Ayrshire hotelier and convicted felon remains the favourite for the White House race in November

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SouthamObserver said:

New We Think poll (30th and 31st May fieldwork)

🔴 Lab 46% (-1)
🔵 Con 21% (-1)
⚪ Ref 13% (+1)
🟠 LD 8% (NC)
🟢 Green 6% (NC)
🟡 SNP 3% (NC)

https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1796542301105233925

Broken, sleazy Labour and Tories on the slide!

Broken, sleazy swingback on the rocks (so far!).

Ghedebrav said:

No dates for manifestos yet, AFAICS.

Must be soon, presumably?

The Tories have a long way to go; they've only written the first two and a bit chapters:

1. Securing the pensioner vote.
2. Screwing the youth vote.
3. Law and Order: Part One: a beginner's guide to flytipping.

Leon said:

First major unforced error from Kir Royal

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats

Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic

No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”

Only two years ago we were wondering how and when Labour would be able to deny the Tories another majority.

Leon said:

First major unforced error from Kir Royal

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats

Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic

No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”

An ideal number for me would be about 60 unexpected one nation Tories returned from which the nucleus of a Tory party can be rebuilt.

100-175 would be 1997-style drifting and internal warfare. Which would be a shame.

My fear is that we end up with 60-80 headbangers. Enough to keep going as is: a powerless, moral vacuum.

ToryJim said:

A bit of a barchart off in Wimbledon

https://x.com/callumcmason/status/1796529255641460922?s=61

I suspect it may not it matter, on current polling the Tories will be 3rd in Wimbledon.

WillG said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour

He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."

He declines to say if he's spoken to her

https://x.com/NatashaC/status/1796533365824242021

What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.

This is bizarre. Diane Abbott is a card carrying racist. Labour are a party that tolerates racism if they allow her to stand.

Is Benjamin Netanyahu a card carrying racist?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

WillG said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour

He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."

He declines to say if he's spoken to her

https://x.com/NatashaC/status/1796533365824242021

What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.

This is bizarre. Diane Abbott is a card carrying racist. Labour are a party that tolerates racism if they allow her to stand.

Is Benjamin Netanyahu a card carrying racist?

Is he in the Labour Party?

Northern_Al said:

PB Tories on cracking form over the last few days:

1. Although Abbott is a left-wing lunatic, we all love her and she's a national treasure and Starmer is a heartless bastard for not letting her stand.

2. Weak, weak, weak of Starmer to let that left-wing lunatic racist Abbott stand.

Both could be true at once if it weren’t for the ‘national treasure’ bit.

Frankly, I think this has been badly mishandled and coming on top of two other similar farces it doesn’t inspire confidence in Starmer’s judgement or his control of Labour’s machinery.

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats

Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic

No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”

Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'

I take it you’re not a fan

If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories

mwadams said:

Leon said:

First major unforced error from Kir Royal

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats

Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic

No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”

An ideal number for me would be about 60 unexpected one nation Tories returned from which the nucleus of a Tory party can be rebuilt.

100-175 would be 1997-style drifting and internal warfare. Which would be a shame.

My fear is that we end up with 60-80 headbangers. Enough to keep going as is: a powerless, moral vacuum.

The latest poll from Techne, baxtered, with no tactical voting, gives Labour 512 seats, Lib Dems second with 57, 46 Tories, 12 Scot Nats, 3 Welsh Nats and 2 Greens. Plus 18 from NI.

So that's 138 opposition MPs, and you could have a Labour rebellion numbering 180 and the government would still win the vote comfortably.

Might we actually see Labour splitting in that circumstance? You could have a large new Labour party as the official opposition, and the Starmer Labour party would still have a majority.

Leon said:

Moldovan PURGE

Transnistria is Russian-occupied (since the early 1990s)!

Leon said:

New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL


“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”

If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history

Ummmm: could that possibly be because electoral fraud is actually very rare?

