Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France.
Can anyone advise how to read a twix thread without subscribing to X?
There's a lot of baloney about speed limits and risk aversion in it, imo, and he ignores in his "UK protects the countryside unlike France" thesis that they have more than double our land area.
I got the impression he knew all that and was having a little fun.
The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.
This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.
For once, William, we're in agreement.
Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.
The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.
If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?
They just copied Thatcher on housing.
Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.
We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
You're making excuses for what was poor policy. Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.
I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.
Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.
It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
Well not really. Many things are a loss to the taxpayer but are justified on the grounds of achieving a policy goal or of redistribution. Council house salea.fall.into that bracket. Whereas Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed gamble which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currenct traders.
Though those former council houses are BTL now, so the same renters just with privatised revenue.
At a higher rent than the council / housing association would charge.
The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.
This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.
For once, William, we're in agreement.
Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.
The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.
If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?
They just copied Thatcher on housing.
Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.
We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
You're making excuses for what was poor policy. Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.
I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.
Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.
It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
Well not really. Many things are a loss to the taxpayer but are justified on the grounds of achieving a policy goal or of redistribution. Council house salea.fall.into that bracket. Whereas Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed gamble which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currenct traders.
Though those former council houses are BTL now, so the same renters just with privatised revenue.
At a higher rent than the council / housing association would charge.
With worse maintenance, a landlord in France and a contractor who doesn't give a shit running it (I lived in a couple of them).
Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?
J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16) CON 24% (+1) LAB 38% (-2) LDM 8% (-1) GRN 3% (-2) RFM 25% (+7)
Bit of a shocker I thought.
That's a poll of 520 GB News viewers not of all voters.
When GB News viewers break for Starmer it's obvious that Sunak is toast.
Yes it looks like the Cons are down to the core of their core. People with a strong loyalty to the party who always vote for them come what may. True true blues like HYUFD and BigG. The Con equivalent of people like me and Northern Al and OLB on the Labour side.
Would you really still be voting Labour if they had been as corrupt and incompetent as this lot? I think I'd be voting Green or Binface.
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
True of the UK market. There's a shedload of gambling east of Suez.
The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.
This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.
For once, William, we're in agreement.
Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.
The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.
If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?
They just copied Thatcher on housing.
Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.
We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
You're making excuses for what was poor policy. Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.
I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.
Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.
It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
Well not really. Many things are a loss to the taxpayer but are justified on the grounds of achieving a policy goal or of redistribution. Council house salea.fall.into that bracket. Whereas Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed gamble which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currenct traders.
It wasn’t a gamble. It was once and forever asset allocation switch out of gold and into interest bearing foreign currency - ie reserves management not active in and out trading for 'profit' or 'loss'. Whether it was done as efficiently as it could have been is a separate question.
Fine. Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed "once and forever asset allocation switch" which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currency traders.
The problem at the moment is not that Labour want to get the Tories out, so much as that they want to get Labour in. Preferably with an enormous majority so that they can act as tinpot dictators.
At the same time, provided they get their majority, they are not bothered about what other people want. In fact, it seems to me that they would rather have Tory MPs rather than Lib Dems - because they know that, when faced with Tories, they can polarise everything between themselves and the traditional class enemy. Any increase in support for the Lib Dems, or the Green Party, breaks that set-up for them.
A few weeks ago, when the outcome of this election was no so clear, there was talk about a "secret understanding" between Labour and the Lib Dems, so that one party would be the real challenger to the Tories in each seat, and the other would put on a relatively soft campaign there.
It seems to me that that undeclared understanding has now disappeared, if ever it existed, and the main objective of the Labour Party is to act as a spoiler and save as many Tory seats as possible.
If I am right, that could have very important betting implications. Ms M certainly seems to have fallen victim of the Labour spoiler approach.
I have been eavesdropping for an hour in Spoons waiting for a very delayed friend and have yet to hear even a passing mention of the election.
This is a "chuck the buggers out" election but also a boring one, because we know the main result. Does that mean they average out, and we get an ordinary turnout, or does it mean a low turnout. I'm leaning towards low.
The FT ran the usual excellent Jen Williams story earlier today where she toured around the North talking to people about how useless everything was. No one was talking about the election because the North keeps getting promised stuff and it never happens. If I were Starmer the easiest win would be to pick a few strategic areas to invest in throughout the North (the Northern Rail Link would be a good one), borrow to fund it and drive it through with a single minded determination. Actually delivering a couple of things for people would massively improve people's faith in politics.
