UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[Blair]

I actually sway violently between thinking 'yes the polls are right, Labour have a historic lead on the economy and issues, and the public realm is awful it will be a landslide' and 'well what always happens will somehow happen in a reduced form' and Labour have a small majority or even minority- just like in 2010 for the Conservatives.   

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm no expert on British politics, but after 14 years of chaotic Torie leadership across five Prime Ministers, fatigue of the party alone seems like it will be enough for Labour to have a solid victory when the election finally happens.

[EastAnglianLefty]

To follow up on that - there’s a number of pundits (from the Times lot, to Emily Maitlis) who have noticed that Labour need to reclaim more seats to win a majority of one, than the number Blair won from the Tories in 1997.

So that becomes the framing on a quiet news day, when they want a horse-race story - irrespective of polling, by-elections and local election results, etc. As Devout Centrist noted, it’s  an easy excuse for some hung Parliament chatter - and the go-to intro for a piece about the Lib Dems or SNP at Westminster (I think it’s now illegal to write an editorial about Ed Davey that doesn’t include the word *kingmaker*).

It’s either that, or “there’s no great enthusiasm for Keir Starmer, so Labour’s lead is soft”.

It would be interesting to know what the private views of those in the Tory hierarchy are regarding what the election result might be. Michael Heseltine, then Deputy PM, was said to have predicted a Tory majority of 40 just prior to the 1997 election.

I'm sure I remember Hezza sayng a bit later he privately knew it was baloney, and was perfectly aware that the Tories were headed for a big defeat.

But how else to motivate at least some of the troops? You have to suspend disbelief a bit in elections where it is pretty obvious that you are going to lose.

There were a few people - more in their media supporters than the party, admittedly - who really did think the Tories might pull it off again, however. They claimed stuff like Labour's poll lead being "soft" and Blair actually being widely disliked by the voters (sound familiar, any of this?)

The Mail's headline on election day 1997 was "The Great Don't Know Factor". One of the problems with considering yourself to be the natural governing party is it's very hard to accept that you aren't going to be.

[CumbrianLefty]

To follow up on that - there’s a number of pundits (from the Times lot, to Emily Maitlis) who have noticed that Labour need to reclaim more seats to win a majority of one, than the number Blair won from the Tories in 1997.

So that becomes the framing on a quiet news day, when they want a horse-race story - irrespective of polling, by-elections and local election results, etc. As Devout Centrist noted, it’s  an easy excuse for some hung Parliament chatter - and the go-to intro for a piece about the Lib Dems or SNP at Westminster (I think it’s now illegal to write an editorial about Ed Davey that doesn’t include the word *kingmaker*).

It’s either that, or “there’s no great enthusiasm for Keir Starmer, so Labour’s lead is soft”.

It would be interesting to know what the private views of those in the Tory hierarchy are regarding what the election result might be. Michael Heseltine, then Deputy PM, was said to have predicted a Tory majority of 40 just prior to the 1997 election.

I'm sure I remember Hezza sayng a bit later he privately knew it was baloney, and was perfectly aware that the Tories were headed for a big defeat.

But how else to motivate at least some of the troops? You have to suspend disbelief a bit in elections where it is pretty obvious that you are going to lose.

There were a few people - more in their media supporters than the party, admittedly - who really did think the Tories might pull it off again, however. They claimed stuff like Labour's poll lead being "soft" and Blair actually being widely disliked by the voters (sound familiar, any of this?)

The odd thing is that it continued to some extent after the exit poll results. Michael Portillo was unwilling to acknowledge Labour's victory at the start of the night when he was interviewed by Paxman. Contrast this with John McDonnell's interview with Andrew Neil on election night 2019. He pretty much verbally acknowledged that Labour had suffered a catastrophic defeat, and it was certainly evident in his body language.

That may have in significant part been Portillo in denial about his own seat, given what transpired.

It was Heseltine again, not long after the 1997 exit poll had come out, who referred to what the Tories now had to do "after a defeat", before hastily adding "if that is what this is". But, of course, he knew.

[YL]

To follow up on that - there’s a number of pundits (from the Times lot, to Emily Maitlis) who have noticed that Labour need to reclaim more seats to win a majority of one, than the number Blair won from the Tories in 1997.

So that becomes the framing on a quiet news day, when they want a horse-race story - irrespective of polling, by-elections and local election results, etc. As Devout Centrist noted, it’s  an easy excuse for some hung Parliament chatter - and the go-to intro for a piece about the Lib Dems or SNP at Westminster (I think it’s now illegal to write an editorial about Ed Davey that doesn’t include the word *kingmaker*).

It’s either that, or “there’s no great enthusiasm for Keir Starmer, so Labour’s lead is soft”.

It would be interesting to know what the private views of those in the Tory hierarchy are regarding what the election result might be. Michael Heseltine, then Deputy PM, was said to have predicted a Tory majority of 40 just prior to the 1997 election.