I mean, I'm as sceptical as you about these charges. But that is not a good reason to be dismissive of them.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Moldovan PURGE

Transnistria is Russian-occupied (since the early 1990s)!

I’m not in transnistria - yet. I’m staying on the posh purcari wine estate, in the Tower Suite (the best hotel room in Moldova, probably) whence you can SEE Transnistria over the Dniester (hence the name)

The wine is excellent, thanks

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats

Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic

No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”

Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'

I take it you’re not a fan

If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories

Are there any actual Tories left in the village?

What's the most optimistic Conservative score anyone wants to bid for?

What constituency is Penny Mordaunt standing in, I'm not sure whether it has changed due to boundary changes, if she is still in the same portsmouth constituency, that will be my first individual constituency bet.On recent polling she would be nailed on to lose, but I'm convinced she will hang on there

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats

Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic

No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”

Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'

I take it you’re not a fan

If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories

He was better than Liz, that will be his epitath.

However had the Tories kept Boris, for all his faults, the Conservatives would almost certainly have still got over 200 seats even had Starmer still won and Reform would not be polling 10-15%.

Anyway, we are where we are, the focus now is just saving the furniture and rebuild in opposition

Leon said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Moldovan PURGE

Transnistria is Russian-occupied (since the early 1990s)!

I’m not in transnistria - yet. I’m staying on the posh purcari wine estate, in the Tower Suite (the best hotel room in Moldova, probably) whence you can SEE Transnistria over the Dniester (hence the name)

The wine is excellent, thanks

You know, you could actually go on a bender in Bender!

..

Leon said:

New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL


“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”

If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history

In a moment of inattention I thought you were referring to the New Yorker. I see New York Magazine is something quite..er..different. A selection of sidebar morsels:


Celebrities React to Donald Trump’s Guilty Verdict

From Katy Perry to Cynthia Nixon, these notables are ready to party in the name of justice.

Can You Handle Another Bennifer Breakup?

Now it’s J.Lo who’s missing her wedding ring.

When Will Kate Middleton Return to Public Life?

Sources claim she’s “turned a corner” in her treatment.

WillG said:

Pro_Rata said:

Northern_Al said:

PB Tories on cracking form over the last few days:

1. Although Abbott is a left-wing lunatic, we all love her and she's a national treasure and Starmer is a heartless bastard for not letting her stand.

2. Weak, weak, weak of Starmer to let that left-wing lunatic racist Abbott stand.

They were all playing PB Tory quoits at the equestrian club and have suffered a peculiar incident of mass getting hit over the head with horseshoes.

Not sure if I count as a PB Tory but I was consistent in backing Starmer vs Abbott. It is pathetic for him now to u-turn.

Surely it came as a surprise to him when Rayner broke ranks over Abbott? The right wing press immediately leapt on it and were going to go on and on about splits at the top so he had to concede.

mickydroy said:

What constituency is Penny Mordaunt standing in, I'm not sure whether it has changed due to boundary changes, if she is still in the same portsmouth constituency, that will be my first individual constituency bet.On recent polling she would be nailed on to lose, but I'm convinced she will hang on there

Portsmouth North.
It's one of the very few with unchanged boundaries.

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL


“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”

If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history

Ummmm: could that possibly be because electoral fraud is actually very rare?

I mean, I'm as sceptical as you about these charges. But that is not a good reason to be dismissive of them.

Are payments to avoid kiss-and-tell stories rare in US electoral politics?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

WillG said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour

He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."

He declines to say if he's spoken to her

https://x.com/NatashaC/status/1796533365824242021

What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.

This is bizarre. Diane Abbott is a card carrying racist. Labour are a party that tolerates racism if they allow her to stand.

Is Benjamin Netanyahu a card carrying racist?

Is he a Labour Party candidate?

Is your hero a racist or not?

