London Falling. The Capital and the election – politicalbetting.com

Peter_the_Punter said:

numbertwelve said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt -19 in the debate. To be honest I’d have scored her net positive so I do wonder again if it’s just another sign the public gave up with the Tories long ago.

I think so. I thought she put in an average performance but then she had very little to work with.

Jeepers, cut her some slack.

How would you like to have to defend the PM the day after he'd offended his core constituency?

The media are trying to get a “Mourdant put her stilettos in Sunak - Tory splits emerging” narrative going this morning. I am sure it will fail, as the truth was the complete opposite. Penny stuck to every one of Sunak’s lies from Tuesday, and was very canny on the D-Day Debacle “it was a mistake, but he has apologised.”

My dad says Labour in 1983 was a far worse campaign than this Tory one, because despite shedding all their social Democrat wing, they still managed to go into the 1983 with all their splits on show. There are no splits in this Tory campaign, everyone is still backing the strategy and supportive of all the answers Sunak gave on Tuesday.

WhisperingOracle said:

On the topic of Tory coronations, I'm struggling to remember in what happened in the various Tory changeovers of the last ten years.

Did any or several of them involve a replacement without a vote ? Is this possible according to Tory Party rules ?

If a good majority of the wannabe MPs were behind someone, I think that’s all that counts for the election. They could do the paperwork later but that person would clearly be PM (well, LoTO) elect.

I would have said it won’t happen. But it’s pretty desperate for them.

kle4 said:

wooliedyed said:

According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)

150 would be a little worse than 1997, which right now would be a good result.

Honestly, if/once they go under 100 then everything will crumble away very quickly to almost nothing

Eabhal said:

Benpointer said:

Eabhal said:

nova said:

Eabhal said:

eek said:

Eabhal said:

FWIW:

ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)

20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.

LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.

The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...

Doesn't matter - the politics of ULEZ are just really difficult anywhere outside London, Edinburgh, Bristol and so on. I should correct myself though - it's not just the few people who actually live in rural areas (20%), but everyone is provincial towns like say Peterborough.

Surely the pollution levels are pretty much inversely related to the areas where you most need a car?

Yes, that's my point.

If the Tories can bang on about ULEZ for 3 weeks and claim Labour (and Khan) are coming for the rest of the country, it will be effective. The weirdest thing is otherwise, Sunak is very keen on reducing lung disease if you consider his smoking ban. Surprised no one has pestered him on that.

(I realise that I am starting to sound like Moonrabbit... time will tell)

I guarantee you it will *not* be effective. Look at any poll on the key issues worrying voters and car restrictions will not be there. Most people are worried about 1. paying their rent/mortgage and other bills, 2. the state of the health service, 3. other public services, 4. immigration, 5. housing, 6. crime.

Relatively effective, I suppose. A percent, max? Remember this is targeting Reform and Red Wall voters, not the centre (who will likely be put off even more).

And the opposition to ULEZ stems from increased costs for low income people running old cars, so ties in with your point 1.

The weird thing about the "policy" banning 20mph zones in Wales they have no jurisdiction over, is that the target voter for this policy doesn't even live in Wales nor are they affected by it.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

It's pretty clear from the distribution of results that ULEZ did make a difference, just not enough.

I am not sure the results do suggest that though, do they?

Didn't several ULEZ hating areas record swings to Khan?

It's a difficult comparison because swings in May were from peak second surge of Boris / Hartlepool days

Biggest swings to Khan:

North East (11.3%)
City & East (9.7%)
West Central (5.1%)
Greenwich (4.9%)

Smallest/negative

Bexley & Bromley (0%)
Brent & Harrow (-0.5%)
Croydon and Sutton (-0.3%)
Ealing & Hillingdon (0.7%)

Outer London was significantly worse for Khan. You could attribute that to different things, but I see no reason to assume the ULEZ wasn't a meaningful part of it.

Eh? Your own data shows tiny local swings away from Khan at best. He won by a mile.

another_richard said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.

Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.

Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.

I'm struggling to think of anything Rory Stewart did in his nine years in parliament.

Apart that is from giving a very bizarre performance in a Conservative leadership debate.

Yet he has somehow been elevated to the position of the hypothetical Conservative leader who people who have no intention of voting Conservative claim would persuade them to vote Conservative but in reality wouldn't.