BBC News - Fourth Tory investigated in election bets probe
A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.
The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.
A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.
Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .
BBC News - Fourth Tory investigated in election bets probe
A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.
The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.
A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.
Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .
I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.
So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
I’m sorry to tell you SSI there is no limitation on criminal acts in England. You’re well past limitation for civil conversion, but you’ll have to take your chances on criminal prosecution next time you’re here.
BBC News - Fourth Tory investigated in election bets probe
A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.
The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.
A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.
Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .
Saw that earlier. That's not ideal from a campaign management point of view to have your man in charge of targeting and your campaign chief off on smacked bum leave.
The problem at the moment is not that Labour want to get the Tories out, so much as that they want to get Labour in. Preferably with an enormous majority so that they can act as tinpot dictators.
At the same time, provided they get their majority, they are not bothered about what other people want. In fact, it seems to me that they would rather have Tory MPs rather than Lib Dems - because they know that, when faced with Tories, they can polarise everything between themselves and the traditional class enemy. Any increase in support for the Lib Dems, or the Green Party, breaks that set-up for them.
A few weeks ago, when the outcome of this election was no so clear, there was talk about a "secret understanding" between Labour and the Lib Dems, so that one party would be the real challenger to the Tories in each seat, and the other would put on a relatively soft campaign there.
It seems to me that that undeclared understanding has now disappeared, if ever it existed, and the main objective of the Labour Party is to act as a spoiler and save as many Tory seats as possible.
If I am right, that could have very important betting implications. Ms M certainly seems to have fallen victim of the Labour spoiler approach.
You're not wrong - the notion Starmer could be facing Davey across the dispatch box at PMQs every week has far more significance than most realise.
It would at a stroke relegate the Conservatives to the margins for the first time in their existence and all the jibes about "what do the Liberals stand for?" could be applied to them.
As for Labour, as you say, they regard the LDs as the enemy and the Conservatives as the Opposition. I well remember the Greenwich by election of 1987 - once Rosie Barnes had seen off the Conservatives, the Labour vote collapsed because for many the principal reason for voting Labour - to keep the Tories out - had gone.
The duopoly have a symbiotic relationship - breaking that will have profound implications for the political landscape.
No wonder Labour are secretly hoping the Conservatives finish a clear if remote second.
Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?
J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16) CON 24% (+1) LAB 38% (-2) LDM 8% (-1) GRN 3% (-2) RFM 25% (+7)
Bit of a shocker I thought.
That's a poll of 520 GB News viewers not of all voters.
When GB News viewers break for Starmer it's obvious that Sunak is toast.
Yes it looks like the Cons are down to the core of their core. People with a strong loyalty to the party who always vote for them come what may. True true blues like HYUFD and BigG. The Con equivalent of people like me and Northern Al and OLB on the Labour side.
Would you really still be voting Labour if they had been as corrupt and incompetent as this lot? I think I'd be voting Green or Binface.
Good question. I kind of hope not but I suspect I would. Eg in 2010 a large part of me recognised New Labour should step aside for a rest and a reset but I still voted for them.
I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.
So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
I’m sorry to tell you SSI there is no limitation on criminal acts in England. You’re well past limitation for civil conversion, but you’ll have to take your chances on criminal prosecution next time you’re here.
We'll never be able to extradite him if he doesn't come back, so I think he's safe.
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
Actually it does tell us something very interesting.
In one of Labour's safe seats there's a Lab to Con swing of 3% which means there's much bigger Con to Lab swings in the marginals if the national polls are right.
Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France.
Can anyone advise how to read a twix thread without subscribing to X?
There's a lot of baloney about speed limits and risk aversion in it, imo, and he ignores in his "UK protects the countryside unlike France" thesis that they have more than double our land area.
Yeah I'm not sure I buy it either. It was mentioned before that France have a view that there are certain things that should be defended to the hilt (French wine, short working weeks, Secularism, the Constitutional underpinnings of the Republic, 90 minute lunch) which seems rather conservative to me?
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
Also perhaps that within Westminster everybody knows this stuff goes on. We have seen on PB very suss movements in markets several hours before important polls or prior to announcement of results.
I think if it was really investigated its could go to some dodgy places.