I don’t think anyone on this board makes a hero of Netanyahu. I won’t go bail for one or two who seem to have positively erotic feelings for Ismail Haniyeh. But the pretty general opinion on Netanyahu is he’s a Tristram.

And although he undoubtedly is a card-carrying racist I am not sure what that’s got to do with Diane Abbott being one as well. Or indeed Lee Anderson.

LostPassword said:

mwadams said:

Leon said:

First major unforced error from Kir Royal

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats

Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic

No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”

An ideal number for me would be about 60 unexpected one nation Tories returned from which the nucleus of a Tory party can be rebuilt.

100-175 would be 1997-style drifting and internal warfare. Which would be a shame.

My fear is that we end up with 60-80 headbangers. Enough to keep going as is: a powerless, moral vacuum.

The latest poll from Techne, baxtered, with no tactical voting, gives Labour 512 seats, Lib Dems second with 57, 46 Tories, 12 Scot Nats, 3 Welsh Nats and 2 Greens. Plus 18 from NI.

So that's 138 opposition MPs, and you could have a Labour rebellion numbering 180 and the government would still win the vote comfortably.

Might we actually see Labour splitting in that circumstance? You could have a large new Labour party as the official opposition, and the Starmer Labour party would still have a majority.

I don’t think you’d see a split, but you’d probably have a little group of rebels who would grow and grow over time, and eventually become something of a party-within-a-party. This happened under Blair, who towards the end of his big majority parliaments was hosting a good chunk of MPs who were rebelling against him on a regular basis.

In all likelihood whatever happens it would be temporary and the next parliament would be much more balanced. Blair sustained his majority into a second parliament in very benign economic and geo-political circumstances. The nation is more divided than it was in 1997, and the result will correct itself in due course.

Quincel said:

PJH said:

ToryJim said:

A bit of a barchart off in Wimbledon

https://x.com/callumcmason/status/1796529255641460922?s=61

I suspect it may not it matter, on current polling the Tories will be 3rd in Wimbledon.

Surely the barcharts are about who comes 1st? I think they are both relying on the Tories coming 3rd.

Deleted. Talking twaddle.

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

First major unforced error from Kir Royal

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats

Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic

No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”

Only two years ago we were wondering how and when Labour would be able to deny the Tories another majority.

Yes it is a stunning collapse, and - worse - it is completely deserved

Congrats to those PBers who called Hartlepool as the Tory peak and predicted the descent thereafter

Personally I didn’t foresee anything this dramatic but now it is happening I don’t give a toss. If the Tories die so be it, and it’s probably for the best. We need a serious right wing party with confident right wing policies, not high tax pseudo blairism which eagerly accepts 2m migrants in 3 years. What did the Tories fucking expect when they did that? Morons

The number of unforced errors has been staggering.

Theuniondivvie said:

..

Leon said:

New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL


“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”

If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history

In a moment of inattention I thought you were referring to the New Yorker. I see New York Magazine is something quite..er..different. A selection of sidebar morsels:


Celebrities React to Donald Trump’s Guilty Verdict

From Katy Perry to Cynthia Nixon, these notables are ready to party in the name of justice.

Can You Handle Another Bennifer Breakup?

Now it’s J.Lo who’s missing her wedding ring.

When Will Kate Middleton Return to Public Life?

Sources claim she’s “turned a corner” in her treatment.

Which proves what?! It’s a magazine. It runs popular stories and celebrity gossip alongside serious journalism and criticism. As does every journal in the world, if it wants to make a profit

New York magazine is not trivial. It wins Pulitzer Prizes and has a circulation of 400,000

ydoethur said:

Northern_Al said:

PB Tories on cracking form over the last few days:

1. Although Abbott is a left-wing lunatic, we all love her and she's a national treasure and Starmer is a heartless bastard for not letting her stand.

2. Weak, weak, weak of Starmer to let that left-wing lunatic racist Abbott stand.

Both could be true at once if it weren’t for the ‘national treasure’ bit.