I think he's done a fair amount of good work, partly around veterans.

He also made agood speech about hedgehogs:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180722095911/https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-11-10/debates/15111048000002/HedgehogConservation?highlight=hedgehog#contribution-15111048002639

Casino_Royale said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

kle4 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt -19 in the debate. To be honest I’d have scored her net positive so I do wonder again if it’s just another sign the public gave up with the Tories long ago.

About 2.6 years ago to be precise.

That's when the ship began sinking after Captain Boris crashed it into some rocks, then Truss drilled a whole in the bottom, Sunak patched it up with some emergency planks, but they've been taking on water constantly since, and about 3 weeks ago he decided to jump on the planks to reopen the hole.

I do think we will come to believe that this election was lost in 2022.

Johnson should have gone after Hartlepool and he'd have won a landslide then. That was the peak and it's been downhill ever since.

Of course, the Tories were never truly popular but SKS for a while was doing terribly. So the Tories had room there to defeat him.

Support for Labour is a mile wide but an inch deep.

They are primarily a rejection mechanism for the present administration- their fundamentals are pretty poor.

I think you are wrong. I think we're about to enter another 3 term period of Labour rule, a period which the Tories may not survive in their current form (although something non-Labour will emerge as an alternative in time).

I could of course be wrong and you will be welcome to say 'I told you so' loudly and often if that proves the case.

I think I'm right. But I won't say 'I told you you so' because that'll be annoying for you to hear and I don't particularly care about being seen to be right.

But, anyone who automatically assumes 2-3 terms or 10-15 years minimum is simply projecting present day support wildly into the future and assuming that nothing will change and everything will stay the same.

That's not how it works, nor what the fundamentals show, so it essentially demonstrates a failure of imagination.

I agree with a lot of that, but the key for me is I see no way of the Tories avoiding a lurch to the right after the election. And one thing I am confident of is that to win an election these days you have to grab a bit of the centre ground.

biggles said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

wooliedyed said:

David Davis was cosplaying Hezza last night with his 'the feedback on the doorsteps is not like the polls!' Schtick.
However, I do wonder how much of the Change/Labour vote is actually keen enough to bother, especially as it looks a done and dusted deal. Change is all SKS and Labour offer, there no policy hook, no idealogical hook. I think the more it looks done, the more a lot peel away to 'meh' or George or Reform whereas the remaining Tories will just trudge along and vote Tory
Big gap elections always seem to be less so on the day

You've argued for a while that the Workers Party will do well, but look how few candidates they've managed to nominate, contrary to their boasting they'd stand in every constituency.

The Workers couldn’t find £300k in deposits, and 600 vetted people to stand for them?

Given that their leader wouldn’t pass any sensible sort of vetting, why bother with their other candidates?

Vetting of candidates is one of my favourite subjects (I’m an IT manager with security specialisation, who could do this all day). It takes only a day or two to read a decade of Twitter for most people.

The trick is to outsource the vetting, so that party members aren’t the ones considering whether or not something is controversial. A bunch of Palestine activists aren’t going to spot the blatant anti-Semitism from their ‘friend’.

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

kle4 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt -19 in the debate. To be honest I’d have scored her net positive so I do wonder again if it’s just another sign the public gave up with the Tories long ago.

About 2.6 years ago to be precise.

That's when the ship began sinking after Captain Boris crashed it into some rocks, then Truss drilled a whole in the bottom, Sunak patched it up with some emergency planks, but they've been taking on water constantly since, and about 3 weeks ago he decided to jump on the planks to reopen the hole.

I do think we will come to believe that this election was lost in 2022.

Johnson should have gone after Hartlepool and he'd have won a landslide then. That was the peak and it's been downhill ever since.

Of course, the Tories were never truly popular but SKS for a while was doing terribly. So the Tories had room there to defeat him.

Support for Labour is a mile wide but an inch deep.

They are primarily a rejection mechanism for the present administration- their fundamentals are pretty poor.

I think you are wrong. I think we're about to enter another 3 term period of Labour rule, a period which the Tories may not survive in their current form (although something non-Labour will emerge as an alternative in time).

