04-Sep 2022 : LAB: 44% / CON: 31% / LDEM: 12% / GRN: 4%

[Mark]

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 44% (+1)
CON: 31% (-)
LDEM: 12% (+1)
GRN: 4% (-2)

via @deltapolluk
, 26 - 30 Aug

Slightly late new polling thread due to personal circumstances.....sorry about that.

On the eve of finding out who the new PM will be.

I have chosen the second latest poll rather than the very latest as the latter is from Opinium as, since their metholody change, they currently try to predict the forthcoming election, which is up to 2 years away, rather than the state of play at the moment.

Polls carried out by Opinium should - and will e posted on here, but, I thought it best not to use for a headline/thread starter.

[bardin1]

Thank you for continuing to host this in a nice light handed moderative style - best place for poll information and long may it continue

[alec]

For the new thread, a fascinating bit of research into why conservatives see the world in the way they do, and what distinguishes them from liberals -

[jayblanc]

So... Can anyone tell me what the Men-In-Grey-Suits thought that a two month long leadership contest was going to result in? It seems like an incredible unforced error, that has resulted in nothing but misery for the party.

Did they think it was going to be a two month victory lap for the parliamentary favoured successor, and they'd spend it highlighting positive Conservative policies as they do at conference?

I am truly at a loss to why anyone thought it would be a good idea.

[Deleted]

Sept 4, 2022 17:47:47 GMT jayblanc said:

So... Can anyone tell me what the Men-In-Grey-Suits thought that a two month long leadership contest was going to result in? It seems like an incredible unforced error, that has resulted in nothing but misery for the party.

Did they think it was going to be a two month victory lap for the parliamentary favoured successor, and they'd spend it highlighting positive Conservative policies as they do at conference?

I am truly at a loss to why anyone thought it would be a good idea.

Well, probably a good idea for those of us who oppose this government but it could have been completed in two weeks I reckon.

[crossbat11]

Sept 4, 2022 17:47:47 GMT jayblanc said:

So... Can anyone tell me what the Men-In-Grey-Suits thought that a two month long leadership contest was going to result in? It seems like an incredible unforced error, that has resulted in nothing but misery for the party.

Did they think it was going to be a two month victory lap for the parliamentary favoured successor, and they'd spend it highlighting positive Conservative policies as they do at conference?

I am truly at a loss to why anyone thought it would be a good idea.

I love a new thread in the evening. It smells like......victory. Especially if it's headed by a poll with a double digit Labour lead!

As for the Tory grey men-in-suits, my smidgeon of defence would be that a leadership contest had to be put in train following Johnson's resignation and, in the absence of any sort of settled will or consensus on a successor, the whole ghastly opus miserabilis had to run its course.

When Brown and May ascended to the throne, they did so via virtual no contests. It would have helped the Tories this time around if that had been the case too, but the poverty of talent in the party, and the lack of an obvious heavyweight replacement, destined them to a cat fight amongst pygmies. It has been a disaster for their standing in the country.

[jimjam]

Slight quibble Mark with the below, sorry if seems pedantic.

''I have chosen the second latest poll rather than the very latest as the latter is from Opinium as, since their methodology change, they currently try to predict the forthcoming election, which is up to 2 years away, rather than the state of play at the moment.''

What they actually do is project what the result would be in their view if voting preferences were as they are measuring now.

They do not try to predict how voting intention might change except for 2019 voters now saying DK or WV.

[Deleted]

Sept 4, 2022 17:47:47 GMT jayblanc said:

So... Can anyone tell me what the Men-In-Grey-Suits thought that a two month long leadership contest was going to result in? It seems like an incredible unforced error, that has resulted in nothing but misery for the party.

Did they think it was going to be a two month victory lap for the parliamentary favoured successor, and they'd spend it highlighting positive Conservative policies as they do at conference?

I am truly at a loss to why anyone thought it would be a good idea.

“The longest suicide note in history”?

[alurqa]

Sept 4, 2022 17:47:47 GMT jayblanc said:

So... Can anyone tell me what the Men-In-Grey-Suits thought that a two month long leadership contest was going to result in?

All publicity is good publicity. Opps!

[oldnat]

Surely the burning questions are -

Will Johnson allow Truss to be on the Prime Ministerial plane to Aberdeen and the Prime Ministerial helicopter to Balmoral?

