Skip to content

Long Range Insight into Tactical Voting at the Next General Election – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,264
edited July 23 in General
Long Range Insight into Tactical Voting at the Next General Election – politicalbetting.com

Next GE still most likely 3rd May 2029 in my book. Though General Election voting over both Saturday and Sundays is definitely coming to UK at some point, Burnham may spring it on us.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 34,725
    edited July 23
    First past the post (again).

    Edit - I actually think it's going to be 2027 - given the state of Reform's source of funds an early election with all the gory details about Reform's money provided Burnham is not yet voter repulsive it's a chance for him to get a clear mandate, destroy the Tories a bit more AND give him 5 years to do some of the really awkward changes that have long leadtimes.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,534
    eek said:

    First past the post (again).

    Edit - I actually think it's going to be 2027 - given the state of Reform's source of funds an early election with all the gory details about Reform's money provided Burnham is not yet voter repulsive it's a chance for him to get a clear mandate, destroy the Tories a bit more AND give him 5 years to do some of the really awkward changes that have long leadtimes.

    I do not think so.

    To actually do something will take years. To change the system so that doing something doesn’t have to take years… will take years.

    Burnham appears to be going for - “I have a plan which means re-electing me. And here is the start of it.”

    Even the best polls have Labour level pegging with Reform. That means at any election, there would be a fearful slaughter among Labour MPs, at best.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,853
    Burnham says he is going to look again at the early release program.

    A contrast to SKS who’d simply say ‘due process has been followed’
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,544
    Interesting analysis @MoonRabbit, makes sense - thanks for the header.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 64,137
    Taz said:

    Burnham says he is going to look again at the early release program.

    A contrast to SKS who’d simply say ‘due process has been followed’

    The comms are definitely improved.

    A potential risk is that Burnham's saying lots of nice things, but it's much easier to say such than to follow through (especially when funding's required). It'll be interesting to see how well or poorly he does on that.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,699
    Thanks, @MoonRabbit, an interesting article.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 64,137
    On-topic, the tactical voting, against Reform, is going to be a major feature. If it stays at by-election levels it'll have a large effect, very positive for Labour. If it reduces, we could see quite a few odd results.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,699
    Actually, it's the first I've heard of an election taking place over a weekend, both days. Why would that happen?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,647

    Taz said:

    Burnham says he is going to look again at the early release program.

    A contrast to SKS who’d simply say ‘due process has been followed’

    The comms are definitely improved.

    A potential risk is that Burnham's saying lots of nice things, but it's much easier to say such than to follow through (especially when funding's required). It'll be interesting to see how well or poorly he does on that.
    All I can see is he’s doing a handout a day on some of the stuff that people are annoyed about. It’s effective but it’s only government by headlines. No sense of how we are going to pay for it or any strategic thinking.

    Maybe they are doing all that behind the scenes, but…
  • eekeek Posts: 34,725
    edited July 23
    An interesting video/thread on how AI is causing problems for Mercedes and McLaren F1.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aEJwI0X75Y

    from https://bsky.app/profile/garius.bsky.social/post/3mrcb4a6m2k2d

    There is AI managing the battery usage and it's not working..
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,544

    eek said:

    First past the post (again).

    Edit - I actually think it's going to be 2027 - given the state of Reform's source of funds an early election with all the gory details about Reform's money provided Burnham is not yet voter repulsive it's a chance for him to get a clear mandate, destroy the Tories a bit more AND give him 5 years to do some of the really awkward changes that have long leadtimes.

    I do not think so.

    To actually do something will take years. To change the system so that doing something doesn’t have to take years… will take years.

    Burnham appears to be going for - “I have a plan which means re-electing me. And here is the start of it.”

    Even the best polls have Labour level pegging with Reform. That means at any election, there would be a fearful slaughter among Labour MPs, at best.
    I think it depends entirely on how the next six months runs.

    If Burnham can keep dripping out small but positive changes and avoid too many crises we might see Labour edge into a reasonable lead in the polls and decide to go for it.

    But even in the best case it seems likely that a lot of Labour MPs would lose their seats so there is that against.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,914
    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 64,137
    eek said:

    An interesting thread on how AI is causing problems for Mercedes and Mclaren F1.

    https://bsky.app/profile/garius.bsky.social/post/3mrcb4a6m2k2d

    There is AI managing the battery usage and it's not working..

    It was crackers what happened to Russell at the start of the Belgian Grand Prix. He was right to be furious (his radio has been fairly well censored by the powers that be but it's still out there).

    The regulations need a fundamental overhaul.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 64,137

    eek said:

    First past the post (again).

    Edit - I actually think it's going to be 2027 - given the state of Reform's source of funds an early election with all the gory details about Reform's money provided Burnham is not yet voter repulsive it's a chance for him to get a clear mandate, destroy the Tories a bit more AND give him 5 years to do some of the really awkward changes that have long leadtimes.

    I do not think so.

    To actually do something will take years. To change the system so that doing something doesn’t have to take years… will take years.

    Burnham appears to be going for - “I have a plan which means re-electing me. And here is the start of it.”

    Even the best polls have Labour level pegging with Reform. That means at any election, there would be a fearful slaughter among Labour MPs, at best.
    I think it depends entirely on how the next six months runs.

    If Burnham can keep dripping out small but positive changes and avoid too many crises we might see Labour edge into a reasonable lead in the polls and decide to go for it.

    But even in the best case it seems likely that a lot of Labour MPs would lose their seats so there is that against.
    If Labour have a modest lead *and* tactical voting against Reform persists, it could be a second landslide for Labour.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,914
    eek said:

    An interesting video/thread on how AI is causing problems for Mercedes and McLaren F1.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aEJwI0X75Y

    from https://bsky.app/profile/garius.bsky.social/post/3mrcb4a6m2k2d

    There is AI managing the battery usage and it's not working..

    Sir Lewis Hamilton is going win his ninth world title this year!

    I take back all my criticisms of AI.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,544

    Taz said:

    Burnham says he is going to look again at the early release program.

    A contrast to SKS who’d simply say ‘due process has been followed’

    The comms are definitely improved.

    A potential risk is that Burnham's saying lots of nice things, but it's much easier to say such than to follow through (especially when funding's required). It'll be interesting to see how well or poorly he does on that.
    All I can see is he’s doing a handout a day on some of the stuff that people are annoyed about. It’s effective but it’s only government by headlines. No sense of how we are going to pay for it or any strategic thinking.

