It is damaging to the brand certainly.

    I don't think Ratner's stuff was probably all that crap. Jewellery tends to have a massive mark up because jewellery shop owners tend to sell very few items and they have rent to pay. Ratner was disrupting that industry. He just gave into the temptation of being in the boy's club chuckling at his customers.
    Yes - it wasn't so much that he admitted that his stuff was crap, it was more that he insulted all his customers.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,503
    edited August 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    After boundary changes the Tories will probably start on around 376 and Labour about 197.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2023.html
    It doesn't matter where they start - the election results last time are a lousy predictor compared to the opinion polls 3 months or less out. Those are the only decent predictors. Trying to guess next time's results from last time's is pointless.

    Oh, and listen to HYUFD's canvassing reports.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,729
    Labour didn't win after 1983 because they only put on another three per cent. That's it. If they had put on 10 per cent, they might have won. There's no physical limit here, and the sample size of relevant general elections is tiny.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,263
    Fishing said:

    the election results last time are a lousy predictor compared to the opinion polls 3 months or less out. Those are the only decent predictors. Trying to guess next time's results from last time's is pointless

    Agreed. And the reason for that is the length of an election campaign... :)

    John Curtice once said (and I was in the room when he said it :) ) that opinion polls mid-period are more like marks of approval of the Govt instead of serious voting intention. Only when the election is announced that people start thinking seriously about it.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,295
    What a shambles of organisation this has turned out to be.

    "World Scout Jamboree in limbo as American and British groups pull out over extreme heat"

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/05/asia/scout-jamboree-south-korea-heat-wave-pullout-intl-hnk/index.html
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,321

    I dunno.

    Both Eurosceptic. Both "who cares about reality, the important thing is what the people want". Both histrionic attention whores.

    They've got a lot in common.
    Benn arguably more authentically posh than that petit bourgeois idea of a posh person JRM.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Andy_JS said:

    What a shambles of organisation this has turned out to be.

    "World Scout Jamboree in limbo as American and British groups pull out over extreme heat"

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/05/asia/scout-jamboree-south-korea-heat-wave-pullout-intl-hnk/index.html

    Did they forget to be prepared?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,370

    Without reading four pages of Vanilla (sorry):

    I've said it before and I'll say it again.
    This isn't 1992, or 1997. Each election turns on its own.
    Labour start on 202 seats, the Conservatives on 365.

    For Labour, that's pretty much 1983. For the Conservatives that somewhere between 1987 and 1992.

    The Conservatives lose 40 seats or less - majority still.
    The Conservatives lose 40-50 seats - whilst not a majority, the DUP will bail them out, and combined with Sinn Fein's abstention, they're the only game in town.
    The Conservatives lose 50-80 seats, and it's likely they're STILL the largest party (though putting together a coalition is extremely unlikely).
    Only at losses of over 80 seats is it likely they'll lose largest party status.

    Labour gain less than 80 - its likely they're still behind the Conservatives in seats.
    Labour gain 80-120 - it's still a hung parliament.
    Only at gains above 120 can they secure a majority. [1]

    Only one election post war produced such a large swing in seats (I'm not going to count 1945 itself). Tony Blair and 1997 with 147 seat gains.
    The next is Cameron in 2010 who got 93 seats.
    Put simply, Starmer has to replace Cameron and make his swing the second best post war swing.

    What's to stop Sunak deciding to simply throw everything at 350 defendable seats, and paper candidate the rest with only the air war to fight?

    He won't win them all, but he might get 300. Add in a few shock surprises in seats he didn't expect to win, and that might leave the Conservatives as the only game in town..........

    [1] I realise that due to both the SNP and Lib Dems, its not likely a straight switch from Conservative to Labour. The Conservatives could lose 90 seats, but if 30 of them are to the LD and only 60 to Labour, the Conservatives will remain the largest party at 375 against 362.
    Likewise, if the Conservatives only lose 70, Labour can still overtake them as the largest party if they can smash the SNP.

    Sure:

    But all those equations apply equally to Labour and the LibDems. Labour doesn't need to devote resources to seats it already holds, nor to potential gain number 200, it just needs to spend time and money on the seats it needs to flip. And the same is true of the LibDems.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,263
    Sandpit said:

    Did they forget to be prepared?
    They did not do their best.

    [although, to be fair, if you have "...Hit by extreme heat, hundreds of participants at the event fell ill and were treated for heat-related ailments, prompting complaints from parents over the safety of their children..." then perhaps they do have cause]
  • HYUFD said:

    He will probably end up a British Hollande to Sunak's Sarkozy and if he does become PM like Hollande as President of France will soon become very unpopular and not last beyond a term
    Sunak is a lot like Sarkozy - hat tip!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,548
    edited August 2023

    Benn arguably more authentically posh than that petit bourgeois idea of a posh person JRM.
    Better class of posh in the old days. Thesedays its all faux-victorian mannerisms or throwing paint around at a sporting event or blocking traffic to save the earth.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192
    kle4 said:

    Better class of posh in the old days. Thesedays its all faux-victorian mannerisms or throwing paint around at a sporting event or blocking traffic to save the earth.
    Would you think better of JRM if he painted himself orange and then glued himself to the road in Downing St to stop PM Starmer from getting to PMQs?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,263

    Sunak is a lot like Sarkozy - hat tip!
    coughcoughbothshortarsescoughcough
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,686
    .
    HYUFD said:

    Well he is a conservative, even a hardline one. Why should a Conservative Party not sometimes be led by an ideological Conservative?
    Because in this case it would also require their bring led.by an utter prat.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,686
    ohnotnow said:

    It might well do. I'm not sure it fills me with a sense of hope and optimism though. "Not petulant and patronising - tick!". Amazing. Almost 200 years of Socialist thought and here's where we are.
    200 years of Tory pragmatism have managed to fall below even that floor.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,686
    .Just a perfect sentence in the Government’s reply to Trump’s request for more time:

    “Rather than spend time complying with the Court’s order, the defendant drafted a filing as to why he did not have time to review and consider the 5-page proposed protective order.”

    https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1687982259997995008

    The tactics Trump gas employed to frustrate his myriad opponents in the civil courts might not be so effective in defending a criminal proceeding.
  • New thread.
This discussion has been closed.