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
Labour HQ's data team should get jobs with GCHQ after the election, because if that's true it's very clever.
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
Actually it does tell us something very interesting.
In one of Labour's safe seats there's a Lab to Con swing of 3% which means there's much bigger Con to Lab swings in the marginals if the national polls are right.
Good spot. Interesting.
I have long suspected that London will see Labour underperform relative to the national polling which in turn, as you suggest, may mean they do correspondingly better in a few others places.
Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
Relevant.
If there is a swing of 3% TO THE CONSERVATIVES in Holborn and St Pancras, not merely an anaemic swing to Labour due to the Con share only being able to fall so far, then how much more needed elsewhere for Labour to achieve an overall 15% swing.
Imagine for a moment that the swing is not uniform, not uniform with a proportional element, not proportional, but BEYOND proportional.
I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.
So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
I’m sorry to tell you SSI there is no limitation on criminal acts in England. You’re well past limitation for civil conversion, but you’ll have to take your chances on criminal prosecution next time you’re here.
I have TSE on quasi-retainer. Is that good news OR bad news? AND for him OR me?
BBC News - Fourth Tory investigated in election bets probe
A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.
The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.
A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.
Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .
Saw that earlier. That's not ideal from a campaign management point of view to have your man in charge of targeting and your campaign chief off on smacked bum leave.
Just a good job that the PM didnt randomly tweet about criminals never being shown any mercy a few hours before the story broke. Lucky escape there!
BBC News - Fourth Tory investigated in election bets probe
A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.
The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.
A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.
Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .
Saw that earlier. That's not ideal from a campaign management point of view to have your man in charge of targeting and your campaign chief off on smacked bum leave.
Just a good job that the PM didnt randomly tweet about criminals never being shown any mercy a few hours before the story broke. Lucky escape there!
And it really could have been worse. Some bright spad might have suggested that they commission an ad against gambling with Labour too.
Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
Actually it does tell us something very interesting.
In one of Labour's safe seats there's a Lab to Con swing of 3% which means there's much bigger Con to Lab swings in the marginals if the national polls are right.
I think we've known that for a while. Here in East Ham, there might be a small swing but nothing like 18-20%. In Richmond & Northallerton the swing is 18% but we know from the earlier poll in Gillingham & Rainham we could be looking at 30% swings in some seats - remarkable.
Even back in February when Clacton was polled without Farage, the swing from Labour to Conservative was 24%.
What I think it also shows is the rise of the Greens in London - I think the Green will finish second in Stratford & Bow and a decent third in West Ham & Beckton.
I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.
So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
I’m sorry to tell you SSI there is no limitation on criminal acts in England. You’re well past limitation for civil conversion, but you’ll have to take your chances on criminal prosecution next time you’re here.
I have TSE on quasi-retainer. Is that good news OR bad news? AND for him OR me?
I’m an Oxford educated lawyer. What do you think I’m going to say? The reply almost writes itself.
Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.
Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?
The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.
Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
The Gambling Commission are reluctant to release any more info re new names so these rumours doing the rounds might not come to anything .
Unless something leaks but even then I can’t see it being a member of the cabinet .
Well, LK got hold of a recording of a minister calling the Rwanda policy a load of crap, so the Tory Party is currently as riddled with moles as MI5 in the 60s.
Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
Actually it does tell us something very interesting.
In one of Labour's safe seats there's a Lab to Con swing of 3% which means there's much bigger Con to Lab swings in the marginals if the national polls are right.
Or it’s a constituency poll and the numbers are all over the place. Or it’s a bit weird because Starmer has attracted far left opponents.
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
Relevant.
If there is a swing of 3% TO THE CONSERVATIVES in Holborn and St Pancras, not merely an anaemic swing to Labour due to the Con share only being able to fall so far, then how much more needed elsewhere for Labour to achieve an overall 15% swing.
Imagine for a moment that the swing is not uniform, not uniform with a proportional element, not proportional, but BEYOND proportional.
I think that just implies that swing breaks down in such situations.
Hovever, having to win well over 100 seats to get a majority is no easy ask whatever the polls say.
Also this poll suggests establishment parties on both left and right are losing vote share to insurgents on both left and right.
I have been eavesdropping for an hour in Spoons waiting for a very delayed friend and have yet to hear even a passing mention of the election.