I could of course be wrong and you will be welcome to say 'I told you so' loudly and often if that proves the case.

I think I'm right. But I won't say 'I told you you so' because that'll be annoying for you to hear and I don't particularly care about being seen to be right.

But, anyone who automatically assumes 2-3 terms or 10-15 years minimum is simply projecting present day support wildly into the future and assuming that nothing will change and everything will stay the same.

That's not how it works, nor what the fundamentals show, so it essentially demonstrates a failure of imagination.

I agree with a lot of that, but the key for me is I see no way of the Tories avoiding a lurch to the right after the election. And one thing I am confident of is that to win an election these days you have to grab a bit of the centre ground.

I see why you say that, but the reason I think you might be wrong is this. From 1997-2005 Blair was bulletproof and the Tories fought amongst themselves because they (possibly subconsciously) didn’t think they could win. If Starmer was struggling, I think it might focus minds a bit more.

WhisperingOracle said:

On the topic of Tory coronations, I'm struggling to remember in what happened in the various Tory changeovers of the last ten years.

Did any or several of them involve a replacement without a vote ? Is this possible according to Tory Party rules ?

Cameron to May: MPs voted for two candidates, but Leadsom withdrew, so no members' ballot.

May to Johnson: MPs and members voted

Johnson to Truss: MPs and members voted.

Truss to Sunak: MPs voted in partial ballot, but Mordaunt withdrew, so Sunak elected without membership ballot.

There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.

Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?

Mexicanpete said:

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.

Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.

Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.

Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.

Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.

Grr.

But if you are just voting for the name what's the point?

If you are a lifelong Heathite, Buttskellist, one nation, socially liberal, pro-EU, anti- hanging Tory what is left for you?

When Suella and Co. join Farage, and something called maybe the "New Conservatives" breaks free from that dangerous clown show, maybe disillusioned feudal Tories have a home again. In the meantime vote LD

+1 for many people the Tory party changed to the point that they cannot support it anymore.

Now for me that happened when Bozo (a liar and scoundrel) was elected leader, for others it was when Truss won... But there comes a time for many people when the party is no longer their party...

Theuniondivvie said:

MattW said:

DougSeal said:

Eabhal said:

nova said:

Eabhal said:

eek said:

Eabhal said:

FWIW:

ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)

20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.

LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.

The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...

Doesn't matter - the politics of ULEZ are just really difficult anywhere outside London, Edinburgh, Bristol and so on. I should correct myself though - it's not just the few people who actually live in rural areas (20%), but everyone is provincial towns like say Peterborough.

Surely the pollution levels are pretty much inversely related to the areas where you most need a car?

Yes, that's my point.

If the Tories can bang on about ULEZ for 3 weeks and claim Labour (and Khan) are coming for the rest of the country, it will be effective. The weirdest thing is otherwise, Sunak is very keen on reducing lung disease if you consider his smoking ban. Surprised no one has pestered him on that.

(I realise that I am starting to sound like Moonrabbit... time will tell)

Again, it didn’t work in London, where it actually exists. Not sure it can shift the dial anywhere else where it’s not even been proposed.

You may be a bit more up to date on this than I am. My current list of implemented LEZs (Low Emissions Zones - Down, @Leon !):

Bath
Bradford
Brum *
Bristol *
Glasgow **
London *
Newcastle / Gateshead
Portsmouth
Sheffield

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/clean-air-zones/

All effect commercial vehicles.
* Affects non-compliant private cars
** Bans non-compliant private cars. I think.

There's room for shit-stirring there, but most of these have aiui been in for some time and I expect compliance is now high and we are over the hump.

There is still perhaps room for annoyance amongst cabbies, white van men and hauliers.

If anyone has recent data on compliance, I would be interested.

It is also of interest where improved air quality has been registering, as aiui it has in London, which would allow the "but LEZ / ULEZ" arguments to be countered.

Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh all went live this week, which in the latter case is effing irritating because I'd assumed Edinburgh started at the same time as Glasgow and I've been skirting the centre for the last 9 months.

That's interesting timing for the Election.

Who is perceived as being responsible, Holyrood or Westminster, and is the perceptions positive or negative?

MattW said:

another_richard said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.

Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.

Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.

I'm struggling to think of anything Rory Stewart did in his nine years in parliament.

