The sum of all Keirs – politicalbetting.com

System · April 3

The sum of all Keirs – politicalbetting.com

Major Tory figures who would lose their seats if our new MRP results came to pass include Jeremy Hunt, Penny Mordaunt, Michelle Donelan, David TC Davies, Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg.https://t.co/OsyOEUzb0L pic.twitter.com/iAfIoQTtdD

Read the full story here

SandyRentool · April 3

No!

ydoethur · April 3

You know, I’ve been thinking about the last thread header.

With polls like this, wouldn’t it have been better to call it’Rishi looks like a muppet?’

Not that I expect Labour to get 400 seats.

ClippP · April 3

First

williamglenn · April 3

Will it be a Red October election?

eek · April 3

ydoethur said:
You know, I’ve been thinking about the last thread header.

With polls like this, wouldn’t it have been better to call it’Rishi looks like a muppet?’

Not that I expect Labour to get 400 seats.

Why not - if you look at it from the other direction where are the Tories going to retain their seats?

bondegezou · April 3

How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?

SandyRentool · April 3

williamglenn said:
Will it be a Red October election?

A December election:

"A new dawn has broken - but not until 9am."

viewcode · April 3

"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")

Stuartinromford · April 3

FPT:

Stuartinromford said:
Meanwhile, for fans of the long view, this is gorgeous. Government lead in every opinion poll since 1945;

https://willjennings.substack.com/p/this-time-is-different

Swingback theory predicts a U shaped graph. (Maggie's U between 1983 and 1987 is a thing of beauty.) Rishi, on the other hand, has resolutely failed to swing.

The really remarkable thing about this election runup is the lack of any discernable swingback. In most cycles, the gears shift a couple of years from polling day. Even Major got some improvement from about 1995. This time, nada since the "ding dong the lettuce is dead" bouncelet.

At most, there are 300 days until the next election.

viewcode · April 3

bondegezou said:
How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?

MRP is a multi-stage process. They take a poll and deduce the likelihood of people in each socioeconomic group to vote. They then work out how many people are in each group in each constituency. They apply the one to the other and predict the votes in each constituency for each party. They then work out who wins each constituency.

TheScreamingEagles · April 3

viewcode said:
"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")

Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle pun in the headline.

Pagan2 · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")
Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle pun in the headline.

Though wasn't churchill referring to the chiefs of staff of each armed service and frankly I doubt any of them were audacious, gallant or intrepid because they had grown old and wanted to live

bondegezou · April 3

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:
How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?
MRP is a multi-stage process. They take a poll and deduce the likelihood of people in each socioeconomic group to vote. They then work out how many people are in each group in each constituency. They apply the one to the other and predict the votes in each constituency for each party. They then work out who wins each constituency.

But doesn't the modelling somewhere use the result last time (or notional result given boundary changes)?

williamglenn · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")
Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle pun in the headline.

Somebody didn’t spot mine.

RochdalePioneers · April 3

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")
Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle pun in the headline.
Somebody didn’t spot mine.

I did. And chuckled.

Mexicanpete · April 3

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:

eristdoof said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mexicanpete said:
...
BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Taz said:
Former Blair era National Security Adviser demands a stop to arms sales to Israel.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/halting-arms-sales-to-israel-would-send-powerful-message-says-former-diplomat/ar-BB1kZVtp?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=90392a3b7fe44b21b8b33591a26132d4&ei=16
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?

They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.

The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
Precisely what the Times of Israel reports.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-sorry-as-details-emerge-of-strike-that-picked-off-gaza-aid-cars-one-by-one/
...Meanwhile, on Tuesday evening, the Haaretz daily spoke to unnamed military sources who revealed that the cause of the strike was undisciplined, rogue commanders, not a lack of coordination between the IDF and the WCK.

A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”

Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.

But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.

The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.

“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Is this the same Mrs Thatcher who claimed the ANC were a terrorist organisation? Colour me skeptical but I don't believe she was twinned with Donald Woods.
You could ask Nelson Mandela.

And her feelings were clear . At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in 1985, she said: “I couldn’t stand being excluded or discriminated against because of the colour of my own skin. And if you can’t stand a colour bar against yourself, you can’t stand it against anyone else.” Asked by the leading Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, what was the difference between the ANC and the IRA, Thatcher’s answer was: “The IRA have the vote, the ANC do not.”

and

Afterwards, Mandela told me that the prime minister was a “woman he could do business with”. At his press conference that afternoon, choosing his words with heavy emphasis, Mandela declared that Thatcher “is an enemy of apartheid”. Their only differences were over the methods of inducing the South African government to dismantle the system.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11403728/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-campaign-to-end-apartheid.html

Perhaps we can contextualise Mrs Thatcher's largely positive role in promoting the very end of Apartheid.

It would seem her role was from a transactional rather than a moral perspective.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

Actually in upside down world, Keir Starmer is on track to lose after St Jeremy won.

That is what Stats for Lefties is literally claiming.

viewcode · April 3

bondegezou said:

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:
How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?
MRP is a multi-stage process. They take a poll and deduce the likelihood of people in each socioeconomic group to vote. They then work out how many people are in each group in each constituency. They apply the one to the other and predict the votes in each constituency for each party. They then work out who wins each constituency.
But doesn't the modelling somewhere use the result last time (or notional result given boundary changes)?

IIUC, no.

londonpubman · April 3

This poll still indicates a substantial bloc of CON left to rebuild for 2029 and/or 2034

TheScreamingEagles · April 3

Mexicanpete said:
FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:

eristdoof said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mexicanpete said:
...
BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Taz said:
Former Blair era National Security Adviser demands a stop to arms sales to Israel.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/halting-arms-sales-to-israel-would-send-powerful-message-says-former-diplomat/ar-BB1kZVtp?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=90392a3b7fe44b21b8b33591a26132d4&ei=16
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?

They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.

The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
Precisely what the Times of Israel reports.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-sorry-as-details-emerge-of-strike-that-picked-off-gaza-aid-cars-one-by-one/
...Meanwhile, on Tuesday evening, the Haaretz daily spoke to unnamed military sources who revealed that the cause of the strike was undisciplined, rogue commanders, not a lack of coordination between the IDF and the WCK.

A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”

Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.

But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.

The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.

“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Is this the same Mrs Thatcher who claimed the ANC were a terrorist organisation? Colour me skeptical but I don't believe she was twinned with Donald Woods.
You could ask Nelson Mandela.