Will Truss allow Johnson to be on the Prime Ministerial helicopter to Aberdeen and the Prime Ministerial plane to London?

[oldnat]

[domjg]

Sept 4, 2022 17:41:25 GMT alec said:

For the new thread, a fascinating bit of research into why conservatives see the world in the way they do, and what distinguishes them from liberals -

What it seems boil down to is that conservatives want less change (at least for their own env) regardless of any negative effects flowing from that which is kind of what conservatism means I suppose.

When you look at the whole span of human civilisation cultures wax and wane, religions come to the ascendant and decline, new identities are forged or abandoned, peoples move from place to place. I guess I see current global developments as just being the natural continuation of that.

Conservatives on the other hand are wedded to a cultural snapshot, a belief that their world as it is or more likely as it was recently, perhaps when they were young is somehow the pre-ordained natural order of things when in reality of course it was a brief interval in the human experience. 

I guess one of the reasons American conservatives are becoming more extreme is that modern America increasingly doesn’t reflect their own previously dominant culture and they cannot psychologically deal with this, leading them to either a) pretend it’s not really happening (ie Biden couldn’t possibly have won) or b) attempt to maintain their grip on power through social and electoral Apartheid by disenfranchising large numbers of people. 

[oldnat]

domjg

"Conservatives on the other hand are wedded to a cultural snapshot, a belief that their world as it is or more likely as it was recently, perhaps when they were young is somehow the pre-ordained natural order of things when in reality of course it was a brief interval in the human experience."

Capitalising "conservatives" because it is the first word in the sentence, might lead folk to think you are applying that descriptor only to those who vote Tory.

I presume that this was unintentional, as there are a significant number of people (primarily older) voting for each and every party that could be so described.

I would include some revolutionary socialists in that category. Simply because their belief system in unending class war against the prevailing order has dominated their thinking for so many years.

[robbiealive]

Sept 4, 2022 20:00:57 GMT domjg said:

Sept 4, 2022 17:41:25 GMT alec said:

For the new thread, a fascinating bit of research into why conservatives see the world in the way they do, and what distinguishes them from liberals -

What it seems boil down to is that conservatives want less change (at least for their own env) regardless of any negative effects flowing from that which is kind of what conservatism means I suppose.

When you look at the whole span of human civilisation cultures wax and wane, religions come to the ascendant and decline, new identities are forged or abandoned, peoples move from place to place. I guess I see current global developments as just being the natural continuation of that.

Conservatives on the other hand are wedded to a cultural snapshot, a belief that their world as it is or more likely as it was recently, perhaps when they were young is somehow the pre-ordained natural order of things when in reality of course it was a brief interval in the human experience. 

I guess one of the reasons American conservatives are becoming more extreme is that modern America increasingly doesn’t reflect their own previously dominant culture and they cannot psychologically deal with this, leading them to either a) pretend it’s not really happening (ie Biden couldn’t possibly have won) or b) attempt to maintain their grip on power through social and electoral Apartheid by disenfranchising large numbers of people. 

I posted on this but deleted it as yr comments are much more interesting than mine & indeed the rather sluddgy conclusion reached by the researchers. 

"In polarized times, understanding the world from liberal/conservative perspectives is key to perspective-taking, because that precedes cooperation. But perspective-taking *requires* knowing the other perspective. Maybe now perspective-taking efforts can bear more fruit." Why do I always have to understand irrationa; people who believe nonsense & seek confrontation not co-operation. 

I would add that the research opens by saying we used to believe that Conservatives see the world as more dangerous than Liberals & hence worry more about crime & immigration. Now if we include dangers like injustice, hitherto excluded, we fund that Liberals find the world as dangerous as Conservatives. But they still are more obsessed with crime etc!. .(I find it more dangetous because 40% of Americans are anti-democratic & are goaded into these beliefs by a semi-fascist leadership, as Biden said.)


6:52

[domjg]

Sept 4, 2022 20:15:21 GMT oldnat said:

domjg

"Conservatives on the other hand are wedded to a cultural snapshot, a belief that their world as it is or more likely as it was recently, perhaps when they were young is somehow the pre-ordained natural order of things when in reality of course it was a brief interval in the human experience."

Capitalising "conservatives" because it is the first word in the sentence, might lead folk to think you are applying that descriptor only to those who vote Tory.

I presume that this was unintentional, as there are a significant number of people (primarily older) voting for each and every party that could be so described.

