|
|
Post by hireton on Oct 15, 2022 20:47:53 GMT
Meanwhile, the UK Home Secretary is a semi-detached member of the UK Government;
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 15, 2022 20:48:47 GMT
And by geography, the South of England is consistently showing the largest swings of anywhere in Britain. To take a couple of pollsters' figures: YouGov - Combined South England (most recent 4 polls average) Lab 49% (+23) Con 29% (-24) LibDem 12% (-4) (Changes from GE2019) R&W - SE England region only (most recent 5 polls average) Lab 45% (+23) Con 33% (-21) LibDem 13% (-5) (Changes from GE2109) These are unprecendented figures. At GE1997 Labour trailed the Tories by 8 points in the Combined South (SE+SW+E) and by 13 points in SE England, so these figures are 12-14 points better for Labour in the South than their previous best performance.
Granted that the dynamics of VI in Scotland is different from southern England and there are fewer polls to track changes, but SCon were averaging c.19% in Spring and 14% now, with the 5% loss going to SLab. |
|
|
|
Post by matt126 on Oct 15, 2022 20:56:39 GMT
If anyway checks election sites election Maps seems more realistic than calculus. electionmaps.uk/nowcastWith VI of Lab 49.3 Con 25 LD 9.7 they come up with seats as LAB453 CON 91 LD 37 SNP 49. Obviously these are theoretical but if you browse through the Seats CON still hold on the map particularly in the South and East Anglia many Con Holds are very marginal with many being 3 way marginals with the Only really safe Tory seats being in Lincolnshire/ North East coastal area. It shows how perilous the Tory position is if they are polling 25% nationwide. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 15, 2022 20:57:37 GMT
And how is it possible to spend £120 million on a football team and still not be able to beat Wolves (or Aston Villa) for goodness sake. You'll never beat the Villa, you'll never beat the Villa...... (repeat endlessly) Of course it's possible that you may not beat anyone at all. I don't know a good chant for that, I'm afraid. If this goes on too long we'd better move the conversation to the sport section, but... It's a while since I've been to the hallowed ground but one chant I remember is "He's here, he's there, he's every f---ing where Barry Hole!" |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 15, 2022 21:04:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by James E on Oct 15, 2022 21:07:06 GMT
oldnat The Tories recent collapse seems to have been deepest where their support was largest. But I don't think that it's really 'inevitable' as they could (in theory) shed 20 points across all 'regions' from GE2109. For a precedent, their loss of around 11-12 points at GE1997 was close to uniform across Britain, just a little higher in the South of England. Moreover, there does seem to be a trend in recent GEs for Labour to improve their position in parts of the South of England, as well as London. Hence the Con>Lab swings against the general trend at GE2019 in places such as Canterbury, Wycombe and Runnymede and Weybridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 15, 2022 21:14:50 GMT
If anyway checks election sites election Maps seems more realistic than calculus. electionmaps.uk/nowcastWith VI of Lab 49.3 Con 25 LD 9.7 they come up with seats as LAB453 CON 91 LD 37 SNP 49. Obviously these are theoretical but if you browse through the Seats CON still hold on the map particularly in the South and East Anglia many Con Holds are very marginal with many being 3 way marginals with the Only really safe Tory seats being in Lincolnshire/ North East coastal area. It shows how perilous the Tory position is if they are polling 25% nationwide. There does seem to be a tipping point around 25%. I remember the 1983 election (and have checked the details). Labour got 27.6% of the vote and 209 seats, whereas the SDP/Liberal Alliance got 25.4% and only 23 seats. Of course the UK-wide situation is very different now not least because of the SDP dominating Scotland, but I do feel (no mathematical proof alas) that FPTP can produce these cliff-edge effects once a party drops below a certain threshold. The Tories must aim to get 30% at least or they're really in trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 15, 2022 21:21:21 GMT