    Maybe they are doing all that behind the scenes, but…
    Have you actually read today’s proposal?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 64,137

    eek said:

    An interesting video/thread on how AI is causing problems for Mercedes and McLaren F1.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aEJwI0X75Y

    from https://bsky.app/profile/garius.bsky.social/post/3mrcb4a6m2k2d

    There is AI managing the battery usage and it's not working..

    Sir Lewis Hamilton is going win his ninth world title this year!

    I take back all my criticisms of AI.
    Not unless Antonelli starts being afflicted.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,725

    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.

    Given the announcement that the early release program is under review - the prison minister job has just been made the most poisoned of poison chalices. Al was correct to run away from it..
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,774
    Good morning

    Good article by @MoonRabbit but as ever 3 years away from a GE events tend to come along and upset predictions

    Andy Burnham has certainly demonstrated how to do retail politics and Labour supporters should be very pleased

    I expect a poll bounce in his and Labour's poll ratings and a demonstration to Starmer and his government just how badly they performed

    The announcements so far have not been unaffordable but the hard miles lie ahead not least with Healey and Streeting ( and the public) wanting more defence spending

    Interesting Lineker and 100 plus millionaires want higher taxes on them so I assume they will voluntary pay more to HMRC now to show goodwill

    I do expect reform/restore/greens to fall back and more traditional politics re emerge over the months and years ahead
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,891
    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,725
    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 64,137
    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    That might matter less than it did. Voting now seems to be more negative, and Reform are (while also having plenty of support) getting a lot of that. Starmer had a lot of negative attention too.

    Some seem to have a more positive view of Badenoch now, but we'll see if that continues.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,879
    Morning all :)

    One point to pick out of @MoonRabbit's analysis for which many thanks.

    The LD vote has always been the softest of all - even when I worked in Sutton (2026: Conservatives zero) we never took anything for granted and kept grinding away at the local campaigning.

    There's little or no "tribal loyalty" in many of the LD areas won in 2024 from the Conservatives and we know from 2015 these areas can be lost again if the perfect storm hits. Council election results in constituencies held by the LDs suggest the party is working hard and successfully to hold those votes but there can and must be no complacency (as there was from 2010-15).

    The party's positioning as the election approaches will be critical (and, I'd argue, the Conservatives face the same problem). The LD-Labour relationship is as fraught as the Conservative-Reform relationship and assumptions (prejudices) widely banded about by some on here the LDs are "certain" to support Labour are as absurd as those who claim the Conservatives are "certain" to back Reform.

    I don't think either can be assumed at this time or at any time until and even after the votes are cast.

    At this stage, psephological entrails notwithstanding, anyone who is confident they know the 2028 or 2029 election result would be well advised to go and visit that shop where you can buy a bridge.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,265
    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,699
    eek said:

    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.

    Given the announcement that the early release program is under review - the prison minister job has just been made the most poisoned of poison chalices. Al was correct to run away from it..
    Anyone else having difficulty following threads involving references to both Al (Carns) and AI?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 64,137

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    Alarming bullshit but, sadly, not especially surprising given its source.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 33,000
    edited July 23
    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    Indeed.
    And right now the Tories are stretching that definition of nadir.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 33,000

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,725
    AnneJGP said:

    eek said:

    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.

    Given the announcement that the early release program is under review - the prison minister job has just been made the most poisoned of poison chalices. Al was correct to run away from it..
    Anyone else having difficulty following threads involving references to both Al (Carns) and AI?
    Mea culpa. I was going to write Carns rather than Al but it seemed rude to just use his surname.
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 876

    eek said:

    First past the post (again).

    Edit - I actually think it's going to be 2027 - given the state of Reform's source of funds an early election with all the gory details about Reform's money provided Burnham is not yet voter repulsive it's a chance for him to get a clear mandate, destroy the Tories a bit more AND give him 5 years to do some of the really awkward changes that have long leadtimes.

    I do not think so.

    To actually do something will take years. To change the system so that doing something doesn’t have to take years… will take years.

    Burnham appears to be going for - “I have a plan which means re-electing me. And here is the start of it.”

    Even the best polls have Labour level pegging with Reform. That means at any election, there would be a fearful slaughter among Labour MPs, at best.
    I think it depends entirely on how the next six months runs.

    If Burnham can keep dripping out small but positive changes and avoid too many crises we might see Labour edge into a reasonable lead in the polls and decide to go for it.

    But even in the best case it seems likely that a lot of Labour MPs would lose their seats so there is that against.
    I agree with this, it'll take quite a bit of pushing to get Lab MPs to agree to an election with Reform generally ahead in most polls.

    Give it 6 months and see how their donations row pans out. It could be that this finishes Farage, and causes quite a bit of trouble. Or he could remain in post, tatnished, but as he effectively is Reform, the party may not be able to turf him out.

    Ironically it may have been easier for Starmer to govern with a smaller Lab majority than what he won. If Burnham starts to make the right moves, I can see him eating into the Reform tally, even if it only takes Labour two or three points ahead. There will be more scrutiny on Reform at the next election than there is at present - that is something Farage is not a fan of.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,699
    eek said:

    AnneJGP said:

    eek said:

    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.

    Given the announcement that the early release program is under review - the prison minister job has just been made the most poisoned of poison chalices. Al was correct to run away from it..
    Anyone else having difficulty following threads involving references to both Al (Carns) and AI?
    Mea culpa. I was going to write Carns rather than Al but it seemed rude to just use his surname.
    No criticism, other people do it too. Just a result of font.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,709
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/23/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-prosecution-criticised-rajiv-menon-kc

    Palestine Action seems to have driven the ruling classes a little bit mental.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,709

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    Vance is so reminiscent of the regime figures in the Handmaid's Tale I'd swear he was using it as a manual.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,324
    AnneJGP said:

    Actually, it's the first I've heard of an election taking place over a weekend, both days. Why would that happen?

    This is actually quite dangerous for democracy as it makes it much easier for young people to vote. Whatever next?
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 876
    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    They are getting eaten from 3 sides - Lib Dem, Labour and Reform. Even if Lib Dems only hold steady in national polling, the Meeks analysis (which I think right now is accurate) is that those 60 seats which went Con to Lib Dem in 2024, are unlikely to fall back into the blue column. As Robert Waller often says, the Lib Dems are very good at first time incumbency. Expect them to dig in.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,534
    edited July 23
    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    Vance is 2000 miles from when the Aztecs were Aztecing. In a different country.

