Punters unmoved by YouGov showing Labour dropping into the 30s – politicalbetting.com

FrancisUrquhart said:

wooliedyed said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

Also, if you have a genuine killer story that will stand up you run it before someone else does.

No you send it just at the right time. 6 weeks out from the GE is too early. e.g. Hunter Laptop story was run 3 weeks before polling day.

What could possibly be the 'killer' story?

Starmer is a Russian agent or is a convicted kiddy fiddler now living under a new name is about all I can think of.

He likes Garibaldi biscuits and the 'music' of Gilbert O'Sullivan

That all for all the claims of being a socialist, he actually has a shrine to Margaret Thatcher in his garden shed....

FrancisUrquhart said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

I am not sure the Tory leaning media heart is even in it. There are plenty of awkward comments that Labour figures, including Starmer, have made in the past. In previous election, they would be running them left, right and centre, instead they are minor stories tucked away on the websites. While the Speccy seems very keen to boot Sunak up the arse.

Apologies for my ignorance but what is an 'October Surprise'? What is the derivation?

Traditionally in US elections both sides have done their dirt digging on the opposition candidates. Because the GE is held in Nov, they release their killer story to the media with about 3 weeks to go i.e. in October.

Trump, grab'em by the... tape, Hunter Biden laptop etc.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

As PBers await with partially-baited breath the thrilling conclusion of determinant Count 19 for Dublin Euro 2024, note that 35.3% of accumulated Clare Daly vote was untransferable.

Not surprising given that there's a limit to how many candidates voter are willing or able to list in order of preference.

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

Richard
@richardgomer
·
2h
OK, if Ed becomes the leader of the opposition I will definitely go to Autumn conference.

https://x.com/richardgomer/status/1800564364468269417

Am I supposed to know who this person is and why they are influential?

Ed Davey. He’s leader of the LibDems.
But not yet influential, particularly.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

Also, if you have a genuine killer story that will stand up you run it before someone else does.

Quincel said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

Richard
@richardgomer
·
2h
OK, if Ed becomes the leader of the opposition I will definitely go to Autumn conference.

https://x.com/richardgomer/status/1800564364468269417

Am I supposed to know who this person is and why they are influential?

Ed Davey. He’s leader of the LibDems.
But not yet influential, particularly.

That's Sir Not Yet Influential, to you...

wooliedyed said:

Thinking about the polling, im expecting a small recovery in Tory share by July 4th from panicking older voters terrified of a complete political landscape reset

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Can't help feeling that Starmer has been quite fortunate that Israel/Gaza seems to have calmed down

Farooq said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Can't help feeling that Starmer has been quite fortunate that Israel/Gaza seems to have calmed down

I am not sure the daring hostage rescue that lead to fire fight, calling in airstrikes and 100s dead is "calming down". Seeing the footage it was anything but calm.

Media fatigue. Nobody cares about dead civilians for very long.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DoubleDutch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

It would be nice not to have to put the effort into not taking Staines seriously.

And the point about personal life scandals is that you can often get away with them if the public already thinks you're basically OK. If anything, they can reassure voters that the target is a man of flesh, blood and passion.

Remember the attempts to make an issue out of Paddy Pantsdown?

Paddy was a perfect example of how to handle a scandal. No obfuscation, no trying to excuse what he had done. Just a straight up mea culpa and apology and move on. Take the flak, take the criticism and own it.

Long time ago too.

We've had Boris since then, the actual PM, and his shagging around isn't what brought him down.

p.s. Paul Staines is scurrilous and a hypocrite. For years he ran a 'Tory Totty' column, some of whom were barely legal. Regardless of one's politics he shouldn't be given the time of day.

What was the last Westminster sex scandal that actually changed anything? Cecil Parkinson 40 years ago?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DoubleDutch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

It would be nice not to have to put the effort into not taking Staines seriously.

