26-Nov 2022 : LAB: 50% / CON: 27% / LDEM: 9% / GRN: 4%

[oldnat]

robbiealive

It is certainly a valid analysis to look at which board members would support Labour in a UK election, and who wouldn't.

It would be equally valid to look at which board members would support Tories in a UK election, and who wouldn't, or support REFUK in a UK election, and who wouldn't, or support the Lib Dems a UK election, and who wouldn't, or support the SNP in a UK election, and who wouldn't, or support the DUP or SF or Alliance in a UK election, and who wouldn't, or any other binary comparison.

The choices available vary across the 4 polities within the UK, so a simple Anglocentric approach would seem to be of little value, even to simple Anglocentrics.

Most on this board can't vote SNP, PC, SF, DUP, Alliance etc - even if they wanted to. Those resident outwith England might make very different choices if they were in that green and pleasant land (I would vote English Green, if a candidate was available).

The level of antipathy to other parties tends to be on a sliding scale. For example, I have never voted SCon and never will. I have been a member of, campaigned and voted for Scottish Liberals and SLab in the past, and might even do so again if their English equivalents offered EU membership and extensive guaranteed powers for the Scottish Parliament.

The fondness for binary options is what has prevented the introduction of PR. It suits the establishment.

[moby]

Nov 30, 2022 0:11:24 GMT mercian said:

Nov 29, 2022 18:37:34 GMT guymonde said:

Just in. The boroughs with the highest numbers receiving asylum seekers are Hillingdon and Hounslow, next to Heathrow.
Each has asylum seekers amount to about 1% of their total population. Most of the 3400 people are accommodated in hotels - 2600 in hotels locally and 800 'dispersed', 60 in their own sourced accommodation, the rest I presume in hotels elsewhere.
There are 150 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in one borough. A recent comparison with a provision borough with similar population (I think Cambridge) was 2 children.
The sheer volume of children is putting immense pressure on the teams which are doing age assessments, placements, finance and admin tasks, as well as dealing with health needs that are not met in the hotels. This is impacting commissioning, staff wellbeing, service capacity and opening up the possibility of legal failures across the boroughs.
On top of this 3400, Home Office are going on Booking.com (I made that up) and has been independently buying odd rooms around the boroughs where there's a bit of capacity (up to 80 in one hotel)
One hotel I have heard of has over 800 and another nearly 700 booked by the local authority.
How council officers upon the vast majority falls (on top of their day job) deals with the pressure beggars belief. I wonder how that will be received more widely when the public understand what's going on. how unfairly the problem is shared, and the impact will impact on already overstretched social etc services

Can anyone explain why illegal immigrants are put up in hotels while homeless British people are left to rot?

They are two totally different social issues and profiles. In my experience homeless people are not "left to rot", whether British or any other nationality. Each local authority has a duty of care regarding homelessness and a budget is allocated for this, (Andy Burnham has prioritised a successful programme of support in Manchester). Despite this people often remain homeless or become homeless again however after having been given housing because of domestic abuse, mental health, alcohol, drug, family dislocation issues and because councils struggle to manage the issues they present. For instance some people lead lives which do not fit in with managing a tenancy, paying bills etc because their money goes elsewhere due to addiction. It's a huge social issue and has nothing to do with nationality except that foreign nationals without ID find it harder to get a local authority to accept a duty to house them.

[steve]

mercian.

Your recollection is mistaken the highest vote for a single party post WW2 was 49.7% in 1955 when the Tories won a majority the highest vote for Labour was in 1951 with 48.1% where despite Labour comfortably winning the popular vote the Tories won a majority of seats.

The conservatives did achieve 50% + results before WW2 however some coincided with a National Government the result in 1935 of 51.8% was the only time with something resembling universal suffrage that a party won over 50%.

[steve]

robbiealive
While I did post quite often on ukpr 1 I spent nearly two years not posting at all as the moderator there considered my postings too partisan labour , in reality too anti tory.
Which is a tad bizarre given that I am a member of the liberal democrats and was for most of that time I've never been particularly doctrinal about it.
My posts in respect of the Tory party became more robust after the arrival of crook a nd liar Spaffer but if I recall correctly AW banned me while May was still PM and I was never particularly acidic in my comments about her.
I think I only got back to posting when AW lost interest.

I've tried to make up for the lost opportunities!

[crossbat11]

After my stunningly accurate predictions for the results in Group B of this World Cup, I now feel confident enough to tell my readers the result of the next General Election

....REDACTED.... will be the largest party and and will form a minority government with the confidence and supply support of the ......REDACTED..... and .....REDACTED..... parties.

