The way I see this year is the Tories had up to 10 months to turn around the polls meaningfully (e.g. to sub 10% leads) to have a chance of a respectable performance.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
The clock is ticking down...
The belief 'polls would automatically narrow' was always slightly odd given there were good reasons governments outperformed mid-term polls that do not necessarily imply. Namely, that governments tended to get their unpopular stuff and have their teething problems early in a term, then ensure there were some goodies by the election.
Sunak hasn't been able to, for reasons both out of control and of the Tories' making. Hence the oddness of his messaging. You're supposed to have done the 'tough decisions' and so can do the giveaways by now. But veers between trying to sound like he is, and attempts to throw Tories red meat.
Labour is unlikely to match its biggest leads, as there's something self-correcting there in that if people believe the Tories are getting thumped some loyalists come back, and others shrug a bit.
You articulate a point I've been struggling to get across here for a while.
Whilst it is true that historically we have normally seen swingback in previous elections, there is no Iron Law that makes it happen. In fact given the peculiar circumstances in which we approach the next GE (surely now nailed on for the autumn) there is as much likelihood of swingmore as swingback.
You really cannot say at this stage which is the more probable.
I think part of swingback is that inevitably the opposition get exposed to a lot more scrutiny in the run up to the election, especially when it looks nailed on that they will win. At the moment Starmer and labour are content to say ‘we are not the Tories’ and that’s enough, but it won’t be forever. Add in the solitary moment in the voting booth when voters who have loudly proclaimed that this time they will vote for X, but actually at the last minute stick with Y.
I’m still struck by the contrast of the polls, which have seen huge and pretty static labour leads for a year and the available money on Betfair for a labour majority. Clearly punters think swingback is coming.
There’s nothing to swingback to. The party they voted for has gone. It’s like The Doors without Jim Morrison, or Oasis without Liam Gallagher
The only thing I can think of is that Sir Keir’s Wallyness might push some voters back, but there’d more likely go to Reform, particularly if Farage is leader
Oasis without Liam Gallagher is generous - if the 2019 Tory party was Oasis, the 2024 version is a third rate tribute band where the previous lead singer was replaced by someone with a transit van to transport the kit.
I’m still struck by the contrast of the polls, which have seen huge and pretty static labour leads for a year and the available money on Betfair for a labour majority. Clearly punters think swingback is coming.
Punters don't really have more info on the future than anyone else. But the odd on a Labour majority of 1.27 suggest that they're pretty confident of that result. Note that the market "How many seats will the Tories lose?" has the maximum 201+ as the clear favourite.
Modesty prevents me from mentioning that I've been tipping the 201+ market for a while now, so I'll just point out that it's always a good idea to back the extreme choice on these banded markets if the facts support it at all. It's bloody frustrating if you all but call the election right but by being a couple of seats out you miss the right band. No such probs with 201+. You get everything from a landslide to 'Does anyone know where all the Tories went?'
The latter possibility is not entirely implausible. Betfair's 2.6 still looks decent value to me.
The way I see this year is the Tories had up to 10 months to turn around the polls meaningfully (e.g. to sub 10% leads) to have a chance of a respectable performance.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
The clock is ticking down...
The belief 'polls would automatically narrow' was always slightly odd given there were good reasons governments outperformed mid-term polls that do not necessarily imply. Namely, that governments tended to get their unpopular stuff and have their teething problems early in a term, then ensure there were some goodies by the election.
Sunak hasn't been able to, for reasons both out of control and of the Tories' making. Hence the oddness of his messaging. You're supposed to have done the 'tough decisions' and so can do the giveaways by now. But veers between trying to sound like he is, and attempts to throw Tories red meat.
Labour is unlikely to match its biggest leads, as there's something self-correcting there in that if people believe the Tories are getting thumped some loyalists come back, and others shrug a bit.
You articulate a point I've been struggling to get across here for a while.
Whilst it is true that historically we have normally seen swingback in previous elections, there is no Iron Law that makes it happen. In fact given the peculiar circumstances in which we approach the next GE (surely now nailed on for the autumn) there is as much likelihood of swingmore as swingback.
You really cannot say at this stage which is the more probable.
I think part of swingback is that inevitably the opposition get exposed to a lot more scrutiny in the run up to the election, especially when it looks nailed on that they will win. At the moment Starmer and labour are content to say ‘we are not the Tories’ and that’s enough, but it won’t be forever. Add in the solitary moment in the voting booth when voters who have loudly proclaimed that this time they will vote for X, but actually at the last minute stick with Y.
I’m still struck by the contrast of the polls, which have seen huge and pretty static labour leads for a year and the available money on Betfair for a labour majority. Clearly punters think swingback is coming.
There’s nothing to swingback to. The party they voted for has gone. It’s like The Doors without Jim Morrison, or Oasis without Liam Gallagher
The only thing I can think of is that Sir Keir’s Wallyness might push some voters back, but there’d more likely go to Reform, particularly if Farage is leader
In which case put all the cash you can spare on a labour majority to get a 27% return in under a year…
Too many short priced political bets get turned over for me to do that. Plus I’d back myself to make the money I’d put on Lab Maj return way more than 27% in the best part of a year
Two very different and not quite so different polls this evening. A gap of six points in the Conservative share between R&W and Deltapoll not easy to explain - the Deltapoll has Reform four down on R&W and the Liberal Democrats two down on R&W so that's the where but I still don't see the why beyond the usual double act of sampling and methodology.
The difference also reflected in the Con/Ref vs Lab/LD/Green breakdown which for R&W is 34-62 and for Deltapoll is 36-59 so not such a big difference. This split in 2019 was 48-47 so it's a 12% swing with Deltapoll and a 14.5% swing with R&W.
Both pollsters have produced significant outliers in the past so it's equally possible both could be "wrong".
Nonetheless, the Labour lead remains substantial (15-20 points) with less than 10 months to go (presumably). The "hope" for Conservatives must be in an economic upturn with tax cuts, falling inflation and falling energy prices. Will it make a difference? Perhaps - it hasn't yet.
The other problem for the Conservatives can be summed up in two words - Rishi Sunak. Perhaps, as Labor found in New Zealand, a last minute change of leader might create a new popularity. The trouble is, four Prime Ministers over a Parliament looks messy and why should a new leader suddenly make a difference as it will almost be someone closely associated with the current policies?
