UK election 2024

[jeremyp]

Depends on where you ask.

On the political blogs I follow the notion that Labour need a huge swing to overturn the Tory majority and win a majority of their own isn't ignored at all. Nope it is completely baked into the conversation.

But this is against a baseline of 2019 and that was a bizarre snap election effectively on a single issue (and a Boris or Corbyn personality battle), neither of which are in play any more. So I think people should be careful in assuming this to be the obvious baseline given that it threw up seats going Tory that had never done before in anyone's lifetime and which had otherwise been solidly Labour - so the Tory support was a mile wide, but in many places an inch thick.

So perhaps a better baseline is actually 2017 (the 2017 to 2019 Boris/Brexit shift had surely unwound prior to the most recent Labour surge and Tory slump). So although Labour do need to flip more seats than in any election in living memory many of those with be 2019 flipped seats without any long-range heritage of being Tory, nor seats where the likes of Sunak will be a positive.

This.

People forget that 2019 was something of an anomaly with many traditionally Labour seats going to the Tories thanks to the confluence of several unusual circumstances.

And people say Labour need a record swing. Well, the vote in 2019 was Con 45%, Lab 33%. Based on recent opinion polls, the vote now would be Con 26%, Lab 42%. If that were born out (I'm sure the actual margin will be a bit narrower), it would be a massive swing.

[ProfessorDavey]

This.

People forget that 2019 was something of an anomaly with many traditionally Labour seats going to the Tories thanks to the confluence of several unusual circumstances.

And people say Labour need a record swing. Well, the vote in 2019 was Con 45%, Lab 33%. Based on recent opinion polls, the vote now would be Con 26%, Lab 42%. If that were born out (I'm sure the actual margin will be a bit narrower), it would be a massive swing.

And my point is that as recently as the 2017 general election the result was Con 42% (317 seats), Lab 40% (262 seats) - are we really saying that the 2017 to 2019 shift is 'baked-in' rather than a temporary blip based on anomalous circumstances which no longer exist (Get Brexit done; Boris; Corbyn). Given that mush of the commentary about 2019 surrounded previous non-voters who voted for the first time, surely given how things have gone the obvious expectation for 2024 will be that those people, by and large, will go back to being non-voters.

By the way - the most recent poll from YouGov (from yesterday) has Labour on 47% and the Tories on just 29%.

But I think a key battleground that could determine whether Labour get an overall majority or largest party in a hung parliament will be Scotland. Win 20-30 seats in Scotland which seems completely plausible given the travails of the SNP (from the last election total of just one) and much of the heavy lifting is done.

[jeremyp]

And my point is that as recently as the 2017 general election the result was Con 42% (317 seats), Lab 40% (262 seats) - are we really saying that the 2017 to 2019 shift is 'baked-in' rather than a temporary blip based on anomalous circumstances which no longer exist (Get Brexit done; Boris; Corbyn). Given that mush of the commentary about 2019 surrounded previous non-voters who voted for the first time, surely given how things have gone the obvious expectation for 2024 will be that those people, by and large, will go back to being non-voters.

By the way - the most recent poll from YouGov (from yesterday) has Labour on 47% and the Tories on just 29%.

But I think a key battleground that could determine whether Labour get an overall majority or largest party in a hung parliament will be Scotland. Win 20-30 seats in Scotland which seems completely plausible given the travails of the SNP (from the last election total of just one) and much of the heavy lifting is done.

Electoral Calculus based on polls from December has Labour on 412 seats and the Conservatives on 152. Their worst case scenario for Labour is 304 and for the Tories the best case is still only 263.

I think they must be used on 95 percentiles.

For interest, here is what they think will happen in Scotland

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/scotland.html

A gain of 20 seats.

[SqueakyVoice]

Risk! For Risk! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jan/18/rishi-sunak-press-conference-rwanda-bill-conservatives-labour-fujitsu-post-office-horizon-uk-politics-latest

Rishi Sunak challenges House of Lords to accept ‘the will of the people’

If he had any interest in "the people", call a general election.

[jeremyp]

Risk! For Risk! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jan/18/rishi-sunak-press-conference-rwanda-bill-conservatives-labour-fujitsu-post-office-horizon-uk-politics-latestIf he had any interest in "the people", call a general election.