[alec]

One here that might interest c-a-r-f-r-e-w and a few others. It's ostensibly about evidence for the efficacy of masks in relation to covid, but it's actually far more about the application of the correct scientific method to a specific problem. The debate on mask efficacy is bogged down with the medical establishment bemoaning the lack of 'randomized controlled trial' (RCT) data, which are the best level of data for clinical and medical science. But RCTs are absolutely hopeless when applied to engineered systems where you can measure all the variables.

So, for example, seatbelts in cars are an obvious safety measure that works. They have never, ever been exposed to an RCT to provide proof, because we can provide that proof by use of experiment, crash test dummies and injury assessments after real life accidents. The tweet thread author makes the point that firemen and women wear full high grade respirator systems, despite never having conducted an RCT on there efficacy. If we applied the same logic to the fire service as to covid, we would suggest that we haven't got the evidence that respirators work, and ask the fire service to wear simple medical masks when fighting blazes. That would be truly stupid.

Covid has been dogged by this desire for RCT evidence, when the NPIs we need are best measured in more appropriate ways. This work has been done, and the results are very clear indeed; masking really works, air ventilation and filtration is excellent, social distancing is highly effective, isolation when sick is vital, etc. Some clinicians and 'evidence based' medical experts have spent far to much time pontificating on areas of data measurement outwith their area of expertise. Why ask a medical doctor about masks, airflow and virus particle transmission when we have physics and engineering experts who know far more about this stuff?

Anyway - here is the thread -

[Mr Poppy]

ALERT, ALERT. Avatar change. UK is not a 2 pet-ty system so I included representatives from the other pet-ties. A parrot for SNP seems apt and a pig. I wouldn't want to form a coalition or C&S with the pig but back in 2010-15 they did serve themselves up as bacon. Miliband struggled with eating the bacon into GE'15 and the country went to the dogs after that. Still it looks like the LAB cat has finally got the cream and is that Biden telling CON HMG that they do need to agree the NIP reimplementation if they expect a biscuit? 

[crossbat11]

Nov 29, 2022 23:55:50 GMT mercian said:

Nov 29, 2022 17:27:35 GMT crossbat11 said:

Jeepers creepers, Mercian and Colin contemplating a Labour vote? Carfrew, shevii, ptarmigan etc, I take it all back. Starmer must be an utter duffer!

P.S. I don't believe a word of it, by the way. Utter tosh.

🤔😉🤣

Well unlike some of you, I'm not a tribal voter. I often don't finally decide who to vote for until I'm in the polling booth, even if I've got a pretty good idea beforehand.   I don't keep a record, but I've probably voted Tory more often than anything else (particularly when the Blessed Margaret was around). I can remember voting for the Natural Law Party (mattress bouncers) at least once and certainly UKIP and Brexit and quite likely LibDems or one of their forebears.  I think I voted Green once before I discovered their extreme left stance on things other than the environment.  I would definitely vote for the Monster Raving Loonies if they stood in my constituency. Anyway, I would definitely consider voting Labour if they were wholeheartedly committed to PR elections to the HoL in their first term. I can't see that happening but you never know. 

Crikey, that's some niche voting determinant. PR to elect the second chamber? Such a big issue for a former Tory, UKIP and Brexit Party voter that they'd contemplate a Labour vote if they offered it?

Forgive me for thinking that this putative deal-sealing aspect of Labour policy is a load of old poppycock.

[jib]

Nov 30, 2022 0:38:40 GMT mercian said:

I've just remembered why I logged on tonight. I had a thought about a different way to look at the recent polls. Labour have consistently in the low 50% range. This is roughly equivalent to the Leave vote in 2016, which was over 17 million. The most any political party has ever got in a UK GE is something over 14 million. Therefore if turnout in the next GE matched that in the referendum, Labour would have the landslide to end all landslides.
Somehow that size of vote seems unlikely to me. Labour do seem very likely to win an overall majority, but the last time a party got over 50% of the popular vote was back in the early 1950s if I remember correctly, and it was much more of a 2-party system back then.

An intersting thought mercian.

The 1950s a "golden era" for the Tories.

They were just shy of 50% UK wide in 1955, and achieved 50.1% in Scotland that year.

How times change. The Liberals were also in the doldrums then after ill conceived political alliances pre-war. 

[domjg]

Nov 30, 2022 7:35:33 GMT steve said:

robbiealive
While I did post quite often on ukpr 1 I spent nearly two years not posting at all as the moderator there considered my postings too partisan labour , in reality too anti tory.
Which is a tad bizarre given that I am a member of the liberal democrats and was for most of that time I've never been particularly doctrinal about it.
My posts in respect of the Tory party became more robust after the arrival of crook a nd liar Spaffer but if I recall correctly AW banned me while May was still PM and I was never particularly acidic in my comments about her.
I think I only got back to posting when AW lost interest.

