@Alan Cresswell I think I know why there's a dearth of obvious Conservative support - embarrassment. The traditional shires conservative has looked at the shenanigans of the past 6 years with a mixture of horror and incredulity. Crucially they see the high profile MPs labelled "Conservative" and find they share few, if any, of their values or beliefs. I think they relate to Mr Sunak and feel pity for him but with few others.
However, I don't think this revulsion is necessarily going to lead to the predicted landslide in the Shires. The small 'C' tory voter won't scrawl his cross against a party they cannot support and which they distrust. My guess is they will either not vote at all or will go into the polling booth and either spoil their ballot or leave it blank.
@Alan Cresswell I think I know why there's a dearth of obvious Conservative support - embarrassment. The traditional shires conservative has looked at the shenanigans of the past 6 years with a mixture of horror and incredulity. Crucially they see the high profile MPs labelled "Conservative" and find they share few, if any, of their values or beliefs. I think they relate to Mr Sunak and feel pity for him but with few others.
However, I don't think this revulsion is necessarily going to lead to the predicted landslide in the Shires. The small 'C' tory voter won't scrawl his cross against a party they cannot support and which they distrust. My guess is they will either not vote at all or will go into the polling booth and either spoil their ballot or leave it blank.
I think you're right - embarrassment is probably the right word. It may well be true that certain small-c *conservative* values are perfectly valid, and people have every right to hold them, but the dreadful behaviour of the government over the past decade or so is almost beyond belief.
Some Tory voters - amazing as it may seem - were totally against Brexit and, moreover, do not like the shifts their party has made towards accommodating the so-called red wall.
Add in 14 years of Tory incompetence and corruption, some will have decided that, although they're not prepared to vote Labour, the Lib-Dems are more in tune with their fundamental values.
All large political parties are coalitions. Not all Tories think alike. The same is equally true of Labour supporters, especially around social issues. But circumstances often decide whether people decide to stick with 'their' party or try to influence them by voting for something different.
Eg: Tory to Reform, Tory to Lib Dem, Labour to Green, Labour to Lib Dem. Labour to Tory. Other changes are possible, of course, as we are all individuals. We tend to weight issues individually. What is a deal-breaker for one may not be for another.
There is a possible scenario that could come to pass:
At the election, the Tories get absolutely smashed. But in many of the seats they lose to the Lib Dems or Labour, it is because Reform have halved the Tory vote.
In the aftermath, it is commonly agreed among Reform and Conservatives that such a 'disaster' cannot be allowed to happen again.
It is therefore proposed that the two parties merge (Allowing Farage to simply take over the Conservatives would cause 'moderate' Tories to leave in force but a merger might allow them to remain with a certain degree of dignity).
The Reformed Conservative Party then comes into existence - quickly known as the RCP (or The Arsie Party).
The new party then holds a leadership contest, which sees Braverman and Farage (and probably Badenoch) going head to head.
There is a possible scenario that could come to pass:
At the election, the Tories get absolutely smashed. But in many of the seats they lose to the Lib Dems or Labour, it is because Reform have halved the Tory vote.
In the aftermath, it is commonly agreed among Reform and Conservatives that such a 'disaster' cannot be allowed to happen again.
It is therefore proposed that the two parties merge (Allowing Farage to simply take over the Conservatives would cause 'moderate' Tories to leave in force but a merger might allow them to remain with a certain degree of dignity).
The Reformed Conservative Party then comes into existence - quickly known as the RCP (or The Arsie Party).
The new party then holds a leadership contest, which sees Braverman and Farage (and probably Badenoch) going head to head.
The fireworks between them then commences...
This is a possibility that has to be considered. I am reasonably confident it is Farage's plan. He cannot win elections with his makeshift party(-ies). The Tories are doomed as a brand at the moment but Farage clearly fancies merging the parties and taking over.
It is a scenario, not to be ignored but I think it is not as likely as many would have you believe.
Firstly, Farage has to win his seat. I think he probably will but it is not a certainty.
Then the numbers have to work. Again, definitely possible but it's actually quite a thin needle to thread.
If the Tories have enough MPs - say 130 - or so then they probably have enough to find a candidate who will win the leadership. Although a split remains a very real possibility. Again the numbers are key. If say the Tories split 80/50 and the 80 were the right-wing group (or rather groups) then that's an entity that's vulnerable to a hostile takeover.
If the Tories have circa 50 seats and the LibDems have 60 and are therefore the official opposition then the only way Farage can get traction is if he has enough MPs (i.e. 11 or more in this scenario) and thus can make a bigger party. Farage's master plan only works if he can become LOTO not if he's leader of the third party.
It is important to remember that whilst there is a huge overlap between Reform and Tory membership ideologically, there are many members of the Parliamentary Party who hate Farage. These people would resist a reproachment with Farage.
If the Tories have too many MPs then they are safer from a merger even with a split. If the Tories have too few MPs then it does not work. It is a confluence of events that's needed to put Farage in a position where seizing control of the Conservative Party apparatus is in his interests and politically possible.
Until the counts start coming in, my greatest fear is that Labour will not secure a majority. I think they will but I am part of the movement scarred by '92. Assuming Labour become the government this week, the manoeuvrings of Farage et al. are an on-going concern. I think it more likely than not that he will not succeed in taking over the ancient blues but I think he's going to try and if he succeeds and has say 130-150 MPs to command at the end of this, it becomes a major problem for the direction of travel of our political discourse.