Brexit tells us what the "will of the people" is worth.

But anyway, the will of this person is that he should call a general election tomorrow at the latest.

[ProfessorDavey]

Risk! For Risk! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jan/18/rishi-sunak-press-conference-rwanda-bill-conservatives-labour-fujitsu-post-office-horizon-uk-politics-latestIf he had any interest in "the people", call a general election.

I can see that if something is within a general election manifesto from a party that wins an election then you could claim it to be the 'will of the people'. However even then it is a pretty lame argument, as individuals vote in general elections on a multitude of issues, rather than a single one that might happen in a referendum.

Problem is that the Rwanda policy wasn't in the Tories 2019 manifesto so even that weak argument goes out of the window.

[Nearly Sane]

I can see that if something is within a general election manifesto from a party that wins an election then you could claim it to be the 'will of the people'. However even then it is a pretty lame argument, as individuals vote in general elections on a multitude of issues, rather than a single one that might happen in a referendum.

Problem is that the Rwanda policy wasn't in the Tories 2019 manifesto so even that weak argument goes out of the window.

It's a decent Hail Mary to try the evil House of Lords versus the voice of the people, House of Commons, at least from the perspective of a desperate Tory Govt who don't care about the rule of law going into an election they look bpund to lose because of having been a parade of corrupt ineptitude.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a decent Hail Mary to try the evil House of Lords versus the voice of the people, House of Commons, at least from the perspective of a desperate Tory Govt who don't care about the rule of law going into an election they look bpund to lose because of having been a parade of corrupt ineptitude.

It's just a rehash of the approach around Brexit. But that had some merit as there was a referendum specifically asking 'the people' whether they wanted Brexit, and they said 'yes'.

The argument simply doesn't work where there has been no direct (e.g. a referendum question) or indirect (one of many manifesto pledges in a general election) vote to indicate what the 'will of the people' is on this. So you are left with opinion polling and the most recent suggests that more people want the Rwanda policy scrapped than continued. And even for those who want it continued there is a split between those that want it implemented as currently planned and those that want it amended (which is of course one of the things the Lords can do).

[Nearly Sane]

It's just a rehash of the approach around Brexit. But that had some merit as there was a referendum specifically asking 'the people' whether they wanted Brexit, and they said 'yes'.

The argument simply doesn't work where there has been no direct (e.g. a referendum question) or indirect (one of many manifesto pledges in a general election) vote to indicate what the 'will of the people' is on this. So you are left with opinion polling and the most recent suggests that more people want the Rwanda policy scrapped than continued. And even for those who want it continued there is a split between those that want it implemented as currently planned and those that want it amended (which is of course one of the things the Lords can do).

I'm not disagreeing about the argument being invalid. It's just they have very little left to try, and no scruples left at all.


As for polling, this is what they will be looking at:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/public-backs-tougher-rwanda-plan-poll-reveals/ar-AA1n0Kh3

And thinking that if the Lords can be portrayed as standing in the way of that, it's enough to win if they got all of them, and even some of them would make losing less of a thrashing.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not disagreeing about the argument being invalid. It's just they have very little left to try, and no scruples left at all.


As for polling, this is what they will be looking at:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/public-backs-tougher-rwanda-plan-poll-reveals/ar-AA1n0Kh3

And thinking that if the Lords can be portrayed as standing in the way of that, it's enough to win if they got all of them, and even some of them would make losing less of a thrashing.

Not really sue of the details of that poll, nor when it was conducted.

But this was conducted just a couple of days ago:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/01/17/14134/1

Shows more people (40%) want the Rwanda scheme scrapped than implemented in its current form (20%) or revised (17%) combined.

Also by 53% to 28% people thought the scheme wouldn't be effective. And by 47% to 19% thought it wasn't good value for money.

So the 'will of the people' is that they want the scheme scrapped because it won't work and is too expensive.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really sue of the details of that poll, nor when it was conducted.

But this was conducted just a couple of days ago:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/01/17/14134/1

Shows more people (40%) want the Rwanda scheme scrapped than implemented in its current form (20%) or revised (17%) combined.

Also by 53% to 28% people thought the scheme wouldn't be effective. And by 47% to 19% thought it wasn't good value for money.