    There were many, many cultures in the intervening land. Quite probably, the First (North) Americans were not aware the Aztecs existed.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 9,227

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    That will be the same “Christian civilisation” who hanged women in the name of the Christian god for “witchcraft”, or as we might know it, herbal medicine, being a bit odd or just because of petty feuds. And the same “Christian civilisation” that stole children from indigenous people to bring up as good Christians.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,759
    AnneJGP said:

    eek said:

    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.

    Given the announcement that the early release program is under review - the prison minister job has just been made the most poisoned of poison chalices. Al was correct to run away from it..
    Anyone else having difficulty following threads involving references to both Al (Carns) and AI?
    Me.
    Northern_Al
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,699

    AnneJGP said:

    Actually, it's the first I've heard of an election taking place over a weekend, both days. Why would that happen?

    This is actually quite dangerous for democracy as it makes it much easier for young people to vote. Whatever next?
    When I was a young person I had no trouble voting.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,879

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    My take on Meeks is that he is likely influenced to some extent by dislike of the Tories. The other take is that Badenoch is polling way ahead of the party and that gets more important at election time. Once again, those of us on PB, obsessed by test cricket, pizza, radiohead, F1, politics and betting tend to forget that the vast, vast majority of the country cares little for politics, and many cannot even tell you who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. We should also remember that at the next election every seat starts from scratch. Yes there is an incumbency effect, yes local performance of councils and councillors matters and yes the activist base is important, but I think its simply wrong to say that there are very few seats where the Tories can win. Why? In 2019 they won many of them, and those voters can return.
    There's two parts to this - there's Kemi Badenoch and there's the Conservative Party brand.

    Credit where's it's due - after a shaky start, Badenoch has become a much better politician. I'm even starting to see little glimpses of humanity and humour which are always welcome.

    She now faces however a political operator in Burnham and she will need to raise her game as he learnt at the feet of Tony Blair who frankly would eat Badenoch as a mid-morning snack.

    The other side of this is the hydra of the Conservative Party past and future - the past record will be used constantly and consistently by political opponents to remind people of the failure (perceived or actual?) of the Conservative-led administrations especially after 2019.

    Badenoch has to define a "new" Conservative ("New Tories, New Danger"?) path. At the moment we've heard some of the sweeteners on stamp duty for example but we know little or nothing about how this will be paid. At some point, Badenoch will have to front up and say whose benefits will be cut, when and by how much and from the party which gave us fiscal drag, how tax policy will be changed.

    Squaring the circle of recognising the failings of the past while offering a distinctive policy programme (not just Reform-lite) is the challenge.

    The outlines are there but as someone once said, "where's the beef?".
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,534
    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Actually, it's the first I've heard of an election taking place over a weekend, both days. Why would that happen?

    This is actually quite dangerous for democracy as it makes it much easier for young people to vote. Whatever next?
    When I was a young person I had no trouble voting.
    Is there any evidence that time of access to polling stations is an issue?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 28,088
    eek said:

    First past the post (again).

    Edit - I actually think it's going to be 2027 - given the state of Reform's source of funds an early election with all the gory details about Reform's money provided Burnham is not yet voter repulsive it's a chance for him to get a clear mandate, destroy the Tories a bit more AND give him 5 years to do some of the really awkward changes that have long leadtimes.

    Is it the opposite of Theresa May? She called an election thinking that she’d cruise to victory.
    Burnham needs to be brave and call an election where victory looks far from certain.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,848
    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    My thoughts exactly.

    I recently, for the first time, listened to the lyrics of Neil Young's "Cortez the killer". It tells of how the Aztecs and other Amerindian people lived in peace and harmony with one another before Cortez came. It is, as I understanf it, ahistorical guff. Thr Aztecs were vicious brutes - which is why Cortez and his small band did nit meet unifird heroic resistance from the natives.
    But my knowledge of pre-Columbian America is slight, and if anyone can recommend a decent history I would be interested.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 1,434

    AnneJGP said:

    eek said:

    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.

    Given the announcement that the early release program is under review - the prison minister job has just been made the most poisoned of poison chalices. Al was correct to run away from it..
    Anyone else having difficulty following threads involving references to both Al (Carns) and AI?
    Me.
    Northern_Al
    Yes why can't people just use the version of a capital I that has the two lines at the top and bottom?
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 876
    The biggest threat to the Tories at the next election is not themselves, but that the winning party(s) change to a full PR voting system at Westminster.

    That is going to benefit Lab, LD, Greens more in the log term. The Tory MP ceiling in he event that happens will probably be no more than 250, as it likely will be for Labour too
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,379

    eek said:

    First past the post (again).

    Edit - I actually think it's going to be 2027 - given the state of Reform's source of funds an early election with all the gory details about Reform's money provided Burnham is not yet voter repulsive it's a chance for him to get a clear mandate, destroy the Tories a bit more AND give him 5 years to do some of the really awkward changes that have long leadtimes.

    I do not think so.

    To actually do something will take years. To change the system so that doing something doesn’t have to take years… will take years.

    Burnham appears to be going for - “I have a plan which means re-electing me. And here is the start of it.”

    Even the best polls have Labour level pegging with Reform. That means at any election, there would be a fearful slaughter among Labour MPs, at best.
    He's only been in power a couple of days, there is time for the Burnham souffle to rise yet.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,727
    In London though the Conservatives were still second on May so there can squeeze Reform to beat Labour. In Tory held seats some Labour and LD voters will vote Tory to beat Reform
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,534
    Cookie said:

    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    My thoughts exactly.

    I recently, for the first time, listened to the lyrics of Neil Young's "Cortez the killer". It tells of how the Aztecs and other Amerindian people lived in peace and harmony with one another before Cortez came. It is, as I understanf it, ahistorical guff. Thr Aztecs were vicious brutes - which is why Cortez and his small band did nit meet unifird heroic resistance from the natives.
    But my knowledge of pre-Columbian America is slight, and if anyone can recommend a decent history I would be interested.
    More that Cortez turned up in the middle of one of the endless wars by/with/or from/to/for/at/or near the Aztecs.

    Cortez and chums rapidly accreted allies. Who did much of the actual fighting against the Aztecs.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,265
    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    Amazing that the VP of the USA, a constituent part of North America, should conflate his country with the whole of the Americas. He doesn't seem very keen on many of the countries that currently make up the continent.

    Did them naughty Aztecs also steal and eat people's pets?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 28,088
    Taz said:

    Burnham says he is going to look again at the early release program.

