General Election '24

[dyqik]

How many Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds are there these days?

What's the second option? There's two escape routes for MPs, I think.

[monkey]

How many Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds are there these days?

What's the second option? There's two escape routes for MPs, I think.

Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.

wiki clicky

They can be replaced immediately, so when you have three or more MPs resigning at once (it's happened), you only get to be a Steward for as long as it takes to do the paperwork, and you might have to join a queue while it gets done.

[Grumble]

Presumably at some point these were real jobs, such a bizarre tradition, god knows why they don’t just submit a resignation letter to the constituency.

[bjn]

Deleted for ‘splaining.

[jimbob]

I can't find a non twitter version of this Tory party video

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/statu ... 5713982730

It looks like something Chris Morris would have rejected as being too OTT.

[Woodchopper]

The last time I looked at a poll, which was a while back. Labour weren't ahead because they are winning over Tories, but because Tories were losing support to don't know and UKIP/Brexit/Reform (mostly don't know). Looking briefly now, it seems that hasn't changed much.

Yes and no. Labour have polling in the mid-40s since the Truss debacle and that would normally be enough to get a majority, albeit not a landslide.

The problem for the Tories is that they’ve been polling in the mid-20s since Truss, and recent polls put them at about 20% (19 in today’s YouGov). As you write, this is due to the non-Labour vote being divided among the Tories, Reform, Greens, nationalists and the Liberals.

Tory support of 20-25% is into wipeout territory which if it were to be reflected in an election would result in the Tories losing hundreds of seats and Labour having a massive majority. If Sunak were to get 20% then he’d be looking at a party with something around 50 MPs.

So IMHO Labour would probably get a majority with what it’s polling. But a landslide would be due to lack of support for the Tories among the rest of the electorate.

I just looked at seven pollsters' most recent polls, from 12th March to the YouGov one published today. They generally show how the 2019 vote breaks down into today's voting figures. I recorded these and took an average.

Less than half of 2019 Conservative voters are today planning to vote for them again at the next election: on average, 47% of them. 13% are lost to Labour, 17% to Reform, 13% to Don't Know and 5% who won't vote.

For Labour, 80% of their 2019 vote plan to vote for them again, but they're capturing that 13% of 2019 Tory voters and 26% of 2019 LD voters. Polling on 2019 non-voters is less available, but what is there suggests that maybe a third of them will vote Labour this time. Labour lose 13% of their 2019 voters to the Cons (2%), Lib Dems (3%), Green (4%) and Reform (4%). Don't know are 6%, Won't vote 2%.

Lib Dem 2019 voters are roughly as unconfident in their party as Tory voters - only 52% of them currently plan to vote the same way again.

It's worth noting that the YouGov polling is very much an outlier in terms of where the 2019 vote goes - they have much higher proportions of the Tory vote going to Don't Know and Reform than the other polling companies. They also show lower retention figures for both Labour and the Lib Dems.

Thanks El Pollo, really interesting. Striking that Labour has been much more successful than the Conservatives or Lib Dems at retaining its supporters.

[jimbob]

Yes and no. Labour have polling in the mid-40s since the Truss debacle and that would normally be enough to get a majority, albeit not a landslide.

The problem for the Tories is that they’ve been polling in the mid-20s since Truss, and recent polls put them at about 20% (19 in today’s YouGov). As you write, this is due to the non-Labour vote being divided among the Tories, Reform, Greens, nationalists and the Liberals.

Tory support of 20-25% is into wipeout territory which if it were to be reflected in an election would result in the Tories losing hundreds of seats and Labour having a massive majority. If Sunak were to get 20% then he’d be looking at a party with something around 50 MPs.

So IMHO Labour would probably get a majority with what it’s polling. But a landslide would be due to lack of support for the Tories among the rest of the electorate.

I just looked at seven pollsters' most recent polls, from 12th March to the YouGov one published today. They generally show how the 2019 vote breaks down into today's voting figures. I recorded these and took an average.

Less than half of 2019 Conservative voters are today planning to vote for them again at the next election: on average, 47% of them. 13% are lost to Labour, 17% to Reform, 13% to Don't Know and 5% who won't vote.

For Labour, 80% of their 2019 vote plan to vote for them again, but they're capturing that 13% of 2019 Tory voters and 26% of 2019 LD voters. Polling on 2019 non-voters is less available, but what is there suggests that maybe a third of them will vote Labour this time. Labour lose 13% of their 2019 voters to the Cons (2%), Lib Dems (3%), Green (4%) and Reform (4%). Don't know are 6%, Won't vote 2%.