And the point about personal life scandals is that you can often get away with them if the public already thinks you're basically OK. If anything, they can reassure voters that the target is a man of flesh, blood and passion.

Remember the attempts to make an issue out of Paddy Pantsdown?

Paddy was a perfect example of how to handle a scandal. No obfuscation, no trying to excuse what he had done. Just a straight up mea culpa and apology and move on. Take the flak, take the criticism and own it.

Long time ago too.

We've had Boris since then, the actual PM, and his shagging around isn't what brought him down.

p.s. Paul Staines is scurrilous and a hypocrite. For years he ran a 'Tory Totty' column, some of whom were barely legal. Regardless of one's politics he shouldn't be given the time of day.

What was the last Westminster sex scandal that actually changed anything? Cecil Parkinson 40 years ago?

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sean_F said:

The Conservatives’ “campaign” is the worst I’ve ever witnessed. Sunak would be over-promoted even as a borough councillor. Labour ran a much better campaign in 1983.

Sunak is rubbish, but the team around him are even worse. I have seen more organisation in an under 8's football team.

The fall out from this disaster as all those involved at the highest levels throw shit all around when they have lost will keep Tim Shipman in royalties for years.

DM_Andy said:

wooliedyed said:

Thinking about the polling, im expecting a small recovery in Tory share by July 4th from panicking older voters terrified of a complete political landscape reset

When most of them are going to vote on 20th/21st June that's going to be hard.

TheScreamingEagles said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DoubleDutch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

It would be nice not to have to put the effort into not taking Staines seriously.

And the point about personal life scandals is that you can often get away with them if the public already thinks you're basically OK. If anything, they can reassure voters that the target is a man of flesh, blood and passion.

Remember the attempts to make an issue out of Paddy Pantsdown?

Paddy was a perfect example of how to handle a scandal. No obfuscation, no trying to excuse what he had done. Just a straight up mea culpa and apology and move on. Take the flak, take the criticism and own it.

Long time ago too.

We've had Boris since then, the actual PM, and his shagging around isn't what brought him down.

p.s. Paul Staines is scurrilous and a hypocrite. For years he ran a 'Tory Totty' column, some of whom were barely legal. Regardless of one's politics he shouldn't be given the time of day.

What was the last Westminster sex scandal that actually changed anything? Cecil Parkinson 40 years ago?

Pincher?

Still amuses me that Boris Johnson had to resign because of somebody else's sex scandal

wooliedyed said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Can't help feeling that Starmer has been quite fortunate that Israel/Gaza seems to have calmed down

His lukewarm Palestine promise Thursday will bring it to the fore again

Nigelb said:

The “live” coverage of the Hunter Biden verdict is risible.
It’s simply not a developing news story. He’s guilty; that’s it.

DM_Andy said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Evening all! Sunak polling well below Liz Truss:

Things are getting worse, not better. Hard to see where good news will come from to turn things round so they can recover to disastrous up from extinction.

Dan Hodges tweeted almost daily for months that waiting any longer would make Tory defeat worse but i suspect he hadn't factored in them running the worst campaign since Michael Foot.

Dan Hodges tweets a lot but in this case it's unfalsifiable, who's to say that November or January wouldn't have been worse?

Sean_F said:

The polls from Focaldata and Savanta point to a terrible Conservative defeat, but not a terminal event, as 1924 was for the Liberals.

The French general election, OTOH, may be the most consequential in a major power in decades.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DoubleDutch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

It would be nice not to have to put the effort into not taking Staines seriously.

And the point about personal life scandals is that you can often get away with them if the public already thinks you're basically OK. If anything, they can reassure voters that the target is a man of flesh, blood and passion.

Remember the attempts to make an issue out of Paddy Pantsdown?

Paddy was a perfect example of how to handle a scandal. No obfuscation, no trying to excuse what he had done. Just a straight up mea culpa and apology and move on. Take the flak, take the criticism and own it.

Long time ago too.