    A contrast to SKS who’d simply say ‘due process has been followed’

    Alternatively, he sent out Heidi Hi to defend the policy on bbc breakfast yesterday morning only to announce a u-turn later in the day.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 6,426
    edited July 23
    stodge said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    My take on Meeks is that he is likely influenced to some extent by dislike of the Tories. The other take is that Badenoch is polling way ahead of the party and that gets more important at election time. Once again, those of us on PB, obsessed by test cricket, pizza, radiohead, F1, politics and betting tend to forget that the vast, vast majority of the country cares little for politics, and many cannot even tell you who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. We should also remember that at the next election every seat starts from scratch. Yes there is an incumbency effect, yes local performance of councils and councillors matters and yes the activist base is important, but I think its simply wrong to say that there are very few seats where the Tories can win. Why? In 2019 they won many of them, and those voters can return.
    There's two parts to this - there's Kemi Badenoch and there's the Conservative Party brand.

    Credit where's it's due - after a shaky start, Badenoch has become a much better politician. I'm even starting to see little glimpses of humanity and humour which are always welcome.

    She now faces however a political operator in Burnham and she will need to raise her game as he learnt at the feet of Tony Blair who frankly would eat Badenoch as a mid-morning snack.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    Blair with none of other people's money to waste would have been a very different political animal from Blair with a golden economic legacy. His method of governing, of dodging every tough decision (except over Iraq, which, tellingly, was his nemesis), simply would not have worked post-2008.

    We will never know what Austerity Blair would have been like, but I can't see him being remembered as such a political genius now.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 1,434
    Cookie said:

    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    My thoughts exactly.

    I recently, for the first time, listened to the lyrics of Neil Young's "Cortez the killer". It tells of how the Aztecs and other Amerindian people lived in peace and harmony with one another before Cortez came. It is, as I understanf it, ahistorical guff. Thr Aztecs were vicious brutes - which is why Cortez and his small band did nit meet unifird heroic resistance from the natives.
    But my knowledge of pre-Columbian America is slight, and if anyone can recommend a decent history I would be interested.
    I think calling any society (with a few exceptions) 'vicious brutes' is just ad reductive and ahistorical as thinking any society is a utopia. Sure the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice but to them this was done to appease the Gods and preserve the general populace in peace and prosperity. It's a very Christian perspective to place sanctity on individual life and protection of the weak
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,265
    boulay said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    That will be the same “Christian civilisation” who hanged women in the name of the Christian god for “witchcraft”, or as we might know it, herbal medicine, being a bit odd or just because of petty feuds. And the same “Christian civilisation” that stole children from indigenous people to bring up as good Christians.
    Or was complicit in industrial levels of slavery.
    Still, nobody's perfect.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,725
    tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    First past the post (again).

    Edit - I actually think it's going to be 2027 - given the state of Reform's source of funds an early election with all the gory details about Reform's money provided Burnham is not yet voter repulsive it's a chance for him to get a clear mandate, destroy the Tories a bit more AND give him 5 years to do some of the really awkward changes that have long leadtimes.

    Is it the opposite of Theresa May? She called an election thinking that she’d cruise to victory.
    Burnham needs to be brave and call an election where victory looks far from certain.
    I'm talking about an election 9 months away - an awful lot can change by then.

    And I suspect that a general election will help Labour in the local elections as well..
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,957

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/23/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-prosecution-criticised-rajiv-menon-kc

    Palestine Action seems to have driven the ruling classes a little bit mental.

    Let him face the consequences of his actions in a court of law. If he has found to have acted illegally by ignoring the judges direction then so be it. I don't see the issue.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,725
    HYUFD said:

    In London though the Conservatives were still second on May so there can squeeze Reform to beat Labour. In Tory held seats some Labour and LD voters will vote Tory to beat Reform

    In London, the Tories have a very efficient vote in the seats that they won - but all you are talking about there is the Tories retaining the seats they have - it's not giving them any extra seats...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 92,560
    edited July 23

    AnneJGP said:

    eek said:

    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.

    Given the announcement that the early release program is under review - the prison minister job has just been made the most poisoned of poison chalices. Al was correct to run away from it..
    Anyone else having difficulty following threads involving references to both Al (Carns) and AI?
    Me.
    Northern_Al
    Is that the name of Burnham government backed British LLM?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 33,000
    edited July 23
    "the Conservatives winning in affluent, urban, and younger Parliamentary Constituencies".

    They got less than 2% of the vote in Newcastle.
    Judicious deployment of the word "some" may have helped.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,534
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    First past the post (again).

    Edit - I actually think it's going to be 2027 - given the state of Reform's source of funds an early election with all the gory details about Reform's money provided Burnham is not yet voter repulsive it's a chance for him to get a clear mandate, destroy the Tories a bit more AND give him 5 years to do some of the really awkward changes that have long leadtimes.

    I do not think so.

    To actually do something will take years. To change the system so that doing something doesn’t have to take years… will take years.

    Burnham appears to be going for - “I have a plan which means re-electing me. And here is the start of it.”

    Even the best polls have Labour level pegging with Reform. That means at any election, there would be a fearful slaughter among Labour MPs, at best.
    He's only been in power a couple of days, there is time for the Burnham souffle to rise yet.
    Quite - we shall see.

    My guess is that an early election is much less probable than a later one.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,914

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    My take on Meeks is that he is likely influenced to some extent by dislike of the Tories. The other take is that Badenoch is polling way ahead of the party and that gets more important at election time. Once again, those of us on PB, obsessed by test cricket, pizza, radiohead, F1, politics and betting tend to forget that the vast, vast majority of the country cares little for politics, and many cannot even tell you who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. We should also remember that at the next election every seat starts from scratch. Yes there is an incumbency effect, yes local performance of councils and councillors matters and yes the activist base is important, but I think its simply wrong to say that there are very few seats where the Tories can win. Why? In 2019 they won many of them, and those voters can return.
    I remember people saying the same thing in 2022-2024 when he was predicting an epochal defeat for the Tories.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,534

    AnneJGP said:

    eek said:

    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.

    Given the announcement that the early release program is under review - the prison minister job has just been made the most poisoned of poison chalices. Al was correct to run away from it..
    Anyone else having difficulty following threads involving references to both Al (Carns) and AI?
    Me.
    Northern_Al
    Is that the name of Burnham government backed British LLM?
    A *Northern* LLM, Shirley?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,766
    eek said:

    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.

    Given the announcement that the early release program is under review - the prison minister job has just been made the most poisoned of poison chalices. Al was correct to run away from it..
    Programme.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,265

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/23/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-prosecution-criticised-rajiv-menon-kc

    Palestine Action seems to have driven the ruling classes a little bit mental.

