18-OCT 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 28% / LDM 9% / REF 7%

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

The latest John Curtice in the Telegraph to cast an eye over…

“YouGov reports that Conservative and Labour support are unchanged. Techne suggests Tory support is down a point with Labour again unchanged. And We Think shows a three-point fall in Conservative vote intentions, while Labour are up one. Between them, the three polls put the Conservatives on just 23 per cent.

We should not be surprised. Although many 2019 Conservative voters are unhappy about the level of immigration, those who feel that it has gone up a lot are not especially likely to say they will not vote Conservative again.

In contrast, the voters who think the economy is doing badly or who reckon the NHS has got worse are especially likely to have stopped supporting the party. But those problems cannot be solved by policy pronouncements or new “dividing lines” with Labour.

…

The party would certainly be lucky to win much more than 200 seats. That is the figure that emerges if we assume that the rises and falls in party support since 2019 registered just before the immigration announcements were to occur in each and every constituency.

But this is undoubtedly too optimistic an assessment of the Conservatives’ prospects. There are 66 seats where the party did not win as much as 19 per cent of the vote in 2019, where it is arithmetically impossible for the party’s vote to drop by 19 points. Consequently, the party’s support must have fallen by more than 19 points in places where the party has more votes – and MPs – to lose.

A mega poll of 30,000 respondents conducted by the British Election Study earlier this year suggests the fall in Conservative support in seats the party won in 2019 is five points above the national drop. Equally, in May’s local elections, in wards the party was defending, its support was down on average by six points on its calamitous May 2019 performance, while largely holding up in wards already held by its opponents.

Those elections also suggested some voters were willing to vote for whichever of Labour and the Liberal Democrats appeared best placed to defeat the Conservative incumbent.

If these patterns were replicated in a general election, the outcome for the Conservatives could be bleak indeed – maybe as few as 130 seats, the worst outcome in the party’s history. In pursuing their disagreements with Mr Sunak over immigration, Tory MPs should realise they are potentially playing with fire.”

[steve]

In gross hypocrisy news.

The increase in family income and restrictions on student visa entry would have prevented Home Secretary James Cleverly's parents from marrying and staying in the country before Cleverly was born.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 10, 2023 11:55:13 GMT @isa said:

CON could be down to only 130 seats following the next election. Still, it's only Sir John Curtice saying it. What does he know?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-sunak-labour-general-election-seats-polls-b2461557.html
 

Ah, I see you have beaten me to it with the Curtice thing, ‘cos the Indy have been nicking my gig and reading the Telegraph. (Mind you the Indy article is behind a paywall too, though I do have a subscription…)

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 10, 2023 14:52:26 GMT Danny said:

Dec 10, 2023 11:06:58 GMT chrisc said:

Whilst I agree that many consume too many calories, this is NOT the reason for the rise in obesity in developed countries over the last 10 years. Calorie intake has remained largely unchanged. What has changed is the decrease in physical activity in the population. As as an individual you can lose weight by eating less food, so it is tempting to see this as a solution. However, at the population level this is not actually what is happening. And it starts in schools with a massive decrease in physical activity (for example hardly any “exercise” actually takes place in the decreasing number of PE lessons now).

Hmm. I heard a documentary recently talking to a doctor about this, who said that it is very difficult to lose weight by exercising. Whatever studies they had done showed that instead what tends to happen is your body automatically slows down its use of energy when you stop exercising, it auto compensates by saving energy after your bit of exercise. Thats not to say, of course, that sitting in an office all day with an hour reserved for exercise, is the same as some manual job as a hunter chasing through the forest all day, or as a navvy digging a canal. The expert did however say that the hours exercise would improve your health in other ways aside from losing weight.

I also recall reading research to suggest that exercise may lead to greater appetite and hence more calories consumed. Meanwhile, consuming more calories is a not unnatural response to enduring greater stress, as your body may feel it may need more energy when stressed. Problem is of course when the stress is chronic, whereupon the diet becomes problematic. (Hence people enduring more stress may put on weight, and reducing societal stress, dealing with poor pay and insecurity and crazy cost of essentials may be an idea). Then there is the problem of unbalanced bacteria in the gut, leading to consuming more carbs etc. 

[jimjam]

Carfew,

Thanks for the Curtis quotes which sets out what James E especially (and myself and others) have recognised for some time that where large swings occur UNS understates gains.

