Current Britain Predicts forecast has Reform getting...
32% in Clacton (4pts ahead) 30% in Boston and Skegvegas (0 ahead) 29% in Rotherham (22pts behind) 29% in Castle Point (4pts behind) 26% in Rayleigh and Wickford (7pts behind)
The polling currently suggests the Conservatives will not be maintaining their majority after the next election.
If that does turn out to be the case, it is likely that Rishi Sunak will stand aside and there will be a contest to replace him.
Public affairs firm Charlesbye - run by former Downing Street communications chief and Boris Johnson aide Lee Cain - has asked 2,447 people who they would like to see takeover.
The most popular choice among the public was current foreign secretary and former prime minister Lord David Cameron - backed by 25.5% of those polled.
This was followed by Nigel Farage - on 20.3% - despite him not being a member of the party.
In third was Penny Mordaunt with 18.6%, followed by Kemi Badenoch on 7.7%, James Cleverly on 6.6%, Priti Patel on 6%, Tom Tugendhat on 5.2%, Suella Braverman on 4.7%, Claire Coutinho 3.2% and, in last, Robert Jenrick with 2.3%.
Sorry, I'm pretty sure that this has already been discussed before at some point, but I just find it highly amusing that the three least unpopular choices amongst the public for leader of what's left of the Tories after this election are a peer (ineligible,) not actually a Tory (ineligible) and a sitting MP with a majority of only about 16K over Labour (therefore likely to be ineligible as well, on account of losing her seat.) All the likely actual contenders register as nuclear waste.
Disclaimer: I'm obviously relating second hand information so no, I don't know if they prompted for Boris Johnson. Or Liz Truss. Or the lettuce.
There has been a lot of talk about Labour's Ming vase strategy but really, from here on in, the Tories need to adopt their own Ming vase strategy: keep a low profile, try not to spook the horses any further, and hope that a sizeable swathe of their habitual voters hold their noses and support their local Tory MP.
There’s something to be said for that. Plus the “don’t give Labour carte blanche” Australia strategy, which I suspect will work with many elderly habitual Tory voters.
Turnout remains the big unknown. I’d expect the habitual Tories to come out in much greater numbers than the pissed off Reform voters.
Jenrick is in the Telegraph today banging the 'don't let them win a landslide' drum.
In which case the Conservatives should have pursued policies that didn't alienate well over half their natural vote from them then.
As it stands, they need a good, long period in opposition to go away and have a think about the voters they abandoned and why we won't vote for them any more. From small business owners to homeowners, anyone of working age really, socially liberal right of centre types, anyone opposed to conscription, anyone who thinks 750k a year net immigration is unsustainable, the list really does go on.
Like others downthread I am deeply worried about Labour's authoritarian and anti-aspirational streaks that are already rearing their heads, and they aren't even in power yet.
But I'm not lending the Conservatives my vote until they change their tune. They completely deserve their spell in opposition.
Another factor us that if the Tories somehow scared enough people into winning then it would be another five years of the same incompent, voter contempt s***show.
Meanwhile the Labour left would say "I told you so" and we would be in an even worse position in 2029 with a Corbynite nutjob leading labour.
And, frankly, reforms to council tax and tax on unearned income are needed, however painful for some individuals.
Personally I would favour replacement of council tax with a land value tax. Most of the land in this country is still owned by the descendents of William 1st's Cronies, after he did what China have done to Tibet, which is iniquitious.
The trick is to tax unearned wealth rather than economic activity. It's why I wouldn't be opposed to, say, a very small (5%?) capital gains tax on primary residence. Most boomers are sitting on gains of half a mil or more simply because they bought great houses back when you could get a half decent one for 70p (with no net benefit to the economy). Why should that go completely untaxed, when my investment in a startup (generating economic activity) does not?
But as you say, most of the land in this country is owned by people who have owned it since King Harold lost an eye.
You can buy prime farmland for relatively small amounts. A few years back I nearly bought some in Kent at £2,500 an acre.
The issue is land you are allowed to live on.
Unless it’s suitable for viticulture. Then the going rate is around 20k per acre.
There has been a lot of talk about Labour's Ming vase strategy but really, from here on in, the Tories need to adopt their own Ming vase strategy: keep a low profile, try not to spook the horses any further, and hope that a sizeable swathe of their habitual voters hold their noses and support their local Tory MP.
There’s something to be said for that. Plus the “don’t give Labour carte blanche” Australia strategy, which I suspect will work with many elderly habitual Tory voters.
Turnout remains the big unknown. I’d expect the habitual Tories to come out in much greater numbers than the pissed off Reform voters.
Jenrick is in the Telegraph today banging the 'don't let them win a landslide' drum.
In which case the Conservatives should have pursued policies that didn't alienate well over half their natural vote from them then.
As it stands, they need a good, long period in opposition to go away and have a think about the voters they abandoned and why we won't vote for them any more. From small business owners to homeowners, anyone of working age really, socially liberal right of centre types, anyone opposed to conscription, anyone who thinks 750k a year net immigration is unsustainable, the list really does go on.
Like others downthread I am deeply worried about Labour's authoritarian and anti-aspirational streaks that are already rearing their heads, and they aren't even in power yet.
But I'm not lending the Conservatives my vote until they change their tune. They completely deserve their spell in opposition.
Another factor us that if the Tories somehow scared enough people into winning then it would be another five years of the same incompent, voter contempt s***show.
Meanwhile the Labour left would say "I told you so" and we would be in an even worse position in 2029 with a Corbynite nutjob leading labour.
And, frankly, reforms to council tax and tax on unearned income are needed, however painful for some individuals.
Personally I would favour replacement of council tax with a land value tax. Most of the land in this country is still owned by the descendents of William 1st's Cronies, after he did what China have done to Tibet, which is iniquitious.
The trick is to tax unearned wealth rather than economic activity. It's why I wouldn't be opposed to, say, a very small (5%?) capital gains tax on primary residence. Most boomers are sitting on gains of half a mil or more simply because they bought great houses back when you could get a half decent one for 70p (with no net benefit to the economy). Why should that go completely untaxed, when my investment in a startup (generating economic activity) does not?
But as you say, most of the land in this country is owned by people who have owned it since King Harold lost an eye.
You can buy prime farmland for relatively small amounts. A few years back I nearly bought some in Kent at £2,500 an acre.
The issue is land you are allowed to live on.
Surely the trick is knowing a local councillor who would be receptive to a small donation in order to convert the land to residential use... perhaps one who is also a member of the same lodge?
But I think the problem is land concentrated by value, rather than volume. How much of London does the Duke of Westminster own?
If those acres had had planning permission, could have easily put a £1 million+ pound house on half an acre. I was looking at 35 acres*. £70 million of sales. Land worth £90,000
Given those numbers, it is surprising that everyone in planning doesn’t drive a Mercedes encrusted in diamonds.
*actual plan was solar farming, sheep and enjoy the profits until the dam breaks on housing. The land was considered as being a long way down the list that *might* be granted planning.
So … leaving aside partisanship, in so far as that’s possible. I reckon:
- The Conservatives will do better than their current polling c. 25%, perhaps up to 27%. They will still be the main Opposition with 100+ seats. Maybe 150+
- Labour will do worse than 1997 on votes (37-39%, maybe sneaking above 40%) but better on seats. c.400+
- The LibDems will do well on seats: 40+
- Reform will underperform: 11-12%. Potentially 0 seats.
- The Greens won’t get above 5%. Remember their highest ever is 3.8%
I could be utterly wrong
Heathen, Will you please promise to keep that post and come back here on July 5th to receive the plaudits or opprobrium, as appropriate?
People who don't stand by their predictions and apologise for mistakes really annoy me.
It's why I can't stand weather forecasters.
Weather forecasters like nothing better than to pick apart the details of where a forecast went wrong so that they can improve future forecasts. The Met Office love that sort of thing, especially as the answer normally ends up being to buy a bigger supercomputer to run the forecast models in greater detail.
Yes, but they do it in private, LP.
I want them to show a little score up on the screen to indicate how accurate they were yesterday. Needn't be complicated. A simple percentage or score out of ten would do. Most days they are right, or sufficiently accurate not to warrant comment, but when they are hopelessly wrong (stats suggest that would be about 15% of the time) a word or two about where and why would be interesting, as well as suitably humble.
As it is, they are like tipsters who don't publish their results, publicly at least. I am sure they are much more forthcoming with their funders, but that's not good enough. I remember the Met Office used to be part of the MoD, and as you probably know the that is one of the most notoriously incompetent and inefficient departments in government. So that wasn't a lot of use. Damned if I know who it would be now.
They were moved to the Department of Business. There is lots of publicly available statistics on forecast accuracy. A lot of competition between the different forecast centres to score best.
For the Met Office there are also measures of forecast accuracy that are laid before Parliament, or at least they were a few years ago.
I agree that more discussion of how and why previous formats went wrong would be really helpful for public understanding of the forecast, as it would help people to know when it was more uncertain, and how to recalibrate the forecast in response to the changes they see in the weather during the day.
The 10-day and deep dive forecasts that the Met Office put out on youtube are pretty good at looking at the uncertainties in the forecast, but they don't look at how the previous forecast turned out, which is definitely a missed opportunity.
If you ever find yourself near the Department of Meteorology at Reading they run a weekly series of current weather seminars where they would start by examining the weather of the past week, and looking at how well the forecast did, before then looking ahead to the next week and discussing other interesting bits and pieces. Might be something you'd be interested in.
Thanks LP. I may drop in. My son works there, so I can catch up with him at the same time.
I've always understood that the results were there for those prepared to do a little delving, but what I want is something akin to the table for tipsters you see in the Racing Post. Something readily accessible and understandable for the general public would probably be good PR for them too, but they don't seem to get it.
The Met Office are a nice little case study in how Britain messes up partial privatisation and public-private partnerships. An example of missed opportunities in industrial strategy.
Years ago the government (I can’t remember of it was under Labour or Tories) decided the office needed to stand on its own two feet and reduced subsidies while requiring it to earn commercial income from its forecasting. Find, but what it means is that the Met offers hardly any free content to the public. It’s all subscription based.
Contrast with the NOAA in the US. They are subsidised massively by the military. As a result they make more data available for free than pretty much all the other agencies put together.
The result? Despite the ECMWF and Met office having more accurate models, most commercial forecasters, apps and websites integrate GFS data. It’s the first thing I look at each day because there’s so much more of it.
And guess what, that’s spawned a huge multi billion dollar private forecasting industry in the US and clusters of industrial investment around NOAA sites.
The US government has mastered this kind of public-private ecosystem in many fields like its aviation and defence industries, computing and internet and biomedical research.
Cybernats update! I am kept entertained by some of the comments that get posted. People supporting a party who openly advocate inward migration to Scotland seem to be unhappy with my funny accent. I am not for Scotland and should go home. And yet the same people are quite happy with their candidate Seamus Logan with his funny accent. He shouldn't go home.