So the 'will of the people' is that they want the scheme scrapped because it won't work and is too expensive.

You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't have to be the will of the people. It just needs to be said as such, and given the 'rebels' were already citing the survey I posted in interviews 2 days ago, they'll use whatever they can to make it look as if it is. When they add that to a run against the 'undemocratic' HoL, they might manage to convince enough people that they are defending democracy. They don't have a lot of other options.

I think that the Jenricks and Bravermans wanted the bill to be so obviously deeply unacceptable to the Lords that their 'intransigence' was guaranteed, and this 'will of the people' would definitely run. Sunak.is aiming for the same but was wanting a unified as possible Tory group of MPs to create the appearance of unity. His pitch on the will of the people now is in the hope that the Lords do knock it back.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't have to be the will of the people. It just needs to be said as such, and given the 'rebels' were already citing the survey I posted in interviews 2 days ago, they'll use whatever they can to make it look as if it is. When they add that to a run against the 'undemocratic' HoL, they might manage to convince enough people that they are defending democracy. They don't have a lot of other options.

So what you are saying is that people can just make up shit, or cherry pick selected info to suit their own political agenda. Well no shit Sherlock. Doesn't mean that any of this will actually gain any real traction does it.

If anything the recent debacle over the Rwanda scheme is shifting the polls more in favour of Labour than before.

I think that the Jenricks and Bravermans wanted the bill to be so obviously deeply unacceptable to the Lords that their 'intransigence' was guaranteed, and this 'will of the people' would definitely run. Sunak.is aiming for the same but was wanting a unified as possible Tory group of MPs to create the appearance of unity. His pitch on the will of the people now is in the hope that the Lords do knock it back.

But the 'people vs the Lords/Judges' (delete as appropriate) only works where the Lords/Judges are blocking something with credible majority support/mandate. That was the case for Brexit, it isn't the case here. Secondly it only works if it is an issue that is right at the top of the list of issues for most people. Again Brexit was at the time, the small boats isn't, it is way down the list of issues when voters are polled, below the economy, cost of living, NHS etc.

The polling that I've seen recently specifically on the Rwanda scheme (not some rather generic immigration stuff) seems to boil down to public opinion nearest to: 'FFS stop it now, stop wasting time and money on something that won't work and frankly get on with stuff that really matters to us'.

[Nearly Sane]

So what you are saying is that people can just make up shit, or cherry pick selected info to suit their own political agenda. Well no shit Sherlock. Doesn't mean that any of this will actually gain any real traction does it.

If anything the recent debacle over the Rwanda scheme is shifting the polls more in favour of Labour than before.
But the 'people vs the Lords/Judges' (delete as appropriate) only works where the Lords/Judges are blocking something with credible majority support/mandate. That was the case for Brexit, it isn't the case here. Secondly it only works if it is an issue that is right at the top of the list of issues for most people. Again Brexit was at the time, the small boats isn't, it is way down the list of issues when voters are polled, below the economy, cost of living, NHS etc.

The polling that I've seen recently specifically on the Rwanda scheme (not some rather generic immigration stuff) seems to boil down to public opinion nearest to: 'FFS stop it now, stop waiting time and money on something that won't work and frankly get on with stuff that really matters to us'.

You seem to mistake me saying what people will do as giving it any sort of approval. They have very little choice. They won't turn around the economy, or sort out the NHS. They look at the polls  and see the percentages for Reform and think their one chance is getting those.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to mistake me saying what people will do as giving it any sort of approval. They have very little choice. They won't turn around the economy, or sort out the NHS. They look at the polls  and see the percentages for Reform and think their one chance is getting those.

But they won't fix immigration either. Realistically I think they have a better chance of developing a good news story on the economy/cost of living in the next few months until a likely Autumn election, than making any meaningful inroads into the immigration issues.

[Nearly Sane]

But they won't fix immigration either. Realistically I think they have a better chance of developing a good news story on the economy/cost of living in the next few months until a likely Autumn election, than making any meaningful inroads into the immigration issues.

No, of course, they won't 'fix' immigration either but they might just be able to persuade enough people that the 'evil establishment' has stymied their gallant attempts at this.