We've had Boris since then, the actual PM, and his shagging around isn't what brought him down.

p.s. Paul Staines is scurrilous and a hypocrite. For years he ran a 'Tory Totty' column, some of whom were barely legal. Regardless of one's politics he shouldn't be given the time of day.

What was the last Westminster sex scandal that actually changed anything? Cecil Parkinson 40 years ago?

How can you forget Tractor-gate.

More seriously, all the me-too stuff was pretty damaging for some (and forced some really onto the back foot even when they hadn't really done anything wrong) and it keeps popping up every so often making it sound like HoC is a pretty toxic place to work. The recent text-gate stuff is quite damaging as well, that a politician is comprised into giving away numbers to people.

I guess that Parrish was a nobody and Wragg was a nobody who had announced his retirement. They were embarrassing matters but relatively low level. Whereas Parkinson was a potential next PM at the time. Meanwhile, Pincher was important not in itself but because of Johnson's handling of the matter.

I do think setting Parkinson as a benchmark is a bit much, though. There have been plenty of reasonably consequential sex scandals since.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Evening all! Sunak polling well below Liz Truss:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DoubleDutch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

It would be nice not to have to put the effort into not taking Staines seriously.

And the point about personal life scandals is that you can often get away with them if the public already thinks you're basically OK. If anything, they can reassure voters that the target is a man of flesh, blood and passion.

Remember the attempts to make an issue out of Paddy Pantsdown?

Paddy was a perfect example of how to handle a scandal. No obfuscation, no trying to excuse what he had done. Just a straight up mea culpa and apology and move on. Take the flak, take the criticism and own it.

Long time ago too.

We've had Boris since then, the actual PM, and his shagging around isn't what brought him down.

p.s. Paul Staines is scurrilous and a hypocrite. For years he ran a 'Tory Totty' column, some of whom were barely legal. Regardless of one's politics he shouldn't be given the time of day.

What was the last Westminster sex scandal that actually changed anything? Cecil Parkinson 40 years ago?

How can you forget Tractor-gate.

More seriously, all the me-too stuff was pretty damaging for some (and forced some really onto the back foot even when they hadn't really done anything wrong) and it keeps popping up every so often making it sound like HoC is a pretty toxic place to work. The recent text-gate stuff is quite damaging as well, that a politician is comprised into giving away numbers to people.

I guess that Parrish was a nobody and Wragg was a nobody who had announced his retirement. They were embarrassing matters but relatively low level. Whereas Parkinson was a potential next PM at the time. Meanwhile, Pincher was important not in itself but because of Johnson's handling of the matter.

I do think setting Parkinson as a benchmark is a bit much, though. There have been plenty of reasonably consequential sex scandals since.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

The “live” coverage of the Hunter Biden verdict is risible.
It’s simply not a developing news story. He’s guilty; that’s it.

In the great American tradition of Presidential fucked-up relatives. Remember Roger Clinton? Billy Carter? Ed Nixon? Milton Eisenhower?

(Just kidding about Milton, he was hardly a fuck-up. Ike should have listened to him more often.)

Peter_the_Punter said:

MattW said:

RochdalePioneers said:

PedestrianRock said:

@RochdalePioneers 66/1 shot is making me think that in an election with weird 3 and 4 way battles in some seats, there might be value in betting on a bunch of reasonable long shots and hoping for maximum chaos... FPTP's idiosyncrasies could see you win some.

Oh believe me, I’m genuinely considering that I could win. Probably won’t. But in a crazy election there will be some crazy results. And my seat is crazy central in Scotland…

EDIT - we do have councillors here if that adds any context. We’re not coming from nowhere. Councillors in Central Buchan and Fraserburgh and Peterhead and briefly in Buckie (he resigned quickly) and I finished 3rd in a 3 seat ward (Troup - Macduff mainly) before losing in round 5 of voting having picked up transfer votes from everyone else including the Tories…

Wishing you success. From the Rational Refuge which is Ashfield .

