When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
Boom and Bust ? I can only recall one person promising "No more boom and bust" and we know what happened there.
Do we? Remind us, and show us how it might be relevant to the situation today in December 2023...because that's what is important, not ancient history.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
No, you're right. The Falklands Effect benefitted Thatcher and the Kuwait Effect benefitted Plucky Johnny Major. But Thatcher was taken in the night by the poll tax. And Major was burned out by Black Wednesday, recession and Maastricht.
The economy was doing well when the Conservatives lost the election. So well that Labour waiting a few years before making any real changes.
Labour won because after 18 years, the country wanted a change
Yes we were fed up of boom and bust, Thatcher destroying union rights and the country being run into the ground. Labour came in and steadied the economy and brought some prosperity.
Boom and Bust ? I can only recall one person promising "No more boom and bust" and we know what happened there.
Gordon Brown at the beginning of the last Labour government. He made a war chest that came in handy. He kept the economy pretty stable until the bankers decided to get greedy.
Rwanda is such a strange policy. Even if it worked - which is about as likely as my winning the Nobel Prize for Literature - it would merely exchange a small number of of people for another lot with 'complex issues'. So the net difference would be 0, and this is costing us big bucks.
Meanwhile, in the last year, the Government has issued over 1 million - that is 1 million - visas for people to come here legitimately. That is about 700, 000 net legal, approved immigration.
It all seems a bit rum to me. Like ignoring murders to focus on hammering people who park on double yellow lines in Stoke Poges.
I can't get my head around it. Maybe I am too rational for this world.
The sheer insanity of the Rwanda farce has not gone unnoticed, and will, I hope, soon bite the tories on their collective bum, giving them rabies. or something equally horrid...
Don't they already have rabies? The ERG are surely barking mad
You have a point.
The *Five Families* appear to have lost all grip on reality, and are usually to be seen foaming at the mouth. Their hatred of the small boats is no doubt due to their hydrophobia...
Don't they already have rabies? The ERG are surely barking mad
You have a point.
The *Five Families* appear to have lost all grip on reality, and are usually to be seen foaming at the mouth. Their hatred of the small boats is no doubt due to their hydrophobia...
I gather the Five Families are some group of right-wing tory MPs? Is there a reason they're named after the iconic NYC mafia groups? Is it five factions of MPs?
Five factions of right wing Tory MPs, though with a lot of common membership:
The European Research Group - one of the oldest groups from the Tory Right, with little idea about what Europe is and no understanding of research for a long time the Eurosceptic wing of the party.
No Turning Back - a bit lower profile back dating back to the 1980s, ultra-Thatcherite chaired by John Redwood, strong supporters of Liz Truss.
Northern Research Group - mostly MPs who won their seats in 2019 from the "Red Wall", no more understanding of "research" than the ERG.
Common Sense Group - basically fighting culture war issues on the side of Satan, particularly critical of the National Trust. No evidence of any nous shown by any members.
New Conservatives - including the likes of 30p Lee Anderson and other intellectuals who want the UK to leave the UK created ECHR. Apparently not conscious of the oxymoron that is the groups name.
The following is my thought-through analysis. I will remain nervous until the votes are counted. Partly because I remember 1992 and partly because I fear just how bad things could be if the Tories don't finally lose after all that's gone on these past few years.
Anyway:
The Conservatives are going to lose.
The question is how big a loss.
Labour needs around a 7% lead to get a majority. Current polling is quite erratic but the lead is ~13-25%. On these numbers, we're talking a Labour landslide.
Two factors to consider:
1. There's a high chance of tactical voting being really important with Labour picking up a handful of extra seats and the LibDems quite a few more.
2. Conventional wisdom is that the polls will narrow as we get closer to the election. For various reasons, I think conventional wisdom is wrong and I think the polls will widen slightly.
So here's a range prediction:
The best the Tories can hope for is a small Labour majority with around 200 Tory MPs left.
My central prediction is a big Labour majority with only ~150 Tory MPs.
The other outlier is really dramatic with tactical voting and a Conservative/Reform vote split leading to fewer than 100 Tory MPs: a wipeout.