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
You exaggerate, MP.
It might just about save Sir Christopher Chope, but it won't help many others to survive.
The thing about any gerrymandering scheme is knowing which seats to fiddle.
If you go for 300-330, you're wasting your time, because they still get washed away in a tsunami election, which seems to be where we're heading.
If you go for the seats where it might make a difference (200-230? 150-180?), you're already conceding defeat.
Spread it over too many seats, and it's too diffuse to be useful.
BREAKING: The House of Lords has defied Rishi Sunak to vote against the ratification of the UK's new treaty with Rwanda - in what could prove a damaging development for the Safety of Rwanda Bill
Two very different and not quite so different polls this evening. A gap of six points in the Conservative share between R&W and Deltapoll not easy to explain - the Deltapoll has Reform four down on R&W and the Liberal Democrats two down on R&W so that's the where but I still don't see the why beyond the usual double act of sampling and methodology.
The difference also reflected in the Con/Ref vs Lab/LD/Green breakdown which for R&W is 34-62 and for Deltapoll is 36-59 so not such a big difference. This split in 2019 was 48-47 so it's a 12% swing with Deltapoll and a 14.5% swing with R&W.
Both pollsters have produced significant outliers in the past so it's equally possible both could be "wrong".
Nonetheless, the Labour lead remains substantial (15-20 points) with less than 10 months to go (presumably). The "hope" for Conservatives must be in an economic upturn with tax cuts, falling inflation and falling energy prices. Will it make a difference? Perhaps - it hasn't yet.
The other problem for the Conservatives can be summed up in two words - Rishi Sunak. Perhaps, as Labor found in New Zealand, a last minute change of leader might create a new popularity. The trouble is, four Prime Ministers over a Parliament looks messy and why should a new leader suddenly make a difference as it will almost be someone closely associated with the current policies?
The only way they could appoint another leader with any legitimacy is if they managed to get Boris back somehow. He won the last GE & 2019 Cons like him the most.
But that’s incredibly unlikely. Seems they’re up a gumtree to put it mildly. What an incredible collapse
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
Extremely dodgy. If you allow expatriates to vote it should be to overseas constituencies, which is how it is done in France.
BREAKING: The House of Lords has defied Rishi Sunak to vote against the ratification of the UK's new treaty with Rwanda - in what could prove a damaging development for the Safety of Rwanda Bill
To be cynical, Number 10 might welcome that defeat as it can continue to blame SKS rather than prove Rwanda will not stop the boats or reduce (mostly legal) immigration.
The HOL votes to delay ratification of the Rwanda Treaty.
The government isn’t bound by this but because the Treaty is needed for the Rwanda Bill then it could cause problems for them when the HOL comes to debate and vote on that .
Biden's message might wear better if it wasn't presented by this person. I remember a Labour Party MP suggesting that Israel be moved to Arizona and they were sacked on the spot! I think we'd be safer with Trump
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
You exaggerate, MP.
It might just about save Sir Christopher Chope, but it won't help many others to survive.
The thing about any gerrymandering scheme is knowing which seats to fiddle.
If you go for 300-330, you're wasting your time, because they still get washed away in a tsunami election, which seems to be where we're heading.
If you go for the seats where it might make a difference (200-230? 150-180?), you're already conceding defeat.
Spread it over too many seats, and it's too diffuse to be useful.
Doesn't make it right, though
Can't get excited about it, Stuart.
My depressing experience of expats is that they are too concerned about the next g&t to think about voting in an election on a faraway island.
Biden's message might wear better if it wasn't presented by this person. I remember a Labour Party MP suggesting that Israel be moved to Arizona and they were sacked on the spot! I think I'd feel safer with Trump
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
You exaggerate, MP.
It might just about save Sir Christopher Chope, but it won't help many others to survive.
2.2m could do much damage if utilised expeditiously.
So, we're saying EVERY eligible expat will vote and they will ALL vote Conservative.
That's two leaps of the imagination.
I thought the ex-pats used to be able to vote in European Parliamentary elections and both the Conservative and Labour parties had organisations overseas.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
"Italy hails British veteran who fought for expatriate voting right
Harry Shindler, who died last year, fought in the battle of Anzio in 1944. He is being remembered as part of 80th anniversary celebrations in the region"
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
Extremely dodgy. If you allow expatriates to vote it should be to overseas constituencies, which is how it is done in France.
The current rule is that you cannot vote if you have not lived in this country for 15 years. That does not seem an unreasonable rule, if anything it is a tad generous. Those who vote in this country should live in this country and suffer the consequences of those votes. The likes of Brian Cox who would vote SNP but has avoided SNP enhanced taxes for more than that period has no right to be making choices for us poor benighted souls who are still living here under their thumb.
This is an undemocratic and unprincipled decision by a frankly desperate government.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
Extremely dodgy. If you allow expatriates to vote it should be to overseas constituencies, which is how it is done in France.
The current rule is that you cannot vote if you have not lived in this country for 15 years. That does not seem an unreasonable rule, if anything it is a tad generous. Those who vote in this country should live in this country and suffer the consequences of those votes. The likes of Brian Cox who would vote SNP but has avoided SNP enhanced taxes for more than that period has no right to be making choices for us poor benighted souls who are still living here under their thumb.
This is an undemocratic and unprincipled decision by a frankly desperate government.
In general I'm in favour of a broad franchise although I wouldn't man the barricades for a group that has a tenuous connection with the country. But if you accept overseas nationals have legitimate interests they should vote for representatives who defend those interests.
Years ago I met someone who was campaigning for Sarkozy's party in the constituency containing the UK. He must have lost because unexpectedly all the expats voted Socialist according to the Wikipedia article I linked.Maybe the same will happen here and Starmer will get a boost.
Exclusive: Al-Shabab and Newcastle have reached an agreement over the transfer of Miguel Almiron. The player is open to the move. Fee is expected to be in the region of whatever the fuck Newcastle need to ease their FFP difficulties.
Unless there's data otherwise I expect the ex pats to be more left wing than people expect (which I think is coloured by memories like @noneoftheabove's grandparents' friends - a description I too recognise very well.
Firstly there's the ones affected by Brexit.
Secondly the ones otherwise affected by immigration policy (how many are living abroad as they cannot take their family back?