I'm sure I remember Hezza sayng a bit later he privately knew it was baloney, and was perfectly aware that the Tories were headed for a big defeat.

But how else to motivate at least some of the troops? You have to suspend disbelief a bit in elections where it is pretty obvious that you are going to lose.

There were a few people - more in their media supporters than the party, admittedly - who really did think the Tories might pull it off again, however. They claimed stuff like Labour's poll lead being "soft" and Blair actually being widely disliked by the voters (sound familiar, any of this?)

The odd thing is that it continued to some extent after the exit poll results. Michael Portillo was unwilling to acknowledge Labour's victory at the start of the night when he was interviewed by Paxman. Contrast this with John McDonnell's interview with Andrew Neil on election night 2019. He pretty much verbally acknowledged that Labour had suffered a catastrophic defeat, and it was certainly evident in his body language.

That may have in significant part been Portillo in denial about his own seat, given what transpired.

It was Heseltine again, not long after the 1997 exit poll had come out, who referred to what the Tories now had to do "after a defeat", before hastily adding "if that is what this is". But, of course, he knew.

Portillo says (quoted on his Wikipedia page) that he thought he’d lost his seat based on the exit poll and was waiting for Paxman to ask him about it.

[Blair]

On a related note a sign of how weird 2019 was that when I saw the exit poll I expected a number of MPs who won in 2015 and 2017 to lose their seats; they in fact won with small majorities while other MPs with majorities 2 or 3 times as big lost…

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On a related note a sign of how weird 2019 was that when I saw the exit poll I expected a number of MPs who won in 2015 and 2017 to lose their seats; they in fact won with small majorities while other MPs with majorities 2 or 3 times as big lost…

The telling thing was that Labour's only decent results were in constituencies where there was a strong Remain majority and they were the obvious tactical option. Sobering.

[Torrain]

Little bit of East Kilbride news - Linda Fabiani (List MSP 1999-2011, constituency MSP for East Kilbride 2011-2021) has endorsed Grant Costello in his selection fight against sitting MP Lisa Cameron. Challengers have also made the ballot against sitting MPs in Argyll & Bute, and Stirling & Strathallan.

Allison Thewliss (whose Glasgow Central seat is abolished by boundary changes) is challenging for the now-vacant Glasgow North selection (Patrick Grady isn't running again), and *also* running against sitting MP David Linden in Glasgow East - which is an odd one.

Thewliss was/is close to Sturgeon & Yousaf (she was her pick for Westminster leader, and briefly proposed as a successor in her Holyrood seat if the former FM resigned to take up a job at the UN). Linden is a key ally of Stephen Flynn (running his leadership campaign last year, and tapped to run the SNP's Rutherglen campaign). Both are senior frontbenchers (Thewliss has the Home Office brief, and shadowed the Chancellor under Blackford, while Linden holds the Social Justice/DWP brief.

Given Glasgow North is open, it seems an odd choice to antagonise a high-profile colleague, and try for their seat. Linden was Thewliss' parliamentary researcher before being elected in his own right, so the whole thing looks a little awkward.

[Blair]

Not a sign of a happy party when these many internal fights keep happening

[EastAnglianLefty]

Little bit of East Kilbride news - Linda Fabiani (List MSP 1999-2011, constituency MSP for East Kilbride 2011-2021) has endorsed Grant Costello in his selection fight against sitting MP Lisa Cameron. Challengers have also made the ballot against sitting MPs in Argyll & Bute, and Stirling & Strathallan.

Allison Thewliss (whose Glasgow Central seat is abolished by boundary changes) is challenging for the now-vacant Glasgow North selection (Patrick Grady isn't running again), and *also* running against sitting MP David Linden in Glasgow East - which is an odd one.

Thewliss was/is close to Sturgeon & Yousaf (she was her pick for Westminster leader, and briefly proposed as a successor in her Holyrood seat if the former FM resigned to take up a job at the UN). Linden is a key ally of Stephen Flynn (running his leadership campaign last year, and tapped to run the SNP's Rutherglen campaign). Both are senior frontbenchers (Thewliss has the Home Office brief, and shadowed the Chancellor under Blackford, while Linden holds the Social Justice/DWP brief.

Given Glasgow North is open, it seems an odd choice to antagonise a high-profile colleague, and try for their seat. Linden was Thewliss' parliamentary researcher before being elected in his own right, so the whole thing looks a little awkward.

It's also odd because I would have thought that Glasgow North is a better prospect for the SNP than Glasgow East. Local elections in both seats last year were reasonably close between Labour and the SNP, but with a large Green vote in North and decent Tory performances in parts of East. You would think in a general election the former would tend to be squeezed to the benefit of the SNP and the latter to the benefit of Labour.

It's not a huge difference and on current Scottish polling both seats would be lost, but I certainly can't see why East is so much the better seat that it's worth antagonising a close colleague.