Lib Dem 2019 voters are roughly as unconfident in their party as Tory voters - only 52% of them currently plan to vote the same way again.

It's worth noting that the YouGov polling is very much an outlier in terms of where the 2019 vote goes - they have much higher proportions of the Tory vote going to Don't Know and Reform than the other polling companies. They also show lower retention figures for both Labour and the Lib Dems.

Thanks El Pollo, really interesting. Striking that Labour has been much more successful than the Conservatives or Lib Dems at retaining its supporters.

Probably less surprising if you're used to a FPTP system.

Labour's vote share was depressed in 2019 because many distrusted Corbyn more than Johnson so many who'd tend to Labour would have voted Lib Dem

Then add in reduced or increased tactical voting and it's not that surprising

[jimbob]

I can't find a non twitter version of this Tory party video

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/statu ... 5713982730

It looks like something Chris Morris would have rejected as being too OTT.

The internet keeps receipts. This is the deleted version that used footage of NYC

https://x.com/HectorTheHog/status/17723 ... 44200?s=20

[Woodchopper]

I just looked at seven pollsters' most recent polls, from 12th March to the YouGov one published today. They generally show how the 2019 vote breaks down into today's voting figures. I recorded these and took an average.

Less than half of 2019 Conservative voters are today planning to vote for them again at the next election: on average, 47% of them. 13% are lost to Labour, 17% to Reform, 13% to Don't Know and 5% who won't vote.

For Labour, 80% of their 2019 vote plan to vote for them again, but they're capturing that 13% of 2019 Tory voters and 26% of 2019 LD voters. Polling on 2019 non-voters is less available, but what is there suggests that maybe a third of them will vote Labour this time. Labour lose 13% of their 2019 voters to the Cons (2%), Lib Dems (3%), Green (4%) and Reform (4%). Don't know are 6%, Won't vote 2%.

Lib Dem 2019 voters are roughly as unconfident in their party as Tory voters - only 52% of them currently plan to vote the same way again.

It's worth noting that the YouGov polling is very much an outlier in terms of where the 2019 vote goes - they have much higher proportions of the Tory vote going to Don't Know and Reform than the other polling companies. They also show lower retention figures for both Labour and the Lib Dems.

Thanks El Pollo, really interesting. Striking that Labour has been much more successful than the Conservatives or Lib Dems at retaining its supporters.

Probably less surprising if you're used to a FPTP system.

Labour's vote share was depressed in 2019 because many distrusted Corbyn more than Johnson so many who'd tend to Labour would have voted Lib Dem

Then add in reduced or increased tactical voting and it's not that surprising

I'm not surprised, just thought it was a notable aspect of El Pollos post.

[sTeamTraen]

Plus the influence of being on the Privvy Council.

She already is on the Privy Council. I was surprised how many people are.

Isn't Mad Nad also on it, hence the reason she can keep "Rt Hon" on her Twitter/X profile?

Probably. I think it's a perk of having been in the Cabinet, even if only for half an hour.

[Trinucleus]

I can't find a non twitter version of this Tory party video

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/statu ... 5713982730

It looks like something Chris Morris would have rejected as being too OTT.

The internet keeps receipts. This is the deleted version that used footage of NYC

https://x.com/HectorTheHog/status/17723 ... 44200?s=20

"The streets are deserted" hmmm

[jimbob]

Research by Best for Britain and the Mirror.

£100Bn waste since the 2019 election

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... s-31473385

[Bewildered]

I can't find a non twitter version of this Tory party video

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/statu ... 5713982730

It looks like something Chris Morris would have rejected as being too OTT.

The internet keeps receipts. This is the deleted version that used footage of NYC

https://x.com/HectorTheHog/status/17723 ... 44200?s=20

"The streets are deserted" hmmm

Sorry I don’t have time to check - that’s not real is it?

It’s quite good as a fun film making lesson on how the right music, scary voice and selective statements can give the post apocalyptic even when the underlying situation is entirely innocuous.

[jimbob]

The internet keeps receipts. This is the deleted version that used footage of NYC

https://x.com/HectorTheHog/status/17723 ... 44200?s=20

"The streets are deserted" hmmm

Sorry I don’t have time to check - that’s not real is it?

It’s quite good as a fun film making lesson on how the right music, scary voice and selective statements can give the post apocalyptic even when the underlying situation is entirely innocuous.

I'm afraid to say those were both the real versions. The new one and the original

[jimbob]

Sunak seems to be missing a really easy chance to do the popular and right thing.

Immediately withdrawing the whip from Wragg would probably be popular amongst his MPs but instead he seems to be trying to get this sleeze and national security risk associated with the Tories even more so.