Matt/Rochdale

It is my belief that this is a really crazy election and we may well see some really crazy results. Long experience as a punter has taught me that in crazy situations, backing the long-shots usually pays dividends.

Rochdale, you could win. In my constituency of Tewkesbury, the LDs can certainly win. I would very much like to hear from others who from close association with events in their locality can recommend a decent punt at long odds. Trouble is, how to track them?

Would somebody like to keep a record of such long-shots and who recommended them, so that those of us who drift in and out can readily find them and bet accordingly if we wish?

I'd offer myself, but I disappear for long spells, am not tecky, and am bone idle.

Peter_the_Punter said:

MattW said:

RochdalePioneers said:

PedestrianRock said:

@RochdalePioneers 66/1 shot is making me think that in an election with weird 3 and 4 way battles in some seats, there might be value in betting on a bunch of reasonable long shots and hoping for maximum chaos... FPTP's idiosyncrasies could see you win some.

Oh believe me, I’m genuinely considering that I could win. Probably won’t. But in a crazy election there will be some crazy results. And my seat is crazy central in Scotland…

EDIT - we do have councillors here if that adds any context. We’re not coming from nowhere. Councillors in Central Buchan and Fraserburgh and Peterhead and briefly in Buckie (he resigned quickly) and I finished 3rd in a 3 seat ward (Troup - Macduff mainly) before losing in round 5 of voting having picked up transfer votes from everyone else including the Tories…

Wishing you success. From the Rational Refuge which is Ashfield .

Matt/Rochdale

It is my belief that this is a really crazy election and we may well see some really crazy results. Long experience as a punter has taught me that in crazy situations, backing the long-shots usually pays dividends.

Rochdale, you could win. In my constituency of Tewkesbury, the LDs can certainly win. I would very much like to hear from others who from close association with events in their locality can recommend a decent punt at long odds. Trouble is, how to track them?

Would somebody like to keep a record of such long-shots and who recommended them, so that those of us who drift in and out can readily find them and bet accordingly if we wish?

I'd offer myself, but I disappear for long spells, am not tecky, and am bone idle.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MattW said:

RochdalePioneers said:

PedestrianRock said:

@RochdalePioneers 66/1 shot is making me think that in an election with weird 3 and 4 way battles in some seats, there might be value in betting on a bunch of reasonable long shots and hoping for maximum chaos... FPTP's idiosyncrasies could see you win some.

Oh believe me, I’m genuinely considering that I could win. Probably won’t. But in a crazy election there will be some crazy results. And my seat is crazy central in Scotland…

EDIT - we do have councillors here if that adds any context. We’re not coming from nowhere. Councillors in Central Buchan and Fraserburgh and Peterhead and briefly in Buckie (he resigned quickly) and I finished 3rd in a 3 seat ward (Troup - Macduff mainly) before losing in round 5 of voting having picked up transfer votes from everyone else including the Tories…

Wishing you success. From the Rational Refuge which is Ashfield .

Matt/Rochdale

It is my belief that this is a really crazy election and we may well see some really crazy results. Long experience as a punter has taught me that in crazy situations, backing the long-shots usually pays dividends.

Rochdale, you could win. In my constituency of Tewkesbury, the LDs can certainly win. I would very much like to hear from others who from close association with events in their locality can recommend a decent punt at long odds. Trouble is, how to track them?

Would somebody like to keep a record of such long-shots and who recommended them, so that those of us who drift in and out can readily find them and bet accordingly if we wish?

I'd offer myself, but I disappear for long spells, am not tecky, and am bone idle.

Good evening

I think it is more likely that the SNP will win in @RochdalePioneers seat, but certainly Ross's behaviour has opened the door to an unexpected result

Expect to see Ross in the HOL if he loses, joining Ruth Davidson

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Evening all! Sunak polling well below Liz Truss:

Tory and Labour gap significantly lower than it was before Truss resigned

I'm sure that will make being on 100 seats much more bearable.