[Blair]

A poll showing a Labour lead of 14% has caused a big wobble in the media and questions about whether the Net Zero stuff has made a difference.

A single poll from a firm that bounces around- I can remember all the excitement at the ‘narrowing’ of the polls at the start of the year.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A poll showing a Labour lead of 14% has caused a big wobble in the media and questions about whether the Net Zero stuff has made a difference.

A single poll from a firm that bounces around- I can remember all the excitement at the ‘narrowing’ of the polls at the start of the year.

Which poll is this? I know that the lead in the latest Deltapoll dropped to 16pts, but their poll previous to their previous one had it at 18pts. Most poll movements for a long time have basically been statistical noise, as always happens once leads get mountainous. In any case, 14pts would still be a huge lead, larger than Labour have ever had if it were the result of a General Election.

[Torrain]

Feels like a weird time to be writing articles about single polls, now we’re in conference season. Surely it’s better to wait until that, and the by-elections, are over - and the dust starts to settle? Lots of potential for statistical noise right now.

Pretty sure it’s Deltapoll, who, as noted, swing pretty heavily:

• Lab+17 (11 Aug)
• Lab+25 (21 Aug)
• Lab+16 (25 Aug)
• Lab+18 (4 Sept)
• Lab+24 (15 Sept)
• Lab+16 (25 Sept)

But we’ve been treated to another round of “Starmer is screwed” editorials as a result. Personal favourite, from the good folk at the Telegraph:

Starmer should prepare to panic. His entire strategy is starting to implode
Whisper it, but the Tories may yet be able to end the sense of inevitability around a Labour victory

[EastAnglianLefty]

Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So if it is the most recent Deltapoll, then it shows the Conservatives down 17pts on the last General Election, which is firmly in to 'utter catastrophe' territory with FPTP unless the principal opposition party is also struggling. However.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.

Seems to be an awful lot of squinting and trying to see things that aren't actually there.

[CumbrianLefty]

At this point, those who haven't already done so might want to read the recent Jonn Elledge piece on how the continued uncritical and slavish support for Sunak from most of the right wing press is in fact a curse - and could yet lead to electoral wipeout.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

*London gets rainiest day in five years*
Tory press: increase in rain may yet cause more problems for Keir Starmer

[Devout Centrist]

But we’ve been treated to another round of “Starmer is screwed” editorials as a result. Personal favourite, from the good folk at the Telegraph:

Starmer should prepare to panic. His entire strategy is starting to implode
Whisper it, but the Tories may yet be able to end the sense of inevitability around a Labour victory

It’s important not to get ahead of ourselves. A Tory majority at the next general election remains the stuff of science fiction. And yet…

Lol

[Blair]

A poll showing a Labour lead of 14% has caused a big wobble in the media and questions about whether the Net Zero stuff has made a difference.

A single poll from a firm that bounces around- I can remember all the excitement at the ‘narrowing’ of the polls at the start of the year.

Which poll is this? I know that the lead in the latest Deltapoll dropped to 16pts, but their poll previous to their previous one had it at 18pts. Most poll movements for a long time have basically been statistical noise, as always happens once leads get mountainous. In any case, 14pts would still be a huge lead, larger than Labour have ever had if it were the result of a General Election.

Oh yes sorry it was delta poll so only a mere 16 point lead!

[Blair]

At this point, those who haven't already done so might want to read the recent Jonn Elledge piece on how the continued uncritical and slavish support for Sunak from most of the right wing press is in fact a curse - and could yet lead to electoral wipeout.

I have been saying this in relation to their spin after the 2022 and 2023 locals; both should have made flashing lights buzz in their party as they showed two different problems and when you add in the by elections.

On an aside it says something that Jonn is a freelancer while a lot of political commentators have not actually done anything other than spit out right wing talking points. The FT and the Guardian seems to be the only papers who have improved their political team and prepared for the likely Labour Government.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The New Statesman, on the other hand, has prepared by hiring more Tories.

[JimJamUK]

The New Statesman, on the other hand, has prepared by hiring more Tories.

Are any of them Tories onboard with the current party? The more right wing people writing for them seem to be either liberal conservatives or the more upmarket ‘intellectual’ populist types.

[Conservatopia]

Keeping the title the same for now as the Home Secretary's recent speech in the US has the rumour mill turning again.

The Tory Left wants her gone and are anonymously briefing the Times against her. She'll stay.

She's clearly positioning herself ready for the 2024 leadership election whilst outflanking Kemi Badenoch, whose brief only allows her to rile the base on "woke" issues instead of good old-fashioned immigration.

Perhaps further discussion of this situation would be more suited the Wretched Hive thread.

[Torrain]

The incumbent East Kilbride MSP has joined her predecessor, in endorsing the challenger to their sitting MP, Lisa Cameron

And this afternoon, they’ve been joined by Hamilton MSP Christina McKelvie.

Cameron now seems to be threatening to sue the local party for defamation, in addition to her previous resignation threat. Sounds like she might be finished.