Sequeing in to LLs post about the 211 Labour non targets seats which imo is just sensible politics.

True a few may go Labour anyhow but they don't need them and likelihood is of some narrowing as the GE approaches due mainly to more Tory 2019 DK/WNVs returning than Labour ones, simply due to a lower current retention.

Same imo in Scotland where some of the Labour gain on the SNP in recent months has been due to a lower SNP retention.

[steve]

Fascinating little video detailing the oldest voices we can still hear, if you don't want to catch it all if you forward to around 12 minutes in you will hear the recording of Helmuth von Moltke the Elder born in the last year of the Eighteenth century.The oldest voice you will ever hear.

youtu.be/iEDvozbyUMQ?si=7P88sgBiX3227Hf6

[chrisc]

Dec 10, 2023 11:17:54 GMT neilj said:

Dec 10, 2023 11:06:58 GMT chrisc said:

Whilst I agree that many consume too many calories, this is NOT the reason for the rise in obesity in developed countries over the last 10 years. Calorie intake has remained largely unchanged. What has changed is the decrease in physical activity in the population. As as an individual you can lose weight by eating less food, so it is tempting to see this as a solution. However, at the population level this is not actually what is happening. And it starts in schools with a massive decrease in physical activity (for example hardly any “exercise” actually takes place in the decreasing number of PE lessons now).

So what Streeting needs to do is to get people to exercise more. This will have all sorts of other health benefits unrelated to obesity. The beauty of increasing physical activity is that there is no dose response. It is basically a straight line correlation. Any level of increase is beneficial. Even using standing desks and walking around every hour at work is beneficial. 

Mind you of course practically this is not an easy thing to do. Telling people to “exercise more” doesn’t really work. Just as telling them to “eat less” also fails. But at least he could remove some of the barriers that have grown up over the years such as absence of playing fields, downgrading of PE in the curriculum. And maintain / expand access to green spaces / safe cycling and walking areas in cities.  

While I think that is part of it, and a significant part, I still think diet is the biggest part

The growth of highly processed foods with added sugar and other nasties have become an addiction and deliberately on the part of some of the food producers

My own experience as one who us still reasonably active was the only way to reduce weight was to watch what you eat

[chrisc]

Dec 10, 2023 16:01:06 GMT chrisc said:

Dec 10, 2023 11:17:54 GMT neilj said:

While I think that is part of it, and a significant part, I still think diet is the biggest part

The growth of highly processed foods with added sugar and other nasties have become an addiction and deliberately on the part of some of the food producers

My own experience as one who us still reasonably active was the only way to reduce weight was to watch what you eat

This is the problem. Individually the easiest way to lost weight is to stop eating (obvs). So people think this is the way to reduce obesity for a population. And it might work if you could manage it. But at a population level the data show this is not what is actually happening. People are not eating more, they are exercising less. What we have over the last 10-20 years is a physical activity crisis not an obesity one. This is really clear from the data in schools. 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31118639

[chrisc]

Dec 10, 2023 11:48:13 GMT alec said:

chrisc - "Whilst I agree that many consume too many calories, this is NOT the reason for the rise in obesity in developed countries over the last 10 years. Calorie intake has remained largely unchanged. What has changed is the decrease in physical activity in the population."

I don't disagree with this at all, but I would inject a strong element of complexity here. There are very many factors involved. One key element we are just starting to understand is that it isn't so much the calorific value of foods, but their chemical constitution, with many highly processed foods being linked to obesity without necessarily having more calories. The gut microbiome is critical here, and modern western diets change the composition of gut bacteria in ways that then produce a variety of responses, included obesity.

I'd also throw in that obesity is an inflammatory response. It's linked to the immune system. There is already research showing that covid infection, particularly in utero and in very young children, is likely to lead to greater levels of obesity in later life because of the effects it has on the immune system. Exposure to high levels of air pollutants are also causally linked to obesity for similar reasons.

Exercise is part of the problem, as is diet, along with lots of other factors.

Ok but in the last 10 years out diet hadn’t changed but our METS (metabolic equivalent of task) have dropped. So although processed food might be causing a problem, it was doing that 10 years ago. As a biochemist I know it’s complex. But what’s been happening recently is clearly down to a decrease in activity. I think probably it’s not worth discussing the details any more, except in terms of polling (why I come to this site occasionally). Does anyone know of polling/focus group data as to whether it is easier to “make” people decrease calorific intake compared to “making” them exercise more. What would be politically more acceptable? 