I would include some revolutionary socialists in that category. Simply because their belief system in unending class war against the prevailing order has dominated their thinking for so many years.

I meant conservatives in the wider sense.

[robbiealive]

Sept 4, 2022 20:15:21 GMT oldnat said:

domjg

"Conservatives on the other hand are wedded to a cultural snapshot, a belief that their world as it is or more likely as it was recently, perhaps when they were young is somehow the pre-ordained natural order of things when in reality of course it was a brief interval in the human experience."

Capitalising "conservatives" because it is the first word in the sentence, might lead folk to think you are applying that descriptor only to those who vote Tory.

I presume that this was unintentional, as there are a significant number of people (primarily older) voting for each and every party that could be so described.

I would include some revolutionary socialists in that category. Simply because their belief system in unending class war against the prevailing order has dominated their thinking for so many years.

The research is based on US evidence & uses the terms Conservatives & Liberals as they are understood there. There is therefore no question of an intentional or unintentional reference to the Tories. Which number Quibble was that?

[steve]

Remarkable achievement for cosplay Maggie to have the honeymoon period before the wedding.

[oldnat]

robbiealive

And this is UKPR2, where the capitalised word "Conservative" is generally understood to refer to a political party. domjg has confirmed what I suspected to be the case - that he was referring to "conservatives in the wider sense".

Your being "wedded to a cultural snapshot, a belief that their world as it is or more likely as it was recently, perhaps when they were young is somehow the pre-ordained natural order of things when in reality of course it was a brief interval in the human experience" in the form of the UK of GB & NI would place you firmly in the conservative camp.

[Deleted]

Sept 4, 2022 20:15:21 GMT oldnat said:

domjg

"Conservatives on the other hand are wedded to a cultural snapshot, a belief that their world as it is or more likely as it was recently, perhaps when they were young is somehow the pre-ordained natural order of things when in reality of course it was a brief interval in the human experience."

Capitalising "conservatives" because it is the first word in the sentence, might lead folk to think you are applying that descriptor only to those who vote Tory.

I presume that this was unintentional, as there are a significant number of people (primarily older) voting for each and every party that could be so described.

I would include some revolutionary socialists in that category. Simply because their belief system in unending class war against the prevailing order has dominated their thinking for so many years.

Or obsessed Nationalists

[Deleted]

Joe Lycett's performance was hilarious, Truss's was woeful and so was Kuenssberg's.

[davem]

If I post a bit more than n this thread, I might move from new member to member!

[oldnat]

nickp

Indeed. I said originally that the sort of people who fit domjg 's description are to be found among voters for each and every party. Such folk are likely to feel threatened by the prospect of change to what has been (or what they imagine to have been) their norm.

[oldnat]

Sept 4, 2022 21:02:06 GMT davem said:

If I post a bit more than n this thread, I might move from new member to member!

Mark earlier removed many of the hierarchic labels on this site. Maybe it's time to remove this one as well?

[oldnat]

[alec]

davem - "If I post a bit more than n this thread, I might move from new member to member!"

It depends what you post. You could end up as a complete tool.

[alec]

It sounds like Truss has worked out some fairly dramatic moves to make on the energy crisis that she wants to deliver rapidly as a 'hit the ground running' tactic, and they may have some t traction with voters, if they are deep enough. There was some briefing about work on the wholesale energy prices, and that could deliver some fairly swift gains, so I think Truss may be able to engineer some good headlines quickly.

I tend to think that her biggest problems are likely to come over her tax cutting agenda. Even if she was right about low taxes promoting economic growth, the facts are that any successful trickle down effect won't come quickly. Indeed, economists are increasing thinking that inequality acts as a brake on growth, so foregoing redistributive policies in favour of measures that lean towards the wealthy is more likely to slow growth.

That debate aside, I think her problems will focus more on delivering the Conservative's leveling up promises. This is a legacy issue I really don't think she can divorce herself from - it wasn't a policy made by mistake, or an error by her predecessor that can be reversed and undone. It was a popular notion, broadly understood by everyone (in non-specific terms) and a key reason why Conservatives secured a majority. She has to deliver on this. Even downgrading the priorities on leveling up is likely to hurt their prospects in the next election.

Tax cuts really won't deliver leveling up. They are more likely to deliver reduced government income, and with markets already nervously pricing sterling down, she risks all manner of macro economic difficulties if the markets lose faith in the government's abilities to manage their finances. To level up she needs to spend, and if she looks to borrow while slashing taxes, markets will take fright.