Conventional wisdom is that the polls will narrow as we get closer to the election. For various reasons, I think conventional wisdom is wrong and I think the polls will widen slightly.
For me, there's a big question about how current "don't know"'s will settle to one party or another as the election approaches. Normally these will spread out to an extent, and as governments always manage to pass a budget that puts a bit more money into the pockets of the middle ages middle classes* and introduce other policies that make that demographic feel good they will pick up some of those - increasing the poll numbers for the government.
I don't think this government is acting like a normal government. The cost of living crisis they've created is impacting the middle classes, when professionals like nurses and teachers are using food banks then a few quid from National Insurance cuts that doesn't really address the gap between income and essential expenses isn't going to swing it. Also, the government has been playing the culture war cards seeking the votes from the far right - trashing the rights of asylum seekers and refugees and other migrants, LGBTQ+ people etc. These appeal to a small group of voters, but moves the Conservatives away from the centre of British politics, they've probably already got those people expressing support for them in the polls, the "don't know" people are far more likely to be in the centre and are much less likely to find those culture war issues to be important to them, and indeed to find the Tory policies and focus on these repugnant.
So, while in a normal time the government could expect to pick up the "don't know" people in the polls I think that they've probably got everyone who's going to say they'll vote Tory and the don't know portion of the polls are far more likely to decide to say they'll vote for someone else.
But, I'm also much less inclined to believe polls precisely because things aren't normal. I worry that there's a constituency who know that the Tory policies on migration, LGBTQ+ rights etc are evil, but still think they'll deliver more for them than other parties. People who are too embarrassed to tell a pollster that they'll vote Tory, but still put their cross next to a Tory in the privacy of the polling booth.
* I think the middle aged middle class are the key demographic all parties aim to win. Younger people and poorer people are much less likely to vote. Older people are less likely to change their political allegiance. The rich can bankroll campaigns, and there's a tendency to give them a louder voice in public discussion, but there aren't enough of the rich to swing elections in all but a few constituencies.
I'm in what should be a solid Conservative constituency, but given the wretched MP has sent everyone in it a Christmas card I guess he's worried. The main complaint has been that he is never here, but I've noticed he's turning up in the local newspaper every week at various local events.
I think I agree with your analysis @Alan Cresswell
The government appears to know they will lose. As stated up thread it is by how much. Knowing this they need to keep as many seats as they can. Those far right voters are pretty much all they have. They are the difference between losing and years in the political wilderness. They are pushing all the far right stuff to stop a flood to Reform
I'm posting here rather than in the Waste of Oxygen of the Day thread because it's not been divulged yet what it is alleged she has done.
It was announced in the news at lunch time today that the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner is investigating Miriam Cates MP, New Conservative and close ally of Danny Kruger MP, son of Prudence Leith the cookery performer. The accusation is that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation" of the Commons and its members.
Looking at the way so many of them behave without being referred to it, that must have quite a high bar.
I'm posting here rather than in the Waste of Oxygen of the Day thread because it's not been divulged yet what it is alleged she has done.
It was announced in the news at lunch time today that the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner is investigating Miriam Cates MP, New Conservative and close ally of Danny Kruger MP, son of Prudence Leith the cookery performer. The accusation is that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation" of the Commons and its members.
Looking at the way so many of them behave without being referred to it, that must have quite a high bar.
You'll forgive me I hope for hoping it's something serious and that it sinks the loathsome woman's political career permanently. She's seriously unpleasant.
I'm posting here rather than in the Waste of Oxygen of the Day thread because it's not been divulged yet what it is alleged she has done.
It was announced in the news at lunch time today that the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner is investigating Miriam Cates MP, New Conservative and close ally of Danny Kruger MP, son of Prudence Leith the cookery performer. The accusation is that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation" of the Commons and its members.
Looking at the way so many of them behave without being referred to it, that must have quite a high bar.
You'll forgive me I hope for hoping it's something serious and that it sinks the loathsome woman's political career permanently. She's seriously unpleasant.