    What I find slightly mystifying is why the judge didn't interrupt the KC during his closing speech if it was in contempt of court. Like redefining convictions as terrorism after trials, there seems to be a bit of post hoc finagling going on in this area.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 8,446

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/23/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-prosecution-criticised-rajiv-menon-kc

    Palestine Action seems to have driven the ruling classes a little bit mental.

    Very poor article, it doesn't say what Menon said or how it goes against the Judge's instructions. Apart from something about Elbit Systems which again is obscure.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,586
    Good header by Moon. Rebuilding the BJ19 coalition is tough for the Cons because so many of those types of voters have gone to the populist right. Labour's recovery was based on winning back the red wall. Everything hinged on it. I think the Cons have the same challenge with the blue (now yellow) wall and they should focus on that. If the LDs hold all or most of those seats the Cons will be nowhere near government.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,879
    Fishing said:

    stodge said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    My take on Meeks is that he is likely influenced to some extent by dislike of the Tories. The other take is that Badenoch is polling way ahead of the party and that gets more important at election time. Once again, those of us on PB, obsessed by test cricket, pizza, radiohead, F1, politics and betting tend to forget that the vast, vast majority of the country cares little for politics, and many cannot even tell you who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. We should also remember that at the next election every seat starts from scratch. Yes there is an incumbency effect, yes local performance of councils and councillors matters and yes the activist base is important, but I think its simply wrong to say that there are very few seats where the Tories can win. Why? In 2019 they won many of them, and those voters can return.
    There's two parts to this - there's Kemi Badenoch and there's the Conservative Party brand.

    Credit where's it's due - after a shaky start, Badenoch has become a much better politician. I'm even starting to see little glimpses of humanity and humour which are always welcome.

    She now faces however a political operator in Burnham and she will need to raise her game as he learnt at the feet of Tony Blair who frankly would eat Badenoch as a mid-morning snack.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    Blair with none of other people's money to waste would have been a very different political animal from Blair with a golden economic legacy. His method of governing, of dodging every tough decision (except over Iraq, which, tellingly, was his nemesis), simply would not have worked post-2008.

    We will never know what Austerity Blair would have been like, but I can't see him being remembered as such a political genius now.
    Yet he beat the Conservatives three times and saw off Major, Hague, IDS and Howard.

    He was of course no longer Prime Minister in 2008 and Brown was left to deal with that shitshow for which, as far as the impact on the UK was concerned, he had to take a lot of the responsibility.

    To be fair to Badenoch, no Conservative leader could have prevailed against Blair in 2001 and had Iraq not happened, I suspect there'd have been a third landslide in 2005.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,763
    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    I thought Aztecs were into adult sacrifice
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 92,560
    edited July 23

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/23/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-prosecution-criticised-rajiv-menon-kc

    Palestine Action seems to have driven the ruling classes a little bit mental.

    Very poor article, it doesn't say what Menon said or how it goes against the Judge's instructions. Apart from something about Elbit Systems which again is obscure.
    Its one of those classic Guardian / Mail articles where the bit that missing likely significantly changes the slant of the story, but doesn't give the narrative the newspaper wants to push.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 20,082
    While we're rightly focusing on the bad state of the Conservatives, Labour are in a dire place too, which is why they got rid of Starmer. There's no guarantee Burnham will turn things round.

    Labour do have one electoral advantage over the Conservatives - they are still the largest party in the progressive voting block and so have more opportunity to squeeze votes than the Conservatives as the smaller party in the social conservatives block.

    I don't see any spring shoots for the Conservatives in 2026 English local elections. Where they gained a couple of seats from Labour largely reflects Labour voters shifting to Green with the Tories coming through the middle I think. A win's a win, so that's OK, but they lost a lot more seats to Reform from an already low base.

    The best that can be said for the Conservative local elections result was that it could have been worse (and Labour actually did worse). But they went further backwards - this isn't a springboard for success.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,914
    edited July 23
    First voting intention of Burnham’s premiership. Labour narrow the gap with Reform to 2 points, the closest since April 2025.

    ⏩ REF 26% (nc)
🌹 LAB 24% (+2)
🌳 CON 22% (nc)
🔶 LIB DEM 11% (-1)
🟢 GREEN 11% (-1)
🟡 SNP 2% (nc)

    N = 3,118 | 21-22/7 | Changes w 12/7


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2080192728185315628?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,534

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/23/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-prosecution-criticised-rajiv-menon-kc

    Palestine Action seems to have driven the ruling classes a little bit mental.

    Let him face the consequences of his actions in a court of law. If he has found to have acted illegally by ignoring the judges direction then so be it. I don't see the issue.
    "On Wednesday evening, senior legal figures lined up to criticise the prosecution of Menon, believed to be the first of a barrister related to his closing speech."

    Even during the Troubles, when you had lawyers who were actual members of the various Community Organisations, I don't recall them being prosecuted.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,914
    edited July 23
    Meanwhile Burnham’s approval rating jumps to +13, which is higher than Starmer’s post election high of +11. And for the first time we have both the PM and LOTO in positive net approval with Badenoch at +3, who says no one rates politicians?
    Davey is -5. Farage -22, Polanski -22.


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2080192742752157967?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 92,560
    edited July 23

    Meanwhile Burnham’s approval rating jumps to +13, which is higher than Starmer’s post election high of +11. And for the first time we have both the PM and LOTO in positive net approval with Badenoch at +3, who says no one rates politicians?
    Davey is -5. Farage -22, Polanski -22.


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2080192742752157967?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g

    Polanski seems to have completely disappeared from view. Couple of months ago he was everywhere.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,534
    a

    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    I thought Aztecs were into adult sacrifice
    They were into sacrificing everyone and everything, pretty much.

    The ancient Peruvians had a thing about specific chid sacrifice, by the way.

    I don't know of any evidence of either in North America.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,752
    Fishing said:

    stodge said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    My take on Meeks is that he is likely influenced to some extent by dislike of the Tories. The other take is that Badenoch is polling way ahead of the party and that gets more important at election time. Once again, those of us on PB, obsessed by test cricket, pizza, radiohead, F1, politics and betting tend to forget that the vast, vast majority of the country cares little for politics, and many cannot even tell you who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. We should also remember that at the next election every seat starts from scratch. Yes there is an incumbency effect, yes local performance of councils and councillors matters and yes the activist base is important, but I think its simply wrong to say that there are very few seats where the Tories can win. Why? In 2019 they won many of them, and those voters can return.
    There's two parts to this - there's Kemi Badenoch and there's the Conservative Party brand.

