Sky News - election in new year

[Casual-observer]

8 minutes ago, wighty said:

There's always a chance of Labour cockups. Brown's "bigot" quote for example.

I always thought that cockup up was over exaggerated in explaining why he lost. 

The woman herself still voted Labour, despite the party leader spelling it out to her in primetime audio how much he despised her like.🤣

 

[scottbeard]

49 minutes ago, TheChangeIsCast said:

Maybe because they realise that whether they hold it in May 2024, or January 2025, they're going to get obliterated either way. So why delay the inevitable? The sooner they get obliterated, the sooner they can have a massive purge (of extreme loons) and re-invent the party, and ultimately, the sooner they will be in contention to gain power again. I mean, if I was in their shoes, I'd be trying to look at the bigger picture in that way.

But it's exactly the people who'd be purged that make the decision - so why would they give up their one and only lifetime shot at power? 

11 hours ago, Maghull Mike said:

Spring.............no later

Why would they fall on their swords earlier than they have to?

3 hours ago, Chunketh said:

They won’t want to go in Winter 24/25. They need the older cohort to vote in massive numbers for this to be anything but a bloodbath.

My guess is May or October at the very latest.
 

Yep, October is when it will be.

[PrincessNutNut]

9 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

The degree to which the Tories are despised will be the determining factor in the turn out, I think.

Obviously there's still money available to spend. £150bn a year at the current rate.

We will see how long deficit spending can continue in a recessionary environment.

And do the Brits ever really despise enough to bother doing something about it?

[TheChangeIsCast]

16 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But it's exactly the people who'd be purged that make the decision - so why would they give up their one and only lifetime shot at power? 

Why would they fall on their swords earlier than they have to?

Yep, October is when it will be.

Yeah it's a good point. I guess it depends how much (if at all) these people care about the future of the party, versus their own immediate self-interest. Maybe they are all just self-serving and only think in terms of themselves. That's pretty likely, be maybe at least some of the ones in power making these decisions do actually also care about the long-game, the future of the party.

I think most likely (as others have pointed out) it's just about marginal gains. They're going to get hammered either way, but they will likely get a better turn out of core tory voters in nice spring weather, than in winter, and so even if that equates to just a smaller hammering, it still means there's a slightly increased chance of labour not getting an outright majority. 

Who the hell knows, but to me, trying to put myself in their shoes, a spring election seems to be the lesser of two evils.

[Fromage Frais]

15 minutes ago, TheChangeIsCast said:

Yeah it's a good point. I guess it depends how much (if at all) these people care about the future of the party, versus their own immediate self-interest. Maybe they are all just self-serving and only think in terms of themselves. That's pretty likely, be maybe at least some of the ones in power making these decisions do actually also care about the long-game, the future of the party.

I think most likely (as others have pointed out) it's just about marginal gains. They're going to get hammered either way, but they will likely get a better turn out of core tory voters in nice spring weather, than in winter, and so even if that equates to just a smaller hammering, it still means there's a slightly increased chance of labour not getting an outright majority. 

Who the hell knows, but to me, trying to put myself in their shoes, a spring election seems to be the lesser of two evils.

Many of the MPs wont have the money or the prestige they have right now again in their lives.

It makes no sense to call an early general election as they will be utterly annihilated and the revision up of the immigration figures by a volume of people the size of Cambridge = annihilation.

They are better hanging about and getting paid waiting for some event to go in their favour like progress in Ukraine (IF) or even some form of war/terrorist attack escalation in the middle east.

I do n0t think its a case of winning and loosing now its a case of total vaporisation of the conservative party.  Who is going to vote for them when they = high tax and immegration.

You can be for right wing concepts like controlled immigration, hard on crime, small state and low taxation or against them it does not make you a bad person.

However to get voted to do one thing and then not deliver anything and break records the other way..... that is an example of a party that did not do what it said it would do and deserves to be reduced to nothing.... they have done a bait and switch on the public and then their members.