As @Enoch says, there aren't many details yet, but FWIW here's today's snip from the Guardian:
What with her, along with the egregious *Lady* Mone, and all the other Stuff that seems to crop up on a daily basis, the tories' moral turpitude appears to have no limit...
BTW, as regards the loathsome swivel-eyed loons of the *Five Families*, does anyone have any rough idea of how many of them there are?
Great heavens above! what can Ms Cates possibly have done that is worse than what ..... (fill in your own choice of government lackies here) have done and continue to do?
Great heavens above! what can Ms Cates possibly have done that is worse than what ..... (fill in your own choice of government lackies here) have done and continue to do?
She may perhaps have been found out...and that is the cardinal sin...
Meanwhile, the wretched *Lady* Mone is complaining that everyone in government knew about her PPE machinations. What will it take for all these ghastly arsewipes to fuck off, and flush themselves down the Toilet of History?
Great heavens above! what can Ms Cates possibly have done that is worse than what ..... (fill in your own choice of government lackies here) have done and continue to do?
Maybe she has shown compassion for those less well off?
Unlikely, I know, but given the name of the alleged sin...
It's curious but perhaps not that surprising that according to the Guardian article linked,
"Greenberg is investigating eight MPs, with the inquiries dating back to June. Seven are Conservatives, including Eleanor Laing, the deputy speaker, and Bernard Jenkin. The eighth is the former Tory Andrew Bridgen, who now sits for Reclaim."
Bridgen, the one exception is not some raving leftie or militant Scottish, Welsh or Irish Nationalist. He was thrown out of the Conservatives inter alia for being an obsessive Covid denier. Reclaim is linked to Laurence Fox and has had electoral pacts with Reform, the Farage and Tice party.
@Bishops Finger wrote:
... Meanwhile, the wretched *Lady* Mone is complaining that everyone in government knew about her PPE machinations. ...
I don't find it impossible to believe that some of them, at least, did, but if so, it doesn't make it all right.
Great heavens above! what can Ms Cates possibly have done that is worse than what ..... (fill in your own choice of government lackies here) have done and continue to do?
She may perhaps have been found out...and that is the cardinal sin...
Meanwhile, the wretched *Lady* Mone is complaining that everyone in government knew about her PPE machinations. What will it take for all these ghastly arsewipes to fuck off, and flush themselves down the Toilet of History?
"I lied but it was OK because everyone knew I was lying".
Bugger me, that'd not get a favourable hearing in the head's study, never mind Parliament.
It's curious but perhaps not that surprising that according to the Guardian article linked,
"Greenberg is investigating eight MPs, with the inquiries dating back to June. Seven are Conservatives, including Eleanor Laing, the deputy speaker, and Bernard Jenkin. The eighth is the former Tory Andrew Bridgen, who now sits for Reclaim."
Bridgen, the one exception is not some raving leftie or militant Scottish, Welsh or Irish Nationalist. He was thrown out of the Conservatives inter alia for being an obsessive Covid denier. Reclaim is linked to Laurence Fox and has had electoral pacts with Reform, the Farage and Tice party.
@Bishops Finger wrote:
... Meanwhile, the wretched *Lady* Mone is complaining that everyone in government knew about her PPE machinations. ...
I don't find it impossible to believe that some of them, at least, did, but if so, it doesn't make it all right.
Great heavens above! what can Ms Cates possibly have done that is worse than what ..... (fill in your own choice of government lackies here) have done and continue to do?
She may perhaps have been found out...and that is the cardinal sin...
Meanwhile, the wretched *Lady* Mone is complaining that everyone in government knew about her PPE machinations. What will it take for all these ghastly arsewipes to fuck off, and flush themselves down the Toilet of History?
"I lied but it was OK because everyone knew I was lying".
Bugger me, that'd not get a favourable hearing in the head's study, never mind Parliament.
Indeed.
I wonder if His Gracious Majesty will see fit to rescind (or whatever the word is) her *peerage*? Once she's found guilty, I hasten to add...
I can almost hear Uncle Joe saying *Sushi Rinak? Who he?*...
Remember when Brexiters were claiming that Obama's use of the word 'queue' suggested he'd had that line dictated to him by the then officially 'Remain' government of Cameron and that of course the UK would get a trade deal?