I've tried to make up for the lost opportunities!

I thought AW was pompous, partisan and grasping as it turned out (he kept his moribund website active for a whole year after the last update just to eke out a bit of extra ad revenue). I had been briefly able to join ukpr1 in the aftermath of the 2016 referendum when he was still allowing new people in. I made a comment that I assume was considered too overtly anti-brexit however (was not unpleasant by any means) as one of my first posts and that was it. Suddenly I was out and wasn't allowed back in. No explanation, my posts just suddenly stayed in moderation. I'd managed about 3 of them. By the time I tried to comment again a few years later he was clearly no longer allowing (couldn't be bothered to moderate) new posters. 

[Danny]

Nov 30, 2022 8:07:01 GMT alec said:

One here that might interest c-a-r-f-r-e-w and a few others. It's ostensibly about evidence for the efficacy of masks in relation to covid, but it's actually far more about the application of the correct scientific method to a specific problem. The debate on mask efficacy is bogged down with the medical establishment bemoaning the lack of 'randomized controlled trial' (RCT) data, which are the best level of data for clinical and medical science. But RCTs are absolutely hopeless when applied to engineered systems where you can measure all the variables.

I really dont understand why you consider a randomized trial as hopeless. The whole point is you dont need to measure everything exactly, but instead look at outcomes of group A and group B. The advantage is the randomzed trial will take into account things you have not thought of. An example from the nuclear industry. Nuclear reactors were declared safe based upon measuring all the engineering variables. Published statistics about one in a million years chances of a dangerous accident. And then along came Chernobyl, caused by operator error, and Fukushima, caused by a Tsunami. No one had taken into account the real risk of either.

So, for example, seatbelts in cars are an obvious safety measure that works. They have never, ever been exposed to an RCT to provide proof, because we can provide that proof by use of experiment, crash test dummies and injury assessments after real life accidents.

And again, are you taking into account the proven fact that people react to their situation? If you order someone to wear a seatbelt and tell them they are now safe, they feel safe to double their speed, because even if the worst happens, they will be protected. yep, thats a real thing. You can make roads safer by making them look more dangerous, makes people act more carefully. I also happened to study the road deaths and accident statistics about ten years after the mandatory seatbelts change. It was interesting to compare the then claims how much seatbelts had saved lives etc, with a projection of the death rate based upon pre introduction statistics. What happened was that supporters claimed the mandatory seat belts had saved X lives, whereas if you projected previous trends then you would have expected deaths to have fallen by x/2 anyway (approx, i forget). Thats because deaths have fallen steadily every year for all sorts of reasons including better designed cars and road improvements at danger spots. Supporters of the legal reuqirement grossly over claimed its effectiveness. They could indeed say that wearing a belt caused a step change in safety based upon crash testing, but in the real world the situation was more complicated. Airbags nowadays must have greatly reduced the benefits or need for seat belts at all, but we havnt got round to repealing laws on mandatory seat belts because they arent helping?

All these confounding factors are why actual well designed trials comparing two groups are so important.

The tweet thread author makes the point that firemen and women wear full high grade respirator systems, despite never having conducted an RCT on there efficacy. If we applied the same logic to the fire service as to covid, we would suggest that we haven't got the evidence that respirators work, and ask the fire service to wear simple medical masks when fighting blazes. That would be truly stupid.

I have to say the risk of a fireman dying from smoke inhalation in a burning building is vastly greater than his risk of dying from breathing in covid. Massively more. The necessary burden of proof is far less. And while there may not have been formal  randomized trials (though I expect there really have), there have been real world trials of using and not using this equipment. The difference is obvious. It is not obvious in the case of covid and population masks.

Covid has been dogged by this desire for RCT evidence, when the NPIs we need are best measured in more appropriate ways.

The bottom line is no one has proved the effectiveness of home use cloth masks in preventing severe or fatal covid when used by a whole population. The confounding problems include that 99% of the population are safe anyway so masks dont help them at all, that a mask which was even 99.9% effective (not possible) might not be good enough because it would still allow covid to pass and infect a susceptible person, which are the only ones at risk. That masks are not worn perfectly so will not perform in the real world as well as in a lab on a dummy. That they are annoying and people will and do just take them off. If the goal is to eradicate covid passing between people, it just doesnt work if you took it off for 5 minutes to have a coffee.


Oh, and news just said police in China tackling protestors against covid lockdown are wearing hazmat suits. Which says what they think is necessary to stop spread.

[Deleted]

Nov 29, 2022 17:27:35 GMT crossbat11 said:

Jeepers creepers, Mercian and Colin contemplating a Labour vote? Carfrew, shevii, ptarmigan etc, I take it all back. Starmer must be an utter duffer!