No_Offence_Alan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

In Dublin Euro 2024, Green Ciaran Cuffe has been excluded, his 43,582 votes (first pref + transfers over 17 counts) are now being redistributed (source RTE)

BARRY ANDREWS, FF + 1931 = 69110
REGINA DOHERTY, FG + 2196 = 68725
LYNN BOYLAN, SF + 11338 = 64586
NIALL BOYLAN, II + 4558 = 49490
AODHÁN Ó RÍORDÁIN, LAB + 5001 = 46912

SSI - note that 10.5% of Clare Daly's accumulated vote went for Ind right Boylan, versus 26% for SFer Boylan; further note that Labour got 11.5% of CD transfers compared to only 7.3% for the Green, one reason he got excluded in count 18.

WIth five candidates still standing for four seats (think I got that right now) current count is for all the marbles.

Andrews, Doherty an SFer Boylan clearly elected. Question is, who's on 4th?

Wither the 43,582 transfers now at play? my guess is that Lab O' Riordain is about to get a healthy boost from Cuffe's accumulated transfers, and pool vault over Ind for Ire Boylan.

Make it stop! Just rent the STV counting machines from the Scottish local councils and get it over with!

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

johnt said:

https://x.com/lucyjmcdaid/status/1800564594379043296?s=61&t=vVP0aHQo5wPbgNBDzoHSGA

Former minister quits disabled sailing association in protest at Ed Davey being on one of their boats.

Not sure this is a good look. Firstly it just draws attention to Ed Davey and what he has been doing, but it questions the true commitment of Foster to the cause, and how much he was just involved for political reasons.

There must be many, many cases of politicians visiting charities at the moment and charities will be keen to use the chance to influence. The protest just comes across to me as petulant.

Yes, it's just bonkers. You ignore your opponent with this sort of thing, or say, "Nice to see Ed supporting a charity I've actively supported for many, many years - hope to see him again when there's no election on".

FrancisUrquhart said:

Not an MP, but Prof Lockdown Legover also rather had his career trashed by media story. Like Hancock, it is as much the hypocrisy as anything else.

Mexicanpete said:

Dumbosaurus said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

I am not sure the Tory leaning media heart is even in it. There are plenty of awkward comments that Labour figures, including Starmer, have made in the past. In previous election, they would be running them left, right and centre, instead they are minor stories tucked away on the websites. While the Speccy seems very keen to boot Sunak up the arse.

It's pretty obvious what the story is. If the tories are stupid enough to use it then it'll backfire within a couple of days. All the mysterious prominent senior Labour figure with legal training has to say is that his private life remains private. And meanwhile a mysterious junior Labour figure will leak far more damaging nepotism allegations about equally senior (in the near past) Tory figures and the electorate will be reminded what this election is about.

I have no idea what the story might be.Some hints without allegations might be helpful.

After Johnson's behaviour it is not easy to see any scandal having too much traction unless it involves children or kittens.

Stuartinromford said:

DM_Andy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DoubleDutch said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

It would be nice not to have to put the effort into not taking Staines seriously.

And the point about personal life scandals is that you can often get away with them if the public already thinks you're basically OK. If anything, they can reassure voters that the target is a man of flesh, blood and passion.

Remember the attempts to make an issue out of Paddy Pantsdown?

Paddy was a perfect example of how to handle a scandal. No obfuscation, no trying to excuse what he had done. Just a straight up mea culpa and apology and move on. Take the flak, take the criticism and own it.

Long time ago too.

We've had Boris since then, the actual PM, and his shagging around isn't what brought him down.

p.s. Paul Staines is scurrilous and a hypocrite. For years he ran a 'Tory Totty' column, some of whom were barely legal. Regardless of one's politics he shouldn't be given the time of day.

What was the last Westminster sex scandal that actually changed anything? Cecil Parkinson 40 years ago?