[steve]

In the golden age of tv news.

[Deleted]

Dec 10, 2023 15:24:39 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Dec 10, 2023 11:55:13 GMT @isa said:

CON could be down to only 130 seats following the next election. Still, it's only Sir John Curtice saying it. What does he know?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-sunak-labour-general-election-seats-polls-b2461557.html
 

Ah, I see you have beaten me to it with the Curtice thing, ‘cos the Indy have been reading the Telegraph. (Mind you the Indy article is behind a paywall too, though I have a subscription…)

That's odd. When I posted the link, I was able to read the whole article. Tried again just now, and it's hidden. I got lucky earlier, I suppose! 

[Deleted]

Dec 10, 2023 13:24:17 GMT alec said:

colin - yes, I agree.One other benefit of a part state funded/part social insurance model is that to a certain degree it buffers the health system from political funding decisions, as it establishes a separate revenue stream.

In terms of fixing the current mess, I suspect Labour will come to realise very quickly that it's not remotely credible to attempt to fix the NHS without significant additional funding. And at the risk of being boring, I have to say - without addressing covid the NHS will go rapidly backwards. Data from Finland among many other countries is pointing towards an increase in health service demands in the order of 30% after each wave of covid, due to a myriad of new and worsening conditions apparently triggered by viral infection. We saw this data pretty early, but it's really solidifying now and it's absolutely huge. In the NHS context, we're probably looking in terms of £30 - £40bn a year just to stand still - if this keeps up.

Yes-I know you get stick for your Covid "obsession" , but I'm sure you are correctly identifying one the big new "things" which politicians everywhere are now facing. Or will soon come to realise they are facing.

I do think that the post Pandemic , post QE, post Ukraine world is a fundamentally changed one with novel problems for people and governments.

Healthcare in ageing populations with covid effects is clearly one of them. Public spending in age of Debt overhang and "normal" interest rates is another. 

And I believe that Ukraine will become yet another. Dont know if you read reports of a speech by Zelensky at Mykolaiv University last month? He said it will be "difficult" to win back the" hearts and minds" of the people of the Donbas. He conceded that the counteroffensive had not "achieved its desired results".Asked how long he would continue military resistance  he said " as long as it motivates the society, the military the people of Ukraine , and me".

With US funding now being questioned and paused, and political opposition bubbling up in Ukraine, one has to seriously start considering "peace talks" between an exhausted and unsupported Ukraine, and a militarised Russia with unabated appetite for bigger chunks of Ukraine. Throw in a Trump Presidency and US pulling out of NATO and you have a European Continent facing enormous challenges on the defence front. 

News that Sweden has given USA access to its airbases in frustration at its NATO membership delays; and that Finland closed its border with Russia are but first ripples in a possible sea change in the defence and security of European countries.

I get that Lab. supporters are chuffed with the polls and what looks like certain Labour Government. But I think that getting shot of the evil Tories  is a high which will only last for a while.

Actually I think that both Sunak & Stamer would be equally diligent and committed in tackling the problems they will face. I doubt personally that there would be that much difference between them -Starmer the more effective politician perhaps, Sunak the more effective manager perhaps.


But Sunak hasn't got control of his Party-and Starmer has.  Well I certainly hope he will have.

[neilj]

chrisc

I have suggested a plan to help/encourage/incentivise/penalise people to eat less problematic foods with the stick and carrot approach, would be interested in knowing how you would encourage/incentivise people to exercise more
Seems to me encouragement on it's own has not worked, whether eating less or exercising more

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 10, 2023 15:52:58 GMT jimjam said:

Carfew,

Thanks for the Curtis quotes which sets out what James E especially (and myself and others) have recognised for some time that where large swings occur UNS understates gains.

Sequeing in to LLs post about the 211 Labour non targets seats which imo is just sensible politics.

True a few may go Labour anyhow but they don't need them and likelihood is of some narrowing as the GE approaches due mainly to more Tory 2019 DK/WNVs returning than Labour ones, simply due to a lower current retention.

Same imo in Scotland where some of the Labour gain on the SNP in recent months has been due to a lower SNP retention.

No probs Jimjam. Regarding target seats etc… as the swing towards Labour has mounted, to what extent do Labour shift resources away from the marginals with smaller conservative majorities they might now be expected to win easily given the polling, towards taking on some of the bigger Conservative majorities that now might come into play given the expected big swing? (Versus to what extent do they play it safe?)