Apart that is from giving a very bizarre performance in a Conservative leadership debate.

Yet he has somehow been elevated to the position of the hypothetical Conservative leader who people who have no intention of voting Conservative claim would persuade them to vote Conservative but in reality wouldn't.

I think he's done a fair amount of good work, partly around veterans.

He also made agood speech about hedgehogs:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180722095911/https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-11-10/debates/15111048000002/HedgehogConservation?highlight=hedgehog#contribution-15111048002639

He also missed the vote on military action in Syria to go to a wedding.

Interestingly it seems it was George Osborne who had issues with Stewart:

It is made clear to him from the outset that rebellion was fatal to ambition. Early on, David Cameron comes up with a daft plan to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an entirely elected second chamber. Stewart was proposing to vote against. Minutes before the vote he is intercepted by George Osborne:

‘Rory, I am going to promote you to be a minister in ten days, but if you walk through that door,’ he said, indicating the ‘no’ lobby, ‘you will, I promise, not be promoted in the rest of this parliament. You will be a backbencher for at least five years.’

Stewart duly walks through that door. Osborne is as good as his word.

Not until Theresa May becomes Tory leader does the author find himself in government.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-fish-out-of-water/

Mexicanpete said:

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.

Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.

Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.

Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.

Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.

Grr.

But if you are just voting for the name what's the point?

If you are a lifelong Heathite, Buttskellist, one nation, socially liberal, pro-EU, anti- hanging Tory what is left for you?

Berkean?

Benpointer said:

PedestrianRock said:

Calling all those holding Reform-related bets

What’s our strategy?

I’d always planned to sell Reform bets after Farage’s first debate - maybe once D-Day gate has taken effect in the polls. A big surge of hype for Reform/Farage should see their odds tumble further for the next few days.

Do we think:

A. The red meat like stamp duty and ULEZ scrapping in the Tory manifesto will boost the Tories back up next week - this is the shortest that Reform odds will get. Best to sell now.

OR

B. Crossover might hold a bit longer - better to keep it going for a bit, see how it goes, and sell Reform bets closer to polling day

OR

C. Hold until the end for the hopes of long odds payouts - MRPs are too hard to guess and the Canada ‘93 wipeout might actually happen.

I have no skin in this game but I reckon you ought to C it through. Every time we think the Tories have hit the bottom they find another hole to step into.

DYOR

Presumably you have some nice 'green' positions?

If so, the orthodox strategy is to close out half and keep the rest.

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

wooliedyed said:

According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)

150 would be a little worse than 1997, which right now would be a good result.

Honestly, if/once they go under 100 then everything will crumble away very quickly to almost nothing

Absolute bollocks. The 180-200 seats aim at start of campaign seems bit hopeful now, but with four weeks still to go 150-180 still very much in play, with 120-140 the worst case.

What is meant to happen when a FPTP election is called, is the squeeze on minor parties/wasted votes begins. Correct me where wrong, after these early skirmi what we currently have is highly unusual poll drift away from BOTH main parties. But logically this is unsustainable. Look at the 1983 drift from Alliance to Labour throughout the campaign overall.

this is early days, don’t fool yourself into thinking this drift from Labour and Tories is the norm for next 4 weeks - normality of drift back to the Tory government can still happen.

Starting with Opinium tonight, just keep your eye on the Tory share, like wise with every pollster, is Tory share going up? Not at the moment? but then remember this is early days.

28% still very achievable? Of course it is.

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

wooliedyed said:

According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)

150 would be a little worse than 1997, which right now would be a good result.

Honestly, if/once they go under 100 then everything will crumble away very quickly to almost nothing

Absolute bollocks. The 180-200 seats aim at start of campaign seems bit hopeful now, but with four weeks still to go 150-180 still very much in play, with 120-140 the worst case.

What is meant to happen when a FPTP election is called, is the squeeze on minor parties/wasted votes begins. Correct me where wrong, after these early skirmi what we currently have is highly unusual poll drift away from BOTH main parties. But logically this is unsustainable. Look at the 1983 drift from Alliance to Labour throughout the campaign overall.

this is early days, don’t fool yourself into thinking this drift from Labour and Tories is the norm for next 4 weeks - normality of drift back to the Tory government can still happen.