[jimbob]

Sunak seems to be missing a really easy chance to do the popular and right thing.

Immediately withdrawing the whip from Wragg would probably be popular amongst his MPs but instead he seems to be trying to get this sleeze and national security risk associated with the Tories even more so.

And now Wragg has voluntarily resigned the whip. Giving Labour commentators the line that Sunak's so weak, Wragg had to fire himself.

[Grumble]

Sunak seems to be missing a really easy chance to do the popular and right thing.

Immediately withdrawing the whip from Wragg would probably be popular amongst his MPs but instead he seems to be trying to get this sleeze and national security risk associated with the Tories even more so.

And now Wragg has voluntarily resigned the whip. Giving Labour commentators the line that Sunak's so weak, Wragg had to fire himself.

Sunak is, to coin a phrase, utterly wet and a weed

[FlammableFlower]

Sunak seems to be missing a really easy chance to do the popular and right thing.

Immediately withdrawing the whip from Wragg would probably be popular amongst his MPs but instead he seems to be trying to get this sleeze and national security risk associated with the Tories even more so.

And now Wragg has voluntarily resigned the whip. Giving Labour commentators the line that Sunak's so weak, Wragg had to fire himself.

I saw something that (might be total bobbins, but...) reckoned if they'd acted it would have precipitated an investigation, whereas with him resigning the whip they can try to sidestep this and therefore attempt to keep all of the sordid details swept under the carpet.

[Grumble]

Sunak seems to be missing a really easy chance to do the popular and right thing.

Immediately withdrawing the whip from Wragg would probably be popular amongst his MPs but instead he seems to be trying to get this sleeze and national security risk associated with the Tories even more so.

And now Wragg has voluntarily resigned the whip. Giving Labour commentators the line that Sunak's so weak, Wragg had to fire himself.

I saw something that (might be total bobbins, but...) reckoned if they'd acted it would have precipitated an investigation, whereas with him resigning the whip they can try to sidestep this and therefore attempt to keep all of the sordid details swept under the carpet.

Not sure about keeping sordid details under the carpet so much as not forcing a suspension and therefore a recall petition

[jimbob]

And now Wragg has voluntarily resigned the whip. Giving Labour commentators the line that Sunak's so weak, Wragg had to fire himself.

I saw something that (might be total bobbins, but...) reckoned if they'd acted it would have precipitated an investigation, whereas with him resigning the whip they can try to sidestep this and therefore attempt to keep all of the sordid details swept under the carpet.

Not sure about keeping sordid details under the carpet so much as not forcing a suspension and therefore a recall petition

How does the party affiliation or not affect the workings of the Standards Committee?

I know that Parliament has some baroque procedures and rules, but if so that would be very silly.

I can imagine it preventing an internal Tory party investigation though.

[Grumble]

I saw something that (might be total bobbins, but...) reckoned if they'd acted it would have precipitated an investigation, whereas with him resigning the whip they can try to sidestep this and therefore attempt to keep all of the sordid details swept under the carpet.

Not sure about keeping sordid details under the carpet so much as not forcing a suspension and therefore a recall petition

How does the party affiliation or not affect the workings of the Standards Committee?

I know that Parliament has some baroque procedures and rules, but if so that would be very silly.

I can imagine it preventing an internal Tory party investigation though.

True, but if it comes up before the standards committee then it won’t be swept under the carpet anyway, an internal investigation on the other hand could easily be kept away from the public.

[jimbob]

Guess what Wragg uses as his WiFi password?

Spoiler:

Parliament2015

https://x.com/AvaSantina/status/1778059406141263880

[Tristan]

Guess what Wragg uses as his WiFi password?

Spoiler:

Parliament2015

https://x.com/AvaSantina/status/1778059406141263880

No, it's:

Spoiler:

Parliament2015!

Much safer.

[Grumble]

Guess what Wragg uses as his WiFi password?

Spoiler:

Parliament2015

https://x.com/AvaSantina/status/1778059406141263880

No, it's:

Spoiler:

Parliament2015!

Much safer.

Upper and lower case letters, numbers and a special character. 15 characters long. Pretty much uncrackable.

[Brightonian]

Guess what Wragg uses as his WiFi password?

Spoiler:

Parliament2015

https://x.com/AvaSantina/status/1778059406141263880

No, it's:

Spoiler:

Parliament2015!

Much safer.

No, it's:

Spoiler:

Parliament 2015 !
With a couple of extra space characters.

Don't know whether space characters are ever allowed - I must experiment. In my own system, passwords are dependent on the way I've written the passwords (actually keywords) down.

Even saferer.