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Interesting book review in the Telegraph I thought I might share a bit of:

“In his fascinating history, As Gods Among Men, Guido Alfani shows how the super-rich have always bailed the rest of us out – until now

“The super-rich have been integral to the West since historical records began. Only massive crises such as the Black Death or the world wars have reduced the concentration of wealth in society; nonetheless, in the aftermath, business as normal has usually resumed for the “one per cent”.

Yet, though we live in an age of permacrisis – the financial crisis of 2007–8, Covid-19, a series of major conflicts – that wealth has, this time, been growing as never before: between March 2020 and November 2022, global billionaire assets increased by 50 per cent. In As Gods Among Men, his history of the super-rich in the West, Guido Alfani identifies this as a historical anomaly. Furthermore, he argues, the tycoon class in Western societies have also stopped doing what they always did: intervening to alleviate crises. They would contribute to central spending, for instance, in times of war and famine. Cosimo de’ Medici rebuilt 15th-century Florence with his private resources; John Pierpoint Morgan contributed his own to stave off a major financial crisis in the United States in 1907.

Such munificence has vanished in recent years. During the financial crisis, public resources were used to “bail out the banks”, rather than bankers bailing out the country as Morgan had corralled his peers to do. Such an approach also prevailed during the Covid-19 pandemic. As Alfani writes, in trying to avoid this kind of contribution in exceptional times, the world’s super-rich have “basically [been] rejecting a role which has served to justify the very existence of substantial wealth inequalities”….”

[Deleted]

Dec 10, 2023 15:54:24 GMT steve said:

Fascinating little video detailing the oldest voices we can still hear, if you don't want to catch it all if you forward to around 12 minutes in you will hear the recording of Helmuth von Moltke the Elder born in the last year of the Eighteenth century.The oldest voice you will ever hear.

youtu.be/iEDvozbyUMQ?si=7P88sgBiX3227Hf6

That sort of stuff has always fascinated me, steve. Even more so when sound was first synchronised to moving pictures. There had been experiments to do so for years, but the first time it was achieved with real commercial success was in "The Jazz Singer" in 1927.

About 75% of the film is silent, with caption cards describing the dialogue, apart from half a dozen sections where sound was synchronised with the action to allow Al Jolson to perform several songs. However, in one section in the middle of the film, after Jolson performed 'Blue Skies', they kept the cameras running while Jolson and his terrified 'mother' engaged in some trite, banal, completely extemporised dialogue, before he briefly reprised the song until his returning Cantor father shouts "Stop!" and the movie reverts to silence. It's only about 250 words, but their effect was electrifying. The film, not least the because of this dialogue sequence, was a sensation, and heralded the end of silent pictures virtually overnight.

The 'Talkies' had arrived!

youtu.be/Djd1XfwDAQs?si=Kscortm-bzxDPhGo

[steamdrivenandy]

Dec 10, 2023 17:03:09 GMT @isa said:

Dec 10, 2023 15:54:24 GMT steve said:

Fascinating little video detailing the oldest voices we can still hear, if you don't want to catch it all if you forward to around 12 minutes in you will hear the recording of Helmuth von Moltke the Elder born in the last year of the Eighteenth century.The oldest voice you will ever hear.

youtu.be/iEDvozbyUMQ?si=7P88sgBiX3227Hf6

That sort of stuff has always fascinated me, steve . Even more so when sound was first synchronised to moving pictures. There had been experiments to do so for years, but the first time it was achieved with real commercial success was in "The Jazz Singer" in 1927.

About 75% of the film is silent, with caption cards describing the dialogue, apart from half a dozen sections where sound was synchronised with the action to allow Al Jolson to perform several songs. However, in one section in the middle of the film, after Jolson performed 'Blue Skies', they kept the cameras running while Jolson and his terrified 'mother' engaged in some trite, banal, completely extemporised dialogue, before he briefly reprised the song until his returning Cantor father shouts "Stop!" and the movie reverts to silence. It's only about 250 words, but their effect was electrifying. The film, not least the because of this dialogue sequence, was a sensation, and heralded the end of silent pictures virtually overnight.

The 'Talkies' had arrived!

youtu.be/Djd1XfwDAQs?si=Kscortm-bzxDPhGo

My maternal grandad was a cinema manager from the silent era through to the early '60's. At some of the cinemas he managed my granny would be up front banging away on a piano, an early example of  a film soundtrack.

