The 'Conservative' Party is in far more trouble than widely reported in the press. They face near wipeout at the next election, losing in the process a great deal of their Parliamentary talent (such as it is). Let's crunch numbers to show what a mess they're in.
1/n
It's well known that Tory polling numbers are disastrous. The Politico poll of polls has them on only 24% and Labour on 45% (left chart). These are the worst numbers since the Brexit constitutional crisis and related Parliamentary impasse before the 2019 election (right).
2/n
But what's much less well accepted is just what a catastrophe that would be in terms of seats. The superb @PollingReportUK suggests the Conservatives could fall to 198 seats, with Labour on 354, a stunning majority of 156. Yet this forecast does not account for the...
3/n
...most recent polling. @PollingReportUK has the Tories on 26% (left), because he has no November polling in his model (right). The most recent polls have the Tories on 19%, which dragged down the above Politico average to 24%, and would surely reduce the seat projection.
3/n
A year or so ago, the Tories could at least console themselves that Rishi Sunak was personally more popular than the party, and personal leadership popularity is often important in British elections. Yet his numbers are also declining from +4 approve to -22 disapprove.
4/n
But it gets worse for the Tories. Reform is currently at 9% in the poll of polls. As Mr Sunak steers his government toward SW1 centrism, it is conceivable that they could pick up more. And as the ever-perceptive @oflynnsocial has pointed out, if Nigel Farage returned...
5/n
...to lead them, it would not be difficult "to envisage 15 or even 20% vote shares being recorded." It has happened before. Last time an SW1 Centrist Tory government seemed to be drifting from problem to problem, Reform (then The Brexit Party) polled at 22% under Farage.
6/n
Even 15% would probably be enough to sink the Conservative Party, given the First Past the Post system. Let's look at some constituencies at the 2019 election to explain why. In Sunderland Central (below), The Brexit Party likely robbed the Tories, despite finishing third.
7/n
Further, Reform votes would not be evenly distributed. In Barnsley Central, for example, The Brexit Party managed to finish second with over 30% of the vote (below). If @TiceRichard and (potentially) Mr Farage have sense, they'll do serious damage in individual seats.
8/n
Worse still, these numbers come *before* Britain enters recession. Given key European economies are already contracting, and given UK construction activity is down, and unemployment up, it seems recession is on the way. This will make it even...
...more difficult for the Tories to claw back in the polls. The record number of seats was Labour's 418 in 1997. This gave Labour a 179 seat majority. We are now in the zone where a similar result is possible at the next election. In fact, @ElectCalculus forecasts that...
10/n
...the result will be even worse than 1997 for the Tories, with Labour winning 441 seats and the Conservatives reduced to 135 (which would probably go down as the worst election result for more than a hundred years). Yet few political commentators seem to have recognised...
11/n
...the stark truth that the Tories are on course for an epochal defeat. Intrinsic to this, a great many of their more prominent names represent at risk seats that look likely to fall. I'm sure there are more, but a cursory scan of well known Tory MPs and their majorities...
12/n
...gives:
Theresa Villiers (2.1%)
Iain Duncan Smith (2.6%)
Dominic Raab (4.4%)
Steve Baker (7.7%)
Jonny Mercer (11.1%)
Graham Brady (11.2%)
Lee Anderson (11.7%)
John Redwood (11.9%)
Mariam Cates (14.5%)
Jeremy Hunt (14.6%)
Grant Shapps (21.1%).
CONCLUSION BELOW ⤵️
13/n
No political commentator who claims to have serious views on the future of British politics -- and Britain -- should ignore this. For instance, a vicious battle for the soul of the Conservative Party will take place after the election. But it will be decided by those...
14/n
...who avoided the great election cull. That matters, as key members of one faction or another might lose their seats. Equally what legislation would a Starmer Ministry with a huge majority pass, because they'll be able to push through almost anything?
ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is the bravest intervention by a British political leader I can remember. It lays out in stark terms the central problem of the UK economy: we have substituted investment for entitlements. The solution is painful, but necessary. This thread will attempt to explain.
@WilliamClouston argues that since 1955, government spending as a percentage of GDP has been stable. But in 1975, a change was made in the composition. In the 20 years before, entitlements averaged 6.4% of GDP and public investment 5.3%. But after 1975, a new trend emerged.
2/n
@WilliamClouston The government started spending a much higher percentage of GDP on entitlements, and 'taking' that money from investment. From 1976 until 2024, entitlements rose to an average of 10.2% of GDP and public investment fell to an average of just 1.7%.
I wrote that @GoodwinMJ was correct to say that serious pro-natalism was a far better solution to an aging population than high immigration, but that people would howl at the consequences of "serious pro-natal policy". To understand why, let's look at what that would entail.
A government serious about increasing the birth rate would use the full suite of options open to it. These would broadly fall into three categories.
1. Public messaging 2. Tax and financial incentives 3. Non-monetary incentives (nudging).
2/n
Take smoking. All three categories operated in parallel for decades.
1. A public health campaign to raise awareness. 2. Increased taxes on cigarettes. 3. Making smoking progressively harder to do (pub ban) while helping people quit (smoking cessation through the NHS).
3/n
If you actually read it, the Trump (or should that be Witkoff-Dmitriev?) Peace Plan includes *significant* Russian concessions. So why is it being dismissed out of hand by the UK press and European political class?
🧵 1/n
Before I start, we should be clear that this is a super important matter—about war with a nuclear armed power; about literally trillions of dollars of total economic cost to Europe—and so the concerned citizen must take time to inform him or herself.
2/n
As will become apparent, the legacy press in the UK appears to be untrustworthy on this issue (surprise!) We need to do better, so let us try to break down the plan and then answer these questions ourselves.
This is a thread on why Britain is likely to lose the Falkland Islands, probably within the next 25 years, but by 2065 at the latest. We could theoretically avoid this, but will probably not take the necessary steps, so lose them we will.
First things first: it is unlikely we will be faced (on a strategically relevant time frame) with the prospect of losing the islands militarily. We might be militarily weak, but since the 1982 war, we have bolstered defences of the islands, centred on RAF Mount Pleasant.
2/m
These defences involve four permanently stationed Typhoon fighter jets, plus an aerial refuelling tanker; strategic airlift; remote radar heads; Sky Sabre medium range AD missiles; a RN River class patrol boat, as well as destroyers/frigates coming on station as and when.
This Sunday evening, a thread about our lying political elite, about global conflict, about why you are probably manipulated, the reason you have been manipulated, and why you should stop accepting this and demand answers. This is a story that spans the globe, but...
1/n
...it starts at a football match in Edinburgh on 3 August 2024. Local team Hearts were playing Glasgow Rangers. At the match, a Rangers fan unfurled the banner pictured below. It caused such anger that Rangers felt it necessary to publicly condemn the fan and promise...
2/n
...a full investigation. The previous season, the police prosecuted another Rangers fan for unfurling a similar banner (below). Why do these banners elicit such responses? The answer is the white skull and crossbones on both. It is not just any skull and crossbones, but...
In the last thread, I showed how Britain went from being a nation of British culture to a multicultural nation, how that makes the integration of migrants impossible, and why that's been particularly bad for Britain. Now we'll look at the solution.
The basic equation is: immigration in too high numbers equals the creation of ‘communities’, which equals zero chance of integration, which equals the government throwing in the towel and adopting multiculturalism, which equals the importation into Britain a range of...
23/n
...alien wonts, some of which, such as ancient religious and tribal enmities, habitual corruption, and female genital mutilation, are undesirable and undermine the entire social fabric. Ultimately, this will cause exactly the ethnic conflict commonplace in the Indian...
24/n