Are the SNP looking to build a one party state?
At least you're completely at home with the Unionist MO of whining about cybernats when the polling aint good.
Whining? No no. They more they interact with my posts - posting emojis and commenting - the more they help to promote my content with the algorithm. I'm *delighted* that they are both helping to promote me and to show to other voters what the choice is in the election.
Incidentally, what do you mean Unionist? I am not a unionist, I'm a federalist. Get it right!
Your problem there is that the English Liberal Democrats are not Federalist.
The Liberal Democrats are federalist. Both in terms of party structure and policy. Federalism is in the manifesto: "Support the creation of a UK Constitutional Convention, with the aim of drafting a new Federal Constitution"
Who is the English Lib Dem leader, then? The English party don't have a separate conference, they just hand off policy making to the Federal Party.
Brexit wasn't a Tory policy. Dave plus team campaigned like bastards to avoid it. In contradistinction to one J Corbyn, and plenty on the Lab side. Of course it was a huge error but it was a cross-party huge error.
David Cameron ran an entirely negative campaign on Brexit which conceded that Brexiteers were right that the EU was terrible, but always keep tight hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse.
This followed Cameron's negative Sindyref campaign, too poor, too wee, too stupid, which saw Yes rising in the polls until the intervention of Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson to sell the positive side of the union.
This followed Cameron's negative 2010 general election campaign which even after the GFC turned poll leads into a face-saving coalition.
David Cameron is a lousy campaigner, whose instinct is always negative, and he is not above putting his thumb on the scales. David Cameron is how we got Brexit. Cameron still lays claim to be our worst Prime Minister since Lord North, and we've had Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss since!
Post of the day. David Cameron screwed this country by his calamitous Brexit Referendum decision. He is arguably the worst PM this country ever had and he has the audacity to come back to public life. F*ck off to your woodshed and ffs stay there!
Incredible - Sunak pulling out of the £1500/head Hurlingham club fundraiser - incredible way to treat the only people gullible enough to still be donating to you.
Current Britain Predicts forecast has Reform getting...
32% in Clacton (4pts ahead) 30% in Boston and Skegvegas (0 ahead) 29% in Rotherham (22pts behind) 29% in Castle Point (4pts behind) 26% in Rayleigh and Wickford (7pts behind)
Rotherham would be an interesting one. Alarmingly similar to Rochdale - both places I have lived in, both with radically divergent populations in different parts of town, covered up scandals with racial undertones.
Galloway winning Rochdale was bad one way. Reform winning Rotherham would be bad the other way. Same coin, different side.
There has been a lot of talk about Labour's Ming vase strategy but really, from here on in, the Tories need to adopt their own Ming vase strategy: keep a low profile, try not to spook the horses any further, and hope that a sizeable swathe of their habitual voters hold their noses and support their local Tory MP.
There’s something to be said for that. Plus the “don’t give Labour carte blanche” Australia strategy, which I suspect will work with many elderly habitual Tory voters.
Turnout remains the big unknown. I’d expect the habitual Tories to come out in much greater numbers than the pissed off Reform voters.
Jenrick is in the Telegraph today banging the 'don't let them win a landslide' drum.
In which case the Conservatives should have pursued policies that didn't alienate well over half their natural vote from them then.
As it stands, they need a good, long period in opposition to go away and have a think about the voters they abandoned and why we won't vote for them any more. From small business owners to homeowners, anyone of working age really, socially liberal right of centre types, anyone opposed to conscription, anyone who thinks 750k a year net immigration is unsustainable, the list really does go on.
Like others downthread I am deeply worried about Labour's authoritarian and anti-aspirational streaks that are already rearing their heads, and they aren't even in power yet.
But I'm not lending the Conservatives my vote until they change their tune. They completely deserve their spell in opposition.
Another factor us that if the Tories somehow scared enough people into winning then it would be another five years of the same incompent, voter contempt s***show.
Meanwhile the Labour left would say "I told you so" and we would be in an even worse position in 2029 with a Corbynite nutjob leading labour.
And, frankly, reforms to council tax and tax on unearned income are needed, however painful for some individuals.
Personally I would favour replacement of council tax with a land value tax. Most of the land in this country is still owned by the descendents of William 1st's Cronies, after he did what China have done to Tibet, which is iniquitious.
The trick is to tax unearned wealth rather than economic activity. It's why I wouldn't be opposed to, say, a very small (5%?) capital gains tax on primary residence. Most boomers are sitting on gains of half a mil or more simply because they bought great houses back when you could get a half decent one for 70p (with no net benefit to the economy). Why should that go completely untaxed, when my investment in a startup (generating economic activity) does not?
But as you say, most of the land in this country is owned by people who have owned it since King Harold lost an eye.
You can buy prime farmland for relatively small amounts. A few years back I nearly bought some in Kent at £2,500 an acre.
The issue is land you are allowed to live on.
Surely the trick is knowing a local councillor who would be receptive to a small donation in order to convert the land to residential use... perhaps one who is also a member of the same lodge?
But I think the problem is land concentrated by value, rather than volume. How much of London does the Duke of Westminster own?
If those acres had had planning permission, could have easily put a £1 million+ pound house on half an acre. I was looking at 35 acres*. £70 million of sales. Land worth £90,000
Given those numbers, it is surprising that everyone in planning doesn’t drive a Mercedes encrusted in diamonds.
*actual plan was solar farming, sheep and enjoy the profits until the dam breaks on housing. The land was considered as being a long way down the list that *might* be granted planning.
It's not just planning permission. Land can be optioned as well: which makes buying farmland, especially around here, rather a fraught matter if you are not careful.
Incredible - Sunak pulling out of the £1500/head Hurlingham club fundraiser - incredible way to treat the only people gullible enough to still be donating to you.
It’s another “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” for him. You are hitting him for not respecting “ the only people gullible enough to still be donating” but if he went to a £1500 per head dinner others would be criticising him for hanging out with rich toffs showing he doesn’t live in a relatable world etc and others would be questioning why he’s at a party when the Party are so far behind and he should have been working on that.
Current Britain Predicts forecast has Reform getting...
32% in Clacton (4pts ahead) 30% in Boston and Skegvegas (0 ahead) 29% in Rotherham (22pts behind) 29% in Castle Point (4pts behind) 26% in Rayleigh and Wickford (7pts behind)
Farage will lose from there. He's not going to win more support - and plenty of time for the mass of forces ranged against him to get their shit together.
I see the spectator has decided the entire election is absurd because it’s ignoring the most important issue of all
Thank you for the post, which I found interesting.
I assume you are referring to the latest missive from that former PBer @SeanT, who left here a few years back never to return. It's called "AI will change everything – so why is the election ignoring it?" and can be found here[1]
Just for shits and giggles I ran the AI article thru an AI summarizer[2] thus
"...The main point of the text is that Britain is not addressing the impending revolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its potential impact on various sectors. The author criticizes politicians for not discussing AI, despite its potential to transform societies, economies, and endanger humanity. The author argues that AI will have a massive impact on education, rendering university education pointless as AI technology advances. The creative sector, including Hollywood and British TV, is also predicted to be decimated by AI. The author suggests that jobs in various cognitive sectors, such as coding, law, management, and design, are at risk of being replaced by AI. The Chinese AI expert, Kai Fu Lee, predicts that 50% of jobs will be lost in three years. The author emphasizes that this is a world-changing event comparable to a global war, and politicians are not addressing it adequately. The text concludes with an analogy of politicians squabbling over trivial matters while a tsunami of AI revolution looms on the horizon..."
AI took their jobs. Now they get paid to make it sound human
Writer Benjamin Miller – not his real name – was thriving in early 2023. He led a team of more than 60 writers and editors, publishing blog posts and articles to promote a tech company that packages and resells data on everything from real estate to used cars. "It was really engaging work," Miller says, a chance to flex his creativity and collaborate with experts on a variety of subjects. But one day, Miller's manager told him about a new project. "They wanted to use AI to cut down on costs," he says. (Miller signed a non-disclosure agreement, and asked the BBC to withhold his and the company's name.)
A month later, the business introduced an automated system. Miller's manager would plug a headline for an article into an online form, an AI model would generate an outline based on that title, and Miller would get an alert on his computer. Instead of coming up with their own ideas, his writers would create articles around those outlines, and Miller would do a final edit before the stories were published. Miller only had a few months to adapt before he got news of a second layer of automation. Going forward, ChatGPT would write the articles in their entirety, and most of his team was fired. The few people remaining were left with an even less creative task: editing ChatGPT's subpar text to make it sound more human.
By 2024, the company laid off the rest of Miller's team, and he was alone.
The spread prices from Spreadex/Sporting for the number of seats to be won by each of fhe main parties remain unchanged this morning in the absence of any further polls. Does anyone consider there's any value to had, by buying or selling at these levels? Sell Buy Labour Seats 428 438 Conservative Seats 108 116 Liberal Democrat Seats 53 57 SNP Seats 19 22 Reform UK Seats 3.5 5.5
I would sell Labour buy Conservartive buy SNP sell Reform and leave the Lib Dems alone
One is tempted to remind you, Roger, of your infamous prediction in respect of a certain Barack Obama, but you have suffered enough so let's just pass lightly over this latest effort.
No, @Roger’s greatest prediction was on observing the queues for Northern Rock - at the very beginning of the GFC - and declaring “this will all be forgotten by Friday” - a prognosis which, IIRC, provoked exPBer @seant to name him Rogerdamus, thus giving birth to that entire meme
There has been a lot of talk about Labour's Ming vase strategy but really, from here on in, the Tories need to adopt their own Ming vase strategy: keep a low profile, try not to spook the horses any further, and hope that a sizeable swathe of their habitual voters hold their noses and support their local Tory MP.
There’s something to be said for that. Plus the “don’t give Labour carte blanche” Australia strategy, which I suspect will work with many elderly habitual Tory voters.
Turnout remains the big unknown. I’d expect the habitual Tories to come out in much greater numbers than the pissed off Reform voters.
Jenrick is in the Telegraph today banging the 'don't let them win a landslide' drum.
In which case the Conservatives should have pursued policies that didn't alienate well over half their natural vote from them then.
As it stands, they need a good, long period in opposition to go away and have a think about the voters they abandoned and why we won't vote for them any more. From small business owners to homeowners, anyone of working age really, socially liberal right of centre types, anyone opposed to conscription, anyone who thinks 750k a year net immigration is unsustainable, the list really does go on.
Like others downthread I am deeply worried about Labour's authoritarian and anti-aspirational streaks that are already rearing their heads, and they aren't even in power yet.
But I'm not lending the Conservatives my vote until they change their tune. They completely deserve their spell in opposition.