Frankly, I think this has been badly mishandled and coming on top of two other similar farces it doesn’t inspire confidence in Starmer’s judgement or his control of Labour’s machinery.

It looks like a total screw up. Abbott probably didn't want to stand and Starmer certainly didn't want her to stand. Now both have got what they didn't want because neither wished to lose face.

CarlottaVance said:

I’d like to pay tribute to Lloyd Russell-Moyle who has been our MP since 2017 and who I am proud to call my friend.
Following his suspension, I was asked by some local members to stand in Brighton Kemptown. They felt that as someone who had previously been selected by members; had been a local Councillor here for five years; had good local name recognition and had halved the Tory majority in 2015, that I was best placed to win the seat. I spoke to Lloyd and put myself forward to be Brighton Kemptown’s candidate with his support.
Everything moved very quickly yesterday and I was pleased to be offered an online interview at 2.40pm.
It was disappointing afterwards to find out that during my interview, Michael Crick had Tweeted out that Chris Ward would be the successful candidate.
I have forwarded the Tweet to the General Secretary of the Labour Party and I trust that there will now be an investigation to ensure the fairness of the process.
It’s important to remember that these decisions affect a wider group of people. Had I been selected I would have kept on all of Lloyd’s team who now face losing their jobs and their livelihoods.
I’d like to thank all the local members and the local, regional and national trade unions that took the time to have conversations yesterday and who offered me their support.

https://medium.com/@nancyplatts/a-statement-about-brighton-kemptown-499357be3543

For goodness sakes. If true that is just silly.

Anabobazina said:

NickyBreakspear said:

Weekly average poll ratings.



Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.

C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%

I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.

Other averages with other polling companies are available.

Every poll that has been released since the campaign has been with the MOE of its previous survey, as far as I can see.

And with no discernable swing from Refuk to Con, it's looking increasingly like Rishi's big surprise policy announcements from last weekend have failed to do their intended job.

I wonder if they'll double down on the headline-grabbing antics, or will they pivot towards a quieter campaign based on competence / experience / "better the devil you know"?

bigjohnowls said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

WillG said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour

He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."

He declines to say if he's spoken to her

https://x.com/NatashaC/status/1796533365824242021

What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.

This is bizarre. Diane Abbott is a card carrying racist. Labour are a party that tolerates racism if they allow her to stand.

Is Benjamin Netanyahu a card carrying racist?

Is he a Labour Party candidate?

Is your hero a racist or not?

Is this man?

https://www.lfi.org.uk/keir-starmer-welcomes-israeli-president-herzog-to-london

Herzog's father was born in Ireland so he could claim Irish citizenship and then stand for President.

Alanbrooke said:

bigjohnowls said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

WillG said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour

He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."

He declines to say if he's spoken to her

https://x.com/NatashaC/status/1796533365824242021

What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.

This is bizarre. Diane Abbott is a card carrying racist. Labour are a party that tolerates racism if they allow her to stand.

Is Benjamin Netanyahu a card carrying racist?

Is he a Labour Party candidate?

Is your hero a racist or not?

Is this man?

https://www.lfi.org.uk/keir-starmer-welcomes-israeli-president-herzog-to-london

Herzog's father was born in Ireland so he could claim Irish citizenship and then stand for President.

From Fermanagh to the Sea, Ulster will be free?

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

..

Leon said:

New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL


“The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”

If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history

In a moment of inattention I thought you were referring to the New Yorker. I see New York Magazine is something quite..er..different. A selection of sidebar morsels:


Celebrities React to Donald Trump’s Guilty Verdict

From Katy Perry to Cynthia Nixon, these notables are ready to party in the name of justice.

Can You Handle Another Bennifer Breakup?

Now it’s J.Lo who’s missing her wedding ring.

When Will Kate Middleton Return to Public Life?

Sources claim she’s “turned a corner” in her treatment.