Thirdly they don't have to take the consequences of any tax increases but they do get to "enjoy" our public services when they come back to visit.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
Two very different and not quite so different polls this evening. A gap of six points in the Conservative share between R&W and Deltapoll not easy to explain - the Deltapoll has Reform four down on R&W and the Liberal Democrats two down on R&W so that's the where but I still don't see the why beyond the usual double act of sampling and methodology.
The difference also reflected in the Con/Ref vs Lab/LD/Green breakdown which for R&W is 34-62 and for Deltapoll is 36-59 so not such a big difference. This split in 2019 was 48-47 so it's a 12% swing with Deltapoll and a 14.5% swing with R&W.
Both pollsters have produced significant outliers in the past so it's equally possible both could be "wrong".
Nonetheless, the Labour lead remains substantial (15-20 points) with less than 10 months to go (presumably). The "hope" for Conservatives must be in an economic upturn with tax cuts, falling inflation and falling energy prices. Will it make a difference? Perhaps - it hasn't yet.
The other problem for the Conservatives can be summed up in two words - Rishi Sunak. Perhaps, as Labor found in New Zealand, a last minute change of leader might create a new popularity. The trouble is, four Prime Ministers over a Parliament looks messy and why should a new leader suddenly make a difference as it will almost be someone closely associated with the current policies?
I feel it's the direction of travel that's important here. Saddo that I am I have looked at the Labour lead change for each pollster compared with that pollster's previous poll to see the change:
+1% Deltapoll (15 Jan Lab lead = 16%; 22 Jan Lab lead =17%) +4% R&W +3% We Think -2% Techne +4% YouGov +1% Lord Ashcroft (albeit, previous poll was 2 months ago) -2% Savanta +1% Opinium 0% (n/c) More in Common
From that, I'd suggest the Labour lead is edging upwards.
That Labour lead averages 19.7% for all polls conducted this year and 22% for polls conducted in the past week, so I think talk of a lead of 15-20% is out of date. The Labour lead is currently a fairly solid 20%.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
Contrarianism perhaps?
Or desperately hoping for a labour majority and not wanting to jinx things?
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
It is odd. If we took the @viewcode approach, and tried to look at the data as if we were Finns, I don't see how we could come to any conclusion other than "There's a landslide incoming, possibly worse than 1997, given the polling errors from then that have been understood and fixed."
Rules on eligible voters and elections in general will shift over time, and even if one side might benefit more than another to a small degree does not mean automatically that said change is dodgy. Finally getting the boundary review through when (at least initially) people considered the changes were likely to benefit the Tories, is an example.
But when there are multiple examples of tweaking rules - voter ID, forcing mayoralties to be FPTP etc - only some of which were committments, then even if individually not unreasonable it can start to look like an attempt to lean a thumb on the scales.
@CorrectHorseBattery was absolutely right when he called the peak of Johnson and said the idea Johnson would be PM for a decade was nonsense. And he predicted SKS as PM from the start.
@CorrectHorseBattery was absolutely right when he called the peak of Johnson and said the idea Johnson would be PM for a decade was nonsense. And he predicted SKS as PM from the start.
He also spent months yelling ‘lockdown now’, so he wasn’t right about everything.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
It is odd. If we took the @viewcode approach, and tried to look at the data as if we were Finns, I don't see how we could come to any conclusion other than "There's a landslide incoming, possibly worse than 1997, given the polling errors from then that have been understood and fixed."
And yet, there's a nervousness about saying that.
It must be because, this far from the GE, the last four (five if you include the referendum) favourites have been turned over at relatively short prices. I don’t know what the Tories could do, but maybe something spectacular will happen.
2010 Con Maj 2015 NOM 2016 Remain 2017 Con Maj 2019 NOM
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
You exaggerate, MP.
It might just about save Sir Christopher Chope, but it won't help many others to survive.
2.2m could do much damage if utilised expeditiously.
Imagine, if you will, that instead it is just squandered in various shallow policy 'flavours' over the next 6-10 months. Possibly tallied up in a very nice spreadsheet - but squandered nonetheless.
@CorrectHorseBattery was absolutely right when he called the peak of Johnson and said the idea Johnson would be PM for a decade was nonsense. And he predicted SKS as PM from the start.
He also spent months yelling ‘lockdown now’, so he wasn’t right about everything.
But neither is everyone. What we can say is that his political judgment since 2019 has been a lot better than most here.
It's a shame he had to leave us but I am doing my best to take his place until one day he comes back.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
It is odd. If we took the @viewcode approach, and tried to look at the data as if we were Finns, I don't see how we could come to any conclusion other than "There's a landslide incoming, possibly worse than 1997, given the polling errors from then that have been understood and fixed."
And yet, there's a nervousness about saying that.
It must be because, this far from the GE, the last four (five if you include the referendum) favourites have been turned over at relatively short prices. I don’t know what the Tories could do, but maybe something spectacular will happen.
2010 Con Maj 2015 NOM 2016 Remain 2017 Con Maj 2019 NOM
2019 NOM? I, for one, expected Corbyn to get thrashed.
Since nobody else has said it, can I be the first to note that the best way to deliver Popular Conservatism is to study what Truss did and do the opposite?
Given that she pushed the party to depths of unpopularity so low that not even RIshi Sunak has plumbed them.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
It is odd. If we took the @viewcode approach, and tried to look at the data as if we were Finns, I don't see how we could come to any conclusion other than "There's a landslide incoming, possibly worse than 1997, given the polling errors from then that have been understood and fixed."
And yet, there's a nervousness about saying that.
It must be because, this far from the GE, the last four (five if you include the referendum) favourites have been turned over at relatively short prices. I don’t know what the Tories could do, but maybe something spectacular will happen.
2010 Con Maj 2015 NOM 2016 Remain 2017 Con Maj 2019 NOM
2019 NOM? I, for one, expected Corbyn to get thrashed.
10 months before the GE (When May was leader) NOM was fav I think. Maybe Labour were. The polls were neck & neck anyway. Only when Boris took over did Tory Maj become fav, and it wasn’t a huge fav either. The exit poll moved the market about 30%
If Boris hadn't been deposed, what do you think would have been different? Different policies, different vibes, or both?
I think mainly different vibes. Sunak seems to be trying to be Boris-lite, and not convincing anyone.