And her feelings were clear . At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in 1985, she said: “I couldn’t stand being excluded or discriminated against because of the colour of my own skin. And if you can’t stand a colour bar against yourself, you can’t stand it against anyone else.” Asked by the leading Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, what was the difference between the ANC and the IRA, Thatcher’s answer was: “The IRA have the vote, the ANC do not.”

and

Afterwards, Mandela told me that the prime minister was a “woman he could do business with”. At his press conference that afternoon, choosing his words with heavy emphasis, Mandela declared that Thatcher “is an enemy of apartheid”. Their only differences were over the methods of inducing the South African government to dismantle the system.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11403728/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-campaign-to-end-apartheid.html
Perhaps we can contextualise Mrs Thatcher's largely positive role in promoting the very end of Apartheid.

It would seem her role was from a transactional rather than a moral perspective.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela

Sickening that the Guardian are using Thatcher's dementia to smear her.

Like I said on the previous thread you and the Guardian know more about Thatcher's role in ending apartheid than Nelson Mandela.

Chris · April 3

"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.

SeaShantyIrish2 · April 3

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")
Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle pun in the headline.
Though wasn't churchill referring to the chiefs of staff of each armed service and frankly I doubt any of them were audacious, gallant or intrepid because they had grown old and wanted to live

WSC was referring to WW2 CoSs. Old, yes.

Of course Alan Brooke in particular DID curb the PM's enthusiasm from time to time, sometimes on a daily (if not hourly) basis.

As when he convinced Winston NOT to commit MORE British troops & etc. AFTER Dunkirk, to the fool's errand of attempting to prop up the French military & govt.

WSC - "But the French will feel we are deserting them." (I paraphrase, but not much.)

AB - "A corpse cannot feel."

ydoethur · April 3

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")
Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle pun in the headline.
Somebody didn’t spot mine.

There have been precisely Jack subtle puns on this thread so far.

Stuartinromford · April 3

williamglenn said:
Will it be a Red October election?

Only if the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces his support for it.

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

My God the Israeli Government are scum.

"We grieve with them."

You killed them!

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1775240996458045671

Chris · April 3

bondegezou said:
How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?

I think the idea of an opinion poll is that they calculate predictions of votes based on what people tell them about who they are going to vote for.

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

Stuartinromford said:

williamglenn said:
Will it be a Red October election?
Only if the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces his support for it.

Is John McDonnell making a comeback?

bondegezou · April 3

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:
How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?
MRP is a multi-stage process. They take a poll and deduce the likelihood of people in each socioeconomic group to vote. They then work out how many people are in each group in each constituency. They apply the one to the other and predict the votes in each constituency for each party. They then work out who wins each constituency.
But doesn't the modelling somewhere use the result last time (or notional result given boundary changes)?
IIUC, no.

In the previous PB thread, an MRP prediction had a figure for the Ashfield Independents. Anything based on national polling would struggle to capture the Ashfield Independents vote with much precision. Which leads me to think they are using previous results.

https://theweekinpolls.substack.com/p/mrp-what-it-is-and-why-it-may-or implies they are using previous results (as it talks about swing).

Carnyx · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:
FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:

eristdoof said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mexicanpete said:
...
BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Taz said:
Former Blair era National Security Adviser demands a stop to arms sales to Israel.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/halting-arms-sales-to-israel-would-send-powerful-message-says-former-diplomat/ar-BB1kZVtp?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=90392a3b7fe44b21b8b33591a26132d4&ei=16
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?

They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.

The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
Precisely what the Times of Israel reports.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-sorry-as-details-emerge-of-strike-that-picked-off-gaza-aid-cars-one-by-one/
...Meanwhile, on Tuesday evening, the Haaretz daily spoke to unnamed military sources who revealed that the cause of the strike was undisciplined, rogue commanders, not a lack of coordination between the IDF and the WCK.

A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”

Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.

But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.

The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.

“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Is this the same Mrs Thatcher who claimed the ANC were a terrorist organisation? Colour me skeptical but I don't believe she was twinned with Donald Woods.
You could ask Nelson Mandela.

And her feelings were clear . At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in 1985, she said: “I couldn’t stand being excluded or discriminated against because of the colour of my own skin. And if you can’t stand a colour bar against yourself, you can’t stand it against anyone else.” Asked by the leading Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, what was the difference between the ANC and the IRA, Thatcher’s answer was: “The IRA have the vote, the ANC do not.”

and

Afterwards, Mandela told me that the prime minister was a “woman he could do business with”. At his press conference that afternoon, choosing his words with heavy emphasis, Mandela declared that Thatcher “is an enemy of apartheid”. Their only differences were over the methods of inducing the South African government to dismantle the system.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11403728/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-campaign-to-end-apartheid.html
Perhaps we can contextualise Mrs Thatcher's largely positive role in promoting the very end of Apartheid.

It would seem her role was from a transactional rather than a moral perspective.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela
Sickening that the Guardian are using Thatcher's dementia to smear her.

Like I said on the previous thread you and the Guardian know more about Thatcher's role in ending apartheid than Nelson Mandela.

Didn't read it as smearing her - she comes out well. Just the bit at the end, the odd incident when the chap didn't realise why she couldn't remember. IIRC [edit] her illness was kept pretty secret at the time.

eek · April 3

londonpubman said:
This poll still indicates a substantial bloc of CON left to rebuild for 2029 and/or 2034

Problem with MRP is how it handles tactical voting compared to Tories seating the election out.

I can see the Tories getting anywhere between 25 and 200 seats depending on the above factors....

bondegezou · April 3

Chris said:

bondegezou said:
How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?
I think the idea of an opinion poll is that they calculate predictions of votes based on what people tell them about who they are going to vote for.

An opinion poll does that, but these MRPs are translating opinion into predicted results on a constituency by constituency basis.

ydoethur · April 3

bondegezou said:

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:
How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?
MRP is a multi-stage process. They take a poll and deduce the likelihood of people in each socioeconomic group to vote. They then work out how many people are in each group in each constituency. They apply the one to the other and predict the votes in each constituency for each party. They then work out who wins each constituency.
But doesn't the modelling somewhere use the result last time (or notional result given boundary changes)?
IIUC, no.
In the previous PB thread, an MRP prediction had a figure for the Ashfield Independents. Anything based on national polling would struggle to capture the Ashfield Independents vote with much precision. Which leads me to think they are using previous results.

https://theweekinpolls.substack.com/p/mrp-what-it-is-and-why-it-may-or implies they are using previous results (as it talks about swing).