Another factor us that if the Tories somehow scared enough people into winning then it would be another five years of the same incompent, voter contempt s***show.
Meanwhile the Labour left would say "I told you so" and we would be in an even worse position in 2029 with a Corbynite nutjob leading labour.
And, frankly, reforms to council tax and tax on unearned income are needed, however painful for some individuals.
Personally I would favour replacement of council tax with a land value tax. Most of the land in this country is still owned by the descendents of William 1st's Cronies, after he did what China have done to Tibet, which is iniquitious.
The trick is to tax unearned wealth rather than economic activity. It's why I wouldn't be opposed to, say, a very small (5%?) capital gains tax on primary residence. Most boomers are sitting on gains of half a mil or more simply because they bought great houses back when you could get a half decent one for 70p (with no net benefit to the economy). Why should that go completely untaxed, when my investment in a startup (generating economic activity) does not?
But as you say, most of the land in this country is owned by people who have owned it since King Harold lost an eye.
Gordon Brown could have imposed CGT on main residences almost painlessly in 1997 after the ERM house price crash. That would have stopped the post 2001 house price bubble rises too.
Taxation on houses should be aimed at penalising speculation and discouraging price rises above inflation. But a lot of very vested interests in the way.
Incredible - Sunak pulling out of the £1500/head Hurlingham club fundraiser - incredible way to treat the only people gullible enough to still be donating to you.
It’s another “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” for him. You are hitting him for not respecting “ the only people gullible enough to still be donating” but if he went to a £1500 per head dinner others would be criticising him for hanging out with rich toffs showing he doesn’t live in a relatable world etc and others would be questioning why he’s at a party when the Party are so far behind and he should have been working on that.
The polling currently suggests the Conservatives will not be maintaining their majority after the next election.
If that does turn out to be the case, it is likely that Rishi Sunak will stand aside and there will be a contest to replace him.
Public affairs firm Charlesbye - run by former Downing Street communications chief and Boris Johnson aide Lee Cain - has asked 2,447 people who they would like to see takeover.
The most popular choice among the public was current foreign secretary and former prime minister Lord David Cameron - backed by 25.5% of those polled.
This was followed by Nigel Farage - on 20.3% - despite him not being a member of the party.
In third was Penny Mordaunt with 18.6%, followed by Kemi Badenoch on 7.7%, James Cleverly on 6.6%, Priti Patel on 6%, Tom Tugendhat on 5.2%, Suella Braverman on 4.7%, Claire Coutinho 3.2% and, in last, Robert Jenrick with 2.3%.
Sorry, I'm pretty sure that this has already been discussed before at some point, but I just find it highly amusing that the three least unpopular choices amongst the public for leader of what's left of the Tories after this election are a peer (ineligible,) not actually a Tory (ineligible) and a sitting MP with a majority of only about 16K over Labour (therefore likely to be ineligible as well, on account of losing her seat.) All the likely actual contenders register as nuclear waste.
Disclaimer: I'm obviously relating second hand information so no, I don't know if they prompted for Boris Johnson. Or Liz Truss. Or the lettuce.
They can't have prompted for Bojo - perhaps this is part of his long term re-election strategy. Showing how hopeless it all is without him.
There has been a lot of talk about Labour's Ming vase strategy but really, from here on in, the Tories need to adopt their own Ming vase strategy: keep a low profile, try not to spook the horses any further, and hope that a sizeable swathe of their habitual voters hold their noses and support their local Tory MP.
There’s something to be said for that. Plus the “don’t give Labour carte blanche” Australia strategy, which I suspect will work with many elderly habitual Tory voters.
Turnout remains the big unknown. I’d expect the habitual Tories to come out in much greater numbers than the pissed off Reform voters.
Jenrick is in the Telegraph today banging the 'don't let them win a landslide' drum.
In which case the Conservatives should have pursued policies that didn't alienate well over half their natural vote from them then.
As it stands, they need a good, long period in opposition to go away and have a think about the voters they abandoned and why we won't vote for them any more. From small business owners to homeowners, anyone of working age really, socially liberal right of centre types, anyone opposed to conscription, anyone who thinks 750k a year net immigration is unsustainable, the list really does go on.
Like others downthread I am deeply worried about Labour's authoritarian and anti-aspirational streaks that are already rearing their heads, and they aren't even in power yet.
But I'm not lending the Conservatives my vote until they change their tune. They completely deserve their spell in opposition.
Another factor us that if the Tories somehow scared enough people into winning then it would be another five years of the same incompent, voter contempt s***show.
Meanwhile the Labour left would say "I told you so" and we would be in an even worse position in 2029 with a Corbynite nutjob leading labour.
And, frankly, reforms to council tax and tax on unearned income are needed, however painful for some individuals.
Personally I would favour replacement of council tax with a land value tax. Most of the land in this country is still owned by the descendents of William 1st's Cronies, after he did what China have done to Tibet, which is iniquitious.
The trick is to tax unearned wealth rather than economic activity. It's why I wouldn't be opposed to, say, a very small (5%?) capital gains tax on primary residence. Most boomers are sitting on gains of half a mil or more simply because they bought great houses back when you could get a half decent one for 70p (with no net benefit to the economy). Why should that go completely untaxed, when my investment in a startup (generating economic activity) does not?
But as you say, most of the land in this country is owned by people who have owned it since King Harold lost an eye.
You can buy prime farmland for relatively small amounts. A few years back I nearly bought some in Kent at £2,500 an acre.
The issue is land you are allowed to live on.
Surely the trick is knowing a local councillor who would be receptive to a small donation in order to convert the land to residential use... perhaps one who is also a member of the same lodge?
But I think the problem is land concentrated by value, rather than volume. How much of London does the Duke of Westminster own?
If those acres had had planning permission, could have easily put a £1 million+ pound house on half an acre. I was looking at 35 acres*. £70 million of sales. Land worth £90,000
Given those numbers, it is surprising that everyone in planning doesn’t drive a Mercedes encrusted in diamonds.
*actual plan was solar farming, sheep and enjoy the profits until the dam breaks on housing. The land was considered as being a long way down the list that *might* be granted planning.
It's not just planning permission. Land can be optioned as well: which makes buying farmland, especially around here, rather a fraught matter if you are not careful.
Knowing how often they are used, I do wonder if cancelling all covenants would free up a fair amount of building land / properties...
Although as we have discussed endlessly, the availability of land is not the problem, it’s the pace at which the housebuilders want to drip properties into the market.
Incredible - Sunak pulling out of the £1500/head Hurlingham club fundraiser - incredible way to treat the only people gullible enough to still be donating to you.
It’s another “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” for him. You are hitting him for not respecting “ the only people gullible enough to still be donating” but if he went to a £1500 per head dinner others would be criticising him for hanging out with rich toffs showing he doesn’t live in a relatable world etc and others would be questioning why he’s at a party when the Party are so far behind and he should have been working on that.
I suspect that is one of the things the Men in Grey Suits now running his campaign have nixed.
How many Labour/LibDem voters will want to risk letting in Farage as their MP? If there is one seat for tactical voting to support the Tory candidate, this is it...
Not really. Green and LD could deliver for Labour.
The problem however is the media are generating their scoop for the 4th July by cosying up to Farage. Isn't he on Kuenssberg today?
Even then, a Labour win would depend on the Con/Ref split being spot-on. Are there enough Conservatives prepared to trek out to Clacton to strangle Reform at late middle age?
But, objectively, Farage taking just enough votes to let Labour in would, objectively, be very very funny.
Why? Its just the entire election writ small.
Labour would probably have won anyway, it is time for a change and the Tories are exhausted, but the massacre will be a result of Reform/Farage splitting the centre right vote in 2. I think Farage is ok with that; he just needs someone to rail against and a dominant Labour government will do fine. Whether Reform voters have thought this through, however, is another matter.
If you (a) like Reform a lot and/or want an opportunity to vent and (b) think Lab and Con are two sides of the same coin, then what is there left to think about?
For all the many faults of the present government, and they are legion, those on the right who think that a Labour government is just going to be more of the same are in for a disappointing decade. They may not recognise their country when it is over.
Yep, many have simply forgotten what a Labour government means.
I think a fair few newer voters on the soft left will be surprised at the authoritarianism. The Labour Party has never pretended to be Liberal. You can see the start of it in the promise to bring back ASBOs. I think I am going to hold my nose and vote Labour but those will be the things that make be regret it. There will also inevitably be institutional vandalism through a lack of a sense of history.
All of that.
The leitmotif is its innate tribalism and desire to reshape and reorder society through regulation, taxation, nannying, authoritarianism, into whatever it pleases. It's happy to use bullying and threats to achieve this and to restructure institutions to stack the deck in its favour. It *will* interfere into your everyday life and pressure you to comply in your personal and professional life or there will be financial and legal consequences for you. It won't brook much dissent.
And sadly you are going to find that Labour isn’t any better.
Incredible - Sunak pulling out of the £1500/head Hurlingham club fundraiser - incredible way to treat the only people gullible enough to still be donating to you.
It’s another “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” for him. You are hitting him for not respecting “ the only people gullible enough to still be donating” but if he went to a £1500 per head dinner others would be criticising him for hanging out with rich toffs showing he doesn’t live in a relatable world etc and others would be questioning why he’s at a party when the Party are so far behind and he should have been working on that.
I suspect that is one of the things the Men in Grey Suits now running his campaign have nixed.
I think it's probably the men in white suits by this point.
Brexit wasn't a Tory policy. Dave plus team campaigned like bastards to avoid it. In contradistinction to one J Corbyn, and plenty on the Lab side. Of course it was a huge error but it was a cross-party huge error.
David Cameron ran an entirely negative campaign on Brexit which conceded that Brexiteers were right that the EU was terrible, but always keep tight hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse.
This followed Cameron's negative Sindyref campaign, too poor, too wee, too stupid, which saw Yes rising in the polls until the intervention of Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson to sell the positive side of the union.
This followed Cameron's negative 2010 general election campaign which even after the GFC turned poll leads into a face-saving coalition.
David Cameron is a lousy campaigner, whose instinct is always negative, and he is not above putting his thumb on the scales. David Cameron is how we got Brexit. Cameron still lays claim to be our worst Prime Minister since Lord North, and we've had Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss since!
None of those people, including Cameron, holds a candle to Sunak in the shit PM stakes. He wrote the book. He is the essence, the id of shit PM.
It is what happens when someone is parachuted into a safe seat and gets to be PM after a few years in parliament and not enough time in cabinet for his mistakes to catch up with him.
Mind you Theresa May was very experienced in local and national politics.
How many Labour/LibDem voters will want to risk letting in Farage as their MP? If there is one seat for tactical voting to support the Tory candidate, this is it...
Not really. Green and LD could deliver for Labour.
The problem however is the media are generating their scoop for the 4th July by cosying up to Farage. Isn't he on Kuenssberg today?