There's a decent (and short) bit of analysis on the background to this here:
Conventional wisdom is that the polls will narrow as we get closer to the election. For various reasons, I think conventional wisdom is wrong and I think the polls will widen slightly.
What reasons are those out of interest?
Of course.
Three reasons.
Firstly economic. Political scientists will tell you that the economic performance of a country in the 6 months leading up to an election is the best indicator of whether an incumbent government will win. There's some nice data for this. 2015 is an example of this correlation. Of course, the economic record 2010-2015 was woeful but over the last two quarters of 2014-15 there were some improvements (driven by Osborne relaxing austerity - which he then reinstated in 2015's (2nd) budget). People felt a bit better about things and vote incumbent. this effect has been seen in multiple elections in multiple countries.
I think this one is going to go against the government, simply because the effect of the NI cut will not be felt by most. So, despite the promises that they are 'helping' everyday people, most people won't feel it. It matters not what figures are published - it only matters how people feel things are going. Hence I can't see any help here.
Secondly, an effect seen in 2017. Corbyn had lots of issues, however, the reality of him is very different to how he was portrayed. In 2019, he didn't really manage to cut-through for lots of reasons but in 2017, he did. The power of the right wing newspapers lies not in the fact that they sell big numbers but that they shape the agenda that the broadcasters follow. To a large extend, whilst they broadcasters are far more balanced than the print media, the topics they choose to talk about shape the narrative.
The broadcasting rules are stricter during a general election campaign. There is a requirement for equal weighting for the parties. This made a big difference to Corbyn's Labour party in '17. Consider how, leading up to the campaign, most stories about Labour were under-reported or pre-filtered by the press etc. Hence the narratives such as 'Labour don't have any policies' took hold. Once Corbyn had been given the same size megaphone, and people heard from him directly, Labour went up in the polls. There's some focus-group work etc. from the time which shows this effect as well. I don't think Starmer is the world's greatest campaigner by any means but there's a good team around him and his opposite number is definitely not a good campaigner. The fact that Corbyn did not enjoy such success in 2019 in different circumstances is irrelevant here. The connection that the Labour party can get with the public is distinctly different in an election campaign.
Currently, the Press continues to control the narrative Labour has no policiesBeergate etc. etc. (By the way, Labour are developing a lot of policy at the moment...) Anyway, the view, the public gets in an election is different and I think the contrast between Starmer/Labour and Sunak/Conservatives will not benefit the Tories in '24.
Thirdly Reform. Since 2010 the various UKIP incarnations have scared the Tories and taken some votes from them. Mostly, the Conservatives were able to claw them back by aping their policies. I think that road has come to an end. In 2019 Farage folded, in order to keep hold of the great prize of Brexit. I don't see that happening again next time round. Moreover, the Reform platform is all fantasy and demanding impossible policies, doomed to fail. The supporters look at the government's position and record on immigration and don't conclude that what they've promised is impossible but rather that the government have failed to deliver it and only Reform can. (This is a really strong vibe on social media if you look for it). In 2019, much of the Reform equivalent support went back to the Tories and they also took some support from Labour in pro-Brexit areas. The Labour pro-Brexit vote for the most part don't care about it anymore and thus their ability to take votes from Labour is much diminished. Reform currently running at 8-9%. On current polls they can't stop a Labour win but if they did get behind the Tories they would reduce the size of the victory. I just don't think it will happen this time around.
Add to the mix, the general malaise around the government and lack of enthusiasm for them etc. etc. It's quite possible the polls won't move and they may narrow, but what I see is factors that will only go in the other direction and hence I think Labour will win easily. The question is by how much.
I must add a final paragraph. I will not relax until the votes are in. The notion of Labour not winning now is horrific. Not for the Labour Party. Horrific for the country.
AFZ
P.S. Sorry kept being interrupted when writing this post, so it's taken me a while!
I too am not counting chickens. The Cons got in several times despite austerity, the ATOS miracles and send British Citizens to a country they never really knew. One can hope
This is such an unhappy country. Every time I look at a paper, there is 'fury' at something or other - although they rarely give details of who is furious.