This is a "chuck the buggers out" election but also a boring one, because we know the main result. Does that mean they average out, and we get an ordinary turnout, or does it mean a low turnout. I'm leaning towards low.
The FT ran the usual excellent Jen Williams story earlier today where she toured around the North talking to people about how useless everything was. No one was talking about the election because the North keeps getting promised stuff and it never happens. If I were Starmer the easiest win would be to pick a few strategic areas to invest in throughout the North (the Northern Rail Link would be a good one), borrow to fund it and drive it through with a single minded determination. Actually delivering a couple of things for people would massively improve people's faith in politics.
Mmm. The Tories failing to deliver on Boris's "levelling up" is just one of their many own goals.
Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
Actually it does tell us something very interesting.
In one of Labour's safe seats there's a Lab to Con swing of 3% which means there's much bigger Con to Lab swings in the marginals if the national polls are right.
Or it’s a constituency poll and the numbers are all over the place. Or it’s a bit weird because Starmer has attracted far left opponents.
Lab to Con swings are far from unknown in council by elections in London in the last 2 years.
Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.
Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?
The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.
Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.
Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?
The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.
Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.
Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?
The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.
Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
Didn't Selby have similar demographics (and a similar lead in 2019).
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
Now knowing what these people were like, and the lack of a sense of ethics, if I was the FCA I’d be requisitioning documents showing me when Number 10 became aware of various bits of market sensitive information in its regulated markets, and cross referencing with trading patterns.
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
If you bet on the date of the election you may need to report yourself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
I have been eavesdropping for an hour in Spoons waiting for a very delayed friend and have yet to hear even a passing mention of the election.
This is a "chuck the buggers out" election but also a boring one, because we know the main result. Does that mean they average out, and we get an ordinary turnout, or does it mean a low turnout. I'm leaning towards low.
The FT ran the usual excellent Jen Williams story earlier today where she toured around the North talking to people about how useless everything was. No one was talking about the election because the North keeps getting promised stuff and it never happens. If I were Starmer the easiest win would be to pick a few strategic areas to invest in throughout the North (the Northern Rail Link would be a good one), borrow to fund it and drive it through with a single minded determination. Actually delivering a couple of things for people would massively improve people's faith in politics.
The trouble is he might have scores of new MPs in the South.
Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.
Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?
The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.
Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
You beat me to it.
Also it has a forces population who are annoyed about D-Day.
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
If you bet on the date of the election you may need to report yourself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
I didn’t. And even if I did they are so fucked after allowing my old firm to be sold to a man who took £64m out of the client account to buy it, I don’t think they are going to be a regulator for much longer.
The Tories had a once in a generation sea change and they've completely let it go. The Red Wall will I expect, never be fooled again.
Have to have a look at the relative changes in the red wall compared to non red wall before we can say that. I might take a look at how the mrps view this
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Could you link to the header where you tipped July?
Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.
Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?
The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.
Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
Since the total spend is the same, there must be farmers who love it and who hate it. Unless it's simply the paperwork they hate.
As I understand it, the system is being introduced slowly, 80% old and 20% new in year one, 60% and 40% in year two etc...
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
But were there sudden moves? If yes how did labour spot them when this site didn't, or did it?
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Macron is attractive? Youthful I suppose but attractive?
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Could you link to the header where you tipped July?
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
But were there sudden moves? If yes how did labour spot them when this site didn't, or did it?
I didn’t see any on the roughly two occasions I looked but I wasn’t watching it as closely as Labour political strategists. AIUI there was a sudden jump on 21 May Labour noticed.
FWIW I nearly put some money on October but bottled it.
Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.
Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?
The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.
Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
As you well know, it's nothing to do with any of that.
If I were Labour in R&N, I would be sending details of that poll to every non-Conservative voter (including Reform). As you think all Reform voters are just Conservatives who have lost their way, you won't realise but if you think Reform voters detest Sunak as much as voters from other non-Conservative parties, you might see Labour trying to squeeze LD, Green AND Reform and there's enough of those to defeat Sunak.
It probably won't happen but I wouldn't dismiss it so easily.
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
But were there sudden moves? If yes how did labour spot them when this site didn't, or did it?
I didn’t see any on the roughly two occasions I looked but I wasn’t watching it as closely as Labour political strategists. AIUI there was a sudden jump on 21 May Labour noticed.
FWIW I nearly put some money on October but bottled it.
