Labour wins a majority but it is a bit complicated – politicalbetting.com

Heathener said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stock Market up sharply this morning.

Anyone know why?

They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.

33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.

Eabhal said:

Is Davey going to get roughly the same vote share as Swinson, in a low turnout election, and end up with 70 seats?

It's simply the opposite of the rising tide raises all boats. The decrease in the Tory share was enough.

Dopermean said:

CarlottaVance said:

Some decent nominations to the Lords - no obvious WTF? duffers:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dissolution-peerages-2024

You missed Grayling then?

Yep - well spotted!

Plenty of free money on Betfair for number of reform seats if you believe the Labour group leader on Basildon council who tweeted that Reform were 122 ahead prior to the recount for South Basildon.

Heathener said:

LostPassword said:

Amazed that Jeremy Hunt survived. Does he have a chance of being leader?

If the tories have any sense, which they don’t, they should appoint him caretaker leader for 12 months.

He gave a really lovely, honest, speech

Nah, they will go more bonkers and witter on about trans and EHCR, while the grownups get on with running the country.

Heathener said:

So Reform did okay but no earthquake.

We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.

More like Sunaks message of stop the supermajority worked and many who would of voted reform went back to the Tories.

Heathener said:

So Reform did okay but no earthquake.

We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.

I think is a really bad take Heathener, I’m afraid to say.

In large parts of the country they are now the opposition to Labour. They are here to stay for the foreseeable and they will have a large impact on how the opposition behaves in the next parliament.

We need SKS to deliver a good government if we are to see the back of Reform. This isn’t a sturdy majority, and he needs to firm it up pronto.

ManOfGwent said:

Heathener said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stock Market up sharply this morning.

Anyone know why?

They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.

33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.

34% but hey.

They ran a deliberately very efficient campaign. Very smart. Don’t underestimate this new Labour political machine.

another_richard said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.

Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.

Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.

Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.

"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."

You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.

ManOfGwent said:

Heathener said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stock Market up sharply this morning.

Anyone know why?

They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.

33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.

Oppositions don't win elections, Governments lose them.

So it's perfectly plausible that Labour do well in Government and get rewarded with more seats in 2028/9 than they got today (see 2015 as the perfect example of this).

Monksfield said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Lib Dems now exceeded the exit poll. What a night for them.

I couldn’t understand why Curtice downgraded from 61 to 54 at the first adjustment. They had taken every possible seat at that point.

The first iteration had some absurd LibDem projected gains from Labour in it - such as Finchley, where a glance at the actual result shows how absurd it was. Cambridge, Bermondsey - these seats were never going to be LibDem gains from Labour. I think the second iteration dropped these out. I haven't worked through my target list from last night, yet, but the numbers show that the LibDems got a high proportion of the targets from the Tories and probably chalked up one or two surprises on top (although the excitement over Skipton & Ripon turned out to be a gross error by ITV, I think?). So the they overachieved slightly in the blue wall and the final iteration reflected that.

When you see the workings of the exit poll, we can see that it contains some nonsense predictions. But of course it's a model, and they rely on these cancelling out with similar balancing errors - which for Labour v Tory they tend to do, because there are so many such seats. This time there were many LibDem v Con battles and hence the errors there mostly cancelled out. Where that didn't work was for Reform, where there was the additional disadvantage of not having base data as they didn't stand last time. I expect they were using some combination of UKIP/Brexit Party as the base, and of course Brexit didn't stand in Tory seats last time. So their Reform forecast was always likely to be up the spout - as tbf Curtis did say right at the beginning.

Mexicanpete said:

Heathener said:

BobSykes said:

Selebian said:

Crikey, just catching up after bailing at 4.

How the heck did the Lib Dems get 70+ seats on that vote share? Must be some Reform knobbling of the Tories in some of those seats.

The Cons have a big problem. Chasing Reform will lose the reluctant loyalists in the centre, but it will look appealing when they start mentally adding their vote shares in lost seats. They need to win back some Lab and LD switchers and also some Reform switchers, but the only way to do that is not to go left or right but actually fins solutions for the people who have rightly given up on them. That won't be easy, so we're more likely to see a Reform chasing populist leader for now I guess.

The make up of the surviving Con MPs, given the leadership voting rules, is going to be critical here.