    Credit where's it's due - after a shaky start, Badenoch has become a much better politician. I'm even starting to see little glimpses of humanity and humour which are always welcome.

    She now faces however a political operator in Burnham and she will need to raise her game as he learnt at the feet of Tony Blair who frankly would eat Badenoch as a mid-morning snack.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    Blair with none of other people's money to waste would have been a very different political animal from Blair with a golden economic legacy. His method of governing, of dodging every tough decision (except over Iraq, which, tellingly, was his nemesis), simply would not have worked post-2008.

    We will never know what Austerity Blair would have been like, but I can't see him being remembered as such a political genius now.
    Iraq bookmarks Blair's career and the post Parliamentary Blair has become a truly vile Trumpian, but to imply between LOTO in1994 and three term winning PM in 2007 he would have been left short at the feet of a giant like Kemi Badenoch (I am following your reply up the thread) is pretty much evidence free. Of course when I am long dead the history books may prove you right.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,848
    Stereodog said:

    Cookie said:

    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    My thoughts exactly.

    I recently, for the first time, listened to the lyrics of Neil Young's "Cortez the killer". It tells of how the Aztecs and other Amerindian people lived in peace and harmony with one another before Cortez came. It is, as I understanf it, ahistorical guff. Thr Aztecs were vicious brutes - which is why Cortez and his small band did nit meet unifird heroic resistance from the natives.
    But my knowledge of pre-Columbian America is slight, and if anyone can recommend a decent history I would be interested.
    I think calling any society (with a few exceptions) 'vicious brutes' is just ad reductive and ahistorical as thinking any society is a utopia. Sure the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice but to them this was done to appease the Gods and preserve the general populace in peace and prosperity. It's a very Christian perspective to place sanctity on individual life and protection of the weak
    Oh, that's ok then (?)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,752

    eek said:

    Hah, Andy Burnham offered Al Carns the Prisons Minister job, my suggestion was DEFRA.

    Given the announcement that the early release program is under review - the prison minister job has just been made the most poisoned of poison chalices. Al was correct to run away from it..
    Programme.
    Color me skeptical.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,914

    Meanwhile Burnham’s approval rating jumps to +13, which is higher than Starmer’s post election high of +11. And for the first time we have both the PM and LOTO in positive net approval with Badenoch at +3, who says no one rates politicians?
    Davey is -5. Farage -22, Polanski -22.


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2080192742752157967?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g

    Polanski seems to have completely disappeared from view. Couple of months ago he was everywhere.
    His council tax problems and his general Walter Titty approach have caught up with him.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,752

    As an atheist, we also disapprove of mass brutal slaughter of humans in sacrifice to appease gods.

    Yet as Christian fundamentalists (pick most other organised religions of your choice) we like to punish the guilty with the ultimate sanction, and in the name of our respective god.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,379

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/23/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-prosecution-criticised-rajiv-menon-kc

    Palestine Action seems to have driven the ruling classes a little bit mental.

    Let him face the consequences of his actions in a court of law. If he has found to have acted illegally by ignoring the judges direction then so be it. I don't see the issue.
    "On Wednesday evening, senior legal figures lined up to criticise the prosecution of Menon, believed to be the first of a barrister related to his closing speech."

    Even during the Troubles, when you had lawyers who were actual members of the various Community Organisations, I don't recall them being prosecuted.
    There's a better summary here:

    https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/contempt-case-against-silk-can-continue/5127142.article

    Interestingly he works for Garden Court Chambers, that's the same law firm from which the immigration judge worked for who decided "family" extended to adult brothers and sisters and let in 18 Gazans under ECHR.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,957
    Cookie said:

    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    My thoughts exactly.

    I recently, for the first time, listened to the lyrics of Neil Young's "Cortez the killer". It tells of how the Aztecs and other Amerindian people lived in peace and harmony with one another before Cortez came. It is, as I understanf it, ahistorical guff. Thr Aztecs were vicious brutes - which is why Cortez and his small band did nit meet unifird heroic resistance from the natives.
    But my knowledge of pre-Columbian America is slight, and if anyone can recommend a decent history I would be interested.
    Try "A Voyage Long and Strange" by Tony Horwitz.

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/327108067908?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=710-153316-527457-8&mkcid=2&itemid=327108067908&targetid=4585032216575484&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=40855&poi=&campaignid=555777369&mkgroupid=1302922579628295&rlsatarget=pla-4585032216575484&abcId=10644544&merchantid=87779&msclkid=7381e6a427b6175dfd9a8cc5f61cf3ff
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,957
    Cookie said:

    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    My thoughts exactly.

    I recently, for the first time, listened to the lyrics of Neil Young's "Cortez the killer". It tells of how the Aztecs and other Amerindian people lived in peace and harmony with one another before Cortez came. It is, as I understanf it, ahistorical guff. Thr Aztecs were vicious brutes - which is why Cortez and his small band did nit meet unifird heroic resistance from the natives.
    But my knowledge of pre-Columbian America is slight, and if anyone can recommend a decent history I would be interested.
    The Rest is History (Dom Sandbrook and Tom Holland) did some excellent stuff on this.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,693
    Cookie said:

    dixiedean said:

    Vance telling lies to support a greater ‘truth’, yet again. Bit of a blood libel vibe..


    🚨 JD Vance is now claiming that when settlers arrived in the New World, they “found widespread child sacrifice” and that “Christian civilization ended the practice.”

    Archaeologists and historians, including experts in North American Indigenous history, say this is a complete fabrication. There is zero evidence of widespread child sacrifice among First Nations.

    This isn’t a slip.

    It’s racist revisionism dressed up as patriotism.
    And it tells you exactly how far they’ll go to rewrite history to justify oppression.
    FOLLOW: @Trustintrump47

    https://x.com/trustintrump47/status/2079983817759044081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    But the Aztecs did quite extensively.
    Vance uses New World. The commentator North America.
    Not the same thing at all.
    My thoughts exactly.

    I recently, for the first time, listened to the lyrics of Neil Young's "Cortez the killer". It tells of how the Aztecs and other Amerindian people lived in peace and harmony with one another before Cortez came. It is, as I understanf it, ahistorical guff. Thr Aztecs were vicious brutes - which is why Cortez and his small band did nit meet unifird heroic resistance from the natives.
    But my knowledge of pre-Columbian America is slight, and if anyone can recommend a decent history I would be interested.
    Good morning everyone!