There are always sudden moves in political market because the bet size of those interested far outweighs the amount anyone is prepared to leave at risk to sudden announcements. I got slightly clobbered with the July thing, but it was in fivers whereas if I actually seeks a bet it'll be in the hundreds. I will always be a little bitter that the December bet that I'd been carefully assembling turned out to be a loser (I really though I had a winner nailed there).
Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.
Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?
The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.
Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
I vaguely know a local (ie farmer) in the constituency who told me, before the election was called, that Sunak wasn't locally popular. Seen as not 'one of us' (by which I mean shire tory vs city dweller, rather than anything racist).
My guess is he underperforms vs national swing but still not enough to unseat him. Those shire tories remain loyal to party and banner, even if the person leading them isn't always up to snuff in their opinion.
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
Current, ongoing Tory insiders betting scandal strikes a stranger from an even stranger land, as quintessentially British.
Have been trying to imagine how this would play on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) if US politicos were involved? My guess is that while it would be a biggish news story, it would NOT have as much impact on USers than on UKers.
Because while betting is a long-standing and fast-growing pastime in US, it is NOT as ubiquitous as in UK. Not as ingrained in the culture, and also higher percentage of folks who are disinclined to gamble and/or disapproving of gambling if not gamblers. Meaning largish segment of likely voters who really don't understand what the issue is with insider betting. (Note this was case with, for example, conviction of Martha Stewart for illegal insider stock trading.)
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?
J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16) CON 24% (+1) LAB 38% (-2) LDM 8% (-1) GRN 3% (-2) RFM 25% (+7)
Bit of a shocker I thought.
That's a poll of 520 GB News viewers not of all voters.
When GB News viewers break for Starmer it's obvious that Sunak is toast.
Yes it looks like the Cons are down to the core of their core. People with a strong loyalty to the party who always vote for them come what may. True true blues like HYUFD and BigG. The Con equivalent of people like me and Northern Al and OLB on the Labour side.
The fools who blindly follow dogma regardless how bad it is for them
Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?
J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16) CON 24% (+1) LAB 38% (-2) LDM 8% (-1) GRN 3% (-2) RFM 25% (+7)
Bit of a shocker I thought.
That's a poll of 520 GB News viewers not of all voters.
When GB News viewers break for Starmer it's obvious that Sunak is toast.
Yes it looks like the Cons are down to the core of their core. People with a strong loyalty to the party who always vote for them come what may. True true blues like HYUFD and BigG. The Con equivalent of people like me and Northern Al and OLB on the Labour side.
The fools who blindly follow dogma regardless how bad it is for them
Are you dogmatically saying that dogmatic policy is wrong then?
Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.
Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?
The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.
Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
Since the total spend is the same, there must be farmers who love it and who hate it. Unless it's simply the paperwork they hate.
As I understand it, the system is being introduced slowly, 80% old and 20% new in year one, 60% and 40% in year two etc...
The money has not been sent/spent - so a lot of farmers are worse off..
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
Current, ongoing Tory insiders betting scandal strikes a stranger from an even stranger land, as quintessentially British.
Have been trying to imagine how this would play on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) if US politicos were involved? My guess is that while it would be a biggish news story, it would NOT have as much impact on USers than on UKers.
Because while betting is a long-standing and fast-growing pastime in US, it is NOT as ubiquitous as in UK. Not as ingrained in the culture, and also higher percentage of folks who are disinclined to gamble and/or disapproving of gambling if not gamblers. Meaning largish segment of likely voters who really don't understand what the issue is with insider betting. (Note this was case with, for example, conviction of Martha Stewart for illegal insider stock trading.)
Also the dates of elections in the States are no secret.
However, if an SC justice’s clerk decided to put some money on the outcome of a case he’d been working on that would make news. By definition, wouldn’t impact an election, but still newsworthy
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.
So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
I’m sorry to tell you SSI there is no limitation on criminal acts in England. You’re well past limitation for civil conversion, but you’ll have to take your chances on criminal prosecution next time you’re here.
I have TSE on quasi-retainer. Is that good news OR bad news? AND for him OR me?
I’m an Oxford educated lawyer. What do you think I’m going to say? The reply almost writes itself.
I am throwing myself upon the mercy of the PB Bar! PROVIDED I confess my guilt, could you law-mongers arrange for my extradition to England to answer for my crime? With reasonable expense account for lodging, dining, entertainment, etc., etc. while undergoing the rigors of due process?