My 2p have a leadership election..... apologise profusely and then have a general election it may save a few seats but no more.

 



 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Fromage Frais

[Casual-observer]

28 minutes ago, TheChangeIsCast said:

Yeah it's a good point. I guess it depends how much (if at all) these people care about the future of the party, versus their own immediate self-interest. Maybe they are all just self-serving and only think in terms of themselves. That's pretty likely, be maybe at least some of the ones in power making these decisions do actually also care about the long-game, the future of the party.

I think most likely (as others have pointed out) it's just about marginal gains. They're going to get hammered either way, but they will likely get a better turn out of core tory voters in nice spring weather, than in winter, and so even if that equates to just a smaller hammering, it still means there's a slightly increased chance of labour not getting an outright majority. 

Who the hell knows, but to me, trying to put myself in their shoes, a spring election seems to be the lesser of two evils.

You're forgetting there is an element of both political parties whereby it's there's a closed group whom hail from wealth, family dynasties and private education. 

Those cliques do and have a duty to also look at the longer term..and that longer term is to ensure the survival and the dominance of the party now and into the future. 

They're not both run entirely with that mercenary attitude where they'll ride the train until the very last inch of track has been reached irrespective of the long term consequences. 

If they do then it risks an opening up of fresh new political rivals, there has to be a plan and there usually is one. I would argue though the Tories have took their eye off the ball of late and the betrayal to the northern seats and the Brexit vote could see them stripped down their core vote.

People are right to say they've also not given a big enough reason for anyone under the age of 50 to bother voting for them. I think the Tories are going to feel this coming loss and it could risk their place as being one of the big two parties. 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Casual-observer

[Far Canal]

1 hour ago, Fromage Frais said:

You can be for right wing concepts like controlled immigration, hard on crime, small state and low taxation or against them it does not make you a bad person.

However to get voted to do one thing and then not deliver anything and break records the other way..... that is an example of a party that did not do what it said it would do and deserves to be reduced to nothing.... they have done a bait and switch on the public and then their members.
 

Excellent analysis.

If people decide to put Labour in power then god help us all.

[Maghull Mike]

2 hours ago, scottbeard said:

But it's exactly the people who'd be purged that make the decision - so why would they give up their one and only lifetime shot at power? 

Why would they fall on their swords earlier than they have to?

Yep, October is when it will be.

Because In the Spring means that things are NO worse than now........Waiting to the Fall will open the possibility "Jame Callahan" result.

 

[scottbeard]

3 minutes ago, Maghull Mike said:

Because In the Spring means that things are NO worse than now........Waiting to the Fall will open the possibility "Jame Callahan" result.

I agree the result in October might be worse than May, but that's irrelevant to the decision makers.  This is the only time that Sunak and Hunt will ever be in positions as powerful as they are now, for the rest of their lives.

Would you give up 6 months of that to help the next man in the job?

I'm not even sure I would, and self interested people like them for sure won't.

It would be different if the result were closer, but it's do Labour win by 50 seats or 100.

[Maghull Mike]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

I agree the result in October might be worse than May, but that's irrelevant to the decision makers.  This is the only time that Sunak and Hunt will ever be in positions as powerful as they are now, for the rest of their lives.

Would you give up 6 months of that to help the next man in the job?

I'm not even sure I would, and self interested people like them for sure won't.

It would be different if the result were closer, but it's do Labour win by 50 seats or 100.

Stammer is crap..........If they go in March they might win, or better still ONLY just fail.

Wait to Oct & it will either be the same result or MUCH MUCH worse.

Mike

[TheChangeIsCast]

Good points (to the people who responded to my last post). We live in interesting times.

[Trampa501]

50 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I agree the result in October might be worse than May, but that's irrelevant to the decision makers.  This is the only time that Sunak and Hunt will ever be in positions as powerful as they are now, for the rest of their lives.