Starting with Opinium tonight, just keep your eye on the Tory share, like wise with every pollster, is Tory share going up? Not at the moment? but then remember this is early days.

28% still very achievable? Of course it is.

In what way is it bollocks? Its a statement of what would happen once they go under 100, not a prediction of it happening

biggles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.

Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?

Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.

We are about to have an extraordinary election. Noone can say how extraordinary the one after will be.

Andy_JS said:

wooliedyed said:

According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)

Funny when you think Huntingdon was the safest Tory seat in the country for many elections when John Major was the MP.

Indeed. Its still 100th safest

SEMI SERIOUS QUESTION

What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?

In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through

Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result

https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3744/election/397

But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?

EPG said:

Lib Dems are standing in Bristol. I think that's good for Labour, if this comes down to narrow margins.

I think the Greens will win Bristol Central.
I've bet on the Greens winning two seats.

Andy_JS said:

The fact a lot of Tory MPs wanted to stop members voting on new leaders when the party is in government is an example of everything that's wrong with the party imo.

They are 100% right on this. It’s undemocratic that our PM should be determined by people who pay for the privilege by joining a self-selecting organisation outside Parliament that can itself decide who to let in and not to let in. The PM represents the country, his mandate comes from Parliament, elected by a wide franchise. Restricting the franchise to what is, essentially, a fee-paying private members club is grotesque. That is also true of the Labour Party if in government - the members and unions should not have a say. The choice should not go outside Parliament. The practice should be legislated against frankly.

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

SEMI SERIOUS QUESTION

What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?

In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through

Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result

https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3744/election/397

But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?

I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.

(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).

Make it 1000/1 and you’re on

Imaginary situation
Seats for non Lab end up
LD 64
Con 60
Reform 15 (including Nigel)
Do Con accept some sort of merger, inviting the reverse Farage takeover to maintain HM opposition status??

biggles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.

Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?

Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.

71? That’s only 4 years older than most will be able to retire. And he looks in better shape than most.

Leon said:

SEMI SERIOUS QUESTION

What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?

In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through

Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result

https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3744/election/397

But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?

There are a handful of super safe seats with no Reform standing and London/Scotland (much less reformy) should preclude a total wipeout

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

wooliedyed said:

According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)

150 would be a little worse than 1997, which right now would be a good result.

Honestly, if/once they go under 100 then everything will crumble away very quickly to almost nothing

Absolute bollocks. The 180-200 seats aim at start of campaign seems bit hopeful now, but with four weeks still to go 150-180 still very much in play, with 120-140 the worst case.

What is meant to happen when a FPTP election is called, is the squeeze on minor parties/wasted votes begins. Correct me where wrong, after these early skirmi what we currently have is highly unusual poll drift away from BOTH main parties. But logically this is unsustainable. Look at the 1983 drift from Alliance to Labour throughout the campaign overall.

this is early days, don’t fool yourself into thinking this drift from Labour and Tories is the norm for next 4 weeks - normality of drift back to the Tory government can still happen.

Starting with Opinium tonight, just keep your eye on the Tory share, like wise with every pollster, is Tory share going up? Not at the moment? but then remember this is early days.

28% still very achievable? Of course it is.

Why is 28% achievable? Name me one policy that isn't actually sending people away from the Tory party.

Heck even the Forecaster pollsters have given up and are shifting their viewpoint that the nowcasters are correct and that there is single chance of a squeeze / drift back to the Tories because frankly they don't deserve the votes.

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

SEMI SERIOUS QUESTION

What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?

In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through

Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result

https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3744/election/397

But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?

I used to live in SH and D. Only those with money to burn bet against the Tories there. Though Reform will do OK.

Put a figure on it? I reckon 0.1% chance of zero Tory seats

It’s highly improbable but under FPTP it could happen. Remember the Canadian Tories went down to 2

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

SEMI SERIOUS QUESTION

What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?

In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through

Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result

https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3744/election/397

But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?

I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.

(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).

Make it 1000/1 and you’re on

Go on then. I’m on the hook for ten grand if the Tories get no seats at all.

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

kle4 said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt -19 in the debate. To be honest I’d have scored her net positive so I do wonder again if it’s just another sign the public gave up with the Tories long ago.

About 2.6 years ago to be precise.