The ruling class are very good at diverting anger from where it should be directed and on to other, and often innocent targets. If you believe the Daily Mail this country would be Camelot on steroids, but for the boat people and the 'leftie' civil servants and 'leftie' lawyers and judges.
To me, it's quite clear that these are the least of our problems. But grifters, charlatans and liars seem to be very successful in conning the average Joe or Joanna. There are even those who think Kermit the Frog should be PM. Oh, Lord, make haste to help us.
But grifters, charlatans and liars seem to be very successful in conning the average Joe or Joanna. There are even those who think Kermit the Frog should be PM.
I assume this bit about Kermit The Frog is a reference to something?
Apparently the policy of incarcerating convicts housing refugees on the prison ship Abel Magwitch Bibby Stockholm is discriminatory - according to the Home Office:
I think the probability of a May election has just risen: the Budget is going to be 6th March which is on the early side for the Budget, but still leaves room for dissolving Parliament a week or two later.
..."It also says the act permits sex discrimination in relation to communal accommodation. It adds: “As there are far more male asylum seekers than females and many of the female claimants have children, it has been decided that is appropriate to use the site for male asylum seekers only.”
But it suggests changes will have to be made to ensure compliance with the law. It says: “In relation to demonstrating that the accommodation is managed in a way that is as fair as possible to both men and women … we are considering measures to ensure that as far as possible the accommodation is comparable to other asylum accommodation. ...."
Does that follow? On this government's logic, doesn't it follow that to avoid discrimination, all you need to do, is to be able to show that you must be just as nasty to everybody else? So if this initiative is constrained by being only suitable for single sex occupation all the government needs to do is to acquire another equally ghastly prison-hulk and put women asylum seekers and their children in it.
Shush. I hope nobody in the Home Office follows this thread.
Well, they keep *saying* that they want to 'stop the boats' by any means necessary, but apparently the solution of giving asylum seekers ferry tickets to Dover so they can cross safely and the RNLI don't have to keep fishing them out of the Channel has never even occurred to them.
I conclude that they aren't serious about wanting to stop the boats. It's such a wonderful distraction from all the other nasty things they're doing. 🤬
Well, they keep *saying* that they want to 'stop the boats' by any means necessary, but apparently the solution of giving asylum seekers ferry tickets to Dover so they can cross safely and the RNLI don't have to keep fishing them out of the Channel has never even occurred to them.
I conclude that they aren't serious about wanting to stop the boats. It's such a wonderful distraction from all the other nasty things they're doing. 🤬
Indeed it is. One can but hope that in a few months' time they will all be flushed down the Khazi of History into the Cloaca of Oblivion (or perhaps the Dungeons of Barad-Dur).
Well, they keep *saying* that they want to 'stop the boats' by any means necessary, but apparently the solution of giving asylum seekers ferry tickets to Dover so they can cross safely and the RNLI don't have to keep fishing them out of the Channel has never even occurred to them.
I conclude that they aren't serious about wanting to stop the boats. It's such a wonderful distraction from all the other nasty things they're doing. 🤬
This is a perfect summary.
For over 10 years now they've played the immigration card repeatedly Often conflating regular migration with asylum-seeking. They have no intention of doing anything about either but know that by talking about it a lot they can win votes. And to Hell with the consequences.
That's deeply cynical and amoral. But when you consider the human cost at the end of the line, it's very hard to conclude that it's anything other than evil.
Comments
Maybe they'll let Mad Queen Liz have another go?
Boom and Bust ? I can only recall one person promising "No more boom and bust" and we know what happened there.
Gordon Brown at the beginning of the last Labour government. He made a war chest that came in handy. He kept the economy pretty stable until the bankers decided to get greedy.
Meanwhile, in the last year, the Government has issued over 1 million - that is 1 million - visas for people to come here legitimately. That is about 700, 000 net legal, approved immigration.
It all seems a bit rum to me. Like ignoring murders to focus on hammering people who park on double yellow lines in Stoke Poges.
I can't get my head around it. Maybe I am too rational for this world.