Even then, a Labour win would depend on the Con/Ref split being spot-on. Are there enough Conservatives prepared to trek out to Clacton to strangle Reform at late middle age?
But, objectively, Farage taking just enough votes to let Labour in would, objectively, be very very funny.
Why? Its just the entire election writ small.
Labour would probably have won anyway, it is time for a change and the Tories are exhausted, but the massacre will be a result of Reform/Farage splitting the centre right vote in 2. I think Farage is ok with that; he just needs someone to rail against and a dominant Labour government will do fine. Whether Reform voters have thought this through, however, is another matter.
If you (a) like Reform a lot and/or want an opportunity to vent and (b) think Lab and Con are two sides of the same coin, then what is there left to think about?
For all the many faults of the present government, and they are legion, those on the right who think that a Labour government is just going to be more of the same are in for a disappointing decade. They may not recognise their country when it is over.
Yep, many have simply forgotten what a Labour government means.
I think a fair few newer voters on the soft left will be surprised at the authoritarianism. The Labour Party has never pretended to be Liberal. You can see the start of it in the promise to bring back ASBOs. I think I am going to hold my nose and vote Labour but those will be the things that make be regret it. There will also inevitably be institutional vandalism through a lack of a sense of history.
All of that.
The leitmotif is its innate tribalism and desire to reshape and reorder society through regulation, taxation, nannying, authoritarianism, into whatever it pleases. It's happy to use bullying and threats to achieve this and to restructure institutions to stack the deck in its favour. It *will* interfere into your everyday life and pressure you to comply in your personal and professional life or there will be financial and legal consequences for you. It won't brook much dissent.
And sadly you are going to find that Labour isn’t any better.
Indeed. Rich from the party that films asylum seekers being sent to Africa, and wants to outlaw unisex WCs.
How many Labour/LibDem voters will want to risk letting in Farage as their MP? If there is one seat for tactical voting to support the Tory candidate, this is it...
Not really. Green and LD could deliver for Labour.
The problem however is the media are generating their scoop for the 4th July by cosying up to Farage. Isn't he on Kuenssberg today?
Even then, a Labour win would depend on the Con/Ref split being spot-on. Are there enough Conservatives prepared to trek out to Clacton to strangle Reform at late middle age?
But, objectively, Farage taking just enough votes to let Labour in would, objectively, be very very funny.
Why? Its just the entire election writ small.
Labour would probably have won anyway, it is time for a change and the Tories are exhausted, but the massacre will be a result of Reform/Farage splitting the centre right vote in 2. I think Farage is ok with that; he just needs someone to rail against and a dominant Labour government will do fine. Whether Reform voters have thought this through, however, is another matter.
If you (a) like Reform a lot and/or want an opportunity to vent and (b) think Lab and Con are two sides of the same coin, then what is there left to think about?
For all the many faults of the present government, and they are legion, those on the right who think that a Labour government is just going to be more of the same are in for a disappointing decade. They may not recognise their country when it is over.
Yep, many have simply forgotten what a Labour government means.
I think a fair few newer voters on the soft left will be surprised at the authoritarianism. The Labour Party has never pretended to be Liberal. You can see the start of it in the promise to bring back ASBOs. I think I am going to hold my nose and vote Labour but those will be the things that make be regret it. There will also inevitably be institutional vandalism through a lack of a sense of history.
All of that.
The leitmotif is its innate tribalism and desire to reshape and reorder society through regulation, taxation, nannying, authoritarianism, into whatever it pleases. It's happy to use bullying and threats to achieve this and to restructure institutions to stack the deck in its favour. It *will* interfere into your everyday life and pressure you to comply in your personal and professional life or there will be financial and legal consequences for you. It won't brook much dissent.
And sadly you are going to find that Labour isn’t any better.
Worse. Labour are going to fill the role of dream-crushers.
No doubt you'll approve, and maybe have a go yourself, but it's a cowardly and weak way of engaging in political debate, that commands zero respect from me.
But you've got to suck it up, like you used to tell Remainers. The Tories ain't getting back in and you'll go mad carrying in the way you do. For your own wellbeing, you need to let it go.
My own wellbeing would be greatly enhanced by people like you avoiding snide personal attacks on the welfare of my family because it's politically convenient for you to stick the boot in.
Just a tip.
You need to stop pretending this is something it isn't, nobody is "going after your son". We are talking about a policy issue re VAT. Stop trying to play the victim. You dish out plenty of personal abuse as many of can attest you need to be less of a snowflake when you get it returned
Nah, I don't abuse people I respect. There are many on here I disagree with whose posts I welcome and look forward to with interest. And that's across all sides of the political spectrum. They all have interesting things to contribute, and they do so without malice.
Unfortunately, for you, dribbling old embittered left-wing farts aren't one of them. Like a shy worm you only ever pop your head above the soil to spit your venom when you sense a pile-on you can add to, and otherwise contribute no insights or anything of interest to this board; I treat that with precisely the same respect it deserves: zero.
Now, back to your cabbage farts, As Time Goes By and Bovril, you sad sad man.
No doubt you'll approve, and maybe have a go yourself, but it's a cowardly and weak way of engaging in political debate, that commands zero respect from me.
But you've got to suck it up, like you used to tell Remainers. The Tories ain't getting back in and you'll go mad carrying in the way you do. For your own wellbeing, you need to let it go.
My own wellbeing would be greatly enhanced by people like you avoiding snide personal attacks on the welfare of my family because it's politically convenient for you to stick the boot in.
Just a tip.
You need to stop pretending this is something it isn't, nobody is "going after your son". We are talking about a policy issue re VAT. Stop trying to play the victim. You dish out plenty of personal abuse as many of can attest you need to be less of a snowflake when you get it returned
Nah, I don't abuse people I respect. There are many on here I disagree with whose posts I welcome and look forward to with interest. And that's across all sides of the political spectrum. They all have interesting things to contribute, and they do so without malice.
Unfortunately, for you, dribbling old embittered left-wing farts aren't one of them. Like a shy worm you only ever pop your head above the soil to spit your venom when you sense a pile-on you can add to, and otherwise contribute no insights or anything of interest to this board; I treat that with precisely the same respect it deserves: zero.
Now, back to your cabbage farts, As Time Goes By and Bovril, you sad sad man.
The spread prices from Spreadex/Sporting for the number of seats to be won by each of fhe main parties remain unchanged this morning in the absence of any further polls. Does anyone consider there's any value to had, by buying or selling at these levels? Sell Buy Labour Seats 428 438 Conservative Seats 108 116 Liberal Democrat Seats 53 57 SNP Seats 19 22 Reform UK Seats 3.5 5.5
I'd sell Lib Dem at that level. It's not beyond the realms of possibility but is top end of their targeting approach. I'd probably still buy Tory - suspect the bridge will just about hold when push comes to shove.
The "safest" Conservative seats will typically fall to the Lib Dems if they go. Getting to 55+ LD seats is the other side of the coin of below 100 seats for Cons.
My reason, ultimately, for thinking the Tory bridge will hold is that the Lib Dems in particular have been badly burned by over-targeting in recent elections. They will therefore be steered by a fairly risk-averse party HQ away from stretch targets and towards making top targets secure.
Those stretch targets will then not get the squeeze message as strongly, the Labour vote will be somewhat higher, and the Tories will just about survive on the split. I can see that happening particularly where there are clusters of seats which MRP has as tight Tory/LD contests (Surrey, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Devon/Somerset/Dorset).
In essence, Lib Dem HQ would bite your hand off for the 55 seats implied by the spread now and will be very cautious about gambling for more... a gamble which may, but crucially may not, pay off. It's a case of, "we've had a lovely time, Jim, and will let someone else have a go on the prize board".
The LibDems are alive to the fact that despite the likes of Big_G spending six months wasting our time reading his daily posts about how he wasn’t going to vote Tory, just like he did throughout 2019, Mrs_G had him down as a Tory voter from the start, and clearly she’s the one that gets to fill in their ballot papers.
And people here have the cheek to make caustic comments about postal votes in Tower Hamlets!
How many Labour/LibDem voters will want to risk letting in Farage as their MP? If there is one seat for tactical voting to support the Tory candidate, this is it...
Not really. Green and LD could deliver for Labour.
The problem however is the media are generating their scoop for the 4th July by cosying up to Farage. Isn't he on Kuenssberg today?
Even then, a Labour win would depend on the Con/Ref split being spot-on. Are there enough Conservatives prepared to trek out to Clacton to strangle Reform at late middle age?
But, objectively, Farage taking just enough votes to let Labour in would, objectively, be very very funny.
Why? Its just the entire election writ small.
Labour would probably have won anyway, it is time for a change and the Tories are exhausted, but the massacre will be a result of Reform/Farage splitting the centre right vote in 2. I think Farage is ok with that; he just needs someone to rail against and a dominant Labour government will do fine. Whether Reform voters have thought this through, however, is another matter.
If you (a) like Reform a lot and/or want an opportunity to vent and (b) think Lab and Con are two sides of the same coin, then what is there left to think about?
For all the many faults of the present government, and they are legion, those on the right who think that a Labour government is just going to be more of the same are in for a disappointing decade. They may not recognise their country when it is over.
Yep, many have simply forgotten what a Labour government means.
I think a fair few newer voters on the soft left will be surprised at the authoritarianism. The Labour Party has never pretended to be Liberal. You can see the start of it in the promise to bring back ASBOs. I think I am going to hold my nose and vote Labour but those will be the things that make be regret it. There will also inevitably be institutional vandalism through a lack of a sense of history.
All of that.
The leitmotif is its innate tribalism and desire to reshape and reorder society through regulation, taxation, nannying, authoritarianism, into whatever it pleases. It's happy to use bullying and threats to achieve this and to restructure institutions to stack the deck in its favour. It *will* interfere into your everyday life and pressure you to comply in your personal and professional life or there will be financial and legal consequences for you. It won't brook much dissent.
And sadly you are going to find that Labour isn’t any better.
Indeed. Rich from the party that films asylum seekers being sent to Africa, and wants to outlaw unisex WCs.
And demands unredacted bank statements from disabled benefit claimants.
I see the spectator has decided the entire election is absurd because it’s ignoring the most important issue of all
Salt or sugar on the election night popcorn? 🍿 🍿 🍿 🤔
Neither for me: I have my first triathlon three days later, so I'll need my beauty sleep. No staying up half the night or getting up early....
Oh, who am I kidding...
I have booked the morning off so ready for an all-nighter.
I want to be up for Mogg.
Mogg has an outside chance of holding on, he will squeeze the Reform vote heavily and is a popular MP locally while the opposition vote split between Labour and LDs
Current Britain Predicts forecast has Reform getting...