With the Tories reduced to 60 seats, and the LibDems on 71, the 18 Reform MPs could be very significant if Farage could bring about a merger...
On the upside, the field work on this poll was done when Reform was peaking in the polls and before various recent scandals and an apparent drop in their support.
If I'm being honest, the perfect scenario for me is also a very thin needle to thread: Tories ~50-70; LibDems ~60-80, Reform ~0-5
Not impossible, especially with tactical voting, but fairly unlikely too.
But I think LD's overtaking Tories more consequential and I'm trying not to hope for too much...
I think if Farage is a backbench MP with very few compatriots and no arrangement with the Tories, then he'll just be irrelevant. If he can build his power base then, that is how he becomes dangerous again.
Meanwhile, I see that at least one Reform candidate has already defected to the Conservatives. Which I suppose suggests he doesn't consider the Tories to be a spent political force.
With the Tories reduced to 60 seats, and the LibDems on 71, the 18 Reform MPs could be very significant if Farage could bring about a merger...
On the upside, the field work on this poll was done when Reform was peaking in the polls and before various recent scandals and an apparent drop in their support.
If I'm being honest, the perfect scenario for me is also a very thin needle to thread: Tories ~50-70; LibDems ~60-80, Reform ~0-5
Not impossible, especially with tactical voting, but fairly unlikely too.
AFZ
Yes, I'd like to see that sort of result as well, with the LibDems as HM's Loyal Opposition...
We have wild hemlock growing on the river bank here. If a ghastly cataclysm occurs, and Sunak wins (as he claims he can), I shall prepare a brew akin to that consumed by Socrates.
With the Tories reduced to 60 seats, and the LibDems on 71, the 18 Reform MPs could be very significant if Farage could bring about a merger...
On the upside, the field work on this poll was done when Reform was peaking in the polls and before various recent scandals and an apparent drop in their support.
If I'm being honest, the perfect scenario for me is also a very thin needle to thread: Tories ~50-70; LibDems ~60-80, Reform ~0-5
Not impossible, especially with tactical voting, but fairly unlikely too.
AFZ
Yes, I'd like to see that sort of result as well, with the LibDems as HM's Loyal Opposition...
We have wild hemlock growing on the river bank here. If a ghastly cataclysm occurs, and Sunak wins (as he claims he can), I shall prepare a brew akin to that consumed by Socrates.
Please don't!
I don't think the worst will happen but if it does I shall need your wit and humour to keep me sane!
With the Tories reduced to 60 seats, and the LibDems on 71, the 18 Reform MPs could be very significant if Farage could bring about a merger...
On the upside, the field work on this poll was done when Reform was peaking in the polls and before various recent scandals and an apparent drop in their support.
If I'm being honest, the perfect scenario for me is also a very thin needle to thread: Tories ~50-70; LibDems ~60-80, Reform ~0-5
Not impossible, especially with tactical voting, but fairly unlikely too.
AFZ
Yes, I'd like to see that sort of result as well, with the LibDems as HM's Loyal Opposition...
We have wild hemlock growing on the river bank here. If a ghastly cataclysm occurs, and Sunak wins (as he claims he can), I shall prepare a brew akin to that consumed by Socrates.
Please don't!
I don't think the worst will happen but if it does I shall need your wit and humour to keep me sane!
Hehe...I didn't specify the recipient of the hemlock...but thanks, anyway!
Seriously, though, I think we're in with a good chance of having some reasonably sane grown-ups in government later this week, whether we agree with their policies or not.
With the Tories reduced to 60 seats, and the LibDems on 71, the 18 Reform MPs could be very significant if Farage could bring about a merger...
On the upside, the field work on this poll was done when Reform was peaking in the polls and before various recent scandals and an apparent drop in their support.
If I'm being honest, the perfect scenario for me is also a very thin needle to thread: Tories ~50-70; LibDems ~60-80, Reform ~0-5
Not impossible, especially with tactical voting, but fairly unlikely too.
AFZ
Yes, I'd like to see that sort of result as well, with the LibDems as HM's Loyal Opposition...
We have wild hemlock growing on the river bank here. If a ghastly cataclysm occurs, and Sunak wins (as he claims he can), I shall prepare a brew akin to that consumed by Socrates.
Please don't!
I don't think the worst will happen but if it does I shall need your wit and humour to keep me sane!
Hehe...I didn't specify the recipient of the hemlock...but thanks, anyway!
Seriously, though, I think we're in with a good chance of having some reasonably sane grown-ups in government later this week, whether we agree with their policies or not.
Yep. I think that's such a huge step-wise improvement.
The implosion of the Tories would be an important added bonus, that's all!
I'm very nervous, and keep thinking the polls are wrong, and there will be a hung parliament.
I don't think they are that wrong. And whilst certain segments of the media would portray that as a Labour failure, ending Tory rule is all that matters...
I'm a little nervous and will be very nervous waiting for exit poll...
My prediction at this point (might not do a later one):
Tories 140-160*
Liberals 30-50
SNP 15-20
Greens 1-2
Reform 1-2
Plaid 2-4
Labour everything else
Northern Ireland - as usual, no idea, probably close to what it is now.
*basically I've assumed that when it comes down to it a lot of the 'don't knows' (over 20% of the sample and ignored in the polls that tend to give Labour the biggest leads) will break for the Conservatives, a roughly fair amount of the 'too close to call' seats will break blue (and a fair amount will break red, and orange likewise), and when it comes down to it Labour will be hit by low turn-out in the under 30s. I think the Tories will get a hiding, obviously, but there might be a sense that they've somehow 'got away with it' come Friday morning.
