ml1dch

Indeed. However it does *feel* that the people who don't want the first is restricted to the radical fringes of right-wing parties in Israel and abroad (admittedly, some of whom hold an unfortunate amount of power) Whereas the people who don't want the second, while holding a lot less power, are a lot more common.

As an avid follower of polls, People Polling should be avoided like the plague. It's Matt Goodwin's vehicle to push whatever story he wants pushing. Really not worth the paper it's printed on. Also - the big change, note that it's comparing with "data" from six months ago.

It could. However since that internet survey a few days ago there have been a number of elections that have happened, and it doesn't seem to have had any material impact on Labour's vote share. Some of them in areas with large Muslim communities. Also the national polls that have been released since don't seem to show any significant change. You'd think that if the UK's Muslim vote was deserting the Labour Party en masse that wouldn't result in Labour +0 or Labour +1 like most of them have. It's definitely going to have some impact. I just think that some isn't going to be all that much.

The worst politicians in the world are the ones who whisper to a journalist how they are THIS CLOSE to resigning on a point of principle only to do nothing. Either just do it, or stop trying to claim any emotional credit for something you're too cowardly to do.

So you keep saying, but still seem to be very short on the detail of how or why.

The swing away from Labour should be much larger if the numbers from that internet poll were in any way representative.

Well yes, all party leaders are temporary. And (likely) several years ahead of when they leave, it's usually difficult to predict who replaces them. If things carry on along this trajectory I think that MPs and members will find the "Labour have never had a female leader" calls too loud to ignore and it'll probably be Reeves.

With the greatest of respect, this feels a lot like rationalising why the bloke you don't like is going to fail, because you don't like him. If the expectation is that Starmer is going to win the election in this thought experiment but only then do "they" want to replace him, why didn't "they" just replace him 18 months ago when he was struggling and would have lost to anyone that a half-organised faction had put up against him? Or why don't "they" replace him before the election? The 20 point poll lead plus better PR is surely what you want going into your most winnable election in a generation, not after. And who is "they", anyway? I though that half the problem is that Starmer IS New Labour? Or is he not now? Why didn't New Labour just just put their guy in from the start if they wield this power? Who is it that isn't powerful enough to stop Starmer controlling the PLP, PPC selection, the NEC etc, but is powerful enough to just get rid of him for vague charisma reasons shortly after the country decided they were happy enough for him to become Prime Minister? Is this basically just "Mandelson has controlled everything all along" or are there other people so deeply embedded that they have this power? I'd be very interested to read their Wikipedia bios if so, as I'm missing pieces of my political knowledge.

I mean...never say never in the current political climate. But why? And how? The mechanism for removing a Labour leader is a lot harder than it is to remove a Tory one. And if you have a Labour leader that is (broadly) popular in the party, (broadly) popular in the country, in Government, having won an election for his party for the first time in two decades, who controls pretty much all the levers of power in his party - who is the group of people that is stopping him from "lasting" and why?

Sort of thing that could make a difference in Islington North as well.

More chance of Corbyn getting it. He's currently hated by the whole Tory party for his travel diary in the summer bigging up how great the Taliban are. They elected his replacement today for Chair of the Defence Select Committee after his position on that was untenable.

Definitely wouldn't rule it out. However, the winner will almost certainly be whichever candidate the right of the party coalesces around, as that is who the members will vote for. I think that those MPs will think "we did this Truss thing already, let's try something different" Braverman is then the obvious choice, but I wouldn't completely rule out her being the 2024 Portillo moment.

I'd say the bigger reason is that he's not an MP. And given it would be (a) difficult for him to become one again without the blessing of the leader and (b) obvious that if he tried to become one it would with the intention of usurping the leader, it'll be a while before he's back.

While it might well be true, the husbands of the released Nurit Cooper and Yocheved Lifshitz are still being held hostage. If I'd been released from that situation and my wife were still there I probably wouldn't be going on the news and calling them murderous scumbags either, even if that's what I thought.

Why on earth did they think that announcing that they were scrapping a massive piece of national infrastructure would suddenly mean more people would want to vote for them?

"Still Somehow The Worst Shipman" (h/t @HanoiVillan) is probably the most reliable journalist for reporting on what's going on inside the Tory party since James Forsyth left The Spectator to help Sunak destroy his reputation. It's going to be interesting how that sort of journalist who relies on their knowledge of Tory party infighting as their reason to appear on rolling news / on podcasts / in the papers deals with a new set of characters that they've never really had to show any interest in before.

Guess it depends on your priorities. Reckon I'd choose a 80/20 Labour / Lib Dem split over a 90/10 one. But yes, even fewer Tories is also good.

He's stuck though. Any move to the centre (which also isn't his own politics, and Prime Ministers normally tend to want to stick with what they actually want) will be met with dissent from dozens in his own party. The last thing he needs right now is the likes of Braverman resigning, briefing against him and preparing her own leadership bid.

I wouldn't go that far. But I think that the only thing that can lead to a Tory government after the next election is stuff happening that they aren't in control of. Labour could have a massive impolosion. It would need to be huge, but it wouldn't be impossible. If World War III breaks out two weeks before the election, I imagine the Tories would probably win on a continuity ticket. There are no policy levers that they can pull which will make a difference for them, so agree that there's nothing THEY can do. Actually, I suppose they could start World War III, but I imagine the country wouldn't thank them in those circumstances.

Fortunately, next Monday marks 12 months of Sunak being leader. And 12 months is the date from which letters can go in to get rid of him. You know what to do, Tory MPs. edit - or rather, letters that go in can have the effect of causing a leadership challenge.

I think I just cringed myself to death.

That means they just about retain their 55th safest seat. It doesn't mean they win a General Election. If the lesson that they take from the two last night is that they should be even more UKKIPpy than they are already, their defeat will be even bigger.