32% in Clacton (4pts ahead) 30% in Boston and Skegvegas (0 ahead) 29% in Rotherham (22pts behind) 29% in Castle Point (4pts behind) 26% in Rayleigh and Wickford (7pts behind)
There has been a lot of talk about Labour's Ming vase strategy but really, from here on in, the Tories need to adopt their own Ming vase strategy: keep a low profile, try not to spook the horses any further, and hope that a sizeable swathe of their habitual voters hold their noses and support their local Tory MP.
There’s something to be said for that. Plus the “don’t give Labour carte blanche” Australia strategy, which I suspect will work with many elderly habitual Tory voters.
Turnout remains the big unknown. I’d expect the habitual Tories to come out in much greater numbers than the pissed off Reform voters.
Jenrick is in the Telegraph today banging the 'don't let them win a landslide' drum.
In which case the Conservatives should have pursued policies that didn't alienate well over half their natural vote from them then.
As it stands, they need a good, long period in opposition to go away and have a think about the voters they abandoned and why we won't vote for them any more. From small business owners to homeowners, anyone of working age really, socially liberal right of centre types, anyone opposed to conscription, anyone who thinks 750k a year net immigration is unsustainable, the list really does go on.
Like others downthread I am deeply worried about Labour's authoritarian and anti-aspirational streaks that are already rearing their heads, and they aren't even in power yet.
But I'm not lending the Conservatives my vote until they change their tune. They completely deserve their spell in opposition.
Another factor us that if the Tories somehow scared enough people into winning then it would be another five years of the same incompent, voter contempt s***show.
Meanwhile the Labour left would say "I told you so" and we would be in an even worse position in 2029 with a Corbynite nutjob leading labour.
And, frankly, reforms to council tax and tax on unearned income are needed, however painful for some individuals.
Personally I would favour replacement of council tax with a land value tax. Most of the land in this country is still owned by the descendents of William 1st's Cronies, after he did what China have done to Tibet, which is iniquitious.
The trick is to tax unearned wealth rather than economic activity. It's why I wouldn't be opposed to, say, a very small (5%?) capital gains tax on primary residence. Most boomers are sitting on gains of half a mil or more simply because they bought great houses back when you could get a half decent one for 70p (with no net benefit to the economy). Why should that go completely untaxed, when my investment in a startup (generating economic activity) does not?
But as you say, most of the land in this country is owned by people who have owned it since King Harold lost an eye.
You can buy prime farmland for relatively small amounts. A few years back I nearly bought some in Kent at £2,500 an acre.
The issue is land you are allowed to live on.
Surely the trick is knowing a local councillor who would be receptive to a small donation in order to convert the land to residential use... perhaps one who is also a member of the same lodge?
But I think the problem is land concentrated by value, rather than volume. How much of London does the Duke of Westminster own?
If those acres had had planning permission, could have easily put a £1 million+ pound house on half an acre. I was looking at 35 acres*. £70 million of sales. Land worth £90,000
Given those numbers, it is surprising that everyone in planning doesn’t drive a Mercedes encrusted in diamonds.
*actual plan was solar farming, sheep and enjoy the profits until the dam breaks on housing. The land was considered as being a long way down the list that *might* be granted planning.
It's not just planning permission. Land can be optioned as well: which makes buying farmland, especially around here, rather a fraught matter if you are not careful.
Knowing how often they are used, I do wonder if cancelling all covenants would free up a fair amount of building land / properties...
Although as we have discussed endlessly, the availability of land is not the problem, it’s the pace at which the housebuilders want to drip properties into the market.
Optioned land prevents other parties from buying the land, including smaller concerns.
Covenants can prevent someone who owns a house on a large plot from building another house on that plot.
They're both a problem. My inexpert view is that optioned land in particular is a massive issue. It's odd how, around here, you can trace the land that's been optioned with 'plans' that come through a decade or two later. And in the meantime, no-one else can buy or build on that land.
I would not be surprised if all the land around me was optioned. Scuttlebutt says most of it is - or at least the big parcels of farmland.
There has been a lot of talk about Labour's Ming vase strategy but really, from here on in, the Tories need to adopt their own Ming vase strategy: keep a low profile, try not to spook the horses any further, and hope that a sizeable swathe of their habitual voters hold their noses and support their local Tory MP.
There’s something to be said for that. Plus the “don’t give Labour carte blanche” Australia strategy, which I suspect will work with many elderly habitual Tory voters.
Turnout remains the big unknown. I’d expect the habitual Tories to come out in much greater numbers than the pissed off Reform voters.
Jenrick is in the Telegraph today banging the 'don't let them win a landslide' drum.
In which case the Conservatives should have pursued policies that didn't alienate well over half their natural vote from them then.
As it stands, they need a good, long period in opposition to go away and have a think about the voters they abandoned and why we won't vote for them any more. From small business owners to homeowners, anyone of working age really, socially liberal right of centre types, anyone opposed to conscription, anyone who thinks 750k a year net immigration is unsustainable, the list really does go on.
Like others downthread I am deeply worried about Labour's authoritarian and anti-aspirational streaks that are already rearing their heads, and they aren't even in power yet.
But I'm not lending the Conservatives my vote until they change their tune. They completely deserve their spell in opposition.
Another factor us that if the Tories somehow scared enough people into winning then it would be another five years of the same incompent, voter contempt s***show.
Meanwhile the Labour left would say "I told you so" and we would be in an even worse position in 2029 with a Corbynite nutjob leading labour.
And, frankly, reforms to council tax and tax on unearned income are needed, however painful for some individuals.
Personally I would favour replacement of council tax with a land value tax. Most of the land in this country is still owned by the descendents of William 1st's Cronies, after he did what China have done to Tibet, which is iniquitious.
The trick is to tax unearned wealth rather than economic activity. It's why I wouldn't be opposed to, say, a very small (5%?) capital gains tax on primary residence. Most boomers are sitting on gains of half a mil or more simply because they bought great houses back when you could get a half decent one for 70p (with no net benefit to the economy). Why should that go completely untaxed, when my investment in a startup (generating economic activity) does not?
But as you say, most of the land in this country is owned by people who have owned it since King Harold lost an eye.
Gordon Brown could have imposed CGT on main residences almost painlessly in 1997 after the ERM house price crash. That would have stopped the post 2001 house price bubble rises too.
Taxation on houses should be aimed at penalising speculation and discouraging price rises above inflation. But a lot of very vested interests in the way.
It diverts money from the productive part of the economy to the unproductive part.
If I buy a house to live in, and it rises in value by 500k, I pay 0% tax on that profit when I sell it.
If I throw 100k at a mate's startup and my share is worth 600k a decade later, I pay £100k tax on it. If taxed as income, as has been mooted it might be next year, I would pay £211k on the sale.
At the moment the system works to disincentivise investment in job-creating businesses, and into unproductive bricks and mortar.
Incredible - Sunak pulling out of the £1500/head Hurlingham club fundraiser - incredible way to treat the only people gullible enough to still be donating to you.
He must have a war memorial event he needs to be at?
There seems to very little interest in the Tory Party returning to the centre after losing the election. They don't seem to be interested in voters like me at all and seem more interested in more immigration and culture war debates.
There are so many voters like me - younger voters - who could be persuaded to vote for a Tory Party aimed at people under fifty. But as they are not, I really do think long term they will come to pay an even bigger prize as we won't be becoming Conservative and instead Labour will establish a new base in us.
Sunak and Hunt and Cameron ARE the centre ground in the current Tory party. If they lose by a landslide it will be as much from losing rightwingers to Reform and Farage as centrists to Labour and the LDs. Of course it took Labour 13 years after Blair went, shifting ever leftward to Brown, then Ed Miliband and finally to Corbyn before they returned to the centre under Starmer after 4 consecutive general election defeats. Expect similar for the Tories going ever right for the next decade most likely.
Longer term though I agree the Tories need to propose new housing in particular to get younger voters on board, that is why Poilievre will likely lead the Canadian Conservatives back to power after 9 years in opposition on Canadian polls
Brexit wasn't a Tory policy. Dave plus team campaigned like bastards to avoid it. In contradistinction to one J Corbyn, and plenty on the Lab side. Of course it was a huge error but it was a cross-party huge error.
David Cameron ran an entirely negative campaign on Brexit which conceded that Brexiteers were right that the EU was terrible, but always keep tight hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse.
This followed Cameron's negative Sindyref campaign, too poor, too wee, too stupid, which saw Yes rising in the polls until the intervention of Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson to sell the positive side of the union.
This followed Cameron's negative 2010 general election campaign which even after the GFC turned poll leads into a face-saving coalition.
David Cameron is a lousy campaigner, whose instinct is always negative, and he is not above putting his thumb on the scales. David Cameron is how we got Brexit. Cameron still lays claim to be our worst Prime Minister since Lord North, and we've had Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss since!
None of those people, including Cameron, holds a candle to Sunak in the shit PM stakes. He wrote the book. He is the essence, the id of shit PM.
It is what happens when someone is parachuted into a safe seat and gets to be PM after a few years in parliament and not enough time in cabinet for his mistakes to catch up with him.
And talking of parachuting, one in nine of those who go first-time ‘parachuting for charity’ are injured on meeting the ground, and the average cost to the NHS of dealing with their injury exceeds the amount that they and the other eight non-injured have actually raised for their chosen charities. Maybe parachuting for charity isn’t such a good idea?
There seems to very little interest in the Tory Party returning to the centre after losing the election. They don't seem to be interested in voters like me at all and seem more interested in more immigration and culture war debates.
There are so many voters like me - younger voters - who could be persuaded to vote for a Tory Party aimed at people under fifty. But as they are not, I really do think long term they will come to pay an even bigger prize as we won't be becoming Conservative and instead Labour will establish a new base in us.
Sunak and Hunt and Cameron ARE the centre ground in the current Tory party. If they lose by a landslide it will be as much from losing rightwingers to Reform and Farage as centrists to Labour and the LDs. Of course it took Labour 13 years after Blair went, shifting ever leftward to Brown, then Ed Miliband and finally to Corbyn before they returned to the centre under Starmer after 4 consecutive general election defeats. Expect similar for the Tories going ever right for the next decade most likely.
Longer term though I agree the Tories need to propose new housing in particular to get younger voters on board, that is why Poilievre will likely lead the Canadian Conservatives back to power after 9 years in opposition on Canadian polls
But HY, do you agree on those trends that the Tories will be out for over a decade? I think some here think they'll be back in within five years but I just can't see it.
Brexit wasn't a Tory policy. Dave plus team campaigned like bastards to avoid it. In contradistinction to one J Corbyn, and plenty on the Lab side. Of course it was a huge error but it was a cross-party huge error.
David Cameron ran an entirely negative campaign on Brexit which conceded that Brexiteers were right that the EU was terrible, but always keep tight hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse.
This followed Cameron's negative Sindyref campaign, too poor, too wee, too stupid, which saw Yes rising in the polls until the intervention of Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson to sell the positive side of the union.