The sheer insanity of the Rwanda farce has not gone unnoticed, and will, I hope, soon bite the tories on their collective bum, giving them rabies. or something equally horrid...
You have a point.
The *Five Families* appear to have lost all grip on reality, and are usually to be seen foaming at the mouth. Their hatred of the small boats is no doubt due to their hydrophobia...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/17/rishi-sunak-intervened-to-ensure-vip-helicopter-contract-was-not-cancelled
Maybe He's afraid that if He gets onto a train, the railway staff will instantly go on strike...
I gather the Five Families are some group of right-wing tory MPs? Is there a reason they're named after the iconic NYC mafia groups? Is it five factions of MPs?
The European Research Group - one of the oldest groups from the Tory Right, with little idea about what Europe is and no understanding of research for a long time the Eurosceptic wing of the party.
No Turning Back - a bit lower profile back dating back to the 1980s, ultra-Thatcherite chaired by John Redwood, strong supporters of Liz Truss.
Northern Research Group - mostly MPs who won their seats in 2019 from the "Red Wall", no more understanding of "research" than the ERG.
Common Sense Group - basically fighting culture war issues on the side of Satan, particularly critical of the National Trust. No evidence of any nous shown by any members.
New Conservatives - including the likes of 30p Lee Anderson and other intellectuals who want the UK to leave the UK created ECHR. Apparently not conscious of the oxymoron that is the groups name.
Very informative. Thanks.
ISTR the name of Idi Amin's secret police unit that used to torture people was named the 'State Research Bureau', so there's that.
Anyway:
The Conservatives are going to lose.
The question is how big a loss.
Labour needs around a 7% lead to get a majority. Current polling is quite erratic but the lead is ~13-25%. On these numbers, we're talking a Labour landslide.
Two factors to consider:
1. There's a high chance of tactical voting being really important with Labour picking up a handful of extra seats and the LibDems quite a few more.
2. Conventional wisdom is that the polls will narrow as we get closer to the election. For various reasons, I think conventional wisdom is wrong and I think the polls will widen slightly.
So here's a range prediction:
The best the Tories can hope for is a small Labour majority with around 200 Tory MPs left.
My central prediction is a big Labour majority with only ~150 Tory MPs.
The other outlier is really dramatic with tactical voting and a Conservative/Reform vote split leading to fewer than 100 Tory MPs: a wipeout.
AFZ
I don't think this government is acting like a normal government. The cost of living crisis they've created is impacting the middle classes, when professionals like nurses and teachers are using food banks then a few quid from National Insurance cuts that doesn't really address the gap between income and essential expenses isn't going to swing it. Also, the government has been playing the culture war cards seeking the votes from the far right - trashing the rights of asylum seekers and refugees and other migrants, LGBTQ+ people etc. These appeal to a small group of voters, but moves the Conservatives away from the centre of British politics, they've probably already got those people expressing support for them in the polls, the "don't know" people are far more likely to be in the centre and are much less likely to find those culture war issues to be important to them, and indeed to find the Tory policies and focus on these repugnant.
So, while in a normal time the government could expect to pick up the "don't know" people in the polls I think that they've probably got everyone who's going to say they'll vote Tory and the don't know portion of the polls are far more likely to decide to say they'll vote for someone else.
But, I'm also much less inclined to believe polls precisely because things aren't normal. I worry that there's a constituency who know that the Tory policies on migration, LGBTQ+ rights etc are evil, but still think they'll deliver more for them than other parties. People who are too embarrassed to tell a pollster that they'll vote Tory, but still put their cross next to a Tory in the privacy of the polling booth.
* I think the middle aged middle class are the key demographic all parties aim to win. Younger people and poorer people are much less likely to vote. Older people are less likely to change their political allegiance. The rich can bankroll campaigns, and there's a tendency to give them a louder voice in public discussion, but there aren't enough of the rich to swing elections in all but a few constituencies.
I think I agree with your analysis @Alan Cresswell
I think a lot of “don’t knows” have every intention of voting Tory but are too embarrassed to say so out loud
It was announced in the news at lunch time today that the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner is investigating Miriam Cates MP, New Conservative and close ally of Danny Kruger MP, son of Prudence Leith the cookery performer. The accusation is that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation" of the Commons and its members.