In my view the main thing is that 2019 voters were invested in Boris in a way that they aren’t in Sunak. There was someone/thing to swing back to, whereas now they don’t feel attached at all. The few polls that have been taken of 2019 Tories show he is far more popular than his successors, even when Rishi wasn’t particularly unpopular, and the ‘personality’ polls, which I think give a good tip as to who will win voters round in a campaign, had him streets ahead (48-15) of Sir Keir even in the bad times, whereas Sunak was losing 26-25 a year ago, and no doubt would be losing by more now
In hindsight the Tories should have appointed a caretaker leader whilst Boris was on trial, giving him room to come back. He could always have fought the by election though
I'm not sure he's trying to be Boris-lite. I have a horrible feeling he's trying to be Boris-serious.
But he comes across as 'filler'. Like an ingredient you read on the back of a packet and your eyes glaze over. "Emulsifier' - whatever, ok. 'Contains gluten' - fine.
I had hopes that he was going to be a new Major and least be decent - but it's not played out that way. Somehow he's managed to be both bland and annoying.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
70 out of 81 PB Competition entries predicted a Labour majority, 10 prediction for NOM, and 1 for a Tory majority.
If Boris hadn't been deposed, what do you think would have been different? Different policies, different vibes, or both?
I think mainly different vibes. Sunak seems to be trying to be Boris-lite, and not convincing anyone.
In my view the main thing is that 2019 voters were invested in Boris in a way that they aren’t in Sunak. There was someone/thing to swing back to, whereas now they don’t feel attached at all. The few polls that have been taken of 2019 Tories show he is far more popular than his successors, even when Rishi wasn’t particularly unpopular, and the ‘personality’ polls, which I think give a good tip as to who will win voters round in a campaign, had him streets ahead (48-15) of Sir Keir even in the bad times, whereas Sunak was losing 26-25 a year ago, and no doubt would be losing by more now
In hindsight the Tories should have appointed a caretaker leader whilst Boris was on trial, giving him room to come back. He could always have fought the by election though
I'm not sure he's trying to be Boris-lite. I have a horrible feeling he's trying to be Boris-serious.
But he comes across as 'filler'. Like an ingredient you read on the back of a packet and your eyes glaze over. "Emulsifier' - whatever, ok. 'Contains gluten' - fine.
I had hopes that he was going to be a new Major and least be decent - but it's not played out that way. Somehow he's managed to be both bland and annoying.
On topic, let’s think through the logical steps of what Biden is doing.
He’s highlighting apparent failings in Trump’s cognitive abilities. Fair enough. After all, Trump has been pummelling him on the same issue.
But is it necessarily wise to be banging on about your opponent’s cognitive decline when most voters would say your own is more pronounced? Probably not because it brings more attention to the issue.
So it appears like there are three possible strategies here:
1. Do whatever is needed to persuade Republicans to vote Haley. Which suggests Democrats would be comfortable with her as the candidate / President - not a strategy likely to endear her to Republicans.
2. Suppress his vote by raising questions about his mental fitness but taking the risk it will highlight the problems facing you as a candidate.
3. Biden is looking beyond himself to a scenario where he steps down for a younger candidate and suddenly Trump’s age / cognitive decline no longer is a relative issue vs the two candidates but an absolute one.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
70 out of 81 PB Competition entries predicted a Labour majority, 10 prediction for NOM, and 1 for a Tory majority.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
My quiet confidence that it would win, based on its chance being to win twice if that race were run 9 times, is misplaced.
IMHO Labour getting an OM is odds on - and of course rightly so - but the value, such as there is, lies with NOM (Smarkets current reckon that at 16%).
But a Labour OM is such a massive turnaround, and the atmosphere so fragile, that its current 77% chance is too high. There is too much to go wrong, no upside for Labour and plenty of downside.
I feel like a fortnight is a bit soon to deliver popular conservatism to the people. I'd expect it to catch on about 1 year into Labour's second term.
This is inspiring front-page copy though :
If you want to apply for a ticket to join the launch of Popular Conservatism please fill in the form on this page. Successful applicants will be contacted by email with further information including venue and address.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
70 out of 81 PB Competition entries predicted a Labour majority, 10 prediction for NOM, and 1 for a Tory majority.
I feel like a fortnight is a bit soon to deliver popular conservatism to the people. I'd expect it to catch on about 1 year into Labour's second term.
This is inspiring front-page copy though :
If you want to apply for a ticket to join the launch of Popular Conservatism please fill in the form on this page. Successful applicants will be contacted by email with further information including venue and address.
To the barricades!
To win a place at the launch event, say in no more than 100 words what it is that makes you a PopCon?
On topic, let’s think through the logical steps of what Biden is doing.
He’s highlighting apparent failings in Trump’s cognitive abilities. Fair enough. After all, Trump has been pummelling him on the same issue.
But is it necessarily wise to be banging on about your opponent’s cognitive decline when most voters would say your own is more pronounced? Probably not because it brings more attention to the issue.
So it appears like there are three possible strategies here:
1. Do whatever is needed to persuade Republicans to vote Haley. Which suggests Democrats would be comfortable with her as the candidate / President - not a strategy likely to endear her to Republicans.
2. Suppress his vote by raising questions about his mental fitness but taking the risk it will highlight the problems facing you as a candidate.
3. Biden is looking beyond himself to a scenario where he steps down for a younger candidate and suddenly Trump’s age / cognitive decline no longer is a relative issue vs the two candidates but an absolute one.
On topic, let’s think through the logical steps of what Biden is doing.
He’s highlighting apparent failings in Trump’s cognitive abilities. Fair enough. After all, Trump has been pummelling him on the same issue.
But is it necessarily wise to be banging on about your opponent’s cognitive decline when most voters would say your own is more pronounced? Probably not because it brings more attention to the issue.
So it appears like there are three possible strategies here:
1. Do whatever is needed to persuade Republicans to vote Haley. Which suggests Democrats would be comfortable with her as the candidate / President - not a strategy likely to endear her to Republicans.
2. Suppress his vote by raising questions about his mental fitness but taking the risk it will highlight the problems facing you as a candidate.
3. Biden is looking beyond himself to a scenario where he steps down for a younger candidate and suddenly Trump’s age / cognitive decline no longer is a relative issue vs the two candidates but an absolute one.
Anyone remember @MrEd? Perhaps he still clip clops among us?
Since nobody else has said it, can I be the first to note that the best way to deliver Popular Conservatism is to study what Truss did and do the opposite?