You'll never beat the Villa, you'll never beat the Villa...... (repeat endlessly) Of course it's possible that you may not beat anyone at all. I don't know a good chant for that, I'm afraid. If this goes on too long we'd better move the conversation to the sport section, but... It's a while since I've been to the hallowed ground but one chant I remember is "He's here, he's there, he's every f---ing where Barry Hole!" The Blues fans did an amusing version of that chant at a second city derby in the late 60s. 50,000 were in attendance for a then Second Division game. Three Villa players had broken a pre match alcohol embargo and were found drinking in a city centre pub on the Thursday night before the game. Docherty, then the Villa Manager, dropped all three. Club policy. The Blues fans at the game then came up with their particular version. "He's here, he's there he's in the Rose and Crown, Barrie Hole, Barrie Hole, he's......" Terrace wit at its very best from our noisy neighbours down the road in Small Heath. Denis Howell's old fiefdom. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2022 21:24:25 GMT
Absolutely. PMINO has a nice ring to it. How long can this work though? How long can you have a PM who the whole world can see is a totally busted flush, completely devoid of power, authority, and even respect? She will rightly have her U-turns on this fiscal fiasco rammed down her throat incessantly in the coming days. Surely this is terminally untenable for her. So what next? The longer she stays, the more the CON brand is trashed, because she is now such an easy target for a shoeing from KS and others, (glad to see he has taken my, and many others', advice to pin the blame for all this incompetence squarely with CON. LAB must maintain this drumbeat for all it's worth). Many on her own side know she has to go, and pronto, but how? What sort of mechanism? A 'Unity' candidate? Good luck with that with so many warring factions in the CLP. Another interminable 'election' among the blue rinse brigade? Surely a non-starter. A 'Coronation' of a new top team? If it could be arranged, (doubtful), there seems to be a rising groundswell among the public per recent polling that there is no appetite for this, since current policies bear so little resemblance to the 'mandate' from 2019, and a GE appears to be gaining popular traction as the way to resolve the situation. But CON know that an election any time soon is likely to mean defeat, possibly annihilation, and will be desperate to avoid one. CON seem to be in a terrible bind, whichever way you slice it. Interesting days ahead. If they were the Republicans, they would go back to Boris - warts and all. Who else do they have who could be a vote winner. I'm coming around to the idea this will happen I can see why you might say that. But 'controversial' seems much too small a word to describe that option. We already seem to be in a very different world, with very different problems, to when he was 'in charge'. It already seems like years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 15, 2022 21:26:30 GMT
crossbat11I was at that match. The Blues fans were very witty in those days. Wittier than you remember. The actual riposte was: "He's up, he's down, He's in the Rose and Crown" etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 15, 2022 21:32:27 GMT
crossbat11I was at that match. The Blues fans were very witty in those days. Wittier than you remember. The actual riposte was: "He's up, he's down, He's in the Rose and Crown" etc. Hmmmmm. Not my memory of it. That doesn't make much sense either, does it. He's up, he's down?  Hmmm again, as they say. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 15, 2022 21:36:25 GMT
mercian
We must get a separate thread so I can further school you on your misremembered parts of the Holte End repertoire.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,619
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 15, 2022 21:44:19 GMT
If anyway checks election sites election Maps seems more realistic than calculus. electionmaps.uk/nowcastWith VI of Lab 49.3 Con 25 LD 9.7 they come up with seats as LAB453 CON 91 LD 37 SNP 49. Obviously these are theoretical but if you browse through the Seats CON still hold on the map particularly in the South and East Anglia many Con Holds are very marginal with many being 3 way marginals with the Only really safe Tory seats being in Lincolnshire/ North East coastal area. It shows how perilous the Tory position is if they are polling 25% nationwide. There does seem to be a tipping point around 25%. I remember the 1983 election (and have checked the details). Labour got 27.6% of the vote and 209 seats, whereas the SDP/Liberal Alliance got 25.4% and only 23 seats. Of course the UK-wide situation is very different now not least because of the SDP dominating Scotland, but I do feel (no mathematical proof alas) that FPTP can produce these cliff-edge effects once a party drops below a certain threshold. The Tories must aim to get 30% at least or they're really in trouble. No that isn't how FPTP works. FPTP is all about representing geography not people. If the SDP/Liberal Alliance had got the 27.6% in 1983 and Labour the 25.4%, Labour would have still got more seats than the Alliance because it's vote was better concentrated in certain areas whereas the Alliance vote was very evenly spread. 25% is no tipping point, it all depends where your support is. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,619