[Nearly Sane]

Polly Toynbee on why Sunak wants the Lords to block the bill


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/18/rishi-sunak-lords-block-rwanda-bill-blame-left-asylum-seekers

[ProfessorDavey]

No, of course, they won't 'fix' immigration either but they might just be able to persuade enough people that the 'evil establishment' has stymied their gallant attempts at this.

But that requires voters to put greater trust in the government than in those 'blocking' it - whether the Lords or the courts. Again, for Brexit that was the case, but for the Rwanda scheme!?! Your Toynbee article shows that overwhelmingly the public think the government have handled the issue badly and that they trust Labour more on the issue. This is hardly fertile territory for a 'who do you trust more' argument with the courts of the Lords really, is it.

I think what might terrify Sunak most would be if the policy went live and perhaps half a dozen people were deported before the election creating the gaping goal for the opposition where they can give an exact cost to the tax payer for each one of those deportations, which would be close to £100million. You can see the lists now - you could have funded x numbers of nurses, y numbers of addition police officers etc.

[Nearly Sane]

But that requires voters to put greater trust in the government than in those 'blocking' it - whether the Lords or the courts. Again, for Brexit that was the case, but for the Rwanda scheme!?! Your Toynbee article shows that overwhelmingly the public think the government have handled the issue badly and that they trust Labour more on the issue. This is hardly fertile territory for a 'who do you trust more' argument with the courts of the Lords really, is it.

I think what might terrify Sunak most would be if the policy went live and perhaps half a dozen people were deported before the election creating the gaping goal for the opposition where they can give an exact cost to the tax payer for each one of those deportations, which would be close to £100million. You can see the lists now - you could have funded x numbers of nurses, y numbers of addition police officers etc.

Again, it's all they have, and as you, me, and Toynbee agree they don't want anyone being sent to Rwanda.

[jeremyp]

But that requires voters to put greater trust in the government than in those 'blocking' it - whether the Lords or the courts. Again, for Brexit that was the case, but for the Rwanda scheme!?! Your Toynbee article shows that overwhelmingly the public think the government have handled the issue badly and that they trust Labour more on the issue. This is hardly fertile territory for a 'who do you trust more' argument with the courts of the Lords really, is it.

I think what might terrify Sunak most would be if the policy went live and perhaps half a dozen people were deported before the election creating the gaping goal for the opposition where they can give an exact cost to the tax payer for each one of those deportations, which would be close to £100million. You can see the lists now - you could have funded x numbers of nurses, y numbers of addition police officers etc.

I think your mistake is in assuming that Sunk and the government know what they are doing. At this point they are just scrabbling around for any life line and they think kick starting some sort of populist movement is their best chance. I don't think it will work. You don't think it will work. Deep down they probably know it won't work, but there's nothing else.

[Nearly Sane]

'A senior Tory MP has called for his party to replace Rishi Sunak as prime minister or be "massacred" in the general election.

Writing in the Telegraph, former cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke said the Conservatives had lost "key voters" by failing to be bold on immigration.'

Who?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68077142

[Nearly Sane]

More Tory in fighting


https://archive.vn/0Vypw

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect that if the Reform Party could convince Nigel Farage as leader, and Martin Lewis as prospective chancellor, they could win the election.

(Obviously, not going to happen)


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-68121804

[Nearly Sane]

The Politics Show was 'fun' this morning. Vicious stuff between Kemi Badenoch and Nadine Dorries exactly showing why voters are pissed off. Fascinating interview with Carlos Del Toro.

The likelihood that we'll have an election just as the US presidential one is really heating up will be interesting to see what crossover we get.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001vw5v/sunday-with-laura-kuenssberg-have-the-public-lost-faith-in-politicians

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Politics Show was 'fun' this morning. Vicious stuff between Kemi Badenoch and Nadine Dorries exactly showing why voters are pissed off. Fascinating interview with Carlos Del Toro.

The likelihood that we'll have an election just as the US presidential one is really heating up will be interesting to see what crossover we get.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001vw5v/sunday-with-laura-kuenssberg-have-the-public-lost-faith-in-politicians

Losing faith in politicians equals Tory governments in perpuity IMHO.

[Nearly Sane]

Losing faith in politicians equals Tory governments in perpuity IMHO.

Does that mean that if Labour win the election you would be proved wrong, or is Starmer a Tory in your opinion?