This followed Cameron's negative 2010 general election campaign which even after the GFC turned poll leads into a face-saving coalition.
David Cameron is a lousy campaigner, whose instinct is always negative, and he is not above putting his thumb on the scales. David Cameron is how we got Brexit. Cameron still lays claim to be our worst Prime Minister since Lord North, and we've had Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss since!
None of those people, including Cameron, holds a candle to Sunak in the shit PM stakes. He wrote the book. He is the essence, the id of shit PM.
It is what happens when someone is parachuted into a safe seat and gets to be PM after a few years in parliament and not enough time in cabinet for his mistakes to catch up with him.
And talking of parachuting, one in nine of those who go first-time ‘parachuting for charity’ are injured on meeting the ground, and the average cost to the NHS of dealing with their injury exceeds the amount that they and the other eight non-injured have actually raised for their chosen charities. Maybe parachuting for charity isn’t such a good idea?
One thing I really dislike is people raising money for charity, who use some of the funds 'raised' for the charity to pay for the costs of what they're doing. If you're doing something, do it and pay for it yourself. If you're raising money for charity, any money raised for that charity should go to that charity.
The polling currently suggests the Conservatives will not be maintaining their majority after the next election.
If that does turn out to be the case, it is likely that Rishi Sunak will stand aside and there will be a contest to replace him.
Public affairs firm Charlesbye - run by former Downing Street communications chief and Boris Johnson aide Lee Cain - has asked 2,447 people who they would like to see takeover.
The most popular choice among the public was current foreign secretary and former prime minister Lord David Cameron - backed by 25.5% of those polled.
This was followed by Nigel Farage - on 20.3% - despite him not being a member of the party.
In third was Penny Mordaunt with 18.6%, followed by Kemi Badenoch on 7.7%, James Cleverly on 6.6%, Priti Patel on 6%, Tom Tugendhat on 5.2%, Suella Braverman on 4.7%, Claire Coutinho 3.2% and, in last, Robert Jenrick with 2.3%.
Sorry, I'm pretty sure that this has already been discussed before at some point, but I just find it highly amusing that the three least unpopular choices amongst the public for leader of what's left of the Tories after this election are a peer (ineligible,) not actually a Tory (ineligible) and a sitting MP with a majority of only about 16K over Labour (therefore likely to be ineligible as well, on account of losing her seat.) All the likely actual contenders register as nuclear waste.
Disclaimer: I'm obviously relating second hand information so no, I don't know if they prompted for Boris Johnson. Or Liz Truss. Or the lettuce.
In my view of those Tory MPs will only put Tugendhat in the final 2. I also have a long standing tip his opponent will be Steve Barclay who will then win the membership vote, his seat is ultra safe and he is a Sunak loyalist but was also a Boris loyalist to the end (one of the few Cabinet ministers who can therefore unite the party in opposition).
Mordaunt and maybe Jenrick and Cleverly lose their seats and won't therefore be eligible anyway, Portsmouth N, Newark and Braintree all went Labour in 1997
I see the spectator has decided the entire election is absurd because it’s ignoring the most important issue of all
Salt or sugar on the election night popcorn? 🍿 🍿 🍿 🤔
Neither for me: I have my first triathlon three days later, so I'll need my beauty sleep. No staying up half the night or getting up early....
Oh, who am I kidding...
I have booked the morning off so ready for an all-nighter.
I want to be up for Mogg.
Mogg has an outside chance of holding on, he will squeeze the Reform vote heavily and is a popular MP locally while the opposition vote split between Labour and LDs
I agree that Rees-Mogg is better placed than most to squeeze RefUK, but you'd be unwise to rely on a split Labour/Lib Dem vote. The Labour candidate is the metro mayor for West of England, and former MP for the predecessor seat, while the Lib Dems have a load of other targets neaby.
I’m sure this got plenty of monetized engagement, but it’s ultimately a false claim.
President Biden was not “wandering off,” he was facing toward and chatting with other parachuters after they landed as part of a flag ceremony for G7 leaders.
There seems to very little interest in the Tory Party returning to the centre after losing the election. They don't seem to be interested in voters like me at all and seem more interested in more immigration and culture war debates.
There are so many voters like me - younger voters - who could be persuaded to vote for a Tory Party aimed at people under fifty. But as they are not, I really do think long term they will come to pay an even bigger prize as we won't be becoming Conservative and instead Labour will establish a new base in us.
Sunak and Hunt and Cameron ARE the centre ground in the current Tory party. If they lose by a landslide it will be as much from losing rightwingers to Reform and Farage as centrists to Labour and the LDs. Of course it took Labour 13 years after Blair went, shifting ever leftward to Brown, then Ed Miliband and finally to Corbyn before they returned to the centre under Starmer after 4 consecutive general election defeats. Expect similar for the Tories going ever right for the next decade most likely.
Longer term though I agree the Tories need to propose new housing in particular to get younger voters on board, that is why Poilievre will likely lead the Canadian Conservatives back to power after 9 years in opposition on Canadian polls
But HY, do you agree on those trends that the Tories will be out for over a decade? I think some here think they'll be back in within five years but I just can't see it.
Depends on how a Labour government performs on the economy largely as much as if the party has a charismatic and not too extreme leader
I see the spectator has decided the entire election is absurd because it’s ignoring the most important issue of all
Salt or sugar on the election night popcorn? 🍿 🍿 🍿 🤔
Neither for me: I have my first triathlon three days later, so I'll need my beauty sleep. No staying up half the night or getting up early....
Oh, who am I kidding...
I have booked the morning off so ready for an all-nighter.
I want to be up for Mogg.
Mogg has an outside chance of holding on, he will squeeze the Reform vote heavily and is a popular MP locally while the opposition vote split between Labour and LDs
I agree that Rees-Mogg is better placed than most to squeeze RefUK, but you'd be unwise to rely on a split Labour/Lib Dem vote. The Labour candidate is the metro mayor for West of England, and former MP for the predecessor seat, while the Lib Dems have a load of other targets neaby.
Yes, I suspect it will go Labour but it is not a dead cert
I’m sure this got plenty of monetized engagement, but it’s ultimately a false claim.
President Biden was not “wandering off,” he was facing toward and chatting with other parachuters after they landed as part of a flag ceremony for G7 leaders.
I see the spectator has decided the entire election is absurd because it’s ignoring the most important issue of all
Salt or sugar on the election night popcorn? 🍿 🍿 🍿 🤔
Neither for me: I have my first triathlon three days later, so I'll need my beauty sleep. No staying up half the night or getting up early....
Oh, who am I kidding...
I have booked the morning off so ready for an all-nighter.
I want to be up for Mogg.
Mogg has an outside chance of holding on, he will squeeze the Reform vote heavily and is a popular MP locally while the opposition vote split between Labour and LDs
With "characters" like Mogg, I wonder if we could get closer to byelection levels of tactical voting. ElectionMaps Nowcast already has it as an easy Labour win, even with around 15% still going to the LDs and Greens.
He's someone a lot of people will have strong feelings about, and a profile that means there will be more focus on what's happening in the seat. If locally it gets through that Labour are the main challengers, then I'd think it's possible that a lot more of that LD/Green vote might go red.
The spread prices from Spreadex/Sporting for the number of seats to be won by each of fhe main parties remain unchanged this morning in the absence of any further polls. Does anyone consider there's any value to had, by buying or selling at these levels? Sell Buy Labour Seats 428 438 Conservative Seats 108 116 Liberal Democrat Seats 53 57 SNP Seats 19 22 Reform UK Seats 3.5 5.5
I'd sell Lib Dem at that level. It's not beyond the realms of possibility but is top end of their targeting approach. I'd probably still buy Tory - suspect the bridge will just about hold when push comes to shove.
The "safest" Conservative seats will typically fall to the Lib Dems if they go. Getting to 55+ LD seats is the other side of the coin of below 100 seats for Cons.
My reason, ultimately, for thinking the Tory bridge will hold is that the Lib Dems in particular have been badly burned by over-targeting in recent elections. They will therefore be steered by a fairly risk-averse party HQ away from stretch targets and towards making top targets secure.
Those stretch targets will then not get the squeeze message as strongly, the Labour vote will be somewhat higher, and the Tories will just about survive on the split. I can see that happening particularly where there are clusters of seats which MRP has as tight Tory/LD contests (Surrey, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Devon/Somerset/Dorset).
In essence, Lib Dem HQ would bite your hand off for the 55 seats implied by the spread now and will be very cautious about gambling for more... a gamble which may, but crucially may not, pay off. It's a case of, "we've had a lovely time, Jim, and will let someone else have a go on the prize board".
The LibDems are alive to the fact that despite the likes of Big_G spending six months wasting our time reading his daily posts about how he wasn’t going to vote Tory, just like he did throughout 2019, Mrs_G had him down as a Tory voter from the start, and clearly she’s the one that gets to fill in their ballot papers.
And people here have the cheek to make caustic comments about postal votes in Tower Hamlets!
Can we give Mrs_G an account here?
Good afternoon
I am saddened that you seem to have ta-ken exception to my wife and my decision to
No doubt you'll approve, and maybe have a go yourself, but it's a cowardly and weak way of engaging in political debate, that commands zero respect from me.
But you've got to suck it up, like you used to tell Remainers. The Tories ain't getting back in and you'll go mad carrying in the way you do. For your own wellbeing, you need to let it go.
My own wellbeing would be greatly enhanced by people like you avoiding snide personal attacks on the welfare of my family because it's politically convenient for you to stick the boot in.
Just a tip.
You need to stop pretending this is something it isn't, nobody is "going after your son". We are talking about a policy issue re VAT. Stop trying to play the victim. You dish out plenty of personal abuse as many of can attest you need to be less of a snowflake when you get it returned
Nah, I don't abuse people I respect. There are many on here I disagree with whose posts I welcome and look forward to with interest. And that's across all sides of the political spectrum. They all have interesting things to contribute, and they do so without malice.
Unfortunately, for you, dribbling old embittered left-wing farts aren't one of them. Like a shy worm you only ever pop your head above the soil to spit your venom when you sense a pile-on you can add to, and otherwise contribute no insights or anything of interest to this board; I treat that with precisely the same respect it deserves: zero.
Now, back to your cabbage farts, As Time Goes By and Bovril, you sad sad man.
The polling currently suggests the Conservatives will not be maintaining their majority after the next election.
If that does turn out to be the case, it is likely that Rishi Sunak will stand aside and there will be a contest to replace him.
Public affairs firm Charlesbye - run by former Downing Street communications chief and Boris Johnson aide Lee Cain - has asked 2,447 people who they would like to see takeover.
The most popular choice among the public was current foreign secretary and former prime minister Lord David Cameron - backed by 25.5% of those polled.
This was followed by Nigel Farage - on 20.3% - despite him not being a member of the party.