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 15, 2022 21:51:41 GMT
If anyway checks election sites election Maps seems more realistic than calculus. electionmaps.uk/nowcastWith VI of Lab 49.3 Con 25 LD 9.7 they come up with seats as LAB453 CON 91 LD 37 SNP 49. Obviously these are theoretical but if you browse through the Seats CON still hold on the map particularly in the South and East Anglia many Con Holds are very marginal with many being 3 way marginals with the Only really safe Tory seats being in Lincolnshire/ North East coastal area. It shows how perilous the Tory position is if they are polling 25% nationwide. What happens if you put the figures from 2019 (Con 44.7, Lab 33.0, LD 11.8) in - does it produce something close to the 2019 result? |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 15, 2022 22:02:30 GMT
I concur.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 15, 2022 22:02:32 GMT
pjw1961
Good point about vote share and its erratic translation to seat gain under FPTP. In the 1997 and 2001 elections the Tories were punished severely in terms of seats gained on vote shares that were 30%, some 3-4% better than Labour's vote share in 1983. They got little more than 160 seats in both elections, record lows for one of the two major parties in British politics.
As you say, their problem was geographic vote distribution.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,155
|
Post by domjg on Oct 15, 2022 22:18:17 GMT
Apparently there are rumours Bravermann is angling to become PM. Wtf? Have these people no shame or selfawareness at all? Not even a teeny tiny bit? We need to make sure this party of reality estranged loonies spends a long time in the wilderness thinking about wht it's done.
In the meantime I also find myself strangely and pathetically relieved that someone with experience and at least a certain grasp of political reality is at the heart of government as for me at least the feeling that we were at the whims of idiots living in a fantasy world was a cause of genuine stress.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 15, 2022 22:26:59 GMT
mercian We must get a separate thread so I can further school you on your misremembered parts of the Holte End repertoire. I have replied on the Sports thread. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 15, 2022 22:29:10 GMT
Apparently there are rumours Bravermann is angling to become PM. Wtf? Have these people no shame or selfawareness at all? Not even a teeny tiny bit? We need to make sure this party of reality estranged loonies spends a long time in the wilderness thinking about wht it's done. In the meantime I also find myself strangely and pathetically relieved that someone with experience and at least a certain grasp of political reality is at the heart of government as for me at least the feeling that we were at the whims of idiots living in a fantasy world was a cause of genuine stress. I presume you're talking about Hunt and I tend to agree. That's not to say I like him as a politician, or agree with him on much, but it would be a little silly to claim that he's not a serious politician with a reasonable armoury of political skills. He has considerable ministerial experience too. These were the reasons I thought he might have been the Tories best bet as leader. He has flaws, obviously, not least his wooden demeanour as a public performer, and his ministerial record is by no means blameless. There's something of the corpospeak identikit politician about him too, but he's a serious player who will bring some much needed professionalism to Truss's cabinet. I think it's a mistake for political opponents of the Tories to rubbish their politicians simply because we don't like them or because they play for the other team. Some Tories can do politics quite well. Not many these days, I admit, but Hunt certainly can. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Oct 15, 2022 22:35:32 GMT
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,155
|
Post by domjg on Oct 15, 2022 22:36:20 GMT