The Ashfield Independents currently facing trial on various criminal charges?

I’m surprised they bothered.

RochdalePioneers · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
Actually in upside down world, Keir Starmer is on track to lose after St Jeremy won.

That is what Stats for Lefties is literally claiming.

Lies for Crankies is - as their imprint shows - run on behalf of the Green Party...

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?

eek · April 3

Stuartinromford said:

williamglenn said:
Will it be a Red October election?
Only if the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces his support for it.

And not if they want to attempt to do another NI tax cut - there wouldn't be time for the cut to be implemented and paid in an October election...

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

RochdalePioneers said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
Actually in upside down world, Keir Starmer is on track to lose after St Jeremy won.

That is what Stats for Lefties is literally claiming.
Lies for Crankies is - as their imprint shows - run on behalf of the Green Party...

I call it Stats for Communists but also like Lies for Crankies - can I pinch that one?

They are a crank outfit. Every Tweet they make ages like milk.

Mexicanpete · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:
FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:

eristdoof said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mexicanpete said:
...
BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Taz said:
Former Blair era National Security Adviser demands a stop to arms sales to Israel.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/halting-arms-sales-to-israel-would-send-powerful-message-says-former-diplomat/ar-BB1kZVtp?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=90392a3b7fe44b21b8b33591a26132d4&ei=16
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?

They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.

The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
Precisely what the Times of Israel reports.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-sorry-as-details-emerge-of-strike-that-picked-off-gaza-aid-cars-one-by-one/
...Meanwhile, on Tuesday evening, the Haaretz daily spoke to unnamed military sources who revealed that the cause of the strike was undisciplined, rogue commanders, not a lack of coordination between the IDF and the WCK.

A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”

Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.

But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.

The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.

“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Is this the same Mrs Thatcher who claimed the ANC were a terrorist organisation? Colour me skeptical but I don't believe she was twinned with Donald Woods.
You could ask Nelson Mandela.

And her feelings were clear . At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in 1985, she said: “I couldn’t stand being excluded or discriminated against because of the colour of my own skin. And if you can’t stand a colour bar against yourself, you can’t stand it against anyone else.” Asked by the leading Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, what was the difference between the ANC and the IRA, Thatcher’s answer was: “The IRA have the vote, the ANC do not.”

and

Afterwards, Mandela told me that the prime minister was a “woman he could do business with”. At his press conference that afternoon, choosing his words with heavy emphasis, Mandela declared that Thatcher “is an enemy of apartheid”. Their only differences were over the methods of inducing the South African government to dismantle the system.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11403728/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-campaign-to-end-apartheid.html
Perhaps we can contextualise Mrs Thatcher's largely positive role in promoting the very end of Apartheid.

It would seem her role was from a transactional rather than a moral perspective.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela
Sickening that the Guardian are using Thatcher's dementia to smear her.

Like I said on the previous thread you and the Guardian know more about Thatcher's role in ending apartheid than Nelson Mandela.

The final statement is unfortunate and demeans an otherwise thoughtful thesis, which in a roundabout way is positive in it's analysis of Thatcher's role. It just questions her motives.

Mandela was a Statesman, whether his statement was based on simple pragmatism or an acknowledgement of Thatcher's intention to intervene is debatable. The Guardian article doesn't contradict Mandela's statement.

Anyway I still ain't gonna play Sun City.

TheScreamingEagles · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?

You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.

Chris · April 3

bondegezou said:

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:
How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?
MRP is a multi-stage process. They take a poll and deduce the likelihood of people in each socioeconomic group to vote. They then work out how many people are in each group in each constituency. They apply the one to the other and predict the votes in each constituency for each party. They then work out who wins each constituency.
But doesn't the modelling somewhere use the result last time (or notional result given boundary changes)?
IIUC, no.
In the previous PB thread, an MRP prediction had a figure for the Ashfield Independents. Anything based on national polling would struggle to capture the Ashfield Independents vote with much precision. Which leads me to think they are using previous results.

https://theweekinpolls.substack.com/p/mrp-what-it-is-and-why-it-may-or implies they are using previous results (as it talks about swing).

They're using national averages, to predict local results. It may give misleading results for particular constituencies, but that's because they aren't using previous results that may reflect particular circumstances.

carnforth · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?

Corbyn almost won.

SeaShantyIrish2 · April 3

Yet MORE Comic Relief from GOP (Grifters on Parade)

NY Daily News - Democrats push back against proposal to rename Dulles airport for Trump

Furious Democrats Tuesday pushed back hard against a Republican proposal to rename Dulles International Airport after former President Donald Trump.

Lawmakers from northern Virginia and elsewhere derisively mocked the plan introduced by GOP colleagues to put the name of the twice-impeached, four-times-indicted ex-president on the main international airport serving Washington, D.C.

“Donald Trump is facing 91 felony charges. If Republicans want to name something after him, I’d suggest they find a federal prison,” Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly said in a statement.

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Virginia, said the effort to valorize Trump reflects his authoritarian grip on the Republican Party, which he compared to that of North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un.

“They know our airport will never be named after Trump,” Beyer said. “The point is to suck up to their Dear Leader.”

The two-page bill introduced by Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, a member of the GOP House leadership serving Pennsylvania’s 14th District, would officially rename Dulles to Donald J. Trump International Airport.

“As millions fly through the airport… there is no better symbol of freedom, prosperity, and strength than hearing ‘Welcome to Trump International Airport’ as they land on American soil,” Reschenthaler said in a statement.

So far, six right-wing GOP lawmakers have co-sponsored the bill. . . .

SSI - Of course, John Foster Dulles was a notorious proto-RHINO-Libtard; for example (from his wiki bio):

He was a significant figure in the early Cold War era, who advocated an aggressive stance against communism throughout the world . . . .

. . . . [JFD]concentrated on building and strengthening Cold War alliances, most prominently the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

SSI - Anti-Communist AND pro-NATO. No wonder MAGA-maniacs spit on his memory, especially for purpose of providing yet more "oral relief" to Donald Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foster_Dulles

bondegezou · April 3

Read down https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49061-yougov-mrp-labour-now-projected-to-win-over-400-seats and it's clear that the model is using previous results (specifically the Rallings and Thrasher 2019 notional results). But nothing there explains what they do about Reform UK having stood in only selected seats last time.

TheScreamingEagles · April 3

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.

Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.

You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
Corbyn almost won.