I think he lost count of the cinemas he'd managed. In the early days it was an almost nomadic existence. During WWll he managed a whole circuit of cinemas and had a special petrol ration to get round them all as cinema was regarded as a vital morale boosting element. 

In later years he stayed at cinemas for longer stints, ending his career with a dozen years at the Grange, Kilburn. He took me to a number of press showings of films that were about to go on release and the stars and production teams were present during a reception afterwards. We've a small collection of framed black and white photographs of grandad with various stars, including Terry Thomas, Kenneth More, a very youthful Bill Owen (Compo) and Harry H Corbett among others. 

[Deleted]

Dec 10, 2023 17:22:35 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

Dec 10, 2023 17:03:09 GMT @isa said:

That sort of stuff has always fascinated me, steve . Even more so when sound was first synchronised to moving pictures. There had been experiments to do so for years, but the first time it was achieved with real commercial success was in "The Jazz Singer" in 1927.

About 75% of the film is silent, with caption cards describing the dialogue, apart from half a dozen sections where sound was synchronised with the action to allow Al Jolson to perform several songs. However, in one section in the middle of the film, after Jolson performed 'Blue Skies', they kept the cameras running while Jolson and his terrified 'mother' engaged in some trite, banal, completely extemporised dialogue, before he briefly reprised the song until his returning Cantor father shouts "Stop!" and the movie reverts to silence. It's only about 250 words, but their effect was electrifying. The film, not least the because of this dialogue sequence, was a sensation, and heralded the end of silent pictures virtually overnight.

The 'Talkies' had arrived!

youtu.be/Djd1XfwDAQs?si=Kscortm-bzxDPhGo

My maternal grandad was a cinema manager from the silent era through to the early '60's. At some of the cinemas he managed my granny would be up front banging away on a piano, an early example of  a film soundtrack.

I think he lost count of the cinemas he'd managed. In the early days it was an almost nomadic existence. During WWll he managed a whole circuit of cinemas and had a special petrol ration to get round them all as cinema was regarded as a vital morale boosting element. 

In later years he stayed at cinemas for longer stints, ending his career with a dozen years at the Grange, Kilburn. He took me to a number of press showings of films that were about to go on release and the stars and production teams were present during a reception afterwards. We've a small collection of framed black and white photographs of grandad with various stars, including Terry Thomas, Kenneth More, a very youthful Bill Owen (Compo) and Harry H Corbett among others. 

View AttachmentView Attachment

That's very interesting, SDA. One of the chaps in those pics looks like Davy Crockett, so I'm wondering whether it's Fess Parker doing a promotional tour for the 1955 film about Crockett? 

[pjw1961]

Dec 10, 2023 16:40:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Dec 10, 2023 15:52:58 GMT jimjam said:

Carfew,

Thanks for the Curtis quotes which sets out what James E especially (and myself and others) have recognised for some time that where large swings occur UNS understates gains.

Sequeing in to LLs post about the 211 Labour non targets seats which imo is just sensible politics.

True a few may go Labour anyhow but they don't need them and likelihood is of some narrowing as the GE approaches due mainly to more Tory 2019 DK/WNVs returning than Labour ones, simply due to a lower current retention.

Same imo in Scotland where some of the Labour gain on the SNP in recent months has been due to a lower SNP retention.

No probs Jimjam. Regarding target seats etc… as the swing towards Labour has mounted, to what extent do Labour shift resources away from the marginals with smaller conservative majorities they might now be expected to win easily given the polling, towards taking on some of the bigger Conservative majorities that now might come into play given the expected big swing? (Versus to what extent do they play it safe?)

I can't tell you what Labour should be doing, but I can tell you what they are doing, which is ignoring the polls and MRP predictions and behaving as if the next GE will be a tight one where they need to concentrate resources on the marginals as based primarily on 2019. Locally most of the north Essex and some south Suffolk CLPs are being told to send all resources to Colchester at the GE and ignore the fact that MRPs are suggesting that a number of other 'non-target' seats are currently vulnerable. Based on my colleagues in Braintree and Witham not everyone is happy about that as they want to campaign in their own area. The usual argument deployed to support that position is that if Tory MPs are made to feel nervous about their own seats that will stay and campaign there and not send Tory resources to the obvious marginals. The national approach is reflected in the fact that Colchester has its candidate in place (I have met her a couple of times - lecturer at the University of Essex - seems very capable) whereas Braintree and Witham constituencies have not been permitted to even start the process, which is causing fristrtaion as we are missing out on chance for pre-campaign publicity.  