That's when the ship began sinking after Captain Boris crashed it into some rocks, then Truss drilled a whole in the bottom, Sunak patched it up with some emergency planks, but they've been taking on water constantly since, and about 3 weeks ago he decided to jump on the planks to reopen the hole.

I do think we will come to believe that this election was lost in 2022.

Johnson should have gone after Hartlepool and he'd have won a landslide then. That was the peak and it's been downhill ever since.

Of course, the Tories were never truly popular but SKS for a while was doing terribly. So the Tories had room there to defeat him.

Support for Labour is a mile wide but an inch deep.

They are primarily a rejection mechanism for the present administration- their fundamentals are pretty poor.

I think you are wrong. I think we're about to enter another 3 term period of Labour rule, a period which the Tories may not survive in their current form (although something non-Labour will emerge as an alternative in time).

I could of course be wrong and you will be welcome to say 'I told you so' loudly and often if that proves the case.

I think I'm right. But I won't say 'I told you you so' because that'll be annoying for you to hear and I don't particularly care about being seen to be right.

But, anyone who automatically assumes 2-3 terms or 10-15 years minimum is simply projecting present day support wildly into the future and assuming that nothing will change and everything will stay the same.

That's not how it works, nor what the fundamentals show, so it essentially demonstrates a failure of imagination.

I agree with a lot of that, but the key for me is I see no way of the Tories avoiding a lurch to the right after the election. And one thing I am confident of is that to win an election these days you have to grab a bit of the centre ground.

Yeah, but that's just a phrase. What's meant by lurch to the right is being firm on immigration and culture war issues, which is almost certainly where the Right needs to be to rebuild, and winning from the centre means adopting metropolitan liberal sentiments on the same, plus economics.

So, whilst I expect the bracketing and labelling to be precisely along those lines - because that's where most journalists sit - it will not be indicative of a flawed strategy.

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

wooliedyed said:

According to Sam Freedman, he's hearing resources for the Tories are starting to move 'safer' to places like Huntingdon. I suspect they're drawing the fire break at 20,000 majority (90 to 95 seats) and aim for say 50 more above that (Scotland, London, split opposition)

150 would be a little worse than 1997, which right now would be a good result.

Honestly, if/once they go under 100 then everything will crumble away very quickly to almost nothing

Absolute bollocks. The 180-200 seats aim at start of campaign seems bit hopeful now, but with four weeks still to go 150-180 still very much in play, with 120-140 the worst case.

What is meant to happen when a FPTP election is called, is the squeeze on minor parties/wasted votes begins. Correct me where wrong, after these early skirmi what we currently have is highly unusual poll drift away from BOTH main parties. But logically this is unsustainable. Look at the 1983 drift from Alliance to Labour throughout the campaign overall.

this is early days, don’t fool yourself into thinking this drift from Labour and Tories is the norm for next 4 weeks - normality of drift back to the Tory government can still happen.

Starting with Opinium tonight, just keep your eye on the Tory share, like wise with every pollster, is Tory share going up? Not at the moment? but then remember this is early days.

28% still very achievable? Of course it is.

"...120-140 the worst case..."

If the polls are right - a very big if, but it's something we have to consider - then no, it really isn't.

Buoyed by the failures of polls in London and India, we are all subconsciously looking at the polls and adding 50-100 more seats in our head. It can't really be that bad, can it?

Problem is: I just don't know. Hence my anguish

wooliedyed said:

Imaginary situation
Seats for non Lab end up
LD 64
Con 60
Reform 15 (including Nigel)
Do Con accept some sort of merger, inviting the reverse Farage takeover to maintain HM opposition status??

Nope.
Because then they'd shed 15 to the LD's. There'd be Shadow Cabinet posts for a few too.

Casino_Royale said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.

Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.

Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.

Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.

Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.

Grr.

He's not a Conservative. Boris kicked him out remember?

I couldn't care less what Boris did.

It's up to him what he identifies as and the decisions he makes.

No time for turncoats.

On your logic Bonnie Prince Charlie would be a Hanoverian.

Benpointer said:

Anabobazina said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

It's pretty clear from the distribution of results that ULEZ did make a difference, just not enough.

I am not sure the results do suggest that though, do they?