Still, we shall see. I'm fully prepared to be wrong, but that's my instinct.
I think a hung parliament has the potential to be the best outcome - a coalition or confidence and supply agreement has the potential to bind Starmer to his promises in a way a majority (particularly with his manipulation of candidate selection) would not. I wouldn't try to engineer a hung parliament but I won't shed a tear if Starmer were to get, say, 300 seats.
For at least the last 12 months I have been forcasting a Labour victory. I was not expecting it to be a really massive majority. I keep hearing the phrase " Liz Truss smashed the economy" being churned out by Labour. Yes she did but I don't understand how Sunak can be blamed for her mistakes. He was a backbencher at the time and had warned about her policies when he fought against her for the leadership. In spite of a few daft mistakes I think he has done a decent job. He has steadied the ship.
The LibDems are a left wing party and I don't think that the official opposition to a left wing Labour government should be left wing party,
Most Lib Dems would see themselves as centrist, or 'social democrat' rather than 'socialist'. Many are more leftwing than Starmer, of course.
But that's not saying much either.
😉
If the Lib Dems were to become the main opposition party, it would be interesting to see what form their opposition would take. It would very much depend on whether Starmer's current trajectory was simply a vote-winning, first past the post, don't scare the horses exercise or whether it represents- as I suspect - a real shift in direction.
If the latter, then we might actually see the Lib Dems becoming more left-wing.
Sir Ed Davey isn't as radical as Kennedy was though, but I think he could hold Starmer to account in PMQ - not that this is as important as it used to be.
I think Starmer's authoritarian tendencies are going to be the thing that needs an eye kept on it, and I think the lib dems ought to be good at that. Historically the tories have discovered a sudden fondness for civil liberties when in opposition but I'm not sure even that opportunistic liberalism will be forthcoming from whatever remnant is left. It's unlikely that Starmer will do anything radical economically, but corruption of some sort is highly likely, as are "crackdowns" of various kinds. I wouldn't rule out a vainglorious military action or two either.
Back in 2018 I came to the conclusion that the system as it is cannot provide the sort of disinterested (in its truest sense) government that the UK needs. The two biggest parties have far too much baggage, and every time they get more than a 10-15 seat majority you end up with their own brand of swivel-eyed loons who may provide temporary amusement but little else.
Take a look at the leaders hoping to lead or co-lead the UK:
Sunak - decent man, toxic party, Parliamentary party wedded to vested interests and made up of serial traitors, malcontents and venal back-stabbers.
Starmer - Parliamentary party full of vested interests, has his own malcontents ranging from idealistic dreamers to neo-stalinists who will happily stab him in the back if he veers away from their own version of truth.
Davey - seriously tainted by his inaction over the Post Office, easier to herd cats than control Parliamentary party of Lib-Dems.
Plaid/SNP - not really interested in Westminster politics except as a taller soapbox.
Farage - The Poundland version of Trump without either the glamorous wife or the money. If elected will crouch on the green benches like a toad, trying to subvert the more lunatic Conservatives.
I couldn't care less who wins on Thursday. None of them are telling the truth at the moment because they know that if they did their vote would go down the pan. The fact is there are so many areas which need root-and-branch reform it would take a government of national unity (!) to achieve it and they would need a minimum term of 10 years to get at least 50% of the way there.
The biggest issue? Everybody wants more out of the system than they are prepared to contribute, and all the parties collude in this wilful blindness, looking to some mythical "they" to provide the funds. UK Government debt is approaching 100% of GDP, the highest since the end of WWII. However, unlike the post-war late 40s-1950s there is no sign that spending is going to plummet - indeed, if left unchecked the OBR forecasts that UK debt will reach 300% by 2070. No party is prepared to tell voters the unpalatable truth that they need to make short-term sacrifices to secure a brighter future because they know it will be electoral death to do so.
So, Starmer will saunter through the door of Number Ten to do what? He'll have an easier time than Sunak, at least to start with, but the bottom line is he doesn't have a magic bullet because there isn't one. Things can only get better? Not a chance.
Back in 2018 I came to the conclusion that the system as it is cannot provide the sort of disinterested (in its truest sense) government that the UK needs. The two biggest parties have far too much baggage, and every time they get more than a 10-15 seat majority you end up with their own brand of swivel-eyed loons who may provide temporary amusement but little else.
Take a look at the leaders hoping to lead or co-lead the UK:
Sunak - decent man, toxic party, Parliamentary party wedded to vested interests and made up of serial traitors, malcontents and venal back-stabbers.
Starmer - Parliamentary party full of vested interests, has his own malcontents ranging from idealistic dreamers to neo-stalinists who will happily stab him in the back if he veers away from their own version of truth.
Davey - seriously tainted by his inaction over the Post Office, easier to herd cats than control Parliamentary party of Lib-Dems.
Plaid/SNP - not really interested in Westminster politics except as a taller soapbox.
Farage - The Poundland version of Trump without either the glamorous wife or the money. If elected will crouch on the green benches like a toad, trying to subvert the more lunatic Conservatives.
I couldn't care less who wins on Thursday. None of them are telling the truth at the moment because they know that if they did their vote would go down the pan. The fact is there are so many areas which need root-and-branch reform it would take a government of national unity (!) to achieve it and they would need a minimum term of 10 years to get at least 50% of the way there.