I was a Corbyn cultist and no he didn't.

Carnyx · April 3

Mexicanpete said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:
FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:

eristdoof said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mexicanpete said:
...
BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Taz said:
Former Blair era National Security Adviser demands a stop to arms sales to Israel.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/halting-arms-sales-to-israel-would-send-powerful-message-says-former-diplomat/ar-BB1kZVtp?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=90392a3b7fe44b21b8b33591a26132d4&ei=16
Absolutely right. The Israeli Government and IDF are complete and utter scum.
Now, now Angela.
I have hesitated to use that description previously but what harm is there in saying it now?

They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.

The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
Precisely what the Times of Israel reports.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-sorry-as-details-emerge-of-strike-that-picked-off-gaza-aid-cars-one-by-one/
...Meanwhile, on Tuesday evening, the Haaretz daily spoke to unnamed military sources who revealed that the cause of the strike was undisciplined, rogue commanders, not a lack of coordination between the IDF and the WCK.

A source in the intelligence branch told Haaretz that the IDF’s Southern Command “knows exactly what the cause of the attack was: in Gaza, everyone does as they please.”

Army regulations require final approvals from division commanders or those above them before strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets such as aid convoys.

But in Gaza, “every commander makes his own rules” and his own interpretation of the rules of engagement, the source told Haaretz, which said it wasn’t clear whether the strikes on the convoy ever received final approval.

The intelligence source noted the IDF decision to establish a new coordination hub between COGAT — which facilitates aid delivery for Israel — and Southern Command but insisted that this wouldn’t solve the problem, as similar centers already exist.

“It has no connection to coordination… You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn’t decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we’ll see more incidents like this,” the source told Haaretz...
They remind me more and more of Apartheid era South Africa.
I wonder whether we will see a similar shift in sentiment in political parties. The change in what the Tories used to think about apartheid south africa to now is pretty stark.
Thatcher was vehemently anti apartheid so there’s hope.
I can't speak specifically for Thatcher, but most Tories in the 80's held the view that Mandela was rightly in jail.
Is this the same Mrs Thatcher who claimed the ANC were a terrorist organisation? Colour me skeptical but I don't believe she was twinned with Donald Woods.
You could ask Nelson Mandela.

And her feelings were clear . At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in 1985, she said: “I couldn’t stand being excluded or discriminated against because of the colour of my own skin. And if you can’t stand a colour bar against yourself, you can’t stand it against anyone else.” Asked by the leading Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, what was the difference between the ANC and the IRA, Thatcher’s answer was: “The IRA have the vote, the ANC do not.”

and

Afterwards, Mandela told me that the prime minister was a “woman he could do business with”. At his press conference that afternoon, choosing his words with heavy emphasis, Mandela declared that Thatcher “is an enemy of apartheid”. Their only differences were over the methods of inducing the South African government to dismantle the system.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11403728/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-campaign-to-end-apartheid.html
Perhaps we can contextualise Mrs Thatcher's largely positive role in promoting the very end of Apartheid.

It would seem her role was from a transactional rather than a moral perspective.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela
Sickening that the Guardian are using Thatcher's dementia to smear her.

Like I said on the previous thread you and the Guardian know more about Thatcher's role in ending apartheid than Nelson Mandela.
The final statement is unfortunate and demeans an otherwise thoughtful thesis, which in a roundabout way is positive in it's analysis of Thatcher's role. It just questions her motives.

Mandela was a Statesman, whether his statement was based on simple pragmatism or an acknowledgement of Thatcher's intention to intervene is debatable. The Guardian article doesn't contradict Mandela's statement.

Anyway I still ain't gonna play Sun City.

Mm, it could be read as a memory not motives thing: that she was unable to remember an achievement so strikingly against her normal inclinations - but tragically so. Even so, that last para was best omitted, as you say, as it's so ambiguous, as we see.

Malmesbury · April 3

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")
Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle pun in the headline.
Though wasn't churchill referring to the chiefs of staff of each armed service and frankly I doubt any of them were audacious, gallant or intrepid because they had grown old and wanted to live

I'm trying to imagine someone saying that of Admiral Cunningham.

All of the service chiefs under Churchill had fought in WWI (and much besides). Most were highly decorated.

The expression relates to the burden of command. As Churchill put it, about WWI, Jellicoe was "the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon". Which explains Jutland rather well.

Chris · April 3

bondegezou said:

Chris said:

bondegezou said:
How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?
I think the idea of an opinion poll is that they calculate predictions of votes based on what people tell them about who they are going to vote for.
An opinion poll does that, but these MRPs are translating opinion into predicted results on a constituency by constituency basis.

Based on the demographics of the constituency, I think, not on previous results.

OnlyLivingBoy · April 3

Be still my beating heart!

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.

What are your other jobs?

TheScreamingEagles · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?

It's a political maxim that been there for ages.

What you should realise is from 2019 and likely from 2024 is that a party leader can have shit ratings but still win the election if their opponent has shitter ratings.

williamglenn · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?

Who knows what will happen between now and then?

They could choose an unknown candidate and promise to put a phone mast on every street with the state providing free unlimited data for all.

Chris · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.

I'm pleased my comment was helpful.

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?
It's a political maxim that been there for ages.

What you should realise is from 2019 and likely from 2024 is that a party leader can have shit ratings but still win the election if their opponent has shitter ratings.

No need to condescend me.

I just wanted to know of your knowledge of the Tory Party, if there was anyone who you think might win and be leader?

Malmesbury · April 3

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")
Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle pun in the headline.
Though wasn't churchill referring to the chiefs of staff of each armed service and frankly I doubt any of them were audacious, gallant or intrepid because they had grown old and wanted to live
WSC was referring to WW2 CoSs. Old, yes.

Of course Alan Brooke in particular DID curb the PM's enthusiasm from time to time, sometimes on a daily (if not hourly) basis.

As when he convinced Winston NOT to commit MORE British troops & etc. AFTER Dunkirk, to the fool's errand of attempting to prop up the French military & govt.

WSC - "But the French will feel we are deserting them." (I paraphrase, but not much.)

AB - "A corpse cannot feel."

Alan Brooke had the vital job of saying no to the 99 mad ideas Churchill had each day. And pushing forward the 1 brilliant one.

Some say that he earned his peerage, more than any man since Wellington.

Part of what made Churchill, Churchill, was that he never resented the reproofs from Brooke and regarded him as indispensable.