The big plus for Tories in 2028-9 is people won't be voting out the Tories. That will see many seats come back without doing anything.

On the other hand, we'll have children voting.

This is precisely the kind of post that tells me you’re out of power for a generation.

You really need to ditch the nastiness and sort yourselves out. Do NOT presume the electorate are just going to come rushing back into your arms unless you do.

It is quite remarkable that Sunak hasn't yet been to the Palace yet Labour have already lost the next election.

Starmer does need to play a bad economic and social cohesion hand well however. It is difficult to see him succeeding whilst GBNews, the Telegraph and the Mail are gaslighting their readers with no recourse. Free press my arse. He needs to clip their wings with formal regulation.

I am fascinated that there is much caressing of Farage's genitals whilst ignoring the equally pernicious (in my view) rise of the Corbyn/Gaza left.

That's cos the right wing press want a Reform+Con formal tie-up and then get the Singapore-on-Thames project back on track.

Nunu5 said:

Heathener said:

So Reform did okay but no earthquake.

We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.

More like Sunaks message of stop the supermajority worked and many who would of voted reform went back to the Tories.

Yes.

And many who would have voted Labour, just because they wanted to get rid of the tories, felt they were released to vote for LD/indy etc. etc.

I'd guess there was genuine voter churn in the last week of the campaign, with the "Supermajority" framing responsible for a lot of it.

Mel Stride's media round saved dozens of tory seats, imo, including his own.

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

If Starmer doesn’t use this opportunity to enact some proper change I am going to be raging

He'll probably bin the manifesto the minute he gets into number 10.

I hope so. Do nothing and he gets tonked in 2029. Make a difference, and who knows?

Only 44% bothered to vote in Ed's constituency in Doncaster North, possibly because there wasn't a Ref candidate and a lot of them were hoping to vote for that party.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001200

another_richard said:

Heathener said:

another_richard said:

Jonathan said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Twas ever thus.

Its a far, far harder job to what Labour had in 1997.

In fact its an impossible job.

It’s not impossible, don’t be silly.

What is hugely in their favour is that they start from such low expectations.

This time, things really can only get better.

I suspect the Labour vote share will jump in 2029.

I think its impossible to meet the ever increasing, self-entitled demands of the British people.

And if you think things cannot get worse then you're much mistaken.

An optimist believes that things cannot get worse. A pessimist knows that they can.

EPG said:

another_richard said:

Jonathan said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Twas ever thus.

Its a far, far harder job to what Labour had in 1997.

In fact its an impossible job.

Collapsing UK-born working age population, which itself has much lower willingness to work due to tax rates, worse degrees, recreational drug use, etc. Solutions are (a) do nothing [L/C], (b) spend even more on the non working population somehow [LD, G, Islamic bloc], (c) expel much of the working age population [R].

The only way he will in 2029 is careful financial management combined with the sort of welfare state reforms Frank Field would have implemented had Gordon Brown not browbeat Blair into removing him.

Starmer is luckier than Blair in that he dosen't have to appoint as Chancellor and appease a micromanaging, phone hurling (allegedly) albatross.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.

Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.

Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.

Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.

"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."

You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.

Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.

The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.

I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stock Market up sharply this morning.

Anyone know why?

They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.

Not so very certain about that - small swings would chop down swathes of those Labour seats.

My big concern is that there will be huge numbers of Labour MPs who will be extremely worried by change - especially building the needed housing. I suspect there will be a lot of conversions to NIMBYism.

There was a comment on an earlier thread - the classic question used by NIMBYs. "Would you like a factory next to you?".

I was in France the other week - Chablis. The place is a hive of development, in and around the old town and the surrounding villages. Mix of industrial and housing. The rapid filling in means that Chablis will absorb those outlying villages and grown into a city. This process is taking place with little or no opposition.

Would you mind living next to this? -



The LaRouche wine making plant - at least that is the cover. I strongly suspect it is a front for Mr Goldfinger.

I absolutely would not mind living next to a factory.

We need economic growth, having factories developed near us is good news not bad news.

I think Rishi got the highest % of any Tory? 47.5%

EPG said:

another_richard said:

Jonathan said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Twas ever thus.

Its a far, far harder job to what Labour had in 1997.

In fact its an impossible job.