The biggest issue? Everybody wants more out of the system than they are prepared to contribute, and all the parties collude in this wilful blindness, looking to some mythical "they" to provide the funds. UK Government debt is approaching 100% of GDP, the highest since the end of WWII. However, unlike the post-war late 40s-1950s there is no sign that spending is going to plummet - indeed, if left unchecked the OBR forecasts that UK debt will reach 300% by 2070. No party is prepared to tell voters the unpalatable truth that they need to make short-term sacrifices to secure a brighter future because they know it will be electoral death to do so.
So, Starmer will saunter through the door of Number Ten to do what? He'll have an easier time than Sunak, at least to start with, but the bottom line is he doesn't have a magic bullet because there isn't one. Things can only get better? Not a chance.
An excellent read and I agree with most of it.
The BIB. You may well be right but for the sake of the country I hope you are wrong
Back in 2018 I came to the conclusion that the system as it is cannot provide the sort of disinterested (in its truest sense) government that the UK needs. The two biggest parties have far too much baggage, and every time they get more than a 10-15 seat majority you end up with their own brand of swivel-eyed loons who may provide temporary amusement but little else.
Take a look at the leaders hoping to lead or co-lead the UK:
Sunak - decent man, toxic party, Parliamentary party wedded to vested interests and made up of serial traitors, malcontents and venal back-stabbers.
Starmer - Parliamentary party full of vested interests, has his own malcontents ranging from idealistic dreamers to neo-stalinists who will happily stab him in the back if he veers away from their own version of truth.
Davey - seriously tainted by his inaction over the Post Office, easier to herd cats than control Parliamentary party of Lib-Dems.
Plaid/SNP - not really interested in Westminster politics except as a taller soapbox.
Farage - The Poundland version of Trump without either the glamorous wife or the money. If elected will crouch on the green benches like a toad, trying to subvert the more lunatic Conservatives.
I couldn't care less who wins on Thursday. None of them are telling the truth at the moment because they know that if they did their vote would go down the pan. The fact is there are so many areas which need root-and-branch reform it would take a government of national unity (!) to achieve it and they would need a minimum term of 10 years to get at least 50% of the way there.
The biggest issue? Everybody wants more out of the system than they are prepared to contribute, and all the parties collude in this wilful blindness, looking to some mythical "they" to provide the funds. UK Government debt is approaching 100% of GDP, the highest since the end of WWII. However, unlike the post-war late 40s-1950s there is no sign that spending is going to plummet - indeed, if left unchecked the OBR forecasts that UK debt will reach 300% by 2070. No party is prepared to tell voters the unpalatable truth that they need to make short-term sacrifices to secure a brighter future because they know it will be electoral death to do so.
So, Starmer will saunter through the door of Number Ten to do what? He'll have an easier time than Sunak, at least to start with, but the bottom line is he doesn't have a magic bullet because there isn't one. Things can only get better? Not a chance.
I know both-sidesism is fashionable, but I'm curious who you think are the "neo-Stalinists" among Labour MPs and candidates (the closest thing in the last parliament to any sort of Stalinist was probably Galloway), and what capacity you think they will have to stab Starmer in the back given Labour has no equivalent of the 1922 committee and, in any case, Starmer has stacked the, already well to the right, PLP with his placemen. There is simply no equivalent of the ERG or Nat-Cs, either in ideological extremism or numbers, on the Labour benches, and any minor influence the SCG might have will be snuffed out by a stonking majority. The sad thing is that the phantom you're worried about is Labour's only hope of actually effecting improvement.
Back in 2018 I came to the conclusion that the system as it is cannot provide the sort of disinterested (in its truest sense) government that the UK needs. The two biggest parties have far too much baggage, and every time they get more than a 10-15 seat majority you end up with their own brand of swivel-eyed loons who may provide temporary amusement but little else.
Take a look at the leaders hoping to lead or co-lead the UK:
Sunak - decent man, toxic party, Parliamentary party wedded to vested interests and made up of serial traitors, malcontents and venal back-stabbers.
Starmer - Parliamentary party full of vested interests, has his own malcontents ranging from idealistic dreamers to neo-stalinists who will happily stab him in the back if he veers away from their own version of truth.
Davey - seriously tainted by his inaction over the Post Office, easier to herd cats than control Parliamentary party of Lib-Dems.
Plaid/SNP - not really interested in Westminster politics except as a taller soapbox.
Farage - The Poundland version of Trump without either the glamorous wife or the money. If elected will crouch on the green benches like a toad, trying to subvert the more lunatic Conservatives.
I couldn't care less who wins on Thursday. None of them are telling the truth at the moment because they know that if they did their vote would go down the pan. The fact is there are so many areas which need root-and-branch reform it would take a government of national unity (!) to achieve it and they would need a minimum term of 10 years to get at least 50% of the way there.
The biggest issue? Everybody wants more out of the system than they are prepared to contribute, and all the parties collude in this wilful blindness, looking to some mythical "they" to provide the funds. UK Government debt is approaching 100% of GDP, the highest since the end of WWII. However, unlike the post-war late 40s-1950s there is no sign that spending is going to plummet - indeed, if left unchecked the OBR forecasts that UK debt will reach 300% by 2070. No party is prepared to tell voters the unpalatable truth that they need to make short-term sacrifices to secure a brighter future because they know it will be electoral death to do so.
So, Starmer will saunter through the door of Number Ten to do what? He'll have an easier time than Sunak, at least to start with, but the bottom line is he doesn't have a magic bullet because there isn't one. Things can only get better? Not a chance.