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
What's wrong with all of you? Should we have a Country Life style political deb of the month feature? Some commentary is a little too homo-erotic for my old fashioned post-Brexit tastes.
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
He’s got a butt mouth . Definitely not good looking . I think Starmer wins because of his lovely hair , he needs to smile more and what were Labour thinking with that manifesto cover . He looked like a relative of the Krays, far too severe .
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
Yuck. That sort of student picture's of the sort taken by the I'm-going-to-be-famous-one-day sorts of shits who infested halls. Few ever actually made it. I mean, the skull...
When parliament reconvenes he's going to get his supporters to protest outside parliament isn't he?
🚨 ELECTION INTERFERENCE ALERT 🚨
Today's Mail on Sunday claimed President Zelensky said that I was personally infected with Putinism. This is totally untrue and I have instructed Carter Ruck to deal with it.
Tomorrow’s Daily Mail are so desperate to smear Reform that they have now contacted the Russian Foreign Ministry and goaded them into a supposed quote from someone in Sergey Lavrov’s office calling me an ‘ally’.
That a UK newspaper group is actively collaborating with the Kremlin to protect their dying Conservative party is an absolute scandal. The British people will see through this act of utter desperation.
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
If you bet on the date of the election you may need to report yourself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
I didn’t. And even if I did they are so fucked after allowing my old firm to be sold to a man who took £64m out of the client account to buy it, I don’t think they are going to be a regulator for much longer.
I know two ex solicitors who stole large sums from their clients, and while they were struck off, no effort has been made to recover the money.
Re GB News viewer poll. That will shut up Jon Sopel who claimed that its viewers are dominated by Reform voters and thus shows that it is a dangerous propaganda channel. And that BBC / ITV viewer breakdowns much more in line with national polling so perfectly balanced. Strangely he also forgot to mention Ch4 News viewer are massively bias to left wing parties, but that isn't a dangerous propaganda news outlet in his book.
tbf it's only the GB news viewers who are capable of interacting with modern technology that have been polled.
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:
At this point Bowie didn’t have to get his taken at a machine on the bus station. He could just send in his suitably cropped professionally take publicity stills. As he clearly did here. Those machines would make Matt Damon look like Matt le Tissier.
Current, ongoing Tory insiders betting scandal strikes a stranger from an even stranger land, as quintessentially British.
Have been trying to imagine how this would play on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) if US politicos were involved? My guess is that while it would be a biggish news story, it would NOT have as much impact on USers than on UKers.
Because while betting is a long-standing and fast-growing pastime in US, it is NOT as ubiquitous as in UK. Not as ingrained in the culture, and also higher percentage of folks who are disinclined to gamble and/or disapproving of gambling if not gamblers. Meaning largish segment of likely voters who really don't understand what the issue is with insider betting. (Note this was case with, for example, conviction of Martha Stewart for illegal insider stock trading.)
Also the dates of elections in the States are no secret.
However, if an SC justice’s clerk decided to put some money on the outcome of a case he’d been working on that would make news. By definition, wouldn’t impact an election, but still newsworthy
In many American states, it is illegal to bet on the OUTCOME of elections.
Comments
Think of the Sunak 250/1 tip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Five sixes in a row.
At the same time, provided they get their majority, they are not bothered about what other people want. In fact, it seems to me that they would rather have Tory MPs rather than Lib Dems - because they know that, when faced with Tories, they can polarise everything between themselves and the traditional class enemy. Any increase in support for the Lib Dems, or the Green Party, breaks that set-up for them.
A few weeks ago, when the outcome of this election was no so clear, there was talk about a "secret understanding" between Labour and the Lib Dems, so that one party would be the real challenger to the Tories in each seat, and the other would put on a relatively soft campaign there.
It seems to me that that undeclared understanding has now disappeared, if ever it existed, and the main objective of the Labour Party is to act as a spoiler and save as many Tory seats as possible.
If I am right, that could have very important betting implications. Ms M certainly seems to have fallen victim of the Labour spoiler approach.
LAB 54% (-12)
GRE 14% (+11)
LD 9% (-3)
CON 9% (-6)
IND 6% (new)
REF 5% (+3 from Brexit Party)
OTH 4% (+4)
F/w 19th - 21st June. Changes vs. Notional 2019 result
https://x.com/Survation/status/1804916777182269763
Now onto the football later
A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.