Stuartinromford · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?

Bloody well hope not.

Best bet is some genial, cynical old codger on their way out who can make space for a new broom untainted by the current fiasco to come forward. Sort of like Howard did for Cameron. Ideally Oldcodger loses less badly in 2028 and Newbroom takes over with a chance of winning in 2032.

Leave it much longer and there won't be much left to save.

carnforth · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
Corbyn almost won.
I was a Corbyn cultist and no he didn't.

"I was too close to this to have any perspective, but here's my perspective."

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

williamglenn said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?
Who knows what will happen between now and then?

They could choose an unknown candidate and promise to put a phone mast on every street with the state providing free unlimited data for all.

Or somebody promising to remain in the EU, then about turn to saying leaving was the greatest idea in history. Or was that a different William Glenn?

SeaShantyIrish2 · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?

TSE is a part-time high-flier executive manager. AND a full-time over-priced fancy-footwear tester.

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?
TSE is a part-time high-flier executive manager. AND a full-time over-priced fancy-footwear tester.

TSE is a manager? Do we know in what sort of business?

MattW · April 3

That's quite an interesting list. A couple of weeks ago I was suggesting 4-7 to switch Tory->Lab in Notts County Seats, as one of the big majorities might survive. This makes it 7 out of 8 afaics. This is the East Midlands' list of 22 Tory->Lab switches, reproduced from Labour List. I make it 7 in Derbyshire+Derby too. The South (Leics / Northants / Ruts) stays much more Tory.

In Notts the single Tory hold is Newark, with a 22k majority today.

Notts switch Lab gain *. Derby / Derbyshire Lab gain **.

Region Constituency Expected result

** East Midlands High Peak Labour gain from Conservatives
* East Midlands Gedling Labour gain from Conservatives
East Midlands Lincoln Labour gain from Conservatives
East Midlands Northampton North Labour gain from Conservatives
** East Midlands Derby North Labour gain from Conservatives
East Midlands Corby and East Northamptonshire Labour gain from Conservatives
** East Midlands Bolsover Labour gain from Conservatives
* East Midlands Broxtowe Labour gain from Conservatives
East Midlands Loughborough Labour gain from Conservatives
** East Midlands Erewash Labour gain from Conservatives
* East Midlands Rushcliffe Labour gain from Conservatives
East Midlands Wellingborough and Rushden Labour gain from Conservatives
* East Midlands Bassetlaw Labour gain from Conservatives
East Midlands Northampton South Labour gain from Conservatives
** East Midlands North East Derbyshire Labour gain from Conservatives
* East Midlands Mansfield Labour gain from Conservatives
* East Midlands Sherwood Forest Labour gain from Conservatives
** East Midlands Amber Valley Labour gain from Conservatives
** East Midlands South Derbyshire Labour gain from Conservatives
East Midlands Kettering Labour gain from Conservatives
East Midlands North West Leicestershire Labour gain from Conservatives
* East Midlands Ashfield Labour gain from Conservatives

Summary:
"Some 25 Labour gains are projected in the West Midlands, the highest of any region, followed by 24 in the North West, 23 in the South East, 22 in the East Midlands and 21 in the East of England."

TheScreamingEagles · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?

Head of Regulatory Affairs.

Single parent.

Editor of PB.

Carer to my ill parents (nothing too serious but hey, I worry.)

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
Corbyn almost won.
I was a Corbyn cultist and no he didn't.
"I was too close to this to have any perspective, but here's my perspective."

How did Corbyn nearly win? He was literally dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of seats behind.

Stuartinromford · April 3

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

williamglenn said:
Will it be a Red October election?
Only if the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces his support for it.
And not if they want to attempt to do another NI tax cut - there wouldn't be time for the cut to be implemented and paid in an October election...

I was just angling for a subtle pun- Hunt For Red October. They'd have got it on I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue.

This is why people don't do subtle puns...

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?
Head of Regulatory Affairs.

Single parent.

Editor of PB.

Carer to my ill parents (nothing too serious but hey, I worry.)

Sorry to hear about your parents, mine are also quite old now and I worry about them too.

Malmesbury · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

williamglenn said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?
Who knows what will happen between now and then?

They could choose an unknown candidate and promise to put a phone mast on every street with the state providing free unlimited data for all.
Or somebody promising to remain in the EU, then about turn to saying leaving was the greatest idea in history. Or was that a different William Glenn?

The comment has often been made that the next PM, for a party heading for defeat, is a complete political unknown. Blair popped up rapidly, Cameron....

It is quite probable that the next Tory PM isn't in parliament.

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

williamglenn said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?
Who knows what will happen between now and then?

They could choose an unknown candidate and promise to put a phone mast on every street with the state providing free unlimited data for all.
Or somebody promising to remain in the EU, then about turn to saying leaving was the greatest idea in history. Or was that a different William Glenn?
The comment has often been made that the next PM, for a party heading for defeat, is a complete political unknown. Blair popped up rapidly, Cameron....

It is quite probable that the next Tory PM isn't in parliament.

Finally, an answer.

I agree with you, I think it will be somebody young, hip and trendy. And I will probably vote Tory then assuming Labour mess it up.

Malmesbury · April 3

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

williamglenn said:
Will it be a Red October election?
Only if the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces his support for it.
And not if they want to attempt to do another NI tax cut - there wouldn't be time for the cut to be implemented and paid in an October election...
I was just angling for a subtle pun- Hunt For Red October. They'd have got it on I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue.

This is why people don't do subtle puns...

Are you entirely Without Remorse?

SeaShantyIrish2 · April 3

Malmesbury said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")
Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle pun in the headline.
Though wasn't churchill referring to the chiefs of staff of each armed service and frankly I doubt any of them were audacious, gallant or intrepid because they had grown old and wanted to live
WSC was referring to WW2 CoSs. Old, yes.

Of course Alan Brooke in particular DID curb the PM's enthusiasm from time to time, sometimes on a daily (if not hourly) basis.

As when he convinced Winston NOT to commit MORE British troops & etc. AFTER Dunkirk, to the fool's errand of attempting to prop up the French military & govt.

WSC - "But the French will feel we are deserting them." (I paraphrase, but not much.)

AB - "A corpse cannot feel."
Alan Brooke had the vital job of saying no to the 99 mad ideas Churchill had each day. And pushing forward the 1 brilliant one.

Some say that he earned his peerage, more than any man since Wellington.