What are the short term sacrifices and who is going to have to make them? Because that's where the rub is.
@Arethosemyfeet Maybe "neo-stalinist" is the wrong term. But I'm thinking of the knee-jerk "tax the rich" that is behind a lot of their pronouncements. I'm not worried about any "phantom", I'm profoundly depressed at the usual nonsense about, for instance, economic growth - no party has a cat in hell's chance of doing anything about that. The empty promises about providing more houses when the whip hand is firmly in the grasp of the big developers, and a shortage of skilled tradespeople can't be addressed in any period under 5 years. Similar promises about more teachers, doctors, etc are also written in water.
I could go on ...
... and I've just heard that nice man Starmer saying with a poker face that there are no empty gesture and giving out yet another supersized helping of word-salad spiced with "change". The most depressing thing? I think he really believes it.
I'm profoundly depressed at the usual nonsense about, for instance, economic growth - no party has a cat in hell's chance of doing anything about that.
I'm profoundly depressed at the usual nonsense about, for instance, economic growth - no party has a cat in hell's chance of doing anything about that.
They, and indeed Labour, may be wrong, of course but I would argue that 'nonsense' is a stretch here.
AFZ
We're heading back to the halcyon pre-2010 times when letters to the Guardian mattered aren't we!
FWIW my key concern would be - and obviously you'll have to take my word for it as I can't prove it - is that without knowing the content or much about the subject I clicked on the link thinking 'letter to the Guardian backing Labour on the economy' and had correctly guessed half a dozen of the signatories!
not that they're wrong, just that 'these economists back Labour in letter to Guardian' is a bit dog bites man. Of course they do.
@Arethosemyfeet Maybe "neo-stalinist" is the wrong term. But I'm thinking of the knee-jerk "tax the rich" that is behind a lot of their pronouncements. I'm not worried about any "phantom", I'm profoundly depressed at the usual nonsense about, for instance, economic growth - no party has a cat in hell's chance of doing anything about that. The empty promises about providing more houses when the whip hand is firmly in the grasp of the big developers, and a shortage of skilled tradespeople can't be addressed in any period under 5 years. Similar promises about more teachers, doctors, etc are also written in water.
I could go on ...
... and I've just heard that nice man Starmer saying with a poker face that there are no empty gesture and giving out yet another supersized helping of word-salad spiced with "change". The most depressing thing? I think he really believes it.
Given that the rich have accumulated enormous wealth with their rent seeking off the backs of people who work for a living, and you acknowledge the existence of massive economic challenges, the solutions to which require substantial public investment, what is you objection to taxing that enormous wealth?
I'm profoundly depressed at the usual nonsense about, for instance, economic growth - no party has a cat in hell's chance of doing anything about that.
They, and indeed Labour, may be wrong, of course but I would argue that 'nonsense' is a stretch here.
AFZ
We're heading back to the halcyon pre-2010 times when letters to the Guardian mattered aren't we!
FWIW my key concern would be - and obviously you'll have to take my word for it as I can't prove it - is that without knowing the content or much about the subject I clicked on the link thinking 'letter to the Guardian backing Labour on the economy' and had correctly guessed half a dozen of the signatories!
That's fine to a point but that's not a reason for scepticism in itself unless you think they are motivated on a purely factional basis.
There are other reasons for scepticism - mostly of the order of Labour backing away from many of the policies that caused the support in the first place - but that's different from believing that there is nothing the government can do to help grow the economy (which was the initial contention).
Going back a few posts, I doubt if our armed forces now have the capacity for any 'vainglorious military action that is not suicidal.
I wasn't imagining it was going to be a solo effort. A tilt at Iran with Israel and the US is possible. The only solo possibility is if, when the current incumbent is done wrecking the economy even further, the next Argentine populist gets elected by beating the "Malvinas" drum.
Going back a few posts, I doubt if our armed forces now have the capacity for any 'vainglorious military action that is not suicidal.
well the view from the coalface would disagree - but do we mean economically, diplomatically or just military suicidal?
If we're just talking militarily suicidal, then I'd agree a unilateral war against China, Russia, the US etc would be both short and suicidal.
However (pace @Arethosemyfeet in the post above this), we'd beat Argentina unilaterally (which, whatever else we cut is so totemic that the forces are configured to be able to do that if nothing else).*
We've got tier 1 forces in terms of training and equipment, so we'd beat most tier 2s downwards one on one. There's plenty of scope for the British government to scratch its usual itch of wanting to go on adventures abroad.
*ie, whatever else it can and can't do, and whatever else is cut, the UK retains the ability to steam 8000 miles, and put forces ashore in opposed landings, before retaking and holding islands in semi-arctic conditions. But funnily enough, when you can do that a lot of other things can be done as a result, being steps down. Little known but a lot of France's most recent African (mis)adventures were reliant on the RAF for strategic airlift and helicopter support (the French armed forces being somewhat lacking in capacity for that).
I suppose something analogous to (and similarly uncontroversial) to the intervention in Sierra Leone might be possible too, though I think the fear for a lot of us would be that once PMs get a taste for foreign adventures it's hard to draw a line in the sand.