The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.
A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.
Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511nv3pjd6o
It would at a stroke relegate the Conservatives to the margins for the first time in their existence and all the jibes about "what do the Liberals stand for?" could be applied to them.
As for Labour, as you say, they regard the LDs as the enemy and the Conservatives as the Opposition. I well remember the Greenwich by election of 1987 - once Rosie Barnes had seen off the Conservatives, the Labour vote collapsed because for many the principal reason for voting Labour - to keep the Tories out - had gone.
The duopoly have a symbiotic relationship - breaking that will have profound implications for the political landscape.
No wonder Labour are secretly hoping the Conservatives finish a clear if remote second.
In one of Labour's safe seats there's a Lab to Con swing of 3% which means there's much bigger Con to Lab swings in the marginals if the national polls are right.
I think if it was really investigated its could go to some dodgy places.
I have long suspected that London will see Labour underperform relative to the national polling which in turn, as you suggest, may mean they do correspondingly better in a few others places.
If there is a swing of 3% TO THE CONSERVATIVES in Holborn and St Pancras, not merely an anaemic swing to Labour due to the Con share only being able to fall so far, then how much more needed elsewhere for Labour to achieve an overall 15% swing.
Imagine for a moment that the swing is not uniform, not uniform with a proportional element, not proportional, but BEYOND proportional.
Unless something leaks but even then I can’t see it being a member of the cabinet .
Even back in February when Clacton was polled without Farage, the swing from Labour to Conservative was 24%.
What I think it also shows is the rise of the Greens in London - I think the Green will finish second in Stratford & Bow and a decent third in West Ham & Beckton.
Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
Hovever, having to win well over 100 seats to get a majority is no easy ask whatever the polls say.
Also this poll suggests establishment parties on both left and right are losing vote share to insurgents on both left and right.
I would be interested to have another read of it.
As I understand it, the system is being introduced slowly, 80% old and 20% new in year one, 60% and 40% in year two etc...
Important, I think. For our international reputation.
Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.
The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).
Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.
But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/03/27/we-may-need-to-revise-our-summer-plans/
FWIW I nearly put some money on October but bottled it.
If I were Labour in R&N, I would be sending details of that poll to every non-Conservative voter (including Reform). As you think all Reform voters are just Conservatives who have lost their way, you won't realise but if you think Reform voters detest Sunak as much as voters from other non-Conservative parties, you might see Labour trying to squeeze LD, Green AND Reform and there's enough of those to defeat Sunak.
It probably won't happen but I wouldn't dismiss it so easily.
Mentioned this a couple of times previously, e.g. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4792674#Comment_4792674
My guess is he underperforms vs national swing but still not enough to unseat him. Those shire tories remain loyal to party and banner, even if the person leading them isn't always up to snuff in their opinion.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
Have been trying to imagine how this would play on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) if US politicos were involved? My guess is that while it would be a biggish news story, it would NOT have as much impact on USers than on UKers.
Because while betting is a long-standing and fast-growing pastime in US, it is NOT as ubiquitous as in UK. Not as ingrained in the culture, and also higher percentage of folks who are disinclined to gamble and/or disapproving of gambling if not gamblers. Meaning largish segment of likely voters who really don't understand what the issue is with insider betting. (Note this was case with, for example, conviction of Martha Stewart for illegal insider stock trading.)
Source: gayer.
https://art-sheep.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PassportPhotosofIconicFiguresinThePast2.jpg
However, if an SC justice’s clerk decided to put some money on the outcome of a case he’d been working on that would make news. By definition, wouldn’t impact an election, but still newsworthy
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/02/could-keir-starmer-student-picture-win-votes
I blame Love Island!
All pose, no spontaneity, zero character.
🚨 ELECTION INTERFERENCE ALERT 🚨
Today's Mail on Sunday claimed President Zelensky said that I was personally infected with Putinism. This is totally untrue and I have instructed Carter Ruck to deal with it.
Tomorrow’s Daily Mail are so desperate to smear Reform that they have now contacted the Russian Foreign Ministry and goaded them into a supposed quote from someone in Sergey Lavrov’s office calling me an ‘ally’.
That a UK newspaper group is actively collaborating with the Kremlin to protect their dying Conservative party is an absolute scandal. The British people will see through this act of utter desperation.
https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1804921708073144741