Part of what made Churchill, Churchill, was that he never resented the reproofs from Brooke and regarded him as indispensable.

However Churchill DID resent VERY much, statements from Lord Allanbrooke's diaries published AFTER the War, that WSC regarded as critical (to put it mildly) of his wartime leadership.

Malmesbury · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?
TSE is a part-time high-flier executive manager. AND a full-time over-priced fancy-footwear tester.
TSE is a manager? Do we know in what sort of business?

His business is extreme modesty & inexpensive, quiet shoes.

This is known.

williamglenn · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

williamglenn said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?
Who knows what will happen between now and then?

They could choose an unknown candidate and promise to put a phone mast on every street with the state providing free unlimited data for all.
Or somebody promising to remain in the EU, then about turn to saying leaving was the greatest idea in history. Or was that a different William Glenn?
The comment has often been made that the next PM, for a party heading for defeat, is a complete political unknown. Blair popped up rapidly, Cameron....

It is quite probable that the next Tory PM isn't in parliament.
Finally, an answer.

I agree with you, I think it will be somebody young, hip and trendy. And I will probably vote Tory then assuming Labour mess it up.

The next Conservative PM?

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?
TSE is a part-time high-flier executive manager. AND a full-time over-priced fancy-footwear tester.
TSE is a manager? Do we know in what sort of business?
His business is extreme modesty & inexpensive, quiet shoes.

This is known.

Oh I see. Sounds sort of interesting.

TheScreamingEagles · April 3

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

williamglenn said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?
Who knows what will happen between now and then?

They could choose an unknown candidate and promise to put a phone mast on every street with the state providing free unlimited data for all.
Or somebody promising to remain in the EU, then about turn to saying leaving was the greatest idea in history. Or was that a different William Glenn?
The comment has often been made that the next PM, for a party heading for defeat, is a complete political unknown. Blair popped up rapidly, Cameron....

It is quite probable that the next Tory PM isn't in parliament.

Fun fact from the last three times we changed governments.

1979 - Labour lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 1983.

1997 - The Tories lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 2001.

2010 - Labour lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 2015.

Can you spot the trend?

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

williamglenn said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

williamglenn said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?
Who knows what will happen between now and then?

They could choose an unknown candidate and promise to put a phone mast on every street with the state providing free unlimited data for all.
Or somebody promising to remain in the EU, then about turn to saying leaving was the greatest idea in history. Or was that a different William Glenn?
The comment has often been made that the next PM, for a party heading for defeat, is a complete political unknown. Blair popped up rapidly, Cameron....

It is quite probable that the next Tory PM isn't in parliament.
Finally, an answer.

I agree with you, I think it will be somebody young, hip and trendy. And I will probably vote Tory then assuming Labour mess it up.
The next Conservative PM?

You must be joking.

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

williamglenn said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?
Who knows what will happen between now and then?

They could choose an unknown candidate and promise to put a phone mast on every street with the state providing free unlimited data for all.
Or somebody promising to remain in the EU, then about turn to saying leaving was the greatest idea in history. Or was that a different William Glenn?
The comment has often been made that the next PM, for a party heading for defeat, is a complete political unknown. Blair popped up rapidly, Cameron....

It is quite probable that the next Tory PM isn't in parliament.
Fun fact from the last three times we changed governments.

1979 - Labour lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 1983.

1997 - The Tories lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 2001.

2010 - Labour lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 2015.

Can you spot the trend?

I haven't run for Parliament yet.

Malmesbury · April 3

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Malmesbury said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears" (Tom Clancy, quoting WSChurchill, foreword to "The Sum of All Fears")
Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle pun in the headline.
Though wasn't churchill referring to the chiefs of staff of each armed service and frankly I doubt any of them were audacious, gallant or intrepid because they had grown old and wanted to live
WSC was referring to WW2 CoSs. Old, yes.

Of course Alan Brooke in particular DID curb the PM's enthusiasm from time to time, sometimes on a daily (if not hourly) basis.

As when he convinced Winston NOT to commit MORE British troops & etc. AFTER Dunkirk, to the fool's errand of attempting to prop up the French military & govt.

WSC - "But the French will feel we are deserting them." (I paraphrase, but not much.)

AB - "A corpse cannot feel."
Alan Brooke had the vital job of saying no to the 99 mad ideas Churchill had each day. And pushing forward the 1 brilliant one.

Some say that he earned his peerage, more than any man since Wellington.

Part of what made Churchill, Churchill, was that he never resented the reproofs from Brooke and regarded him as indispensable.
However Churchill DID resent VERY much, statements from Lord Allanbrooke's diaries published AFTER the War, that WSC regarded as critical (to put it mildly) of his wartime leadership.

That was because WSC was trying to ensure that history was kind to him (WSC).

By writing it himself.

Shades of Jellicoe vs Beatty - furious editing of the official account of Jutland.

Chris · April 3

bondegezou said:
Read down https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49061-yougov-mrp-labour-now-projected-to-win-over-400-seats and it's clear that the model is using previous results (specifically the Rallings and Thrasher 2019 notional results). But nothing there explains what they do about Reform UK having stood in only selected seats last time.

Well, it says:
"This is the first MRP model published by YouGov since the BBC released the ‘Rallings and Thrasher’ 2019 notional results for the new House of Commons parliamentary boundaries. We have updated our model with this new data."

I hope it means they have taken account of the new boundaries, but admittedly it's not very clear. Surely they aren't referring to R and T 2019 as "new data"?

MattW · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
Corbyn almost won.
I was a Corbyn cultist and no he didn't.

IIRC Corbyn's ensured they lost.

In my part of the Red Wall there were three identified factors in 2019:

Corbyn
Johnson
Brexit

Against a background of slow demographic change against Labour.

MattW · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?
TSE is a part-time high-flier executive manager. AND a full-time over-priced fancy-footwear tester.
TSE is a manager? Do we know in what sort of business?
His business is extreme modesty & inexpensive, quiet shoes.

This is known.
Oh I see. Sounds sort of interesting.

I imagine TSE in Garfield Slippers.

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

MattW said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?
TSE is a part-time high-flier executive manager. AND a full-time over-priced fancy-footwear tester.
TSE is a manager? Do we know in what sort of business?
His business is extreme modesty & inexpensive, quiet shoes.

This is known.
Oh I see. Sounds sort of interesting.
I imagine TSE in Garfield Slippers.