I suppose something analogous to (and similarly uncontroversial) to the intervention in Sierra Leone might be possible too, though I think the fear for a lot of us would be that once PMs get a taste for foreign adventures it's hard to draw a line in the sand.
yes, in terms of past unilateral actions we could again do the Falklands, Sierra Leone, etc. We'd also be able to meaningfully contribute to another Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. As a Mystic Meg thought, I'd be keeping half an eye on Belize, and if Brunei was ever threatened we'd be pulled into that within seconds, what with the Sultan paying for a British battalion to be permanently resident there...
@Arethosemyfeet I have no objections to taxing "enormous wealth" but that will do nothing to address, never mind put right, the underlying problems in the UK economy, and might even have a downside of driving out of the country some of the people whose money the economy needs to invest in companies to provide the growth we so desperately need. Tax-and-Spend is never going to be a sound basis for any economy.
@Arethosemyfeet I have no objections to taxing "enormous wealth" but that will do nothing to address, never mind put right, the underlying problems in the UK economy, and might even have a downside of driving out of the country some of the people whose money the economy needs to invest in companies to provide the growth we so desperately need. Tax-and-Spend is never going to be a sound basis for any economy.
Land value taxes would start to put right quite a lot of the structural problems with the UK economy, namely that the increasing value of land is a surer generator of wealth than productive investments. It would also combat the incentive for sitting on land with planning permission in place rather than getting on with building.
I'm not sure of what your point is about "tax-and-spend". All governments tax, all governments spend. The only questions are what and how much.
If a future Argentine junta were to seize the Falklands/Malvinas again I very much doubt we could pull off a second South Atlantic reclamation job.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect we no longer have the ships or the aircraft to attempt a second Falklands expedition.
I can see us playing support roles - as with France in West Africa - but share @Arethosemyfeet's concerns about vainglorious geopolitical adventures. Blair got us into those with grim results.
History has a tendency to repeat itself.
I wouldn't put it past Starmer to sabre-rattle.
What a Trump in the White House, Starmer in Number 10 scenario would look like, I don't know. If it's Biden then belligerence may be on the cards. It wasn't just Bush Senior and Bush Junior who were inclined to intervene abroad. Obama dropped more than his fair share of bombs and drones.
Trump would go after Iran. He'd expect us to go with him and withdraw US funding from NATO if European countries didn't dance to his tune.
Things are pretty scary and precarious whoever gets into The White House.
The conflict in Ukraine doesn't look like it's going to be resolved any time soon. There's every chance also of escalation in the Middle-East.
Then there's China and Taiwan.
Belize and Brunei pale into insignificance against that background but any 'little local difficulty' can become a geo-political football.
Starmer's going to have to stabilise things pretty quickly. I don't think he'd leap on the first sabre-rattling bandwagon that hurtles by but the prospect is there, undoubtedly.
Comments
However, I don't think this revulsion is necessarily going to lead to the predicted landslide in the Shires. The small 'C' tory voter won't scrawl his cross against a party they cannot support and which they distrust. My guess is they will either not vote at all or will go into the polling booth and either spoil their ballot or leave it blank.
I think you're right - embarrassment is probably the right word. It may well be true that certain small-c *conservative* values are perfectly valid, and people have every right to hold them, but the dreadful behaviour of the government over the past decade or so is almost beyond belief.
Add in 14 years of Tory incompetence and corruption, some will have decided that, although they're not prepared to vote Labour, the Lib-Dems are more in tune with their fundamental values.
All large political parties are coalitions. Not all Tories think alike. The same is equally true of Labour supporters, especially around social issues. But circumstances often decide whether people decide to stick with 'their' party or try to influence them by voting for something different.
Eg: Tory to Reform, Tory to Lib Dem, Labour to Green, Labour to Lib Dem. Labour to Tory. Other changes are possible, of course, as we are all individuals. We tend to weight issues individually. What is a deal-breaker for one may not be for another.
My source was Electoral Calculus. They've now changed their mind and expect her to win with Reform in third place.
Half expecting her to jump ship at some point anyway.
Indeed, though I doubt if she'll get on well with Farage...
This is a possibility that has to be considered. I am reasonably confident it is Farage's plan. He cannot win elections with his makeshift party(-ies). The Tories are doomed as a brand at the moment but Farage clearly fancies merging the parties and taking over.
It is a scenario, not to be ignored but I think it is not as likely as many would have you believe.
Firstly, Farage has to win his seat. I think he probably will but it is not a certainty.
Then the numbers have to work. Again, definitely possible but it's actually quite a thin needle to thread.
If the Tories have enough MPs - say 130 - or so then they probably have enough to find a candidate who will win the leadership. Although a split remains a very real possibility. Again the numbers are key. If say the Tories split 80/50 and the 80 were the right-wing group (or rather groups) then that's an entity that's vulnerable to a hostile takeover.
If the Tories have circa 50 seats and the LibDems have 60 and are therefore the official opposition then the only way Farage can get traction is if he has enough MPs (i.e. 11 or more in this scenario) and thus can make a bigger party. Farage's master plan only works if he can become LOTO not if he's leader of the third party.
It is important to remember that whilst there is a huge overlap between Reform and Tory membership ideologically, there are many members of the Parliamentary Party who hate Farage. These people would resist a reproachment with Farage.
If the Tories have too many MPs then they are safer from a merger even with a split. If the Tories have too few MPs then it does not work. It is a confluence of events that's needed to put Farage in a position where seizing control of the Conservative Party apparatus is in his interests and politically possible.