Stephen Milligan? Derailed Back 2 Basics almost at birth.

Not just that.

There's a bit in the Brandreth diaries where he describes a first meeting of a "thoughtful new Conservative MP" supper club. Him, Seb Coe, Stephen Milligan and Judith Chaplin.

Of them, two had hopelessly marginal seats and lost in 1997. Milligan died with an orange in his mouth and Chaplin in an emergency operation.

And in part, that's why the Conservatives veered so far to the right after 1997, with the consequences we see around us now.

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Evening all! Sunak polling well below Liz Truss:

Things are getting worse, not better. Hard to see where good news will come from to turn things round so they can recover to disastrous up from extinction.

Dan Hodges tweeted almost daily for months that waiting any longer would make Tory defeat worse but i suspect he hadn't factored in them running the worst campaign since Michael Foot.

To be honest right now the Tory campaign looks worse than Foot's.

If this was the campaign they ran in the Autumn they would be starting from a worse position. The only upside is that Rishi wouldn't have left DD to do an rumoured to be utter appalling ITV interview.

MoonRabbit said:

Anabobazina said:

MoonRabbit said:

This chart actually shows what the biggest cost will be in the Tory manifesto. As I pointed out on PB last night, the problem with the Tory manifesto is the promised increase in defence spending.

It’s not the policy of increasing defence spending to 2.5% that is the problem - for an interventionist country like ours it seems sound to increase, looking to the unstable international future of the world with more messy collapse of the Russian and US as superpowers, and the rise of EU and China. After/in addition to Ukraine, Putin will invade Moldova, and China not just certain to invade Taiwan, but claim the whole of the South China Sea.

The problem is the one political Party promising to raise defence spending to 2.5% has not realistically explained how they will fund it. In fact, this year, they have gone out of their way to avoid explaining how they will fund it - by-passed putting this increase in defence spending through their last budget* and OBR as urged by senior MPs in their party who, unlike Sunak and Hunt, genuinely care this increase is needed, so needed it funded to be for real. Instead it was delayed to be announced a few weeks later.

This means the Conservative Party has NO policy to increase defence spending to the level seen in this picture, just a gimmick that blows a huge hole into the manifesto below the cost balance waterline. If you cannot say exactly how you are funding this policy without economists laughing straight back into your face, you don’t have a realistic policy, just a gimmicky pledge - a promise not worth the paper it’s written on.

I’ve been pondering defence expenditure. Both big parties want to increase it. Can we somehow get more socioeconomic benefit from it, other than just greater employment in shipyards, military recruitment etc? Obviously we are not going to have the SBS running breakfast clubs in Hackney, but you get my drift (maybe)?

To answer your genuine question, I don’t know very much about defence costings. Other people on the site can give you a very knowledgable answer I suspect.

I do know that - my picture of the day speaks for itself - Team Sunak not putting the rise to 2.5% in budget, through OBR nor even remotely properly funding it in the manifesto, is gaslighting everyone who believes it should be 2.5%.

I do also know when Sunak announced National Service a few weeks back (everyone now knows they can get out of, by saying they’ve an interview to go to) the Tories tried to point to how many other countries already do it, and quickly ridiculed by military and boffins pointing out ours is a professional army ready and so often deployed, not a conscript army.

I also sort of know Defence Budgets and procurements struggle because the big expensive items dominates the money, leaving tin pot money to achieve gold plated dreams on everything else. The expensive things are satellites and insurance for satellites? Wasn’t there talk about separating nuclear from the defence budget as that one cost hurts the rest of the budgets too?

Mexicanpete said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Not an MP, but Prof Lockdown Legover also rather had his career trashed by media story. Like Hancock, it is as much the hypocrisy as anything else.

I don't think it was bonking Scotland and Arsenal goalkeeper Bob Wilson's relative, but doing it during the COVID pandemic when the rules stated a 2 metre distance between work colleagues that got Mancock sacked.