In third was Penny Mordaunt with 18.6%, followed by Kemi Badenoch on 7.7%, James Cleverly on 6.6%, Priti Patel on 6%, Tom Tugendhat on 5.2%, Suella Braverman on 4.7%, Claire Coutinho 3.2% and, in last, Robert Jenrick with 2.3%.
Sorry, I'm pretty sure that this has already been discussed before at some point, but I just find it highly amusing that the three least unpopular choices amongst the public for leader of what's left of the Tories after this election are a peer (ineligible,) not actually a Tory (ineligible) and a sitting MP with a majority of only about 16K over Labour (therefore likely to be ineligible as well, on account of losing her seat.) All the likely actual contenders register as nuclear waste.
Disclaimer: I'm obviously relating second hand information so no, I don't know if they prompted for Boris Johnson. Or Liz Truss. Or the lettuce.
In my view of those Tory MPs will only put Tugendhat in the final 2. I also have a long standing tip his opponent will be Steve Barclay who will then win the membership vote, his seat is ultra safe and he is a Sunak loyalist but was also a Boris loyalist to the end (one of the few Cabinet ministers who can therefore unite the party in opposition).
Mordaunt and maybe Jenrick and Cleverly lose their seats and won't therefore be eligible anyway, Portsmouth N, Newark and Braintree all went Labour in 1997
With Penny likely shipwrecked I have put a few bob on Alicia Kearns at 100/1. She will be one of the few survivors in Rutland and Stamford and could be standard bearer for the One Nation wing.
I think far more likely that the Tories will commit seppukko by choosing a right wing populist, but there must be a small chance that they realise that a change of direction is needed.
I’m sure this got plenty of monetized engagement, but it’s ultimately a false claim.
President Biden was not “wandering off,” he was facing toward and chatting with other parachuters after they landed as part of a flag ceremony for G7 leaders.
For efficiency and time management purposes I just assume all "Biden senile" evidence that comes from people rooting for Trump is either out of context or invented.
Why did I not know this before ? (Probably commonplace knowledge.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Eclipse_of_the_Heart with 'Total Eclipse of the Heart', I was trying to come up with a love song and I remembered I actually wrote that to be a vampire love song. Its original title was 'Vampires in Love' because I was working on a musical of Nosferatu, the other great vampire story. If anyone listens to the lyrics, they're really like vampire lines. It's all about the darkness, the power of darkness and love's place in the dark...
I’m sure this got plenty of monetized engagement, but it’s ultimately a false claim.
President Biden was not “wandering off,” he was facing toward and chatting with other parachuters after they landed as part of a flag ceremony for G7 leaders.
There are a large number of gotcha videos on X, which aren't entirely convincing. Biden may or may not be losing it mentally. Musk's website probably isn't where we'll find the definitive evidence either way.
The spread prices from Spreadex/Sporting for the number of seats to be won by each of fhe main parties remain unchanged this morning in the absence of any further polls. Does anyone consider there's any value to had, by buying or selling at these levels? Sell Buy Labour Seats 428 438 Conservative Seats 108 116 Liberal Democrat Seats 53 57 SNP Seats 19 22 Reform UK Seats 3.5 5.5
I'd sell Lib Dem at that level. It's not beyond the realms of possibility but is top end of their targeting approach. I'd probably still buy Tory - suspect the bridge will just about hold when push comes to shove.
The "safest" Conservative seats will typically fall to the Lib Dems if they go. Getting to 55+ LD seats is the other side of the coin of below 100 seats for Cons.
My reason, ultimately, for thinking the Tory bridge will hold is that the Lib Dems in particular have been badly burned by over-targeting in recent elections. They will therefore be steered by a fairly risk-averse party HQ away from stretch targets and towards making top targets secure.
Those stretch targets will then not get the squeeze message as strongly, the Labour vote will be somewhat higher, and the Tories will just about survive on the split. I can see that happening particularly where there are clusters of seats which MRP has as tight Tory/LD contests (Surrey, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Devon/Somerset/Dorset).
In essence, Lib Dem HQ would bite your hand off for the 55 seats implied by the spread now and will be very cautious about gambling for more... a gamble which may, but crucially may not, pay off. It's a case of, "we've had a lovely time, Jim, and will let someone else have a go on the prize board".
The LibDems are alive to the fact that despite the likes of Big_G spending six months wasting our time reading his daily posts about how he wasn’t going to vote Tory, just like he did throughout 2019, Mrs_G had him down as a Tory voter from the start, and clearly she’s the one that gets to fill in their ballot papers.
And people here have the cheek to make caustic comments about postal votes in Tower Hamlets!
Can we give Mrs_G an account here?
I am saddened that you have taken my wife and my decision to vote for the conservative in our postal vote despite an explanation of the thought and reasons and no doubt you do not like that my wife considers Davey a ' clown' and is unimpressed with his antics and his role in the PO enquiry not least as she was a customer of Alan Bates
You twist around on 2019 but fail to recognise I did not vote for Johnson as leader and I did have a vote as I was a member at the time but iof course I voted for the party v Corbyn
You need to understand that my wife and I utterly condemn Farage and it is important for all conservatives who want a one nation party to support the party on the 4th July to ensure the total numbers of votes exceed Reform
My explanation was endorsed by @Heathener and others on here so maybe you need to accept that in some families, and especially mine where my wife and I have just celebrated 60 years of marriage , that we do discuss issues and decide together how we deal with them
The spread prices from Spreadex/Sporting for the number of seats to be won by each of fhe main parties remain unchanged this morning in the absence of any further polls. Does anyone consider there's any value to had, by buying or selling at these levels? Sell Buy Labour Seats 428 438 Conservative Seats 108 116 Liberal Democrat Seats 53 57 SNP Seats 19 22 Reform UK Seats 3.5 5.5
I'd sell Lib Dem at that level. It's not beyond the realms of possibility but is top end of their targeting approach. I'd probably still buy Tory - suspect the bridge will just about hold when push comes to shove.
The "safest" Conservative seats will typically fall to the Lib Dems if they go. Getting to 55+ LD seats is the other side of the coin of below 100 seats for Cons.
My reason, ultimately, for thinking the Tory bridge will hold is that the Lib Dems in particular have been badly burned by over-targeting in recent elections. They will therefore be steered by a fairly risk-averse party HQ away from stretch targets and towards making top targets secure.
Those stretch targets will then not get the squeeze message as strongly, the Labour vote will be somewhat higher, and the Tories will just about survive on the split. I can see that happening particularly where there are clusters of seats which MRP has as tight Tory/LD contests (Surrey, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Devon/Somerset/Dorset).
In essence, Lib Dem HQ would bite your hand off for the 55 seats implied by the spread now and will be very cautious about gambling for more... a gamble which may, but crucially may not, pay off. It's a case of, "we've had a lovely time, Jim, and will let someone else have a go on the prize board".
The LibDems are alive to the fact that despite the likes of Big_G spending six months wasting our time reading his daily posts about how he wasn’t going to vote Tory, just like he did throughout 2019, Mrs_G had him down as a Tory voter from the start, and clearly she’s the one that gets to fill in their ballot papers.
And people here have the cheek to make caustic comments about postal votes in Tower Hamlets!
Can we give Mrs_G an account here?
I am saddened that you have taken my wife and my decision to vote for the conservative in our postal vote despite an explanation of the thought and reasons and no doubt you do not like that my wife considers Davey a ' clown' and is unimpressed with his antics and his role in the PO enquiry not least as she was a customer of Alan Bates
You twist around on 2019 but fail to recognise I did not vote for Johnson as leader and I did have a vote as I was a member at the time but iof course I voted for the party v Corbyn
You need to understand that my wife and I utterly condemn Farage and it is important for all conservatives who want a one nation party to support the party on the 4th July to ensure the total numbers of votes exceed Reform
My explanation was endorsed by @Heathener and others on here so maybe you need to accept that in some families, and especially mine where my wife and I have just celebrated 60 years of marriage , that we do discuss issues and decide together how we deal with them
The spread prices from Spreadex/Sporting for the number of seats to be won by each of fhe main parties remain unchanged this morning in the absence of any further polls. Does anyone consider there's any value to had, by buying or selling at these levels? Sell Buy Labour Seats 428 438 Conservative Seats 108 116 Liberal Democrat Seats 53 57 SNP Seats 19 22 Reform UK Seats 3.5 5.5
I'd sell Lib Dem at that level. It's not beyond the realms of possibility but is top end of their targeting approach. I'd probably still buy Tory - suspect the bridge will just about hold when push comes to shove.
The "safest" Conservative seats will typically fall to the Lib Dems if they go. Getting to 55+ LD seats is the other side of the coin of below 100 seats for Cons.
My reason, ultimately, for thinking the Tory bridge will hold is that the Lib Dems in particular have been badly burned by over-targeting in recent elections. They will therefore be steered by a fairly risk-averse party HQ away from stretch targets and towards making top targets secure.
Those stretch targets will then not get the squeeze message as strongly, the Labour vote will be somewhat higher, and the Tories will just about survive on the split. I can see that happening particularly where there are clusters of seats which MRP has as tight Tory/LD contests (Surrey, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Devon/Somerset/Dorset).
In essence, Lib Dem HQ would bite your hand off for the 55 seats implied by the spread now and will be very cautious about gambling for more... a gamble which may, but crucially may not, pay off. It's a case of, "we've had a lovely time, Jim, and will let someone else have a go on the prize board".
The LibDems are alive to the fact that despite the likes of Big_G spending six months wasting our time reading his daily posts about how he wasn’t going to vote Tory, just like he did throughout 2019, Mrs_G had him down as a Tory voter from the start, and clearly she’s the one that gets to fill in their ballot papers.
And people here have the cheek to make caustic comments about postal votes in Tower Hamlets!
Can we give Mrs_G an account here?
Good afternoon
I am saddened that you seem to have ta-ken exception to my wife and my decision to
Ignore them, BigG.
Deeply embittered people who are determined to be rude to any Conservative.
Anyway, a mountain of leaflets are looking at me in a surly way. Better get rid of them.
Laters...
Good luck, I have spent all morning delivering too around rural Harlow
Leaflets for Harlow? You need to get ‘em out by Friday, although you need to get home before your supper’s ready. Hope you weren’t trespassing when you delivered them. (Other Genesis puns are available.)
The spread prices from Spreadex/Sporting for the number of seats to be won by each of fhe main parties remain unchanged this morning in the absence of any further polls. Does anyone consider there's any value to had, by buying or selling at these levels? Sell Buy Labour Seats 428 438 Conservative Seats 108 116 Liberal Democrat Seats 53 57 SNP Seats 19 22 Reform UK Seats 3.5 5.5
I'd sell Lib Dem at that level. It's not beyond the realms of possibility but is top end of their targeting approach. I'd probably still buy Tory - suspect the bridge will just about hold when push comes to shove.