Collapsing UK-born working age population, which itself has much lower willingness to work due to tax rates, worse degrees, recreational drug use, etc. Solutions are (a) do nothing [L/C], (b) spend even more on the non working population somehow [LD, G, Islamic bloc], (c) expel much of the working age population [R].

This chart was posted to Twitter earlier. I think the commentary around it is spot on.

THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THE MATTER (maybe)

This was my prediction. Lib Dems & Reform did better than I expected (results so far).

Lab: Me: 419 - Actual: 411
Cons: Me: 121 - Actual: 119
LibDems: Me: 63 - Actual: 71
Reform: Me 1 - Actual: 4

Reform was a straightforward head vs heart mistake. I backed them below 14% voteshare and expect to miss out on that by a smidge. Even though it was 14.3% which is non-trivial nevertheless I am glad it wasn't higher. bf had 18+% as favourite last night.

ManOfGwent said:

Heathener said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stock Market up sharply this morning.

Anyone know why?

They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.

33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.

The Tories have an even greater problem than Labour.

How do they attract the 13% of Reform voters without alienating even more of the 23% they already hold?

Do we have the overall turnout figure yet? I can't see it reported anywhere apart from being mentioned as 'low'.

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.

Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.

Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.

Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.

"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."

You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.

Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.

The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.

I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.

Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.

Good morning all!

What an amazing election! in many ways, far more fascinating and surprising than 1997, wouldn't you agree?

ohnotnow said:

Do we have the overall turnout figure yet? I can't see it reported anywhere apart from being mentioned as 'low'.

60% according to the Beeb: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/results

Jonathan said:

So will the Tories have the good sense to avoid Badenoch and Braverman?

A very good question. Do we have a list of the Tory Benches who's who? It should give us a good idea.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.

Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.

Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.

Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.

"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."

You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.

Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.

The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.

I'm sorry, but while this manifesto may help, it is part of the problem - not the solution - to say that simply more construction will return growth to 1990s levels. It's opting out of all those difficult questions about labour supply, who will do the work and where they will come from and how they will fund the growing cohort outside the work force, which have been animating every election since 2015.

BartholomewRoberts said:

another_richard said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.

Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.

Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.

If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.

If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.

It's the infrastructure stupid.

It's perfectly possible to build a modern transport, water and energy system with enough political will. Thames Water weren't always (pumping out) shit. Go read up on Bazalgette, the London Ring Main. Read Dominic Davies' book on infrastructure.

I love how some on here still feel the Truss / Tufton Street extreme neoliberalism should still be given a chance, and we'll just magically get infrastructure. We all stand higher and taller on properly built infrastructure platforms, and that's the basis of sustained growth.

OllyT said:

ManOfGwent said:

Heathener said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stock Market up sharply this morning.

Anyone know why?

They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.

33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.

The Tories have an even greater problem than Labour.

How do they attract the 13% of Reform voters without alienating even more of the 23% they already hold?

Voting patterns and coalitions are all over the place. I could see Labour and the Tories getting washed away in a future election. Or one, or the other doing well. But thinking Labour will get 10 years based on their showing at this election is mental.

edmundintokyo said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.

Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.

Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.

Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.

"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."

You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.

Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.

The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.

I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.

Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.

Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.

We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.

Just to say that you heard about Tewkesbury first from Peter the Punter and I. Only had £10 on Cameron Thomas winning. Came out positive on my bets so happy for that plus as a Lib Dem just wow!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Good morning all!

What an amazing election! in many ways, far more fascinating and surprising than 1997, wouldn't you agree?

I think it is - by far - the most fascinating election since the war. If we can avoid the same tyranny of hyperinfated expectations that we call out in the electorate.

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.

Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.

Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.

Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.

"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."

You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.

Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.

The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.

I'm sorry, but while this manifesto may help, it is part of the problem - not the solution - to say that simply more construction will return growth to 1990s levels. It's opting out of all those difficult questions about labour supply, who will do the work and where they will come from and how they will fund the growing cohort outside the work force, which have been animating every election since 2015.

There is no difficult question - allow investment and allow productivity to rise.

Productive jobs will pay more and get labour.

Unproductive jobs won't be able to afford higher wages and will go unfilled and die.

Investment and productivity is the solution, not growing the unskilled workforce to avoid the need to invest.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Heathener said:

So Reform did okay but no earthquake.