Nigelb said:

MoonRabbit said:

Anabobazina said:

MoonRabbit said:

This chart actually shows what the biggest cost will be in the Tory manifesto. As I pointed out on PB last night, the problem with the Tory manifesto is the promised increase in defence spending.

It’s not the policy of increasing defence spending to 2.5% that is the problem - for an interventionist country like ours it seems sound to increase, looking to the unstable international future of the world with more messy collapse of the Russian and US as superpowers, and the rise of EU and China. After/in addition to Ukraine, Putin will invade Moldova, and China not just certain to invade Taiwan, but claim the whole of the South China Sea.

The problem is the one political Party promising to raise defence spending to 2.5% has not realistically explained how they will fund it. In fact, this year, they have gone out of their way to avoid explaining how they will fund it - by-passed putting this increase in defence spending through their last budget* and OBR as urged by senior MPs in their party who, unlike Sunak and Hunt, genuinely care this increase is needed, so needed it funded to be for real. Instead it was delayed to be announced a few weeks later.

This means the Conservative Party has NO policy to increase defence spending to the level seen in this picture, just a gimmick that blows a huge hole into the manifesto below the cost balance waterline. If you cannot say exactly how you are funding this policy without economists laughing straight back into your face, you don’t have a realistic policy, just a gimmicky pledge - a promise not worth the paper it’s written on.

I’ve been pondering defence expenditure. Both big parties want to increase it. Can we somehow get more socioeconomic benefit from it, other than just greater employment in shipyards, military recruitment etc? Obviously we are not going to have the SBS running breakfast clubs in Hackney, but you get my drift (maybe)?

To answer your genuine question, I don’t know very much about defence costings. Other people on the site can give you a very knowledgable answer I suspect.

I do know that - my picture of the day speaks for itself - Team Sunak not putting the rise to 2.5% in budget, through OBR nor even remotely properly funding it in the manifesto, is gaslighting everyone who believes it should be 2.5%.

I do also know when Sunak announced National Service a few weeks back (everyone now knows they can get out of, by saying they’ve an interview to go to) the Tories tried to point to how many other countries already do it, and quickly ridiculed by military and boffins pointing out ours is a professional army ready and so often deployed, not a conscript army.

I also sort of know Defence Budgets and procurements struggle because the big expensive items dominates the money, leaving tin pot money to achieve gold plated dreams on everything else. The expensive things are satellites and insurance for satellites? Wasn’t there talk about separating nuclear from the defence budget as that one cost hurts the rest of the budgets too?

All you need to know is that defence procurement has been broken for years, and we spend the majority of the money on stuff that’s obsolete.

There’s a tiny chance that a new government might change that, and zero chance the current Tories would.

biggles said:

Nigelb said:

MoonRabbit said:

Anabobazina said:

MoonRabbit said:

This chart actually shows what the biggest cost will be in the Tory manifesto. As I pointed out on PB last night, the problem with the Tory manifesto is the promised increase in defence spending.

It’s not the policy of increasing defence spending to 2.5% that is the problem - for an interventionist country like ours it seems sound to increase, looking to the unstable international future of the world with more messy collapse of the Russian and US as superpowers, and the rise of EU and China. After/in addition to Ukraine, Putin will invade Moldova, and China not just certain to invade Taiwan, but claim the whole of the South China Sea.

The problem is the one political Party promising to raise defence spending to 2.5% has not realistically explained how they will fund it. In fact, this year, they have gone out of their way to avoid explaining how they will fund it - by-passed putting this increase in defence spending through their last budget* and OBR as urged by senior MPs in their party who, unlike Sunak and Hunt, genuinely care this increase is needed, so needed it funded to be for real. Instead it was delayed to be announced a few weeks later.

This means the Conservative Party has NO policy to increase defence spending to the level seen in this picture, just a gimmick that blows a huge hole into the manifesto below the cost balance waterline. If you cannot say exactly how you are funding this policy without economists laughing straight back into your face, you don’t have a realistic policy, just a gimmicky pledge - a promise not worth the paper it’s written on.