Looking at the way so many of them behave without being referred to it, that must have quite a high bar.
You'll forgive me I hope for hoping it's something serious and that it sinks the loathsome woman's political career permanently. She's seriously unpleasant.
As @Enoch says, there aren't many details yet, but FWIW here's today's snip from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/18/tory-mp-miriam-cates-investigated-standards-watchdog
What with her, along with the egregious *Lady* Mone, and all the other Stuff that seems to crop up on a daily basis, the tories' moral turpitude appears to have no limit...
BTW, as regards the loathsome swivel-eyed loons of the *Five Families*, does anyone have any rough idea of how many of them there are?
She may perhaps have been found out...and that is the cardinal sin...
Meanwhile, the wretched *Lady* Mone is complaining that everyone in government knew about her PPE machinations. What will it take for all these ghastly arsewipes to fuck off, and flush themselves down the Toilet of History?
Maybe she has shown compassion for those less well off?
Unlikely, I know, but given the name of the alleged sin...
Bridgen, the one exception is not some raving leftie or militant Scottish, Welsh or Irish Nationalist. He was thrown out of the Conservatives inter alia for being an obsessive Covid denier. Reclaim is linked to Laurence Fox and has had electoral pacts with Reform, the Farage and Tice party.
I don't find it impossible to believe that some of them, at least, did, but if so, it doesn't make it all right.
"I lied but it was OK because everyone knew I was lying".
Bugger me, that'd not get a favourable hearing in the head's study, never mind Parliament.
Well, quite.
Indeed.
I wonder if His Gracious Majesty will see fit to rescind (or whatever the word is) her *peerage*? Once she's found guilty, I hasten to add...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/18/joe-biden-signals-he-has-no-interest-in-signing-us-uk-trade-agreement
I can almost hear Uncle Joe saying *Sushi Rinak? Who he?*...
Remember when Brexiters were claiming that Obama's use of the word 'queue' suggested he'd had that line dictated to him by the then officially 'Remain' government of Cameron and that of course the UK would get a trade deal?
There's a decent (and short) bit of analysis on the background to this here:
https://twitter.com/poltheoryother/status/1697183394579284189 (Economic historian and Colombia professor Adam Tooze)
Of course.
Three reasons.
Firstly economic. Political scientists will tell you that the economic performance of a country in the 6 months leading up to an election is the best indicator of whether an incumbent government will win. There's some nice data for this. 2015 is an example of this correlation. Of course, the economic record 2010-2015 was woeful but over the last two quarters of 2014-15 there were some improvements (driven by Osborne relaxing austerity - which he then reinstated in 2015's (2nd) budget). People felt a bit better about things and vote incumbent. this effect has been seen in multiple elections in multiple countries.
I think this one is going to go against the government, simply because the effect of the NI cut will not be felt by most. So, despite the promises that they are 'helping' everyday people, most people won't feel it. It matters not what figures are published - it only matters how people feel things are going. Hence I can't see any help here.
Secondly, an effect seen in 2017. Corbyn had lots of issues, however, the reality of him is very different to how he was portrayed. In 2019, he didn't really manage to cut-through for lots of reasons but in 2017, he did. The power of the right wing newspapers lies not in the fact that they sell big numbers but that they shape the agenda that the broadcasters follow. To a large extend, whilst they broadcasters are far more balanced than the print media, the topics they choose to talk about shape the narrative.
The broadcasting rules are stricter during a general election campaign. There is a requirement for equal weighting for the parties. This made a big difference to Corbyn's Labour party in '17. Consider how, leading up to the campaign, most stories about Labour were under-reported or pre-filtered by the press etc. Hence the narratives such as 'Labour don't have any policies' took hold. Once Corbyn had been given the same size megaphone, and people heard from him directly, Labour went up in the polls. There's some focus-group work etc. from the time which shows this effect as well. I don't think Starmer is the world's greatest campaigner by any means but there's a good team around him and his opposite number is definitely not a good campaigner. The fact that Corbyn did not enjoy such success in 2019 in different circumstances is irrelevant here. The connection that the Labour party can get with the public is distinctly different in an election campaign.