It is worth noting that this is what happened in 1997, with Labour HQ sticking to its list of targets drawn up after 1992 and sending most resources there, only to find that the anti-Conservative mood meant that they won loads of seats they didn't expect to. It is possible this could happen again at the next GE, but I don't see Labour centrally changing its approach. 
 

[alec]

colin - think you're right to post a big note of caution. In the west, many still think we're in the good times, and all it needs is a bit of this and that and we'll get back to year on year growth and everything will be fine. I actually think with global heating, migration, and the instabilities created by the growth of China, which is looking increasingly unstable, alongside the big issues you flag up, I think it's going to be difficult. There are no magic bullets left in the chamber.

Where you and I might part company (maybe not - I don't know?) is in our views of the solutions. I like much of what George Monbiot says, and his take is that people who ask for what used to be considered very normal things - like fairness in taxation between ordinary people and global mega corporations, and end to big companies gouging huge profits from essential public infrastructure etc etc - are now considered 'extremists'. Conservatives won't change this, because they built the system, Labour as too piss frightened to change it because they've just lost their bottle, and so the fundamental changes we need to repair the damage and meet these challenges never even get discussed, let alone enacted.

Despite all the many problems we've highlighted, we're actually in a much better position than we were in 1945, but western democracies knew back then who had to be controlled, who had to be helped, and they built a system that worked for the many.

This can be done, but first, we need to bury neoliberalism.

[James E]

"...the outcome for the Conservatives could be bleak indeed – maybe as few as 130 seats..."

There was a little-publicised MRP from Survation just 6 weeks ago which may be relevant here. Sample was around 12,000, so not huge by MRP standards, but larger than a normal poll. The results were:

Con 29.3% (151 seats)
Lab 45.8% (435 seats)
LD 11% (15 seats)
SNP 3% (28 seats)
Grn 4% (1 seat)
RefUK 5%

So this is a poll where the Tories are getting a relatively large share (4 points above their average) and the Labour lead is a bit lower than average on 16.5%. It's worth considering what the figures would look like if the Conservatives did a bit better than this. Taking the Low/High figures from Survation's data of Can 31%, Lab 44%, this would shift around 25 seats back to the Tories - using '7 seats per point' and cutting the lead by 3.5%.

But looking at the detailed seat findings, it iseems to me that even this may be overstating the Tories. The reason is that Survation do not seem to be making allowance for the dynamics of LibDem held seats, nor where they are the obvious challengers. Survation have the LDs taking just one seat in Scotland, for example. The LDs would almost certainly profit hugely from tactical votes in their target seats if the Conservatives only get around 30%. Similarly, I can see close Con/Lab seats in England where there does not appear to be any squeeze on the projected LD share. Tactical voting is (IMO) likely to cost the Tories 30-40 seats at the next election - about half of those going to the LDs.

Putting these factors together, I would estimate that the Conservatives would win as few as 130 seats in the event that they finish around 15-16% behind Labour in the popular vote - which in my view is right at the top end of the range of plauible outcomes.

www.survation.com/archive/2023-2/
(click on 14 Nov docs)

[alec]

chrisc - just wanted to say that I do fundamentally agree with you. More physical exercise is the first and most important step to improving health.

[steve]

"...the outcome for the Conservatives could be bleak indeed – maybe as few as 130 seats..."

seems a little high to me😁

[steve]

Maga madness as the GOP block a bill to ban grenade launchers from public ownership.

Yes I did say grenade launchers.

As we know no house is safe and no hunting trip complete without the ability to blow an Amazon delivery driver or a migrating duck to smithereens.

youtu.be/k8-5tceTryo?si=lk68xIKOEQEA2L5K

[alec]

Some really bad numbers for Cons in these recent analyses. Wonder how long the ship can hold together.

I said 'ship'.

[guymonde]

Dec 10, 2023 17:41:32 GMT pjw1961 said:

Dec 10, 2023 16:40:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

No probs Jimjam. Regarding target seats etc… as the swing towards Labour has mounted, to what extent do Labour shift resources away from the marginals with smaller conservative majorities they might now be expected to win easily given the polling, towards taking on some of the bigger Conservative majorities that now might come into play given the expected big swing? (Versus to what extent do they play it safe?)