Apparently there are rumours Bravermann is angling to become PM. Wtf? Have these people no shame or selfawareness at all? Not even a teeny tiny bit? We need to make sure this party of reality estranged loonies spends a long time in the wilderness thinking about wht it's done. In the meantime I also find myself strangely and pathetically relieved that someone with experience and at least a certain grasp of political reality is at the heart of government as for me at least the feeling that we were at the whims of idiots living in a fantasy world was a cause of genuine stress. I presume you're talking about Hunt and I tend to agree. That's not to say I like him as a politician, or agree with him on much, but it would be a little silly to claim that he's not a serious politician with a reasonable armoury of political skills. He has considerable ministerial experience too. These were the reasons I thought he might have been the Tories best bet as leader. He has flaws, obviously, not least his wooden demeanour as a public performer, and his ministerial record is by no means blameless. There's something of the corpospeak identikit politician about him too, but he's a serious player who will bring some much needed professionalism to Truss's cabinet. I think it's a mistake for political opponents of the Tories to rubbish their politicians simply because we don't like them or because they play for the other team. Some Tories can do politics quite well. Not many these days, I admit, but Hunt certainly can. Indeed. A few years ago if you'd told me I'd be happy for Hunt to be in a position of real power I'd have been incredulous but it's funny how everything's relative and we've really been exposed to the political depths in the last few weeks. Nonetheless he's nothing more than an emergency, temporary sticking plaster doing little more than holding the real chaos at bay and of course I want his tenure to be very short and replaced by Reeves as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 15, 2022 22:37:18 GMT
There does seem to be a tipping point around 25%. I remember the 1983 election (and have checked the details). Labour got 27.6% of the vote and 209 seats, whereas the SDP/Liberal Alliance got 25.4% and only 23 seats. Of course the UK-wide situation is very different now not least because of the SDP dominating Scotland, but I do feel (no mathematical proof alas) that FPTP can produce these cliff-edge effects once a party drops below a certain threshold. The Tories must aim to get 30% at least or they're really in trouble. No that isn't how FPTP works. FPTP is all about representing geography not people. If the SDP/Liberal Alliance had got the 27.6% in 1983 and Labour the 25.4%, Labour would have still got more seats than the Alliance because it's vote was better concentrated in certain areas whereas the Alliance vote was very evenly spread. 25% is no tipping point, it all depends where your support is. I agree up to a point, but if as you say the proportions were reversed I would expect to see that the Alliance would at least have doubled their seats. I don't have access to the detailed results to see how many seats they were close in, so we'll probably have to leave it there. However I expect you'll agree that pretty well any form of PR would make such disparities impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 15, 2022 22:54:20 GMT
He did listen to the astronomical community and redesigned his satellites to reflect less light. But if he wasn't the one putting lots of satellites into orbit someone else would. Every man and their dog are now fighting to get into the small satellite launch market, so there will be many more objects up there in the coming years, providing a myriad of services. Many satellites is the future. If you read the article I referenced, you will see that his latest satellites are brighter than the earlier ones because he removed the shielding as it interfered with another facility he wanted to add. Well, I read the article, and did notice from it:
"In a presentation last month to the Federation of Astronomical Societies, David Goldstein, principal engineer at SpaceX, said the company was working on new technologies to mitigate the brightness of the second-generation Starlink satellites. That includes development of a “dielectric mirror sticker” to place on the satellites to reflect sunlight away from the Earth.
He said that approach would make the satellites 10 times dimmer than if they were coated with vantablack, one of the darkest commercially available paint. That paint also erodes in the space environment and has poor thermal performance.
Other panelists at the AAS event acknowledged that SpaceX and other companies were making efforts to reduce the brightness of their satellites. “SpaceX has put in a lot of money and person-power into solving this problem,” said Connie Walker, co-director of the International Astronomical Union’s Centre for the Protection of the Dark and Quiet Sky from Satellite Constellation Interference. “They’re trying again to create a mitigation strategy to lower the brightness of their satellites.”