Which proves what?! It’s a magazine. It runs popular stories and celebrity gossip alongside serious journalism and criticism. As does every journal in the world, if it wants to make a profit

New York magazine is not trivial. It wins Pulitzer Prizes and has a circulation of 400,000

Yebbut while they might well have the skinny on Bennifer goings on, I'm not sure I'd be going to them for state of the nation stuff. Christ, even the Spectator might be better!

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

First major unforced error from Kir Royal

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats

Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic

No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”

Only two years ago we were wondering how and when Labour would be able to deny the Tories another majority.

Yes it is a stunning collapse, and - worse - it is completely deserved

Congrats to those PBers who called Hartlepool as the Tory peak and predicted the descent thereafter

Personally I didn’t foresee anything this dramatic but now it is happening I don’t give a toss. If the Tories die so be it, and it’s probably for the best. We need a serious right wing party with confident right wing policies, not high tax pseudo blairism which eagerly accepts 2m migrants in 3 years. What did the Tories fucking expect when they did that? Morons

The number of unforced errors has been staggering.

Hubris is the Tory poison. Factionalism the Labour one.

...

Leon said:

Moldovan PURGE

Perlease. We don't need to know when you are having a holiday dump.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Starmer takes private jet to Scotland

He is being sensible and indeed Sunak using a helicopter is simply efficient

To talk about his green credentials. What a knob!

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

“Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats

Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic

No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”

Rishi can at least likely shout on July 5th then 'i avoided apocalypse! I avoided apocalypse! I may have led the Tories to their most catastrophic/horrendous/very very bad result in their history and made the Duke of Wellington, Balfour, Major 1997 and Hague look like good campaigners but I STILL did better than the apocalypse Liz would have got. Hooray! Off to California to my 6th house on my private jet and a board in Silicon Valley. Laters!'

I take it you’re not a fan

If Sunak has lost @HYUFD then this is suboptimal for the Tories

He was better than Liz, that will be his epitath.

However had the Tories kept Boris, for all his faults, the Conservatives would almost certainly have still got over 200 seats even had Starmer still won and Reform would not be polling 10-15%.

Anyway, we are where we are, the focus now is just saving the furniture and rebuild in opposition

Boris Johnson is the reason for the decline, and no opinion poll suggests he would do any better than Sunak or Truss. He was an incompetent fool who essentially hollowed out burned the reputation of the Tory Party for his own ego.

Without Boris Johnson there would have been no high point in 2019 from which to decline.

Northern_Al said:

Ghedebrav said:

No dates for manifestos yet, AFAICS.

Must be soon, presumably?

The Tories have a long way to go; they've only written the first two and a bit chapters:

1. Securing the pensioner vote.
2. Screwing the youth vote.
3. Law and Order: Part One: a beginner's guide to flytipping.

Discarding suddenly out of date election leaflets, presumably.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dianne Abbott is a liar and a racist and shouldn't be allowed to stand for Labour again.

But SKS has handled this badly. He should have stuck to her not being allowed to stand again.

He's had a shocker. The Tory meme about him being under Rayner's thumb is totally deserved.

PB Tory favourite Abbott is awfully entitled. Starmer has well and truly dropped the ball.

P.S. Starmer can't afford to hand the narrative to the Tory media again. Rishi looks like a drowned rat, one news cycle. Starmer dumps on Abbott, and it's the only news story since Monday night.

Mexicanpete said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dianne Abbott is a liar and a racist and shouldn't be allowed to stand for Labour again.

But SKS has handled this badly. He should have stuck to her not being allowed to stand again.

He's had a shocker. The Tory meme about him being under Rayner's thumb is totally deserved.

PB Tory favourite Abbott is awfully entitled. Starmer has well and truly dropped the ball.

Rayner is almost twenty years younger than Starmer. It will be an interesting dynamic if the power struggles continue in office.

PJH said:

PJH said:

Quincel said:

PJH said:

ToryJim said:

A bit of a barchart off in Wimbledon

https://x.com/callumcmason/status/1796529255641460922?s=61

I suspect it may not it matter, on current polling the Tories will be 3rd in Wimbledon.