Until the counts start coming in, my greatest fear is that Labour will not secure a majority. I think they will but I am part of the movement scarred by '92. Assuming Labour become the government this week, the manoeuvrings of Farage et al. are an on-going concern. I think it more likely than not that he will not succeed in taking over the ancient blues but I think he's going to try and if he succeeds and has say 130-150 MPs to command at the end of this, it becomes a major problem for the direction of travel of our political discourse.
Either way, I predict fireworks
AFZ
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_vipoll_20240626.html
With the Tories reduced to 60 seats, and the LibDems on 71, the 18 Reform MPs could be very significant if Farage could bring about a merger...
On the upside, the field work on this poll was done when Reform was peaking in the polls and before various recent scandals and an apparent drop in their support.
If I'm being honest, the perfect scenario for me is also a very thin needle to thread: Tories ~50-70; LibDems ~60-80, Reform ~0-5
Not impossible, especially with tactical voting, but fairly unlikely too.
AFZ
Indeed. I chose the wrong word there.
But I think LD's overtaking Tories more consequential and I'm trying not to hope for too much...
I think if Farage is a backbench MP with very few compatriots and no arrangement with the Tories, then he'll just be irrelevant. If he can build his power base then, that is how he becomes dangerous again.
AFZ
Yes, I'd like to see that sort of result as well, with the LibDems as HM's Loyal Opposition...
We have wild hemlock growing on the river bank here. If a ghastly cataclysm occurs, and Sunak wins (as he claims he can), I shall prepare a brew akin to that consumed by Socrates.
Please don't!
I don't think the worst will happen but if it does I shall need your wit and humour to keep me sane!
Hehe...I didn't specify the recipient of the hemlock...but thanks, anyway!
Seriously, though, I think we're in with a good chance of having some reasonably sane grown-ups in government later this week, whether we agree with their policies or not.
Yep. I think that's such a huge step-wise improvement.
The implosion of the Tories would be an important added bonus, that's all!
I don't think they are that wrong. And whilst certain segments of the media would portray that as a Labour failure, ending Tory rule is all that matters...
I'm a little nervous and will be very nervous waiting for exit poll...
AFZ
Yes please!
Tories 140-160*
Liberals 30-50
SNP 15-20
Greens 1-2
Reform 1-2
Plaid 2-4
Labour everything else
Northern Ireland - as usual, no idea, probably close to what it is now.
*basically I've assumed that when it comes down to it a lot of the 'don't knows' (over 20% of the sample and ignored in the polls that tend to give Labour the biggest leads) will break for the Conservatives, a roughly fair amount of the 'too close to call' seats will break blue (and a fair amount will break red, and orange likewise), and when it comes down to it Labour will be hit by low turn-out in the under 30s. I think the Tories will get a hiding, obviously, but there might be a sense that they've somehow 'got away with it' come Friday morning.
Still, we shall see. I'm fully prepared to be wrong, but that's my instinct.
The LibDems are a left wing party and I don't think that the official opposition to a left wing Labour government should be left wing party,
Most Lib Dems would see themselves as centrist, or 'social democrat' rather than 'socialist'. Many are more leftwing than Starmer, of course.
But that's not saying much either.
😉
If the Lib Dems were to become the main opposition party, it would be interesting to see what form their opposition would take. It would very much depend on whether Starmer's current trajectory was simply a vote-winning, first past the post, don't scare the horses exercise or whether it represents- as I suspect - a real shift in direction.
If the latter, then we might actually see the Lib Dems becoming more left-wing.
Sir Ed Davey isn't as radical as Kennedy was though, but I think he could hold Starmer to account in PMQ - not that this is as important as it used to be.
And some of us are Liberals who regret the party has anything to do with Social Democrats.
I’d have voted no had I been old enough to vote 😉
Up to a point. It also depends on what they actually do: to whit, propping up tories and enabling austerity.
Take a look at the leaders hoping to lead or co-lead the UK:
Sunak - decent man, toxic party, Parliamentary party wedded to vested interests and made up of serial traitors, malcontents and venal back-stabbers.
Starmer - Parliamentary party full of vested interests, has his own malcontents ranging from idealistic dreamers to neo-stalinists who will happily stab him in the back if he veers away from their own version of truth.
Davey - seriously tainted by his inaction over the Post Office, easier to herd cats than control Parliamentary party of Lib-Dems.
Plaid/SNP - not really interested in Westminster politics except as a taller soapbox.
Farage - The Poundland version of Trump without either the glamorous wife or the money. If elected will crouch on the green benches like a toad, trying to subvert the more lunatic Conservatives.
I couldn't care less who wins on Thursday. None of them are telling the truth at the moment because they know that if they did their vote would go down the pan. The fact is there are so many areas which need root-and-branch reform it would take a government of national unity (!) to achieve it and they would need a minimum term of 10 years to get at least 50% of the way there.
The biggest issue? Everybody wants more out of the system than they are prepared to contribute, and all the parties collude in this wilful blindness, looking to some mythical "they" to provide the funds. UK Government debt is approaching 100% of GDP, the highest since the end of WWII. However, unlike the post-war late 40s-1950s there is no sign that spending is going to plummet - indeed, if left unchecked the OBR forecasts that UK debt will reach 300% by 2070. No party is prepared to tell voters the unpalatable truth that they need to make short-term sacrifices to secure a brighter future because they know it will be electoral death to do so.
So, Starmer will saunter through the door of Number Ten to do what? He'll have an easier time than Sunak, at least to start with, but the bottom line is he doesn't have a magic bullet because there isn't one. Things can only get better? Not a chance.
An excellent read and I agree with most of it.