Which is not quite the maverick and irresponsible picture of SpaceX and Elon Musk that you seem keen to paint? When even the astronomers are saying: "SpaceX has put in a lot of money and person-power into solving this problem,”? I don't deny an issue exists, but the satellites are not being launched for trivial reasons, rather to bring internet coverage to areas which can't be covered by other means. That is in it's infancy, and should not be seen as a direct competitor. Starlink has as it's goal worldwide coverage - that would be impossible with solar drones, not least due to a lot of latitudes not having enough daylight. (Forget about the entire arctic circle during the entire winter.) There are a host of other problems - having enough to cover a wide enough area. Interconnectivity. Regulatory and safety of aviation considerations of having a huge number of such drones. Reliability and redundancy. Such drones may have a future in the same way that current drones do at present, extending the loiter period over an area of military interest, for example. Even providing battlefield comms to a user in a given area possibly. But as a direct competitor to what Starlink is starting to do - i don't see it in my lifetime. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,555
|
Post by Danny on Oct 16, 2022 6:27:33 GMT
oldnat The Tories recent collapse seems to have been deepest where their support was largest. But I don't think that it's really 'inevitable' as they could (in theory) shed 20 points across all 'regions' from GE2109. For a precedent, their loss of around 11-12 points at GE1997 was close to uniform across Britain, just a little higher in the South of England. Moreover, there does seem to be a trend in recent GEs for Labour to improve their position in parts of the South of England, as well as London. Hence the Con>Lab swings against the general trend at GE2019 in places such as Canterbury, Wycombe and Runnymede and Weybridge. Con won in 2019 on the back of brexit. People spoke about the collapsing red wall but the reality was brexit sucking in voters from all over. These people should not be expected to behave like life long tory voters, even if they are life long tory abstainers. They will be much more likely to revert to previous position and we don't know if pollsters are allowing for their voting history further back than the last election. They usually don't. That last election threw up some anomalies where parts of the South were behaving more like London instead of traditional tory shires. This effect must extend further than where it was noticeable last time, and maybe under the extreme distaste for con now is becoming evident further out. Yep, it's right where there are most cons then numerically if the same percentage of the total switch it will appear as a bigger overall swing. Brexit...those fishermen and farmers must be feeling real numpties now for supporting brexit. Others scattered across the country must be starting to see brexit has done the opposite of what was promised. Truss said we must spend more on defence, and despite not being particularly keen on this I really see the point in the importance of supporting ukraine, but it isn't the only place this could happen. Russia is back. Yet Truss and now hunt have said defence must take its share of cuts. That isn't just ignoring what was one of just two areas the government recently polled well, its undermining one of their few perceived successes. it is probably more a concern for anyone motivated in brexit by national greatness, and really hitting con. The other area they were still seen as doing well was covid management. Many here seem desperate to not let the public know how badly that was miss managed, how pointless lockdown was and how special treatment of covid is still reducing nhs capacity of the NHS and therefore killing people. Whereas covid was never as dangerous as initially feared and so never merited such drastic and costly intervention. Under Thatcher I think the 70s energy crises were somehow blamed on labour and strikes. Whereas the key cause was opec and oil producing countries getting their independence from imperial powers so they could charge an arguably fair price for their oil. Well this time opec just cut production as the price spikes started to wane. Can Truss blame that on labour government and worker strikes this time? Trying to blame russia, which is obviously cheering on opec, but our crisis now is really a failure of those in power for the last 12 years to push forward renewables. Are voters realising it was a con policy mistake which caused the current energy mess, or at least made it a lot worse for the uk? Energy delivery in the uk is pretty much organised according to con ideas dating from Thatcher and has largely ditched emphasis on energy security and price stability. Those who remember power cuts in their youth may now be wondering how con have brought us back to that. The Thatcherite dream collapsing around our ears. And then Truss and Kwarteng come along saying if only we believe more in Thatcherite ideas and apply them harder, all will be well. Typically con voters are older and the ones who do remember all that. It's all come full circle. Con have led us back to where they began in 70s crises. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 16, 2022 6:41:56 GMT
There are some things that Hunt could do that wouldn't hurt too many people too much. Pension tax relief is one such area. It costs around £42bn, with 41% of that going to the 14% of taxpayers earning over £50,000.