Would you give up 6 months of that to help the next man in the job?

I'm not even sure I would, and self interested people like them for sure won't.

It would be different if the result were closer, but it's do Labour win by 50 seats or 100.

There is also the Micawber gambit, "something will turn up". Maybe another Falklands or a Corbyn scandal?

Of course that can work both ways, and the Tory govt will be aware of many more things that can go belly up before October.  If they do push for an early Spring election, it's because they know something disastrous is about to unfold.

[wighty]

It's like being 3-0 down in a football game.

Do you go on an all out attack hoping for mistakes and maybe getting a result or defend totally for damage limitation.

 

[scottbeard]

2 hours ago, Maghull Mike said:

Stammer is crap..........If they go in March they might win, or better still ONLY just fail.

Wait to Oct & it will either be the same result or MUCH MUCH worse.

Mike

How on Earth do you get that?  Right now the Tories are on 25% in the polls if lucky, Labour 45%.

1 hour ago, Trampa501 said:

There is also the Micawber gambit, "something will turn up". Maybe another Falklands or a Corbyn scandal?

Of course that can work both ways, and the Tory govt will be aware of many more things that can go belly up before October.  If they do push for an early Spring election, it's because they know something disastrous is about to unfold.

I think they are resigned to losing the next election, and the magnitude of the defeat is of no consequence to the current leadership.  So yes something might turn up, but even if a disaster is looming they still are unlikely to go to the polls.

28 minutes ago, wighty said:

It's like being 3-0 down in a football game.

Do you go on an all out attack hoping for mistakes and maybe getting a result or defend totally for damage limitation.

In football it depends if it's a league or a cup game - for Sunak it's effectively a cup game because effectively he is out of the cup for good if they lose.  So they will play on.  It's not like a 50 seat defeat means Sunak might become PM again one day and an 80 seat defeat means he won't.  He won't either way.

[wighty]

7 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

How on Earth do you get that?  Right now the Tories are on 25% in the polls if lucky, Labour 45%.

I think they are resigned to losing the next election, and the magnitude of the defeat is of no consequence to the current leadership.  So yes something might turn up, but even if a disaster is looming they still are unlikely to go to the polls.

In football it depends if it's a league or a cup game - for Sunak it's effectively a cup game because effectively he is out of the cup for good if they lose.  So they will play on.  It's not like a 50 seat defeat means Sunak might become PM again one day and an 80 seat defeat means he won't.  He won't either way.

Can't see Sunak staying on win or lose. If by some fluke he wins, he'll hand the mess to sort out to Braverman or anyone else that's pizza'd him off. If he loses then he's away to make more millions.

[Social Justice League]

Hearing talk in the media that some even think Sunak will be kicked out. 

Would the Tories bring back BJ for one last throw of the dice?

[scottbeard]

19 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

Hearing talk in the media that some even think Sunak will be kicked out. 

Would the Tories bring back BJ for one last throw of the dice?

No. Their popularity essentially began to nosedive from the point he was found guilty of breaking his own COVID rules, and bringing him back only compounds that.

They could conceivably get rid of Sunak - after all, it's not like their few remaining supporters are only there because of him, they are more there DESPITE him.

[nightowl]

3 hours ago, Trampa501 said:

Of course that can work both ways, and the Tory govt will be aware of many more things that can go belly up before October. 

Maybe but waiting for something to turn up and give them hope is more likely now.

Even the May council elections may not be as bad as the many will predict and put pressure on the other side a bit for not taking advantage of RSs bad luck.  A wave of pro Palestine/anti semitic sentiment may undo the opposition too.

Something even worse could go wrong for RS but that won't change the likely result right now.

[pig]

18 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Poppycock I'd say

New year 2025 maybe

They'd lose by a mile so why call it?

I don’t know about New Year but early election is plausible. Win or lose it boils down to hanging onto as many seats as possible.