The BIB. You may well be right but for the sake of the country I hope you are wrong
I know both-sidesism is fashionable, but I'm curious who you think are the "neo-Stalinists" among Labour MPs and candidates (the closest thing in the last parliament to any sort of Stalinist was probably Galloway), and what capacity you think they will have to stab Starmer in the back given Labour has no equivalent of the 1922 committee and, in any case, Starmer has stacked the, already well to the right, PLP with his placemen. There is simply no equivalent of the ERG or Nat-Cs, either in ideological extremism or numbers, on the Labour benches, and any minor influence the SCG might have will be snuffed out by a stonking majority. The sad thing is that the phantom you're worried about is Labour's only hope of actually effecting improvement.
What are the short term sacrifices and who is going to have to make them? Because that's where the rub is.
I could go on ...
... and I've just heard that nice man Starmer saying with a poker face that there are no empty gesture and giving out yet another supersized helping of word-salad spiced with "change". The most depressing thing? I think he really believes it.
Whilst everyone knows that we are in a difficult situation, it seems that 16 leading economists, including 3 Nobel Prize winners disagree with you...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/19/labour-is-offering-a-credible-plan-to-address-britains-economic-problems
They, and indeed Labour, may be wrong, of course but I would argue that 'nonsense' is a stretch here.
AFZ
We're heading back to the halcyon pre-2010 times when letters to the Guardian mattered aren't we!
FWIW my key concern would be - and obviously you'll have to take my word for it as I can't prove it - is that without knowing the content or much about the subject I clicked on the link thinking 'letter to the Guardian backing Labour on the economy' and had correctly guessed half a dozen of the signatories!
not that they're wrong, just that 'these economists back Labour in letter to Guardian' is a bit dog bites man. Of course they do.
Given that the rich have accumulated enormous wealth with their rent seeking off the backs of people who work for a living, and you acknowledge the existence of massive economic challenges, the solutions to which require substantial public investment, what is you objection to taxing that enormous wealth?
Although, obligatory sidenote that there's no Nobel Prize in economics.
That's fine to a point but that's not a reason for scepticism in itself unless you think they are motivated on a purely factional basis.
There are other reasons for scepticism - mostly of the order of Labour backing away from many of the policies that caused the support in the first place - but that's different from believing that there is nothing the government can do to help grow the economy (which was the initial contention).
Hee hee.
Indeed.
I wasn't imagining it was going to be a solo effort. A tilt at Iran with Israel and the US is possible. The only solo possibility is if, when the current incumbent is done wrecking the economy even further, the next Argentine populist gets elected by beating the "Malvinas" drum.
well the view from the coalface would disagree - but do we mean economically, diplomatically or just military suicidal?
If we're just talking militarily suicidal, then I'd agree a unilateral war against China, Russia, the US etc would be both short and suicidal.
However (pace @Arethosemyfeet in the post above this), we'd beat Argentina unilaterally (which, whatever else we cut is so totemic that the forces are configured to be able to do that if nothing else).*
We've got tier 1 forces in terms of training and equipment, so we'd beat most tier 2s downwards one on one. There's plenty of scope for the British government to scratch its usual itch of wanting to go on adventures abroad.
*ie, whatever else it can and can't do, and whatever else is cut, the UK retains the ability to steam 8000 miles, and put forces ashore in opposed landings, before retaking and holding islands in semi-arctic conditions. But funnily enough, when you can do that a lot of other things can be done as a result, being steps down. Little known but a lot of France's most recent African (mis)adventures were reliant on the RAF for strategic airlift and helicopter support (the French armed forces being somewhat lacking in capacity for that).
yes, in terms of past unilateral actions we could again do the Falklands, Sierra Leone, etc. We'd also be able to meaningfully contribute to another Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. As a Mystic Meg thought, I'd be keeping half an eye on Belize, and if Brunei was ever threatened we'd be pulled into that within seconds, what with the Sultan paying for a British battalion to be permanently resident there...
Land value taxes would start to put right quite a lot of the structural problems with the UK economy, namely that the increasing value of land is a surer generator of wealth than productive investments. It would also combat the incentive for sitting on land with planning permission in place rather than getting on with building.
I'm not sure of what your point is about "tax-and-spend". All governments tax, all governments spend. The only questions are what and how much.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect we no longer have the ships or the aircraft to attempt a second Falklands expedition.
I can see us playing support roles - as with France in West Africa - but share @Arethosemyfeet's concerns about vainglorious geopolitical adventures. Blair got us into those with grim results.
History has a tendency to repeat itself.
I wouldn't put it past Starmer to sabre-rattle.
What a Trump in the White House, Starmer in Number 10 scenario would look like, I don't know. If it's Biden then belligerence may be on the cards. It wasn't just Bush Senior and Bush Junior who were inclined to intervene abroad. Obama dropped more than his fair share of bombs and drones.
Trump would go after Iran. He'd expect us to go with him and withdraw US funding from NATO if European countries didn't dance to his tune.
Things are pretty scary and precarious whoever gets into The White House.
The conflict in Ukraine doesn't look like it's going to be resolved any time soon. There's every chance also of escalation in the Middle-East.
Then there's China and Taiwan.
Belize and Brunei pale into insignificance against that background but any 'little local difficulty' can become a geo-political football.
Starmer's going to have to stabilise things pretty quickly. I don't think he'd leap on the first sabre-rattling bandwagon that hurtles by but the prospect is there, undoubtedly.
More deep shit.