I’ve been pondering defence expenditure. Both big parties want to increase it. Can we somehow get more socioeconomic benefit from it, other than just greater employment in shipyards, military recruitment etc? Obviously we are not going to have the SBS running breakfast clubs in Hackney, but you get my drift (maybe)?

To answer your genuine question, I don’t know very much about defence costings. Other people on the site can give you a very knowledgable answer I suspect.

I do know that - my picture of the day speaks for itself - Team Sunak not putting the rise to 2.5% in budget, through OBR nor even remotely properly funding it in the manifesto, is gaslighting everyone who believes it should be 2.5%.

I do also know when Sunak announced National Service a few weeks back (everyone now knows they can get out of, by saying they’ve an interview to go to) the Tories tried to point to how many other countries already do it, and quickly ridiculed by military and boffins pointing out ours is a professional army ready and so often deployed, not a conscript army.

I also sort of know Defence Budgets and procurements struggle because the big expensive items dominates the money, leaving tin pot money to achieve gold plated dreams on everything else. The expensive things are satellites and insurance for satellites? Wasn’t there talk about separating nuclear from the defence budget as that one cost hurts the rest of the budgets too?

All you need to know is that defence procurement has been broken for years, and we spend the majority of the money on stuff that’s obsolete.

There’s a tiny chance that a new government might change that, and zero chance the current Tories would.

Over-simplistic rubbish. Makes you sound like that idiot Lewis Page.

Cleitophon said:

If I were Sunak I would begin to worry that centrist tories are jumping ship to lib dems to ensure they become opposition and that their vote isn't wasted. That is the other story to complement reform crossing over... what happens this coming week could decide if it is Canada 93 or not.

Mexicanpete said:

Dumbosaurus said:

Mexicanpete said:

Dumbosaurus said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Tweedledee said:

NOM is *lengthening* like crazy. Science is powerless to explain this.

Not really.

With the polls as they are, every day that passes should see NOM lengthen until its in the hundreds or a thousand.

There's less and less time available for "events" to prevent a Labour majority from happening, and even a polling error would just be changing the size of the majority as it stands not the fact of one.

Twenty three days left, though fewer for postal voters. And soon, the football will take over the national attention, except for viewers in Wales.

What's left in the dairy that might allow a black swan to land?
Labour's manifesto launch.
The BBC head to head debate.

Anything else?

Staines keep teasing an October Surprise event.

If its true, who knows, if it will make any difference, again who knows. Has he had a really killer story that changed political narrative in recent years, I don't think he has.

I am not sure the Tory leaning media heart is even in it. There are plenty of awkward comments that Labour figures, including Starmer, have made in the past. In previous election, they would be running them left, right and centre, instead they are minor stories tucked away on the websites. While the Speccy seems very keen to boot Sunak up the arse.

It's pretty obvious what the story is. If the tories are stupid enough to use it then it'll backfire within a couple of days. All the mysterious prominent senior Labour figure with legal training has to say is that his private life remains private. And meanwhile a mysterious junior Labour figure will leak far more damaging nepotism allegations about equally senior (in the near past) Tory figures and the electorate will be reminded what this election is about.

I have no idea what the story might be.Some hints without allegations might be helpful.

After Johnson's behaviour it is not easy to see any scandal having too much traction unless it involves children or kittens.

You don't have to be a genius to see what's being insinuated with these two articles:

https://order-order.com/2024/06/05/unreported-affair-hacks-are-gossiping-about-privately/

https://order-order.com/2024/06/11/telegraph-starmers-wife-being-kept-off-campaign-trail/

(and in the first article the identity of the public figure probably explains a bit of the quiet as well...)

Even if true, after Johnson does anyone care?

If I was asked such a question with nothing to hide, I would tell Morgan/ Robinson/Ferrari to mind their own f*****' business.