Surely the barcharts are about who comes 1st? I think they are both relying on the Tories coming 3rd.

So, the LDs should agree with the Labour bar chart and squeeze the Tory vote.

In fact looking at the photo again, isn't that what the Labour poster says? Tories can't win here so vote LD if you don't want Labour? Or are Labour to the right of the LDs locally (like they are in Kingston) so are after the Tory vote to stop the wild lefty LDs?

Puzzled - if I was Labour in Wimbledon I'd ignore the LDs altogether if I wanted to win.

The Labour one is saying that an MRP has them winning so there's no need to vote Lib Dem to get the Tories out. It's a squeeze on the left-wing floater.

Mexicanpete said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dianne Abbott is a liar and a racist and shouldn't be allowed to stand for Labour again.

But SKS has handled this badly. He should have stuck to her not being allowed to stand again.

He's had a shocker. The Tory meme about him being under Rayner's thumb is totally deserved.

PB Tory favourite Abbott is awfully entitled. Starmer has well and truly dropped the ball.

P.S. Starmer can't afford to hand the narrative to the Tory media again. Rishi looks like a drowned rat, one news cycle. Starmer dumps on Abbott, and it's the only news story since Monday night.

Methinks it's a GOOD news story for Starmer and Labour.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Amusing (one word for it anyway) how PB's usual shit-stirrers are positively wallowing in their preferred Putinist pig-shit after the Trump guilty-as-sin verdict.

Keep up your bad work on behalf of the destruction of democracy, as it's all your good for.

One of the main tenets of Putinist 'managed democracy' is that undesirable candidates who might stand a chance of winning must be prevented from running. Only controlled opposition is permitted.

The attempts to sideline Trump by non-democratic means are American Putinism.

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dianne Abbott is a liar and a racist and shouldn't be allowed to stand for Labour again.

But SKS has handled this badly. He should have stuck to her not being allowed to stand again.

He's had a shocker. The Tory meme about him being under Rayner's thumb is totally deserved.

PB Tory favourite Abbott is awfully entitled. Starmer has well and truly dropped the ball.

Rayner is almost twenty years younger than Starmer. It will be an interesting dynamic if the power struggles continue in office.

They haven't won yet.

I don't like Rayner but hats off to her she has matured into a far more measured front bencher than the ludicrous firebrand of the Corbyn campaign. She handled the James Daly nonsense well too.

numbertwelve said:

I agree with @HYUFD . If Boris were still leader I suspect we’d be looking at a narrower defeat than the Tories are facing now.

Let’s be clear, the main reason the Tories are doing so badly is because they took the p*ss with Liz Truss, replaced her with a man who can’t do politics very well, and moved beyond their 2019 messaging.

The fact that Boris might be doing a bit better, doesn’t mean that the Tories were wrong to get rid of him, however, for the good of the country.

I think that assumes that Boris was not involved in further scandals in the ~2 years since he stepped down. Had he continued (I actually don't think he could have made it between then and now because something else would have brought him down) the Tories could have been in a much worse position.

Unpopular said:

numbertwelve said:

I agree with @HYUFD . If Boris were still leader I suspect we’d be looking at a narrower defeat than the Tories are facing now.

Let’s be clear, the main reason the Tories are doing so badly is because they took the p*ss with Liz Truss, replaced her with a man who can’t do politics very well, and moved beyond their 2019 messaging.

The fact that Boris might be doing a bit better, doesn’t mean that the Tories were wrong to get rid of him, however, for the good of the country.

I think that assumes that Boris was not involved in further scandals in the ~2 years since he stepped down. Had he continued (I actually don't think he could have made it between then and now because something else would have brought him down) the Tories could have been in a much worse position.

He’d have been out of the Commons anyway, after the CPC found he’d lied to Parliament, so the point is moot.