We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.

I will pick you up on this again. I am sorry we have Reform MPs but your continual downplaying of their results is disingenuous and simply wrong. It is also dangerously blase.

Reform beat both the Lib Dems and Greens in vote share - they gained more than twice as many votes as the Greens. Downplaying that result helps no one because it gives everyone an excuse to simply ignore concerns of a significant section of the electorate. Do that and next time you will see even more Reform seats (or whatever their equivalent is in 5 years)

All the parties need to learn the right lessons of this election - especially Labour who will now have the power to do something about it.

Problem is there is utterly no way labour will entertain voting reform. They would be throwing away power.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stock Market up sharply this morning.

Anyone know why?

They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.

Not so very certain about that - small swings would chop down swathes of those Labour seats.

My big concern is that there will be huge numbers of Labour MPs who will be extremely worried by change - especially building the needed housing. I suspect there will be a lot of conversions to NIMBYism.

There was a comment on an earlier thread - the classic question used by NIMBYs. "Would you like a factory next to you?".

I was in France the other week - Chablis. The place is a hive of development, in and around the old town and the surrounding villages. Mix of industrial and housing. The rapid filling in means that Chablis will absorb those outlying villages and grown into a city. This process is taking place with little or no opposition.

Would you mind living next to this? -



The LaRouche wine making plant - at least that is the cover. I strongly suspect it is a front for Mr Goldfinger.

I absolutely would not mind living next to a factory.

We need economic growth, having factories developed near us is good news not bad news.

Part of the problem is that people think of noisy, dark, satanic mills, belching black clouds.

Most modern factories are tidy boxes, utterly silent. IIRC in Chablis, they have to make some concessions to looking tidy - hence the stainless steel cladding, which is practically self cleaning.

bookseller said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

another_richard said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.

Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.

Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.

If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.

If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.

It's the infrastructure stupid.

It's perfectly possible to build a modern transport, water and energy system with enough political will. Thames Water weren't always (pumping out) shit. Go read up on Bazalgette, the London Ring Main. Read Dominic Davies' book on infrastructure.

I love how some on here still feel the Truss / Tufton Street extreme neoliberalism should still be given a chance, and we'll just magically get infrastructure. We all stand higher and taller on properly built infrastructure platforms, and that's the basis of sustained growth.

Infrastructure spending requires both money and time.

Whereas people want money spent on themselves and they want it now.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Heathener said:

So Reform did okay but no earthquake.

We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.

I will pick you up on this again. I am sorry we have Reform MPs but your continual downplaying of their results is disingenuous and simply wrong. It is also dangerously blase.

Reform beat both the Lib Dems and Greens in vote share - they gained more than twice as many votes as the Greens. Downplaying that result helps no one because it gives everyone an excuse to simply ignore concerns of a significant section of the electorate. Do that and next time you will see even more Reform seats (or whatever their equivalent is in 5 years)

All the parties need to learn the right lessons of this election - especially Labour who will now have the power to do something about it.

But of course they won't.

Another issue is that although directly analogous to the UKIP 4m votes/13% voteshare/one seat (a defector), nevertheless we, and the parties, and David Cameron, knew what UKIP wanted, namely an EU referendum.

Suppose a PM assembled all Reform voters together and asked them what they want, what would the answer be? Something on immigration (one in one out? Send them back?) which would not be possible to accept and...what else?

Reform is all about what it is against, not what it is for. It is against this general backdrop of frustration that the major parties operate. And all of them believe they are offering such people a real option.

Tories held Beverley & Holderness by just 124 votes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001087

ManOfGwent said:

OllyT said:

ManOfGwent said:

Heathener said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stock Market up sharply this morning.

Anyone know why?

They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.

33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.

The Tories have an even greater problem than Labour.

How do they attract the 13% of Reform voters without alienating even more of the 23% they already hold?

Voting patterns and coalitions are all over the place. I could see Labour and the Tories getting washed away in a future election. Or one, or the other doing well. But thinking Labour will get 10 years based on their showing at this election is mental.

I'm not disagreeing, we just don't know at this stage. Who knows what the political landscape will look like in 5 years time

I am just pointing out that the Tories have big problems too. The idea that you can simply combine the Tory and Reform voters into one party is a fantasy.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Good morning all!