Given that she pushed the party to depths of unpopularity so low that not even RIshi Sunak has plumbed them.
Yet.
The broad goal may not have been that outrageous - they needed to renew themselves and try something different after 12 years in power after all. Planning and execution were obvious problems, but I assumed once things settled they'd probably try for Truss 2.0.
However, Sunak has been unable to settle things, so they presumably will just cut some taxes just before the election instead, like they are playing Galactic Civilizations on easy mode.
Will popular conservatism become a dictionary example of an oxymoron in years to come?
I'm not even against groups like this as a concept, but it feels like there's a lot of them so they surely overlap quite a bit. And the easy joke, which still feels true, is that they will insist they are popular even if they, as a group, do badly - like how the party will inevitably interpret a big win for Keir Starmer as a sign the voters really wanted the opposite of Keir Starmer.
On topic, let’s think through the logical steps of what Biden is doing.
He’s highlighting apparent failings in Trump’s cognitive abilities. Fair enough. After all, Trump has been pummelling him on the same issue.
But is it necessarily wise to be banging on about your opponent’s cognitive decline when most voters would say your own is more pronounced? Probably not because it brings more attention to the issue.
So it appears like there are three possible strategies here:
1. Do whatever is needed to persuade Republicans to vote Haley. Which suggests Democrats would be comfortable with her as the candidate / President - not a strategy likely to endear her to Republicans.
2. Suppress his vote by raising questions about his mental fitness but taking the risk it will highlight the problems facing you as a candidate.
3. Biden is looking beyond himself to a scenario where he steps down for a younger candidate and suddenly Trump’s age / cognitive decline no longer is a relative issue vs the two candidates but an absolute one.
Like when Michelle (60yrs) agrees to stand?
TBF, kitch’s theory is more convincing than Leon’s ‘Trump is faking dementia to sucker the Democrats’ one.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
70 out of 81 PB Competition entries predicted a Labour majority, 10 prediction for NOM, and 1 for a Tory majority.
The entire activity of betting on real events, as opposed to mechanical/electronic contingencies, is predicated upon the possibility that you can predict outcomes which do not follow the formbook even in the simplest events like a 'two horse race'. All time proves this to be sometimes true.
So, at this moment I believe in and accept the objective probability of a Labour majority but actually predict that there will be No Overall Majority. people do this all the time, and essentially they do it every time they back anyone but the favourite. Betting can't exist without this interesting phenomenon.
The way I see this year is the Tories had up to 10 months to turn around the polls meaningfully (e.g. to sub 10% leads) to have a chance of a respectable performance.
The first month of the year it looks like they'll have see gone backwards.
The clock is ticking down...
The belief 'polls would automatically narrow' was always slightly odd given there were good reasons governments outperformed mid-term polls that do not necessarily imply. Namely, that governments tended to get their unpopular stuff and have their teething problems early in a term, then ensure there were some goodies by the election.
Sunak hasn't been able to, for reasons both out of control and of the Tories' making. Hence the oddness of his messaging. You're supposed to have done the 'tough decisions' and so can do the giveaways by now. But veers between trying to sound like he is, and attempts to throw Tories red meat.
Labour is unlikely to match its biggest leads, as there's something self-correcting there in that if people believe the Tories are getting thumped some loyalists come back, and others shrug a bit.
You articulate a point I've been struggling to get across here for a while.
Whilst it is true that historically we have normally seen swingback in previous elections, there is no Iron Law that makes it happen. In fact given the peculiar circumstances in which we approach the next GE (surely now nailed on for the autumn) there is as much likelihood of swingmore as swingback.
You really cannot say at this stage which is the more probable.
I think part of swingback is that inevitably the opposition get exposed to a lot more scrutiny in the run up to the election, especially when it looks nailed on that they will win. At the moment Starmer and labour are content to say ‘we are not the Tories’ and that’s enough, but it won’t be forever. Add in the solitary moment in the voting booth when voters who have loudly proclaimed that this time they will vote for X, but actually at the last minute stick with Y.
I’m still struck by the contrast of the polls, which have seen huge and pretty static labour leads for a year and the available money on Betfair for a labour majority. Clearly punters think swingback is coming.
There’s nothing to swingback to. The party they voted for has gone. It’s like The Doors without Jim Morrison, or Oasis without Liam Gallagher
The only thing I can think of is that Sir Keir’s Wallyness might push some voters back, but there’d more likely go to Reform, particularly if Farage is leader
Oasis without Liam Gallagher is generous - if the 2019 Tory party was Oasis, the 2024 version is a third rate tribute band where the previous lead singer was replaced by someone with a transit van to transport the kit.
But is it necessarily wise to be banging on about your opponent’s cognitive decline when most voters would say your own is more pronounced? Probably not because it brings more attention to the issue.
It's not complicated. If the voters think you've got a problem, your opponent has the problem way worse, and the voters don't know that your opponent has the problem, you should show the voters that your opponent has the problem.
Trump's brain appears to have turned to pudding, there is loads of footage of this, and the media don't talk about it because they never made a narrative around it and they sort of don't expect Trump to make sense. Meanwhile there's so little evidence of Biden suffering cognitive decline that Trump supporters have to circulate fake clips. He absolutely can and should win on this issue.
He has a problem if Nikki Haley wins the GOP race but that now seems unlikely.
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one
And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
70 out of 81 PB Competition entries predicted a Labour majority, 10 prediction for NOM, and 1 for a Tory majority.
IIRC no-one at all predicted a Lab majority of the scale indicated by Baxtering their best current polling figures.
Ukraine’s ammo shortage becoming more difficult by the day. Around Bakhmut an M109 position we visited only got smoke rounds. The division commander says the current ratio is 10:1 in favor of the Russians. Still Ukrainian troops are holding on https://twitter.com/fpleitgenCNN/status/1749519849074639180
The Republican party is now actively supporting the Russian invasion, whether they’re too stupid to realise it, or actually malign.
Will popular conservatism become a dictionary example of an oxymoron in years to come?
I'm not even against groups like this as a concept, but it feels like there's a lot of them so they surely overlap quite a bit. And the easy joke, which still feels true, is that they will insist they are popular even if they, as a group, do badly - like how the party will inevitably interpret a big win for Keir Starmer as a sign the voters really wanted the opposite of Keir Starmer.