The "safest" Conservative seats will typically fall to the Lib Dems if they go. Getting to 55+ LD seats is the other side of the coin of below 100 seats for Cons.
My reason, ultimately, for thinking the Tory bridge will hold is that the Lib Dems in particular have been badly burned by over-targeting in recent elections. They will therefore be steered by a fairly risk-averse party HQ away from stretch targets and towards making top targets secure.
Those stretch targets will then not get the squeeze message as strongly, the Labour vote will be somewhat higher, and the Tories will just about survive on the split. I can see that happening particularly where there are clusters of seats which MRP has as tight Tory/LD contests (Surrey, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Devon/Somerset/Dorset).
In essence, Lib Dem HQ would bite your hand off for the 55 seats implied by the spread now and will be very cautious about gambling for more... a gamble which may, but crucially may not, pay off. It's a case of, "we've had a lovely time, Jim, and will let someone else have a go on the prize board".
The LibDems are alive to the fact that despite the likes of Big_G spending six months wasting our time reading his daily posts about how he wasn’t going to vote Tory, just like he did throughout 2019, Mrs_G had him down as a Tory voter from the start, and clearly she’s the one that gets to fill in their ballot papers.
And people here have the cheek to make caustic comments about postal votes in Tower Hamlets!
Can we give Mrs_G an account here?
I am saddened that you have taken my wife and my decision to vote for the conservative in our postal vote despite an explanation of the thought and reasons and no doubt you do not like that my wife considers Davey a ' clown' and is unimpressed with his antics and his role in the PO enquiry not least as she was a customer of Alan Bates
You twist around on 2019 but fail to recognise I did not vote for Johnson as leader and I did have a vote as I was a member at the time but iof course I voted for the party v Corbyn
You need to understand that my wife and I utterly condemn Farage and it is important for all conservatives who want a one nation party to support the party on the 4th July to ensure the total numbers of votes exceed Reform
My explanation was endorsed by @Heathener and others on here so maybe you need to accept that in some families, and especially mine where my wife and I have just celebrated 60 years of marriage , that we do discuss issues and decide together how we deal with them
Your commentary here is now of very little value.
There have been TWENTY-TWO Post Office ministers since the first dodgy prosecution in 1999 of a subpostmaster Horizon data seemed to show had cash shortages. 19 of them have been Labour or Tory.
Does your wife intend boycotting the two parties infinitely more complicit in this miscarriage of justice? Or is she just another gullible idiot, easily fooled by Mail and Express propaganda?
I nearly posted yesterday that the only Con tactic that looked liable to work was the claim that a vote for them was a bulwark against the Farage. Seems I was right in one case at least!
Everyone has to decide how to vote for themselves. Even when we disagree we need to be civil - especialy with those posters who are always civil themselves.
No doubt you'll approve, and maybe have a go yourself, but it's a cowardly and weak way of engaging in political debate, that commands zero respect from me.
Britain has always had a 'crab bucket' mentality, i.e. when one crab tries to escape, the other crabs prevent him, by dragging him back into the bucket.
Contrast and compare that to the US, which has an aspirational mentality. Get filthy rich, send your kids to the most expensive school in the country, buy a big gaudy McMansion with all the trimmings, whatever floats your boat. Buy a boat too, come to think of it.
Whereas in the UK we sneer, and that sneer can come from those above or below you on the pecking order. "A bit of a social climber" "Such a tacky house" "Buys his own furniture, don't you know" etc.
The idea is that everyone is expected to know their place. And British people _hate_ people who don't know their place. Because it reminds them that they, too, don't have to accept their place, but are too pathetic to do anything about it.
Comments
The polling currently suggests the Conservatives will not be maintaining their majority after the next election.
If that does turn out to be the case, it is likely that Rishi Sunak will stand aside and there will be a contest to replace him.
Public affairs firm Charlesbye - run by former Downing Street communications chief and Boris Johnson aide Lee Cain - has asked 2,447 people who they would like to see takeover.
The most popular choice among the public was current foreign secretary and former prime minister Lord David Cameron - backed by 25.5% of those polled.
This was followed by Nigel Farage - on 20.3% - despite him not being a member of the party.
In third was Penny Mordaunt with 18.6%, followed by Kemi Badenoch on 7.7%, James Cleverly on 6.6%, Priti Patel on 6%, Tom Tugendhat on 5.2%, Suella Braverman on 4.7%, Claire Coutinho 3.2% and, in last, Robert Jenrick with 2.3%.
Sorry, I'm pretty sure that this has already been discussed before at some point, but I just find it highly amusing that the three least unpopular choices amongst the public for leader of what's left of the Tories after this election are a peer (ineligible,) not actually a Tory (ineligible) and a sitting MP with a majority of only about 16K over Labour (therefore likely to be ineligible as well, on account of losing her seat.) All the likely actual contenders register as nuclear waste.
Disclaimer: I'm obviously relating second hand information so no, I don't know if they prompted for Boris Johnson. Or Liz Truss. Or the lettuce.
Given those numbers, it is surprising that everyone in planning doesn’t drive a Mercedes encrusted in diamonds.
*actual plan was solar farming, sheep and enjoy the profits until the dam breaks on housing. The land was considered as being a long way down the list that *might* be granted planning.
I want to be up for Mogg.
Galloway winning Rochdale was bad one way. Reform winning Rotherham would be bad the other way. Same coin, different side.
https://missingnumbers.org/land-options-the-little-known-contracts-used-to-control-land/
Knowing how often they are used, I do wonder if cancelling all covenants would free up a fair amount of building land / properties...
Looks like Reform zero seats to me.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240612-the-people-making-ai-sound-more-human
AI took their jobs. Now they get paid to make it sound human
Writer Benjamin Miller – not his real name – was thriving in early 2023. He led a team of more than 60 writers and editors, publishing blog posts and articles to promote a tech company that packages and resells data on everything from real estate to used cars. "It was really engaging work," Miller says, a chance to flex his creativity and collaborate with experts on a variety of subjects. But one day, Miller's manager told him about a new project. "They wanted to use AI to cut down on costs," he says. (Miller signed a non-disclosure agreement, and asked the BBC to withhold his and the company's name.)
A month later, the business introduced an automated system. Miller's manager would plug a headline for an article into an online form, an AI model would generate an outline based on that title, and Miller would get an alert on his computer. Instead of coming up with their own ideas, his writers would create articles around those outlines, and Miller would do a final edit before the stories were published. Miller only had a few months to adapt before he got news of a second layer of automation. Going forward, ChatGPT would write the articles in their entirety, and most of his team was fired. The few people remaining were left with an even less creative task: editing ChatGPT's subpar text to make it sound more human.
By 2024, the company laid off the rest of Miller's team, and he was alone.
Taxation on houses should be aimed at penalising speculation and discouraging price rises above inflation. But a lot of very vested interests in the way.
Mind you Theresa May was very experienced in local and national politics.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tories-accuse-bbc-of-lefty-blairite-bias-over-laura-kuenssberg-panel/ar-BB1ojFX5
Unfortunately, for you, dribbling old embittered left-wing farts aren't one of them. Like a shy worm you only ever pop your head above the soil to spit your venom when you sense a pile-on you can add to, and otherwise contribute no insights or anything of interest to this board; I treat that with precisely the same respect it deserves: zero.
Now, back to your cabbage farts, As Time Goes By and Bovril, you sad sad man.
And people here have the cheek to make caustic comments about postal votes in Tower Hamlets!
Can we give Mrs_G an account here?
Amazing quote from one donor:
“You leave D-Day early, you don’t you go to the summer party. How can you expect other people to turn up for you?”
Covenants can prevent someone who owns a house on a large plot from building another house on that plot.
They're both a problem. My inexpert view is that optioned land in particular is a massive issue. It's odd how, around here, you can trace the land that's been optioned with 'plans' that come through a decade or two later. And in the meantime, no-one else can buy or build on that land.
I would not be surprised if all the land around me was optioned. Scuttlebutt says most of it is - or at least the big parcels of farmland.
If I buy a house to live in, and it rises in value by 500k, I pay 0% tax on that profit when I sell it.
If I throw 100k at a mate's startup and my share is worth 600k a decade later, I pay £100k tax on it. If taxed as income, as has been mooted it might be next year, I would pay £211k on the sale.
At the moment the system works to disincentivise investment in job-creating businesses, and into unproductive bricks and mortar.
Keeps the estate agents happy, I suppose.
Longer term though I agree the Tories need to propose new housing in particular to get younger voters on board, that is why Poilievre will likely lead the Canadian Conservatives back to power after 9 years in opposition on Canadian polls
Mordaunt and maybe Jenrick and Cleverly lose their seats and won't therefore be eligible anyway, Portsmouth N, Newark and Braintree all went Labour in 1997
President Biden was not “wandering off,” he was facing toward and chatting with other parachuters after they landed as part of a flag ceremony for G7 leaders.
https://x.com/FrankLuntz/status/1802040286308409579
@Leon wrong again
What's left for the last fortnight?
He's someone a lot of people will have strong feelings about, and a profile that means there will be more focus on what's happening in the seat. If locally it gets through that Labour are the main challengers, then I'd think it's possible that a lot more of that LD/Green vote might go red.
NEW THREAD
I am saddened that you seem to have ta-ken exception to my wife and my decision to
I think far more likely that the Tories will commit seppukko by choosing a right wing populist, but there must be a small chance that they realise that a change of direction is needed.
It's an approach I highly recommend.
(Probably commonplace knowledge.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Eclipse_of_the_Heart
with 'Total Eclipse of the Heart', I was trying to come up with a love song and I remembered I actually wrote that to be a vampire love song. Its original title was 'Vampires in Love' because I was working on a musical of Nosferatu, the other great vampire story. If anyone listens to the lyrics, they're really like vampire lines. It's all about the darkness, the power of darkness and love's place in the dark...
Biden may or may not be losing it mentally. Musk's website probably isn't where we'll find the definitive evidence either way.
You twist around on 2019 but fail to recognise I did not vote for Johnson as leader and I did have a vote as I was a member at the time but iof course I voted for the party v Corbyn
You need to understand that my wife and I utterly condemn Farage and it is important for all conservatives who want a one nation party to support the party on the 4th July to ensure the total numbers of votes exceed Reform
My explanation was endorsed by @Heathener and others on here so maybe you need to accept that in some families, and especially mine where my wife and I have just celebrated 60 years of marriage , that we do discuss issues and decide together how we deal with them
Deeply embittered people who are determined to be rude to any Conservative.
Says far more about them than you.
Does your wife intend boycotting the two parties infinitely more complicit in this miscarriage of justice? Or is she just another gullible idiot, easily fooled by Mail and Express propaganda?
Everyone has to decide how to vote for themselves. Even when we disagree we need to be civil - especialy with those posters who are always civil themselves.