Currently, the Press continues to control the narrative Labour has no policies Beergate etc. etc. (By the way, Labour are developing a lot of policy at the moment...) Anyway, the view, the public gets in an election is different and I think the contrast between Starmer/Labour and Sunak/Conservatives will not benefit the Tories in '24.
Thirdly Reform. Since 2010 the various UKIP incarnations have scared the Tories and taken some votes from them. Mostly, the Conservatives were able to claw them back by aping their policies. I think that road has come to an end. In 2019 Farage folded, in order to keep hold of the great prize of Brexit. I don't see that happening again next time round. Moreover, the Reform platform is all fantasy and demanding impossible policies, doomed to fail. The supporters look at the government's position and record on immigration and don't conclude that what they've promised is impossible but rather that the government have failed to deliver it and only Reform can. (This is a really strong vibe on social media if you look for it). In 2019, much of the Reform equivalent support went back to the Tories and they also took some support from Labour in pro-Brexit areas. The Labour pro-Brexit vote for the most part don't care about it anymore and thus their ability to take votes from Labour is much diminished. Reform currently running at 8-9%. On current polls they can't stop a Labour win but if they did get behind the Tories they would reduce the size of the victory. I just don't think it will happen this time around.
Add to the mix, the general malaise around the government and lack of enthusiasm for them etc. etc. It's quite possible the polls won't move and they may narrow, but what I see is factors that will only go in the other direction and hence I think Labour will win easily. The question is by how much.
I must add a final paragraph. I will not relax until the votes are in. The notion of Labour not winning now is horrific. Not for the Labour Party. Horrific for the country.
AFZ
P.S. Sorry kept being interrupted when writing this post, so it's taken me a while!
The ruling class are very good at diverting anger from where it should be directed and on to other, and often innocent targets. If you believe the Daily Mail this country would be Camelot on steroids, but for the boat people and the 'leftie' civil servants and 'leftie' lawyers and judges.
To me, it's quite clear that these are the least of our problems. But grifters, charlatans and liars seem to be very successful in conning the average Joe or Joanna. There are even those who think Kermit the Frog should be PM. Oh, Lord, make haste to help us.
I assume this bit about Kermit The Frog is a reference to something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_the_Frog
Why do they keep on winning?
I guess we'll never know.
It's like a kind of torture
To have to watch the show.
Frankly, though, Mr Kermit would make a far, far better Prime Minister (or any other minister) than the current gormless gaggle.
Mr The Frog, surely?
I stand corrected. It doesn't do to be too familiar with Green people...
Lord Kermit the Frog, perhaps? Just as effective as Lord Big Dave...
Apparently the policy of incarcerating convicts housing refugees on the prison ship Abel Magwitch Bibby Stockholm is discriminatory - according to the Home Office:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/27/bibby-stockholm-policy-is-discriminatory-home-office-report-finds
Just when you think this country can't sink any further into the Maelstrom of Insanity, someone proves you wrong.
Does that follow? On this government's logic, doesn't it follow that to avoid discrimination, all you need to do, is to be able to show that you must be just as nasty to everybody else? So if this initiative is constrained by being only suitable for single sex occupation all the government needs to do is to acquire another equally ghastly prison-hulk and put women asylum seekers and their children in it.
Shush. I hope nobody in the Home Office follows this thread.
I conclude that they aren't serious about wanting to stop the boats. It's such a wonderful distraction from all the other nasty things they're doing. 🤬
Indeed it is. One can but hope that in a few months' time they will all be flushed down the Khazi of History into the Cloaca of Oblivion (or perhaps the Dungeons of Barad-Dur).
This is a perfect summary.
For over 10 years now they've played the immigration card repeatedly Often conflating regular migration with asylum-seeking. They have no intention of doing anything about either but know that by talking about it a lot they can win votes. And to Hell with the consequences.
That's deeply cynical and amoral. But when you consider the human cost at the end of the line, it's very hard to conclude that it's anything other than evil.
AFZ