I do wonder if some of the folk who loudly insist that Rwanda is the will of the British people actually believe it. I imagine they’re the..er..simpler souls among us.
Ukraine’s ammo shortage becoming more difficult by the day. Around Bakhmut an M109 position we visited only got smoke rounds. The division commander says the current ratio is 10:1 in favor of the Russians. Still Ukrainian troops are holding on https://twitter.com/fpleitgenCNN/status/1749519849074639180
The Republican party is now actively supporting the Russian invasion, whether they’re too stupid to realise it, or actually malign.
Even more stupid is the disgraced former Prime Minister and friend of Ukraine who has just given his (pretty much worthless) backing to DJ Trump.
One reason for not backing Lab Maj at 1.27 is that, although you think they will achieve it, you also think the odds will get bigger at some point. Maybe a bit of swing back (although I’m not sure it exists in this parliament), more likely Sir Keir looks wooden & old, a pale, stale, male in the campaign, compared to Rishi being energetic & youthful. At one point RS was considered ‘dishy’ and a smooth customer, maybe right now is a low as his ratings will go?
So Lab still get the majority, but it trades 1.6 or something
One reason for not backing Lab Maj at 1.27 is that, although you think they will achieve it, you also think the odds will get bigger at some point. Maybe a bit of swing back (although I’m not sure it exists in this parliament), more likely Sir Keir looks wooden & old, a pale, stale, male in the campaign, compared to Rishi being energetic & youthful. At one point RS was considered ‘dishy’ and a smooth customer, maybe right now is a low as his ratings will go?
So Lab still get the majority, but it trades 1.6 or something
A guy who voted against Biden’s infrastructure bill which provided this funding.
I'm proud to announce that Duluth, MN and Superior, WI have received over 1 billion in federal funding to help replace the Blatnik Bridge. This is a HUGE win for #MN08 and I was proud to advocate for these funds! https://twitter.com/RepPeteStauber/status/1749491287160459605
Fairly typical of the Republican party in Congress.
One reason for not backing Lab Maj at 1.27 is that, although you think they will achieve it, you also think the odds will get bigger at some point. Maybe a bit of swing back (although I’m not sure it exists in this parliament), more likely Sir Keir looks wooden & old, a pale, stale, male in the campaign, compared to Rishi being energetic & youthful. At one point RS was considered ‘dishy’ and a smooth customer, maybe right now is a low as his ratings will go?
So Lab still get the majority, but it trades 1.6 or something
Less of the old please. He's younger than me.
Sir Keir was a very handsome man right up to his late forties from what I can see; he looked much younger than he actually was then. It’s unreal how he has aged since giving up the DPP job/becoming an MP
One reason for not backing Lab Maj at 1.27 is that, although you think they will achieve it, you also think the odds will get bigger at some point. Maybe a bit of swing back (although I’m not sure it exists in this parliament), more likely Sir Keir looks wooden & old, a pale, stale, male in the campaign, compared to Rishi being energetic & youthful. At one point RS was considered ‘dishy’ and a smooth customer, maybe right now is a low as his ratings will go?
So Lab still get the majority, but it trades 1.6 or something
Yes, this may work until and unless Sunak actually has to engage with the public which didn't go well last week. Presumably between hiding in a fridge (been done) or being completely surrounded by loyal Tories (ditto) for the duration of the campaign can and will be his only options.
Will a debate with Starmer work to his advantage? Could do until and unless he has to answer question on the Government's record.
1.27 might look generous by polling day - could be 1.01 by then. Of course, 1.01 chances don't always win - ask anyone who trades on horse racing.
'An extra 2.2 million overseas voters who have lived abroad for more than 15 years regained the right to vote in UK elections last Tuesday, after a statutory instrument that was approved by parliament in late December almost unnoticed came into force.
The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident.
They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.
The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.
Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud.'
Do I not like the sound of this.
"Our chaps need a helping hand, Labour are miles ahead. Can we put you down for Don Valley?"
No one who has lived outside this country for 15 years or more* - unless it was on specific UK Government business or armed forces - should have the right to vote in a UK election. If they want to vote they should move back to the UK permanently.
*Personally I would prefer if that were reduced to less than 10 years
If you read Pippa Crear's article it all smells a bit whiffy. 2.2m extra predominantly Tory voters placed in marginal seats by CCHQ could turn the election on its head.
The Conservatives could be way down in percentage points but smashing the seats won out of the park.
Trebles all 'round!
It's more than a bit whiffy but they have to get people to register and then vote Tory
Reality is - this scheme needs to be binned when Labour gets in and replaced with if you aren't in the country you don't get a say...
Or Labour could let us keep our votes and get their shit together to get Labour supporters back on the electoral register as well?
I know there was a time when the Tories were the party of international capitalism but those days are gone, the Tories are suspicious of anything foreign, the people in little British retirement enclaves in Spain have been deported thanks to Brexit and the Tories are trying to split us up from our families in the event that we had to move back to Britain to look after relatives or whatever. Labour shouldn't need to be defensive about this.
I haven't had any communication from them about the fact that I can now register despite being a member of the Labour Party. All I ever get from them is emails about branch meetings in Australia.
Ukraine’s ammo shortage becoming more difficult by the day. Around Bakhmut an M109 position we visited only got smoke rounds. The division commander says the current ratio is 10:1 in favor of the Russians. Still Ukrainian troops are holding on https://twitter.com/fpleitgenCNN/status/1749519849074639180
The Republican party is now actively supporting the Russian invasion, whether they’re too stupid to realise it, or actually malign.
Even more stupid is the disgraced former Prime Minister and friend of Ukraine who has just given his (pretty much worthless) backing to DJ Trump.
On the unlikely but off chance Boris has even the partial ear of Trump and can somehow warm him to the charms of Zelenskyy, writing something supportive (which everyone will ignore anyway) is a small price to pay.
One reason for not backing Lab Maj at 1.27 is that, although you think they will achieve it, you also think the odds will get bigger at some point. Maybe a bit of swing back (although I’m not sure it exists in this parliament), more likely Sir Keir looks wooden & old, a pale, stale, male in the campaign, compared to Rishi being energetic & youthful. At one point RS was considered ‘dishy’ and a smooth customer, maybe right now is a low as his ratings will go?