She has run an extremely ideological, 'small state' campaign in an era when activist government - and the budget that goes with that - has become essential. Factor in her promises of massive increases in defence spending, and you can start to see that her premiership is going to be dogged by competing pressures to deliver on undeliverable promises. The optics of tax cuts for big business and the wealthy really are going to be a hard sell when the proposals hit voters doormats, and I wonder whether Truss' backers have really thought through what a campaign revolving around tax cuts will look like under current circumstances.

[davwel]

Truss has yet another dangerous policy - wanting the economy to grow. And she has been preaching that this will benefit everybody.

Well, it certainly won`t benefit future generations if all big economies grow. Rather what is needed is for many people to live more efficiently and more frugally - houses more insulated, temperatures kept at necessary levels not hot, just one overseas holiday a year, vehicles smaller, purchasing longer-lasting articles.

An economy that benefits from products lasting for just 2-3 years, so more have to be made, just fritters away the world`s resources. The UK needs leaders who preach for the simplification of life, and show to the rest of the world that this can be happily accepted by our people.

This also applies to boundaries and unions of nations - much better for the UK to accept the EU customs union and Single market than to have wasteful checks at borders and the extra cost destroying helpful trade.

Sadly it isn`t just Truss pushing without any safeguards for a growing economy. To me, even a modest recession would be acceptable provided employment continued for all who want to work.

[jayblanc]

We'll have the measure of Truss as PM when someone asks her "How will reducing taxes on the rich improve the economy, and how does that translate into improvment for the less well off?"

I have a strong impression that the response is going to be for Truss to repeat the same sentence over and over a few times.

[alec]

The BMJ have started to publish a series of intelligent and thoughtful articles prepared for the covid inquiry. Needless to say, these expert led articles contain critiques of government actions and policy, but they are penned by authors with deep and broad knowledge of the subject.

The reaction in the right wing press is not unexpected, but revolves mainly around ad hominem attacks on the scientists, who are variously described as extremists and suchlike. These attacks have been joined (and in some cases coordinated) by anti-vaxxer/covid denier groups like Hart and UsforThem, (both of which have links to a number of right wing Conservative MPs).

Once again, we see the hand of right wing US billionaires and the 55 Tufton Street brigade, trying to discredit and undermine anyone who reasoned and cogent thoughts on pressing topics. The most worrying aspect is the ease with which such groups gain friendly access to the national media, but the battle to re-write the history of covid is well and truly on.

[robbiealive]

Sept 4, 2022 20:49:15 GMT oldnat said:

robbiealive

And this is UKPR2, where the capitalised word "Conservative" is generally understood to refer to a political party. domjg has confirmed what I suspected to be the case - that he was referring to "conservatives in the wider sense".

Your being "wedded to a cultural snapshot, a belief that their world as it is or more likely as it was recently, perhaps when they were young is somehow the pre-ordained natural order of things when in reality of course it was a brief interval in the human experience" in the form of the UK of GB & NI would place you firmly in the conservative camp.

1. It was perfectly obvious what Domjg meant by Conservatives & it didn't need yr ponderous and pedantic enquiry to elucidate that meaning. I doubt you know v much about "revolutionaty socialists". The view that existing class and power structures can only be disrupted by revolutionary means seems largely borne out by (a) modern British history, in which the power structure has been sustained over decades, & indeed has been intensified in recent times; likewise (b) by the post-45 dissolution of the British Empire in which imperial & post-imperial power structures were undermined by revolutionary opposition. You can call this view conservative in the Humpty Dumpty tradition. Scottish Nationalism in one form or another has existed for a 100 years and has espoused an unchanging core ideology. Does that make all Scottish Nationalists conservatives. This is pointless word play. 

2. Yr second paragraph is a presumptious attempt to define my world views over my lifetime about which you know little or nothing & interests me not one iota. 
It is a platitude to say that individual life spans represent a blip in the totality of human experience.

With respect to political blips, The Union of England & Scotland has lasted for over 3 centuries & came under serious challenge when the forces which created it were eroded. In terms of stable constitutional arranegements achieved by non-violent means -- if we assume that the Highland rebellions of the '15 & '45 were not supported by the majority of Scots -- it is probably unparalled in modern European history. The Union with Ireland is of course a very different matter, opposed by the majority of the population & sustained by violence.