There are many arguments against scrapping tax reliefs on pension contributions, and the picture is also clouded by the £21bn or so raised in tax from pension payments, but some argue that we should move from the current 'exempt, exempt, taxed' situation (contributions and capital growth are untaxed, but earnings received from pensions are taxed) to a 'taxed, exempt, exempt' system, where you don't pay tax on capital growth or earnings from pensions, but instead don't get the relief when you out it in. That would save a lot of money upfront, but lose tax at a later date, but the shift would be complex.
One quick fix that would very much be part of 'levelling up' would be to tweak the current system to skew tax relief to lower earners. It would cause outrage in the Telegraph, but scrapping the higher rate reliefs for a couple of years might save £10 - £15bn a year, and if Hunt said that after that a new flat rate of 25% relief would be introduced, we could end up in a situation where a substantial level of temporary savings could be made to help head off the immediate fiscal crisis, paid for by the most well off, with more modest permanent savings then kicking in but where the majority of earners actually receive a boost to their pensions.
This, as I say, would be a sign that the government takes levelling up seriously, so I guess is highly unlikely to happen, as this was always a meaningless slogan.
Also, one other move for Hunt would be to unpick the energy price cap. On this, in broad terms I think Labour was right and the Conservatives wrong. There was no need to announce a two year freeze, as we have no idea at all what the energy situation will be in this time frame. Putting the government on the hook for such an extended period was a mistake, and it would have been far better to stick with a shorter period of price manipulation and then see how other measures in the energy market behave over that time, extending the support if necessary.
One approach would have been for six monthly reviews, with consumers paying some of the cost of rising energy prices if appropriate. So, in six months time, wages may have inflated by 4 or5%, so consumers should see their bills rise by a similar amount, even if wholesale energy prices remain where they are now, shaving 5% off the costs of the bailout. Do the same six months later, than again after that, and the city has less to worry about in terms of unfunded promises. It might not work out like that, but you give yourself more time to react and adapt, without just throwing taxpayer cash at the problem in a way the markets don't like.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Oct 16, 2022 6:42:52 GMT
You mean it's not true? I didn't have time yesterday between a complicated DIY project to undertake the essential fact check, but it all seems a bit fishy. Not the first time. Brexit is obviously a long term game. Sort of glad the wets are back in charge of the Tory Party. Elwood has also been readmitted and I wonder how long the instinctively incompetent Braverman can stay and blag that office. I suspect now that Truss has been turned into a fully functional puppet, only the messaging functions need a bit of tweaking, the MPs will be quite happy with her. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,555
|
Post by Danny on Oct 16, 2022 6:53:48 GMT
I would like to know what international treaties ban the recreational use of cannabis as it is legal in many US states, and also of course in parts of the Netherlands (as well as in other countries and/or territories). Of course Bermuda can always become fully independent and remove this problem. Isn't there an issue in the US that the federal government might commit to treaties but it is beyond its authority to impose that on states which are semi independent in certain respects? There are already contradictions between federal and state law about drugs. I seem to remember some states legalised cannabis but couldn't use credit cards or bank accounts to handle the proceeds of their sale, because federal law applied to banks. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 16, 2022 7:00:52 GMT
eor - I wondered about the Mark Carney figures, but I think it may be based on GDP by purchasing power parity (PPP). According to the IMF, the UK economy is 72% the size of Germany in 2022, but I can't find the commensurate 2016 figures to check.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Oct 16, 2022 7:10:48 GMT
eor - I wondered about the Mark Carney figures, but I think it may be based on GDP by purchasing power parity (PPP). According to the IMF, the UK economy is 72% the size of Germany in 2022, but I can't find the commensurate 2016 figures to check. Fact checking now....... |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,155
|
Post by domjg on Oct 16, 2022 7:22:24 GMT
eor - I wondered about the Mark Carney figures, but I think it may be based on GDP by purchasing power parity (PPP). According to the IMF, the UK economy is 72% the size of Germany in 2022, but I can't find the commensurate 2016 figures to check. Fact checking now....... 'cos obviously if the economy is only 10 per cent smaller relative to Germany's than it was in 2016 everything's fine and dandy eh? |
|
)