Perhaps everybody is clinging onto the “something might turn up” philisophy a bit too tightly.

Covid enquiry is rumbling on pouring ordure on the Tories every day - Sunak won’t be unscathed.

Further implementation of Brexit screwing up the country.

Another summer of boat-mania in the shadow of ineffective policies and mad bad and sacked Home Secretary. Relatively trivial in reality perhaps but massive in the media 

Timetable of good and bad economic news - and impact. 

Maybe Gaza gets worse during the first quarter of next year putting Labour into disarray and civil war.

Calculations of all that and more of what point in the next year people are likely to be most fed up with the government/opposition offsetting something might turn up

[scottbeard]

5 minutes ago, pig said:

I don’t know about New Year but early election is plausible. Win or lose it boils down to hanging onto as many seats as possible.

History doesn't support this.  Both the last two times that change has been in the air the incumbents have held on for the maximum, not acted to protect seats.  The Tories called elections every 4 years until well behind when they left it 5 years until 1997.  Them labour again did every 4 years until losing badly when they waited 5 years to 2010.  I have no money on the Tories calling an election after 4.5 years if they can wait to 5.

[steve99]

On 22/11/2023 at 23:24, scottbeard said:

Poppycock I'd say

New year 2025 maybe

They'd lose by a mile so why call it?

Perhaps when Sunnak gets his family fortune India Trade Deal done.

[steve99]

Early next year if we are very  lucky.    If so I expect it might be on account of more skeletons dancing out of the closet to embarrass them further, perhaps even criminal charges etc. More to come from the covid enquiry etc (for which alone should morally speaking trigger an election)

[A.steve]

On 23/11/2023 at 13:08, Maghull Mike said:

Stammer is crap..........

I've noticed a curiosity that seems apparent.

Both in the UK and the USA, when the candidate representing one of the major parties is spectacularly poor... the other party still seems to field a candidate that's even worse.  It feels as if the real competition - between the figureheads - is to demonstrate one's self more unelectable than one's opposite number.   If that were the reality, it would have a systemic consequence that the political elite would be unaccountable to the electorate.

[regprentice]

On 22/11/2023 at 23:24, scottbeard said:

Poppycock I'd say

New year 2025 maybe

They'd lose by a mile so why call it?

Could be a plan to brief an early election to get labour to show their hand and start actually stating their policies? Give the election team something work with. most people havent a clue what voting labour would mean, only that its the main alternative to the conservatives.

On 23/11/2023 at 10:34, PrincessNutNut said:

Their aim will be to ensure Labour doesn't achieve an absolute majority, but is forced into a coalition with Lib Dem (and maybe Green?) heading into recession, with no money available to spend. (And if Green is involved, forced into batsh*t energy policy).

Agreed, labour arent currently trending for even an outright majority. The last polling i saw put them 37 seats short.

There was a projection month ago that put labour at 420 seats which seems unbelievable against normal polling (link), but apparently labour will benefit massively from forthcoming boundary changes to seats? personally i think headlines predicting a massive labour win will soften the labour vote on the day as people wont feel an urgency to "make sure the tories get voted out". 

 

[nightowl]

23 minutes ago, regprentice said:

Could be a plan to brief an early election to get labour to show their hand and start actually stating their policies? Give the election team something work with. most people havent a clue what voting labour would mean, only that its the main alternative to the conservatives.

Agreed, labour arent currently trending for even an outright majority. The last polling i saw put them 37 seats short.

There was a projection month ago that put labour at 420 seats which seems unbelievable against normal polling (link), but apparently labour will benefit massively from forthcoming boundary changes to seats? personally i think headlines predicting a massive labour win will soften the labour vote on the day as people wont feel an urgency to "make sure the tories get voted out". 

That's somewhat different to the polls in 1997 where a landslide was predicted although people didn't believe it at the time. The lack of a clear lead for labour gives the tories some hope I suppose but it could be a rerun of 2010.