So Lab still get the majority, but it trades 1.6 or something
Yes, this may work until and unless Sunak actually has to engage with the public which didn't go well last week. Presumably between hiding in a fridge (been done) or being completely surrounded by loyal Tories (ditto) for the duration of the campaign can and will be his only options.
Will a debate with Starmer work to his advantage? Could do until and unless he has to answer question on the Government's record.
1.27 might look generous by polling day - could be 1.01 by then. Of course, 1.01 chances don't always win - ask anyone who trades on horse racing.
I’m not suggesting doing it, just trying to come up with a reason why everyone’s not smashing into the ‘free money’
Ukraine’s ammo shortage becoming more difficult by the day. Around Bakhmut an M109 position we visited only got smoke rounds. The division commander says the current ratio is 10:1 in favor of the Russians. Still Ukrainian troops are holding on https://twitter.com/fpleitgenCNN/status/1749519849074639180
The Republican party is now actively supporting the Russian invasion, whether they’re too stupid to realise it, or actually malign.
Even more stupid is the disgraced former Prime Minister and friend of Ukraine who has just given his (pretty much worthless) backing to DJ Trump.
Unless there's data otherwise I expect the ex pats to be more left wing than people expect (which I think is coloured by memories like @noneoftheabove's grandparents' friends - a description I too recognise very well.
Firstly there's the ones affected by Brexit.
Secondly the ones otherwise affected by immigration policy (how many are living abroad as they cannot take their family back?
Thirdly they don't have to take the consequences of any tax increases but they do get to "enjoy" our public services when they come back to visit.
Younger son is on his way atm from Thailand for a short, mainly business, visit. He’s not happy about the difficulties around bringing his Thai wife over here, and the costs his children might face if they try to come here for University. I’ll see what he says about voting for Priti Patel when he arrives!
One reason for not backing Lab Maj at 1.27 is that, although you think they will achieve it, you also think the odds will get bigger at some point. Maybe a bit of swing back (although I’m not sure it exists in this parliament), more likely Sir Keir looks wooden & old, a pale, stale, male in the campaign, compared to Rishi being energetic & youthful. At one point RS was considered ‘dishy’ and a smooth customer, maybe right now is a low as his ratings will go?
So Lab still get the majority, but it trades 1.6 or something
Less of the old please. He's younger than me.
Sir Keir was a very handsome man right up to his late forties from what I can see; he looked much younger than he actually was then. It’s unreal how he has aged since giving up the DPP job/becoming an MP
About 50 here
55 to 60 is when men visibly age. As I know only too well.
One reason for not backing Lab Maj at 1.27 is that, although you think they will achieve it, you also think the odds will get bigger at some point. Maybe a bit of swing back (although I’m not sure it exists in this parliament), more likely Sir Keir looks wooden & old, a pale, stale, male in the campaign, compared to Rishi being energetic & youthful. At one point RS was considered ‘dishy’ and a smooth customer, maybe right now is a low as his ratings will go?
So Lab still get the majority, but it trades 1.6 or something
Less of the old please. He's younger than me.
Sir Keir was a very handsome man right up to his late forties from what I can see; he looked much younger than he actually was then. It’s unreal how he has aged since giving up the DPP job/becoming an MP
About 50 here
I think he looks rather better now actually. The grey hair now looks a bit more natural; it has caught up with the lack of eyebrows. He looks a bit severe (imo) in the shot you've posted. Bit like Duncan Goodhew in a wig. Perhaps I'm just more used to how he looks now.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews The real story here: Labour is ahead but has stopped gaining from Tories - Tory decline now entirely due to cannibalization by Reform UK. All it takes is for them to yet again pull out at last minute and a lot of those votes go to "don't know/lean Tory" - Labour has more work to appeal to 2019 Tories who are Reform curious
Comments
We've reached the bottom of the barrel, minister-wise.
The latter possibility is not entirely implausible. Betfair's 2.6 still looks decent value to me.
Two very different and not quite so different polls this evening. A gap of six points in the Conservative share between R&W and Deltapoll not easy to explain - the Deltapoll has Reform four down on R&W and the Liberal Democrats two down on R&W so that's the where but I still don't see the why beyond the usual double act of sampling and methodology.
The difference also reflected in the Con/Ref vs Lab/LD/Green breakdown which for R&W is 34-62 and for Deltapoll is 36-59 so not such a big difference. This split in 2019 was 48-47 so it's a 12% swing with Deltapoll and a 14.5% swing with R&W.
Both pollsters have produced significant outliers in the past so it's equally possible both could be "wrong".
Nonetheless, the Labour lead remains substantial (15-20 points) with less than 10 months to go (presumably). The "hope" for Conservatives must be in an economic upturn with tax cuts, falling inflation and falling energy prices. Will it make a difference? Perhaps - it hasn't yet.
The other problem for the Conservatives can be summed up in two words - Rishi Sunak. Perhaps, as Labor found in New Zealand, a last minute change of leader might create a new popularity. The trouble is, four Prime Ministers over a Parliament looks messy and why should a new leader suddenly make a difference as it will almost be someone closely associated with the current policies?
If you go for 300-330, you're wasting your time, because they still get washed away in a tsunami election, which seems to be where we're heading.
If you go for the seats where it might make a difference (200-230? 150-180?), you're already conceding defeat.
Spread it over too many seats, and it's too diffuse to be useful.
Doesn't make it right, though
BREAKING: The House of Lords has defied Rishi Sunak to vote against the ratification of the UK's new treaty with Rwanda - in what could prove a damaging development for the Safety of Rwanda Bill
But that’s incredibly unlikely. Seems they’re up a gumtree to put it mildly. What an incredible collapse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituencies_for_French_residents_overseas
The government isn’t bound by this but because the Treaty is needed for the Rwanda Bill then it could cause problems for them when the HOL comes to debate and vote on that .
https://twitter.com/dohanews/status/1747181583088373951
My depressing experience of expats is that they are too concerned about the next g&t to think about voting in an election on a faraway island.
Then @Roger , with the greatest of respect, you are demented.
That's two leaps of the imagination.
I thought the ex-pats used to be able to vote in European Parliamentary elections and both the Conservative and Labour parties had organisations overseas.
Harry Shindler, who died last year, fought in the battle of Anzio in 1944. He is being remembered as part of 80th anniversary celebrations in the region"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/italy-hails-british-veteran-who-fought-for-expatriate-voting-right-3dxmjk5h6
I expect the Tories to go into meltdown and their arse licking press to become even more unhinged in their attacks on the BBC .