Not a clue what TSE looks like or really anything about them.

viewcode · April 3

bondegezou said:

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:

viewcode said:

bondegezou said:
How are they calculating Reform UK predictions when Reform UK didn't stand in Tory-held seats last time? Won't that screw the model somehow?
MRP is a multi-stage process. They take a poll and deduce the likelihood of people in each socioeconomic group to vote. They then work out how many people are in each group in each constituency. They apply the one to the other and predict the votes in each constituency for each party. They then work out who wins each constituency.
But doesn't the modelling somewhere use the result last time (or notional result given boundary changes)?
IIUC, no.
In the previous PB thread, an MRP prediction had a figure for the Ashfield Independents. Anything based on national polling would struggle to capture the Ashfield Independents vote with much precision. Which leads me to think they are using previous results.

https://theweekinpolls.substack.com/p/mrp-what-it-is-and-why-it-may-or implies they are using previous results (as it talks about swing).

It talks about swing as an output from the MRP, not an input. That doesn't imply the use of previous results as inputs.

An AI summary of its text is:

MRP, which stands for 'multi-level regression and post-stratification', is a modeling technique used to predict winners in individual seats by using a national sample to estimate support for parties or candidates in small geographic areas.

Instead of needing a large sample to work out the voting behavior of a specific demographic group, MRP looks at the behavior of individual factors separately and then combines them to predict the views of voters with specific combinations of characteristics. For example, MRP may calculate that a male in his forties who used to vote Labour, works in the public sector, and lives in a rural, safe Conservative seat is 35% likely to vote Conservative and 55% likely to vote Labour.

Overall, MRP calculates probabilities for different voter characteristics and combines them to predict voting behavior in each constituency, providing a more accurate estimate of support for parties or candidates in small geographic areas.

Malmesbury · April 3

MattW said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
Corbyn almost won.
I was a Corbyn cultist and no he didn't.
IIRC Corbyn's ensured they lost.

In my part of the Red Wall there were three identified factors in 2019:

Corbyn
Johnson
Brexit

Against a background of slow demographic change against Labour.

I think, it was not so much demographic change against Labour, as in the breaking of the glass rod that said - "we don't do politics round here, we vote Labour". Something like the Labour collapse in Scotland. They'd taken their vote for granted for a long, long time.

noneoftheabove · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

williamglenn said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?
Who knows what will happen between now and then?

They could choose an unknown candidate and promise to put a phone mast on every street with the state providing free unlimited data for all.
Or somebody promising to remain in the EU, then about turn to saying leaving was the greatest idea in history. Or was that a different William Glenn?
The comment has often been made that the next PM, for a party heading for defeat, is a complete political unknown. Blair popped up rapidly, Cameron....

It is quite probable that the next Tory PM isn't in parliament.
Fun fact from the last three times we changed governments.

1979 - Labour lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 1983.

1997 - The Tories lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 2001.

2010 - Labour lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 2015.

Can you spot the trend?

Nigel Farage MP 2028, PM 2029?

Big_G_NorthWales · April 3

Good evening

I think the poll is quite likely and maybe even more generous to the conservatives than might turn out

However, there is an issue here that with the prospect of such a landslide would conservative leaning voters including those in Reform have second thoughts and vote conservative and will tactical voting even arise

The one thing that is going to happen is PM Starmer later this year and what follows will be very interesting, indeed he may get opposition from those Labour mps elected from the left of the party more than ineffective opposition benches

As for the conservative party who knows and who will be left, but they will have 5 years to sort themselves out and they will not win the next election, it would be Labour who lose it as is happening before our very eyes with this manifestation of the conservative party

Malmesbury · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

MattW said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?
TSE is a part-time high-flier executive manager. AND a full-time over-priced fancy-footwear tester.
TSE is a manager? Do we know in what sort of business?
His business is extreme modesty & inexpensive, quiet shoes.

This is known.
Oh I see. Sounds sort of interesting.
I imagine TSE in Garfield Slippers.
Not a clue what TSE looks like or really anything about them.

sneak preview of TSE's slippers

TheScreamingEagles · April 3

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
Corbyn almost won.
I was a Corbyn cultist and no he didn't.
"I was too close to this to have any perspective, but here's my perspective."
How did Corbyn nearly win? He was literally dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of seats behind.

But for Ruth Davidson the Tories would have likely lost power in 2017 and since nature abhors a vacuum Corbyn would have become PM in 2017 and that would have been classed as a win.

BatteryCorrectHorse · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
Corbyn almost won.
I was a Corbyn cultist and no he didn't.
"I was too close to this to have any perspective, but here's my perspective."
How did Corbyn nearly win? He was literally dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of seats behind.
But for Ruth Davidson the Tories would have likely lost power in 2017 and since nature abhors a vacuum Corbyn would have become PM in 2017 and that would have been classed as a win.

I do not believe Corbyn would have become PM in that scenario, he would have been deposed.

No_Offence_Alan · April 3

bondegezou said:
Read down https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49061-yougov-mrp-labour-now-projected-to-win-over-400-seats and it's clear that the model is using previous results (specifically the Rallings and Thrasher 2019 notional results). But nothing there explains what they do about Reform UK having stood in only selected seats last time.

They look at the demographics of people saying they will vote Reform in the seats they did stand in, and then extrapolate using the demographics of the seats they didn't.

viewcode · April 3

https://theweekinpolls.substack.com/p/mrp-what-it-is-and-why-it-may-or (cont...)

Incidentally I think Mark Pack (is it he?) is wrong when he says "...Those probabilities are then gathered together for all the voters in each constituency, giving each party an overall probability of winning each seat.The headline seat totals are then based on those seat probabilities. For example, if a party is predicted to have a 90 per cent chance of winning in ten seats, that adds nine seats (90 per cent of 10) to its headline total..."

I think it's more they translate probabilities into votes - 27,378 older males, with a p(Lab) of 60% and a p(Con) of 40%, that gives us 16,427 Lab votes and 10,951 Con votes - add them up, and predict the winner directly.

MikeL · April 3

Disastrous as it would still be, I would have thought this poll is actually better than expected for the Conservatives.

Haven't previous polls suggested them getting far fewer seats?

They are currently 1.51 on Betfair to lose 201+ seats. This poll has them losing "only" 210.

Chris · April 3

Chris said:

bondegezou said:
Read down https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49061-yougov-mrp-labour-now-projected-to-win-over-400-seats and it's clear that the model is using previous results (specifically the Rallings and Thrasher 2019 notional results). But nothing there explains what they do about Reform UK having stood in only selected seats last time.
Well, it says:
"This is the first MRP model published by YouGov since the BBC released the ‘Rallings and Thrasher’ 2019 notional results for the new House of Commons parliamentary boundaries. We have updated our model with this new data."