Didn't several ULEZ hating areas record swings to Khan?

It's a difficult comparison because swings in May were from peak second surge of Boris / Hartlepool days

Biggest swings to Khan:

North East (11.3%)
City & East (9.7%)
West Central (5.1%)
Greenwich (4.9%)

Smallest/negative

Bexley & Bromley (0%)
Brent & Harrow (-0.5%)
Croydon and Sutton (-0.3%)
Ealing & Hillingdon (0.7%)

Outer London was significantly worse for Khan. You could attribute that to different things, but I see no reason to assume the ULEZ wasn't a meaningful part of it.

Eh? Your own data shows tiny local swings away from Khan at best. He won by a mile.

Also, Greenwich(+4.9%) and North East(+11.3%) were in the ULEZ expansion were they not?

Indeed so. I really do not know what @whiterabbit is rabbiting on about.

DougSeal said:

biggles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

There was an article yesterday saying SKS would have a decade in power. That's the kiss of death.

Remember when PB said Johnson would have a decade in power?

Even if Labour continued to ride high in the polls, Starmer wouldn’t manage a decade, for the simple reason he’d be 71 and I think he’d want to go before that. He had a career before and has a hinterland - I would think he’ll want some time to enjoy his retirement.

71? That’s only 4 years older than most will be able to retire. And he looks in better shape than most.

Give him three years as PM and take another look. Happens to them all.

eek said:

Mexicanpete said:

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mordaunt reminds me of the hype Sunak had. She's popular because she's not him but she seems to have very little actual talent or ideas. She was meh during the debate.

Now if the Tories had Rory Stewart, they'd be steam rolling Labour. But they kicked him out of the party and said bye bye to voters like me - who I am sure right now they'd love to have. That would probably produce them a 2015 majority.

Danny Finkelstein was right, the Johnson strategy long term results only in losing.

Rory is voting Lib Dem at this election he has said.

Treason. If you're a Conservative you back your side even when it's fucking pouring outside.

Grr.

But if you are just voting for the name what's the point?

If you are a lifelong Heathite, Buttskellist, one nation, socially liberal, pro-EU, anti- hanging Tory what is left for you?

When Suella and Co. join Farage, and something called maybe the "New Conservatives" breaks free from that dangerous clown show, maybe disillusioned feudal Tories have a home again. In the meantime vote LD

+1 for many people the Tory party changed to the point that they cannot support it anymore.

Now for me that happened when Bozo (a liar and scoundrel) was elected leader, for others it was when Truss won... But there comes a time for many people when the party is no longer their party...

Lots of leftwingers applauding a turncoat because it's convenient to them.

Quelle surprise.

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

SEMI SERIOUS QUESTION

What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?

In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through

Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result

https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3744/election/397

But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?

I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.

(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).

Make it 1000/1 and you’re on

Go on then. I’m on the hook for ten grand if the Tories get no seats at all.

Bold and sporting, Sandy. Not sure if I would want to be a backer or layer at those odds.

May I suggest you hedge your position slightly by selling Tories on the spreads? They are on 111, and for what it is worth, I think it's likely to go lower rather than higher.

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

SEMI SERIOUS QUESTION

What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?

In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through

Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result

https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3744/election/397

But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?

I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.

(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).

Make it 1000/1 and you’re on

Go on then. I’m on the hook for ten grand if the Tories get no seats at all.

You can probably hedge that bet easily with a high street bookmaker

Rishi’s Disaster Day

https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/1799403598033670225

They've lost the Sun. The Sun will back Labour.

Musing further.
If the LD's ended up as the Opposition, then you'd have a Shadow Cabinet with a majority who haven't even any experience of even being an MP.
Which would seriously hamper much holding of the government to account.

MattW said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MattW said:

DougSeal said:

Eabhal said:

nova said:

Eabhal said:

eek said:

Eabhal said:

FWIW:

ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)

20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.

LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.

The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...

Doesn't matter - the politics of ULEZ are just really difficult anywhere outside London, Edinburgh, Bristol and so on. I should correct myself though - it's not just the few people who actually live in rural areas (20%), but everyone is provincial towns like say Peterborough.

Surely the pollution levels are pretty much inversely related to the areas where you most need a car?

Yes, that's my point.