This is an undemocratic and unprincipled decision by a frankly desperate government.
Years ago I met someone who was campaigning for Sarkozy's party in the constituency containing the UK. He must have lost because unexpectedly all the expats voted Socialist according to the Wikipedia article I linked.Maybe the same will happen here and Starmer will get a boost.
https://x.com/faaabianskiii/status/1749403013918417026?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Firstly there's the ones affected by Brexit.
Secondly the ones otherwise affected by immigration policy (how many are living abroad as they cannot take their family back?
Thirdly they don't have to take the consequences of any tax increases but they do get to "enjoy" our public services when they come back to visit.
+1% Deltapoll (15 Jan Lab lead = 16%; 22 Jan Lab lead =17%)
+4% R&W
+3% We Think
-2% Techne
+4% YouGov
+1% Lord Ashcroft (albeit, previous poll was 2 months ago)
-2% Savanta
+1% Opinium
0% (n/c) More in Common
From that, I'd suggest the Labour lead is edging upwards.
That Labour lead averages 19.7% for all polls conducted this year and 22% for polls conducted in the past week, so I think talk of a lead of 15-20% is out of date. The Labour lead is currently a fairly solid 20%.
Chess prodigy Aditya Verma goes on trial for easyJet bomb hoax
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2bae7959-b683-4ded-ab2a-50a9c7768411?shareToken=2303743e5fd669e5383aaef7db110967
And yet, there's a nervousness about saying that.
Liz Truss one of four former cabinet ministers launching a new movement to deliver popular conservatism in a fortnight’s time. See https://www.popularconservatism.com/
Jan 22, 2024 · 11:51 AM UTC
https://nitter.net/JAHeale/status/1749399444871676140#m
But when there are multiple examples of tweaking rules - voter ID, forcing mayoralties to be FPTP etc - only some of which were committments, then even if individually not unreasonable it can start to look like an attempt to lean a thumb on the scales.
2010 Con Maj
2015 NOM
2016 Remain
2017 Con Maj
2019 NOM
It's a shame he had to leave us but I am doing my best to take his place until one day he comes back.
Given that she pushed the party to depths of unpopularity so low that not even RIshi Sunak has plumbed them.
Yet.
But he comes across as 'filler'. Like an ingredient you read on the back of a packet and your eyes glaze over. "Emulsifier' - whatever, ok. 'Contains gluten' - fine.
I had hopes that he was going to be a new Major and least be decent - but it's not played out that way. Somehow he's managed to be both bland and annoying.
He’s highlighting apparent failings in Trump’s cognitive abilities. Fair enough. After all, Trump has been pummelling him on the same issue.
But is it necessarily wise to be banging on about your opponent’s cognitive decline when most voters would say your own is more pronounced? Probably not because it brings more attention to the issue.
So it appears like there are three
possible strategies here:
1. Do whatever is needed to persuade Republicans to vote Haley. Which suggests Democrats would be comfortable with her as the candidate / President - not a strategy likely to endear her to Republicans.
2. Suppress his vote by raising questions about his mental fitness but taking the risk it will highlight the problems facing you as a candidate.
3. Biden is looking beyond himself to a scenario where he steps down for a younger candidate and suddenly Trump’s age / cognitive decline no longer is a relative issue vs the two candidates but an absolute one.
IMHO Labour getting an OM is odds on - and of course rightly so - but the value, such as there is, lies with NOM (Smarkets current reckon that at 16%).
But a Labour OM is such a massive turnaround, and the atmosphere so fragile, that its current 77% chance is too high. There is too much to go wrong, no upside for Labour and plenty of downside.
To win a place at the launch event, say in no more than 100 words what it is that makes you a PopCon?
She's over there...
However, Sunak has been unable to settle things, so they presumably will just cut some taxes just before the election instead, like they are playing Galactic Civilizations on easy mode.
So, at this moment I believe in and accept the objective probability of a Labour majority but actually predict that there will be No Overall Majority. people do this all the time, and essentially they do it every time they back anyone but the favourite. Betting can't exist without this interesting phenomenon.
Trump's brain appears to have turned to pudding, there is loads of footage of this, and the media don't talk about it because they never made a narrative around it and they sort of don't expect Trump to make sense. Meanwhile there's so little evidence of Biden suffering cognitive decline that Trump supporters have to circulate fake clips. He absolutely can and should win on this issue.
He has a problem if Nikki Haley wins the GOP race but that now seems unlikely.
https://twitter.com/fpleitgenCNN/status/1749519849074639180
The Republican party is now actively supporting the Russian invasion, whether they’re too stupid to realise it, or actually malign.
And I thought you were the TRUSS fan?
So Lab still get the majority, but it trades 1.6 or something
I’m the organiser.
More like popcorn.
I'm proud to announce that Duluth, MN and Superior, WI have received over 1 billion in federal funding to help replace the Blatnik Bridge. This is a HUGE win for #MN08 and I was proud to advocate for these funds!
https://twitter.com/RepPeteStauber/status/1749491287160459605
Fairly typical of the Republican party in Congress.
About 50 here
Will a debate with Starmer work to his advantage? Could do until and unless he has to answer question on the Government's record.
1.27 might look generous by polling day - could be 1.01 by then. Of course, 1.01 chances don't always win - ask anyone who trades on horse racing.
I know there was a time when the Tories were the party of international capitalism but those days are gone, the Tories are suspicious of anything foreign, the people in little British retirement enclaves in Spain have been deported thanks to Brexit and the Tories are trying to split us up from our families in the event that we had to move back to Britain to look after relatives or whatever. Labour shouldn't need to be defensive about this.
I haven't had any communication from them about the fact that I can now register despite being a member of the Labour Party. All I ever get from them is emails about branch meetings in Australia.
Whereas the US cutting off arms supplies is already having serious consequences at the front.
https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1749529940570091740
New Thread
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-government-whatsapp-channel-to-provide-public-information
I’ll see what he says about voting for Priti Patel when he arrives!
Paul Mason
@paulmasonnews
The real story here: Labour is ahead but has stopped gaining from Tories - Tory decline now entirely due to cannibalization by Reform UK. All it takes is for them to yet again pull out at last minute and a lot of those votes go to "don't know/lean Tory" - Labour has more work to appeal to 2019 Tories who are Reform curious