    From my equally slight knowledge of pre-Columban America, I've formed the impression that the Aztecs were, as suggested above, vicious brutes, somewhat unusual in being so and consequently "unpopular" with their neighbours.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,091
    eek said:

    An interesting video/thread on how AI is causing problems for Mercedes and McLaren F1.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aEJwI0X75Y

    from https://bsky.app/profile/garius.bsky.social/post/3mrcb4a6m2k2d

    There is AI managing the battery usage and it's not working..

    "I'm sorry George, I'm afraid I can't do that."

    "Look Lando, I can see you're really upset about this..."
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,957

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    My take on Meeks is that he is likely influenced to some extent by dislike of the Tories. The other take is that Badenoch is polling way ahead of the party and that gets more important at election time. Once again, those of us on PB, obsessed by test cricket, pizza, radiohead, F1, politics and betting tend to forget that the vast, vast majority of the country cares little for politics, and many cannot even tell you who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. We should also remember that at the next election every seat starts from scratch. Yes there is an incumbency effect, yes local performance of councils and councillors matters and yes the activist base is important, but I think its simply wrong to say that there are very few seats where the Tories can win. Why? In 2019 they won many of them, and those voters can return.
    I remember people saying the same thing in 2022-2024 when he was predicting an epochal defeat for the Tories.
    Which is a totally fair point, but I think my point about leaders vs party ratings, and the general public is true too.

    I wouldn't be surprised by (a) further Tory decline to sub 100 seats or (b) a modest recovery to near or just over 200.

    Hard to see more than that.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,265
    An article that will be sweet, sweet music to a certain PBer's ears.

    Hugo got this bit well wrong.

    'people from Cambridge will instead drop humblebragging hints and hope you figure it out for yourself.'


    https://x.com/hugorifkind/status/2080196191187300658?s=20Hugo Rifkind
    @hugorifkind
    One of those columns that lots of people are emailing me about but hardly anybody seems wants to post about publicly. Funny, that.

    https://thetimes.com/article/422563



  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,957

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/23/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-prosecution-criticised-rajiv-menon-kc

    Palestine Action seems to have driven the ruling classes a little bit mental.

    Let him face the consequences of his actions in a court of law. If he has found to have acted illegally by ignoring the judges direction then so be it. I don't see the issue.
    "On Wednesday evening, senior legal figures lined up to criticise the prosecution of Menon, believed to be the first of a barrister related to his closing speech."

    Even during the Troubles, when you had lawyers who were actual members of the various Community Organisations, I don't recall them being prosecuted.
    Did they deliberately ignore judges instructions?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,891
    DoctorG said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    They are getting eaten from 3 sides - Lib Dem, Labour and Reform. Even if Lib Dems only hold steady in national polling, the Meeks analysis (which I think right now is accurate) is that those 60 seats which went Con to Lib Dem in 2024, are unlikely to fall back into the blue column. As Robert Waller often says, the Lib Dems are very good at first time incumbency. Expect them to dig in.
    Which, I suspect, is part of the explanation as to why their relatively large parliamentary party is often accused of being not so visible on the national stage. I'm in no doubt that all the new MPs will have been told to spend the majority of their time doing stuff in their own seats.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,534

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/23/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-prosecution-criticised-rajiv-menon-kc

    Palestine Action seems to have driven the ruling classes a little bit mental.

    Let him face the consequences of his actions in a court of law. If he has found to have acted illegally by ignoring the judges direction then so be it. I don't see the issue.
    "On Wednesday evening, senior legal figures lined up to criticise the prosecution of Menon, believed to be the first of a barrister related to his closing speech."

    Even during the Troubles, when you had lawyers who were actual members of the various Community Organisations, I don't recall them being prosecuted.
    Did they deliberately ignore judges instructions?
    They did quite a bit more than that. Some committed crimes such as witness tampering.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,957

    Meanwhile Burnham’s approval rating jumps to +13, which is higher than Starmer’s post election high of +11. And for the first time we have both the PM and LOTO in positive net approval with Badenoch at +3, who says no one rates politicians?
    Davey is -5. Farage -22, Polanski -22.


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2080192742752157967?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g

    Polanski seems to have completely disappeared from view. Couple of months ago he was everywhere.
    It being found out that you didn't pay council tax because 'reasons' is a good reason to keep ones head down for a bit.

    And I heard him on R5 a couple of days ago. I suspect mainly its because our pathetic media can only handle one story at a time and that's currently Burnham.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,465

    Meanwhile Burnham’s approval rating jumps to +13, which is higher than Starmer’s post election high of +11. And for the first time we have both the PM and LOTO in positive net approval with Badenoch at +3, who says no one rates politicians?
    Davey is -5. Farage -22, Polanski -22.


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2080192742752157967?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g

    Polanski seems to have completely disappeared from view. Couple of months ago he was everywhere.
    His council tax problems and his general Walter Titty approach have caught up with him.
    Also, a fair bit of the Polanski bump was Starmer Derangement; Starmer replaced Jeremy, so he must be evil, so an alternative was needed.

    It's quite possible that Burnham will be as bad/worse on the supposed hot button issues (fossil fuels, Middle East, trans), but he will get away with it because he despatched the hated Sir Keir.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,634
    IanB2 said:

    DoctorG said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    They are getting eaten from 3 sides - Lib Dem, Labour and Reform. Even if Lib Dems only hold steady in national polling, the Meeks analysis (which I think right now is accurate) is that those 60 seats which went Con to Lib Dem in 2024, are unlikely to fall back into the blue column. As Robert Waller often says, the Lib Dems are very good at first time incumbency. Expect them to dig in.
    Which, I suspect, is part of the explanation as to why their relatively large parliamentary party is often accused of being not so visible on the national stage. I'm in no doubt that all the new MPs will have been told to spend the majority of their time doing stuff in their own seats.
    The LDs in Guildford have had a constant rolling doorstep canvas going on since the election.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 34,105

    eek said:

    First past the post (again).

    Edit - I actually think it's going to be 2027 - given the state of Reform's source of funds an early election with all the gory details about Reform's money provided Burnham is not yet voter repulsive it's a chance for him to get a clear mandate, destroy the Tories a bit more AND give him 5 years to do some of the really awkward changes that have long leadtimes.

    I do not think so.

    To actually do something will take years. To change the system so that doing something doesn’t have to take years… will take years.

    Burnham appears to be going for - “I have a plan which means re-electing me. And here is the start of it.”

    Even the best polls have Labour level pegging with Reform. That means at any election, there would be a fearful slaughter among Labour MPs, at best.
    I think the Theresa May plonkety-plonk memories are still too strong.