What an amazing election! in many ways, far more fascinating and surprising than 1997, wouldn't you agree?

Good morning. What on earth happened in Ilford North? I thought Wes was going to win easily.

The Tories could do a lot worse than choose Hunt as their new leader.

wooliedyed said:

My estimate for Workers Party votes - 225,000
Actual - 210,000
They were within a few votes in Rochdale, Yardley and Hodge Hill. They come away empty handed

If you lump in the five "Gaza" independents with them the picture changes a little. I suspect they will be forming a party before too long, possibly led by Corbyn, which will be a "Reform" style headache for labour on their left flank.

darkage said:

I think that, in essence, the tories essentially need to rediscover the formula that they had in 2019 and probably come to a kind of pact with Reform. I don't see the 'centrist' path being one that will work for them - they may win some seats back from the lib dems... but that isn't going to get them anywhere near back to where they need to be, and they will just lose more and more voters to Reform - which is Nigel's strategy. On the other hand there seem to be many seats where labour won because the tory/reform vote was split... and there are labour voters that can be won over by a coherant right wing party.

The Tories need 326 seats to get into Downing Street. Either on their own, or with allies.

They aren't getting that from Reform.

BartholomewRoberts said:

EPG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.

Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.

Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.

Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.

"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."

You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.

Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.

The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.

I'm sorry, but while this manifesto may help, it is part of the problem - not the solution - to say that simply more construction will return growth to 1990s levels. It's opting out of all those difficult questions about labour supply, who will do the work and where they will come from and how they will fund the growing cohort outside the work force, which have been animating every election since 2015.

There is no difficult question - allow investment and allow productivity to rise.

Productive jobs will pay more and get labour.

Unproductive jobs won't be able to afford higher wages and will go unfilled and die.

Investment and productivity is the solution, not growing the unskilled workforce to avoid the need to invest.

The history of the 2010s was, yes we had the productive jobs, but we didn't destroy the unproductive jobs, we just had more immigration, and lots of voters hate that! One reason being that "unproductive" by this definition means low-wage, so including lots of social care and good vibes jobs in hospitality. Voters love those! Oops...

Foxy said:

ManOfGwent said:

Heathener said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stock Market up sharply this morning.

Anyone know why?

They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.

33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.

Not assured, but still quite likely.

Con currently on 119 seats, so more than 200 gains needed for a majority. Thats an even bigger task than the task Starmer faced yesterday.

You can't simply add Con and Ref vote shares together, but even if you did the combined party would have to come up with more than "stop the boats" and unfunded tax cuts to have a credible alternative government.

And there are potentially some favourable winds. The economy is recovering, NHS waiting lists are dropping, immigration is falling, inflation has flattened. Without doing a lot, the country could be in a much better place in 5 years time.

Yes. You put it well. For the record, I think I'd go 4/6 on Starmer getting a second term as PM - as it stands, right now.

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Tories could do a lot worse than choose Hunt as their new leader.

Did you hear his speech BR? Well worth catching it if you can on bbc replay.

A super speech. Very honest, very gracious.

I think the tories should appoint him leader for at least 12 months and spend some time analysing properly what went wrong and why.

I fear, however, that the party will listen to the likes of Leon on the Far Right and head further down the rabbit hole out there with people like Badenoch or Braverman.

MisterBedfordshire said:

bookseller said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

another_richard said:

Gallowgate said:

There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!

Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.

Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.

Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.

If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.

If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.

It's the infrastructure stupid.

It's perfectly possible to build a modern transport, water and energy system with enough political will. Thames Water weren't always (pumping out) shit. Go read up on Bazalgette, the London Ring Main. Read Dominic Davies' book on infrastructure.

I love how some on here still feel the Truss / Tufton Street extreme neoliberalism should still be given a chance, and we'll just magically get infrastructure. We all stand higher and taller on properly built infrastructure platforms, and that's the basis of sustained growth.

Not in five years it isn't. Even if you get rid of the bureaucratic hurdles, find the money and can buy the land, there is still the materials to obtain and the need to find and train a vast army of skilled workers to do it.

Yes, but with that attitude we'd neve start anything. It's like Lucas and nuclear power: saying it was pointless because it won't be ready for x years, then in x years when it would have come in handy, still saying it's pointless because it won't be ready for x years...