I can't tell you what Labour should be doing, but I can tell you what they are doing, which is ignoring the polls and MRP predictions and behaving as if the next GE will be a tight one where they need to concentrate resources on the marginals as based primarily on 2019. Locally most of the north Essex and some south Suffolk CLPs are being told to send all resources to Colchester at the GE and ignore the fact that MRPs are suggesting that a number of other 'non-target' seats are currently vulnerable. Based on my colleagues in Braintree and Witham not everyone is happy about that as they want to campaign in their own area. The usual argument deployed to support that position is that if Tory MPs are made to feel nervous about their own seats that will stay and campaign there and not send Tory resources to the obvious marginals. The national approach is reflected in the fact that Colchester has its candidate in place (I have met her a couple of times - lecturer at the University of Essex - seems very capable) whereas Braintree and Witham constituencies have not been permitted to even start the process, which is causing fristrtaion as we are missing out on chance for pre-campaign publicity.  

It is worth noting that this is what happened in 1997, with Labour HQ sticking to its list of targets drawn up after 1992 and sending most resources there, only to find that the anti-Conservative mood meant that they won loads of seats they didn't expect to. It is possible this could happen again at the next GE, but I don't see Labour centrally changing its approach. 
 

I'm afraid that seems to be standard Labour approach. We have a very weak Con candidate who has been banging away (largely incoherently) for months having been selected in the summer after the existing member announced he will step down. This is an an always strongly Con seat on the GLA but where on the present polls and senses suggests we have an excellent chance of a win next May. Do we have a candidate or as far as I can tell even a selection process? No.

[Deleted]

Dec 10, 2023 17:57:46 GMT alec said:

colin - 

This can be done, but first, we need to bury neoliberalism.

We might start to part company at this juncture. Though would probably need to talk about terminology. 🙄

Agree on us being very far from business as usual though.

[guymonde]

Dec 10, 2023 18:15:19 GMT alec said:

Some really bad numbers for Cons in these recent analyses. Wonder how long the ship can hold together.

I said 'ship'.

I occasionally weaken and watch a bit of Question Time. Fiona Bruce asked the audience - no doubt carefully selected for balance - for those who supported Rwanda policy to put their hands up. One hand wen up and a rather weedy support was given. She said surely there must be others. Another hand went up but it turned out he didn't support Rwanda!
That ship had sailed

[pjw1961]

Dec 10, 2023 17:57:46 GMT alec said:

colin - think you're right to post a big note of caution. In the west, many still think we're in the good times, and all it needs is a bit of this and that and we'll get back to year on year growth and everything will be fine. I actually think with global heating, migration, and the instabilities created by the growth of China, which is looking increasingly unstable, alongside the big issues you flag up, I think it's going to be difficult. There are no magic bullets left in the chamber.

Where you and I might part company (maybe not - I don't know?) is in our views of the solutions. I like much of what George Monbiot says, and his take is that people who ask for what used to be considered very normal things - like fairness in taxation between ordinary people and global mega corporations, and end to big companies gouging huge profits from essential public infrastructure etc etc - are now considered 'extremists'. Conservatives won't change this, because they built the system, Labour as too piss frightened to change it because they've just lost their bottle, and so the fundamental changes we need to repair the damage and meet these challenges never even get discussed, let alone enacted.

Despite all the many problems we've highlighted, we're actually in a much better position than we were in 1945, but western democracies knew back then who had to be controlled, who had to be helped, and they built a system that worked for the many.

This can be done, but first, we need to bury neoliberalism.

Neo-liberalism should have died in 2008. Unfortunately the super-rich, who benefit hugely from that system, are able to use their wealth to influence public opinion both overtly (they own almost all of the mass media, both traditional and new) and covertly (for example, via the dark money financing the Tufton Street brigade, or the vast lobbying by the fossil fuel industries). They can also buy political parties through donations. The current favoured tactic is to use populism to get poor people to vote against their own interests. Populists never of course do anything to change the real power of the ultra-rich, instead blaming vulnerable minorities for everything. 

Given the sheer power of unlimited money, I don't see how this can be changed. 

[jib]

Dec 10, 2023 18:15:19 GMT alec said:

Some really bad numbers for Cons in these recent analyses. Wonder how long the ship can hold together.

I said 'ship'.

Rishi? ........Mr Sunak, where are you?