I hope it means they have taken account of the new boundaries, but admittedly it's not very clear. Surely they aren't referring to R and T 2019 as "new data"?

Sorry, I see now that refers to Rallings and Thrasher's projections published in January this year.

But if they used Rallings and Thrasher's data, they don't explain how.

williamglenn · April 3

Alternative prognostication:

- Starmer wins a big landslide and pushes through lots of hate crime-style human rights legislation
- JK Rowling becomes the face of opposition to the government and decides to run for office herself
- Rowling wins in 2029 and sets about restoring the constitution to its pre-Blair form

eek · April 3

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good evening

I think the poll is quite likely and maybe even more generous to the conservatives than might turn out

However, there is an issue here that with the prospect of such a landslide would conservative leaning voters including those in Reform have second thoughts and vote conservative and will tactical voting even arise

The one thing that is going to happen is PM Starmer later this year and what follows will be very interesting, indeed he may get opposition from those Labour mps elected from the left of the party more than ineffective opposition benches

As for the conservative party who knows and who will be left, but they will have 5 years to sort themselves out and they will not win the next election, it would be Labour who lose it as is happening before our very eyes with this manifestation of the conservative party

The problem with the idea that Reform voters will return to the Tory party is that there is zero evidence that they will.

Your typical Reform voter who voted for Bozo in 2019 probably didn't vote in other elections or voted Labour and all the evidence backs that up.

So I would be banking on Reform voters probably

1) voting reform
2) not actually voting

at the next election. I just don't see them as potential votes the Tory party can collect.

TheScreamingEagles · April 3

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

MattW said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?
TSE is a part-time high-flier executive manager. AND a full-time over-priced fancy-footwear tester.
TSE is a manager? Do we know in what sort of business?
His business is extreme modesty & inexpensive, quiet shoes.

This is known.
Oh I see. Sounds sort of interesting.
I imagine TSE in Garfield Slippers.
Not a clue what TSE looks like or really anything about them.
sneak preview of TSE's slippers

Current footwear.

eek · April 3

noneoftheabove said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

williamglenn said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
You've clearly not heard about the maxim that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.
You've said this repeatedly before (getting a bit dull) but can you address my point?

Or is there somebody young I am not aware of?
Who knows what will happen between now and then?

They could choose an unknown candidate and promise to put a phone mast on every street with the state providing free unlimited data for all.
Or somebody promising to remain in the EU, then about turn to saying leaving was the greatest idea in history. Or was that a different William Glenn?
The comment has often been made that the next PM, for a party heading for defeat, is a complete political unknown. Blair popped up rapidly, Cameron....

It is quite probable that the next Tory PM isn't in parliament.
Fun fact from the last three times we changed governments.

1979 - Labour lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 1983.

1997 - The Tories lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 2001.

2010 - Labour lost and their next Prime Minister didn't become an MP until 2015.

Can you spot the trend?
Nigel Farage MP 2028, PM 2029?

Nigel Farage will never be an MP...

viewcode · April 3

londonpubman said:
This poll still indicates a substantial bloc of CON left to rebuild for 2029 and/or 2034

155 people. Three coaches full. If they were breeding pairs, you might have enough to found a new colony.

(Sarcasm aside, yes you are right: politics is so unstable these days wild swings left and right are not unusual)

rcs1000 · April 3

williamglenn said:
Alternative prognostication:

- Starmer wins a big landslide and pushes through lots of hate crime-style human rights legislation
- JK Rowling becomes the face of opposition to the government and decides to run for office herself
- Rowling wins in 2029 and sets about restoring the constitution to its pre-Blair form

Hereditary peers again sit in the House of Lords and we rejoin the EU?

MattW · April 3

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

carnforth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
At the current rate, the people saying the Tories will be back in 2029/2034 seem to not understand who will be leading the party.

Priti Patel? Suella? Can any of these people honestly win?
Corbyn almost won.
I was a Corbyn cultist and no he didn't.
IIRC Corbyn's ensured they lost.

In my part of the Red Wall there were three identified factors in 2019:

Corbyn
Johnson
Brexit

Against a background of slow demographic change against Labour.
I think, it was not so much demographic change against Labour, as in the breaking of the glass rod that said - "we don't do politics round here, we vote Labour". Something like the Labour collapse in Scotland. They'd taken their vote for granted for a long, long time.

To me the numbers say it was longer term than that, more like gradually reaching a tipping point plus those factors.

To look at Ashfield and Bolsover, the big switch in Ashfield in 2019 was actually a switch from Lab to Ash Ind with Cons coming through the middle. That is to do with recovery of Zadrozny following a forced stand down for the LDs in 2015 due to a massively conveniently re-emerging old allegations. Demographic change / commuting was over decades previously.

Bolsover looks like new people moving in not being trad Labour over 40 years, judging by the numbers. Which correlates with the decline of mining / heavy industry and new housing. An example of new housing would be Broad Meadows just of M1 J28.

Bolsover is a strangely shaped constituency. When my family lived near M1J28, our local police station in Bolsover was the SIXTH nearest iirc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsover_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

SandyRentool · April 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

MattW said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Malmesbury said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Chris said:
"WLabourhat I find really interesting about this MRP is that ..."

I find there is a need for some proofreading on this site.
Editing PB is one of my four full time jobs at the moment.

Plus editing on a phone is never fun.
What are your other jobs?
TSE is a part-time high-flier executive manager. AND a full-time over-priced fancy-footwear tester.
TSE is a manager? Do we know in what sort of business?
His business is extreme modesty & inexpensive, quiet shoes.

This is known.
Oh I see. Sounds sort of interesting.
I imagine TSE in Garfield Slippers.
Not a clue what TSE looks like or really anything about them.
sneak preview of TSE's slippers

Current footwear.

NSFW

SandyRentool · April 3

viewcode said:

londonpubman said:
This poll still indicates a substantial bloc of CON left to rebuild for 2029 and/or 2034
155 people. Three coaches full. If they were breeding pairs, you might have enough to found a new colony.

(Sarcasm aside, yes you are right: politics is so unstable these days wild swings left and right are not unusual)

Some of them do form breeding pairs.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

The sum of all Keirs – politicalbetting.com

Comments