If the Tories can bang on about ULEZ for 3 weeks and claim Labour (and Khan) are coming for the rest of the country, it will be effective. The weirdest thing is otherwise, Sunak is very keen on reducing lung disease if you consider his smoking ban. Surprised no one has pestered him on that.

(I realise that I am starting to sound like Moonrabbit... time will tell)

Again, it didn’t work in London, where it actually exists. Not sure it can shift the dial anywhere else where it’s not even been proposed.

You may be a bit more up to date on this than I am. My current list of implemented LEZs (Low Emissions Zones - Down, @Leon !):

Bath
Bradford
Brum *
Bristol *
Glasgow **
London *
Newcastle / Gateshead
Portsmouth
Sheffield

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/clean-air-zones/

All effect commercial vehicles.
* Affects non-compliant private cars
** Bans non-compliant private cars. I think.

There's room for shit-stirring there, but most of these have aiui been in for some time and I expect compliance is now high and we are over the hump.

There is still perhaps room for annoyance amongst cabbies, white van men and hauliers.

If anyone has recent data on compliance, I would be interested.

It is also of interest where improved air quality has been registering, as aiui it has in London, which would allow the "but LEZ / ULEZ" arguments to be countered.

Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh all went live this week, which in the latter case is effing irritating because I'd assumed Edinburgh started at the same time as Glasgow and I've been skirting the centre for the last 9 months.

That's interesting timing for the Election.

Who is perceived as being responsible, Holyrood or Westminster, and is the perceptions positive or negative?

I've genuinely heard no one mention it. I think that's probably because it covers the part of the town you'd be loopy to try to go through in a car due to parked vehicles, tiny roads and hordes of tourists.

Crazy numbers on Betfair Exchange.

Con seats between 0 and 49:

4.9 / 5

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.223763243

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

SEMI SERIOUS QUESTION

What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?

In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through

Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result

https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3744/election/397

But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?

I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.

(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).

Make it 1000/1 and you’re on

Go on then.

Are you serious? You will have to give me £10,000 if I win. That’s a lot of money but I will hold you to it - for the sake of the site’s reputation. Are you sure?

Yes I’m good for the ten bags.

Remember that thing you were saying about asymmetric risks

Barnesian said:

EPG said:

Lib Dems are standing in Bristol. I think that's good for Labour, if this comes down to narrow margins.

I think the Greens will win Bristol Central.
I've bet on the Greens winning two seats.

Norwich South also used to be a Green target.

Andy_JS said:

Barnesian said:

EPG said:

Lib Dems are standing in Bristol. I think that's good for Labour, if this comes down to narrow margins.

I think the Greens will win Bristol Central.
I've bet on the Greens winning two seats.

Norwich South also used to be a Green target.

They should take second here (but well adrift)
They are heavily targeting Waveney Valley

Hey guys, who is best to email my article to?

I've typed up part one of the Northern Ireland constituencies.

Casino_Royale said:

MarqueeMark said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

MarqueeMark said:

jamesdoyle said:

MarqueeMark said:

I do wonder if absent some really Big Thing, this election campaign is over? We have upcoming football and tennis and frankly, any other distraction you can take from politics before we vote.

I thought you were getting really good feedback on the doorstep, though?

Yes, but when the PM is blasting away at his own feet with large calibre weaponry, it is not helpful!

I just think voters generally have tuned out.

I've used you as an arbiter so far of "the other side". You gave me some confidence it might still be a tighter result than expected.

Are you therefore conceding that the Tories are going to lose too? By how much do you think?

I still think that Labour might struggle to break 40. My take was 39% - I think Farage will peel a chunk of votes from Labour on the day.

But my take of the Tories on 33%? That is looking well out of reach. Rishi has proved to be a very poor campaigner. The people around him seem to be clueless.

Yeah, he hasn't just shat the bed. He's fired explosive diarrhea into it, repeatedly.

Just zero political instincts. Not just those around him - apparently he makes a lot of the decisions himself.

He is simply pathetic, as a campaigner.

Leon said:

Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?

I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn

Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds

TheGreenMachine said:

Hey guys, who is best to email my article to?

I've typed up part one of the Northern Ireland constituencies.

rcs1000 via that as a gmail address is probably the best option at the moment.