    But equally politics could change it all in a few weeks or months.

    Were I in Burnham's place I'd try and quite rapidly push though on political funding and media reforms (including social media), which imo are an existential threat to this country's democratic tradition.

    Adjacently I wonder if Andy B will start speaking far more clearly than did SKS about the Russian threat. I think he will be more subtle on the USA threat, which is perhaps more unapologetic and overt.

    But there are other events coming that could markedly change things, for example the USA mid-term elections.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,891

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    My take on Meeks is that he is likely influenced to some extent by dislike of the Tories. The other take is that Badenoch is polling way ahead of the party and that gets more important at election time. Once again, those of us on PB, obsessed by test cricket, pizza, radiohead, F1, politics and betting tend to forget that the vast, vast majority of the country cares little for politics, and many cannot even tell you who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. We should also remember that at the next election every seat starts from scratch. Yes there is an incumbency effect, yes local performance of councils and councillors matters and yes the activist base is important, but I think its simply wrong to say that there are very few seats where the Tories can win. Why? In 2019 they won many of them, and those voters can return.
    I remember people saying the same thing in 2022-2024 when he was predicting an epochal defeat for the Tories.
    Alastair clearly enjoyed writing about the demise of the Tories - indeed he says as much early on - but the flaw in his analysis, if there is one, is not that he's fixated on the triumph of the centre-left but that he doesn't spend any time considering what might happen if the Reform balloon continues to deflate (or, indeed, pops, if Farage walks away, given his myriad troubles).

    While I don't think it automatic that the Tories would then instantly recover pole position - Reform's vote contains many NOTA folks, some left-leaning ones, some who would go even further right to Restore, and many who probably wouldn't vote at all if the Farage factor goes away - recovering it's dominant position on the right-wing side of politics is surely a precondition to any significant Tory recovery?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 8,446
    Pulpstar said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/23/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-prosecution-criticised-rajiv-menon-kc

    Palestine Action seems to have driven the ruling classes a little bit mental.

    Let him face the consequences of his actions in a court of law. If he has found to have acted illegally by ignoring the judges direction then so be it. I don't see the issue.
    "On Wednesday evening, senior legal figures lined up to criticise the prosecution of Menon, believed to be the first of a barrister related to his closing speech."

    Even during the Troubles, when you had lawyers who were actual members of the various Community Organisations, I don't recall them being prosecuted.
    There's a better summary here:

    https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/contempt-case-against-silk-can-continue/5127142.article

    Interestingly he works for Garden Court Chambers, that's the same law firm from which the immigration judge worked for who decided "family" extended to adult brothers and sisters and let in 18 Gazans under ECHR.
    It still doesn't say what Menon is supposed to have said
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,465
    IanB2 said:

    DoctorG said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    They are getting eaten from 3 sides - Lib Dem, Labour and Reform. Even if Lib Dems only hold steady in national polling, the Meeks analysis (which I think right now is accurate) is that those 60 seats which went Con to Lib Dem in 2024, are unlikely to fall back into the blue column. As Robert Waller often says, the Lib Dems are very good at first time incumbency. Expect them to dig in.
    Which, I suspect, is part of the explanation as to why their relatively large parliamentary party is often accused of being not so visible on the national stage. I'm in no doubt that all the new MPs will have been told to spend the majority of their time doing stuff in their own seats.
    It's a good survival strategy; see the Liberals, who probably would have vanished completely without some intense local campaigning. Two catches though;

    The key one is that it's a heck of a comedown for a party that won a chunky landslide less than a decade ago.

    The other is... Where to dig in? What does a Conservative seat look like? For Lib Dems, it's easy- leafy streets leading to a farmers market and a beach of Waitrose. Similarly Reform- either a golf club or a boarded-up shopping precinct. Polanski's Greens- gentrifying inner cities with lots of cargo bikes.

    It's harder for Labour, because they did so well in 2024. How do you do a composite picture of 2/3 of the country? But what does a Conservative seat look like- except for one that the Lib Dems or Reform haven't taken yet?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,879
    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    I don't see anything that has suddenly made the Tories more competent, or looking more competent, since they were turfed out in 2024?

    The only real change has been that Reform has been foolish enough to relieve the Tories of some of their most incompetent ministers, such that both of them risk being seen as not up to the job of government.

    History suggests that when parties are decisively thrown out of government for negative reasons, it takes more than one GE before people forget and their reputation recovers. I see nothing different, this time.

    I think Mr Meeks yesterday had a better analysis on the Tories - basically they have very few seats they can win and a lot of the seats they currently have are likely to be lost in the next election to the Lib Dems thanks to their shift to the right towards Reform.

    Basically if Reform sits at 20% and Burnham consolidates the left wing vote (as he will) the Tories are doomed whenever the next election is..
    My take on Meeks is that he is likely influenced to some extent by dislike of the Tories. The other take is that Badenoch is polling way ahead of the party and that gets more important at election time. Once again, those of us on PB, obsessed by test cricket, pizza, radiohead, F1, politics and betting tend to forget that the vast, vast majority of the country cares little for politics, and many cannot even tell you who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. We should also remember that at the next election every seat starts from scratch. Yes there is an incumbency effect, yes local performance of councils and councillors matters and yes the activist base is important, but I think its simply wrong to say that there are very few seats where the Tories can win. Why? In 2019 they won many of them, and those voters can return.
    I remember people saying the same thing in 2022-2024 when he was predicting an epochal defeat for the Tories.
    Alastair clearly enjoyed writing about the demise of the Tories - indeed he says as much early on - but the flaw in his analysis, if there is one, is not that he's fixated on the triumph of the centre-left but that he doesn't spend any time considering what might happen if the Reform balloon continues to deflate (or, indeed, pops, if Farage walks away, given his myriad troubles).

    While I don't think it automatic that the Tories would then instantly recover pole position - Reform's vote contains many NOTA folks, some left-leaning ones, some who would go even further right to Restore, and many who probably wouldn't vote at all if the Farage factor goes away - recovering it's dominant position on the right-wing side of politics is surely a precondition to any significant Tory recovery?
    Indeed, in 2019, albeit under different circumstances, Boris Johnson won because he was the only game in the town on the "right" while the "left" was split and the Conservatives took full advantage.

    The poll today and Deltapoll show a very similar divide between Ref-Con and Lab-LD-Green so it continues to be a divided country and the movement to Burnham has come from "left" voters.
Sign In or Register to comment.