P.S. I don't believe a word of it, by the way. Utter tosh.

🤔😉🤣

Who cares ?

[Deleted]

Nov 30, 2022 8:31:55 GMT crossbat11 said:

Nov 29, 2022 23:55:50 GMT mercian said:

Well unlike some of you, I'm not a tribal voter. I often don't finally decide who to vote for until I'm in the polling booth, even if I've got a pretty good idea beforehand.   I don't keep a record, but I've probably voted Tory more often than anything else (particularly when the Blessed Margaret was around). I can remember voting for the Natural Law Party (mattress bouncers) at least once and certainly UKIP and Brexit and quite likely LibDems or one of their forebears.  I think I voted Green once before I discovered their extreme left stance on things other than the environment.  I would definitely vote for the Monster Raving Loonies if they stood in my constituency. Anyway, I would definitely consider voting Labour if they were wholeheartedly committed to PR elections to the HoL in their first term. I can't see that happening but you never know. 

Crikey, that's some niche voting determinant. PR to elect the second chamber? Such a big issue for a former Tory, UKIP and Brexit Party voter that they'd contemplate a Labour vote if they offered it?

Forgive me for thinking that this putative deal-sealing aspect of Labour policy is a load of old poppycock.

Forgiven-but who cares ? 

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 30, 2022 9:10:09 GMT colin said:

Nov 30, 2022 8:31:55 GMT crossbat11 said:

Crikey, that's some niche voting determinant. PR to elect the second chamber? Such a big issue for a former Tory, UKIP and Brexit Party voter that they'd contemplate a Labour vote if they offered it?

Forgive me for thinking that this putative deal-sealing aspect of Labour policy is a load of old poppycock.

Forgiven-but who cares ? 

Quite. Given UKPR2a is supposed to be a polling forum then it's a bit creepy how some folks are so obsessed with the views of a tiny sample of 'other' people.

Also bizarre in that anyone who has a scooby about polling would know that in order to win GEs then parties have to reach out to a broad coalition of voters. Boris won GE'19 by keeping 'core' CON voters, uniting 'Leave' voters and by getting a lot of folks who had never voted CON before to 'lend' their vote (and it doesn't look like that loan is going to be rolled over by a lot of them). Brexit was an important issue into GE'19 but isn't now (see 'Most Important Trackers'). For 'swing' voters then the 'important issues' will vary GE to GE, although 'Economy' and 'Health' are usually the top2. Some folks might be dyed in the wool PartyX but a lot of folks like to consider the merits of the options they have into each GE.

(Theory alert) Maybe some LAB folks are scared of winning as it's easier to moan about your lot in life if your team is in opposition (works for SNP MPs elected to Westminster)? Anyway I'm pretty sure Sir Keir will take in every vote he can get even from people who weren't born to Socialist parents, raised as a Socialist and even named after a famous Socialist as whilst they often turn Tory when they mature, for some folks it works in reverse - I turned 'Greener' a while back and my 'gammon-ness' is taking on a greater share of 'red' these days (and I've made sure to make preparations for a LAB HMG that will look to tax income on wealth, limit tax allowance to pension contributions, etc - useful info I've picked up on UKPR or read for myself)

Caveats on my 'OK' with a LAB HMG led by Sir Keir, Rachel, Miliband (and some folks I need to hear a bit more from). In order or priority:
- Having chopped it down, BoE don't plant a new Magic Money Tree (although Truss destroyed CON's reputation then BoE+Markets will also prevent LAB doing anything stupid)
- Sir Keir doesn't enter into any form of 'deal' with LDEM or SNP (but now SNP have given UK PM and HMG control then Sir Keir gets 'clarity' on neverendums so that they don't distract UK from getting stuff done)
- Cooper is tough on immigration (she seems to be trying to outflank Braverman but that could be just playing the game)
- The ongoing purge (and self-purge) of the Far-Left continues so that LAB HMG can get stuff done without their own 'rats in the sack' pantomime. 
- The 'Woke' stuff is no longer an obsession.

No need to repeat that LAB will (IMO and as per polling) be a lot better at rolling out plans to get to Net Zero; have a more protectionist (nativist) view on jobs+trade; and would get on with housing+planning reform. For those issues (which are important to me and plenty of other people) then LAB look the much better option than the 'rats in the sack', NIMBY and 'dither+delay' that Vote.CON currently offer and I doubt will materially change before GE'24.

[steamdrivenandy]

Nov 30, 2022 0:38:40 GMT mercian said:

I've just remembered why I logged on tonight. I had a thought about a different way to look at the recent polls. Labour have consistently in the low 50% range. This is roughly equivalent to the Leave vote in 2016, which was over 17 million. The most any political party has ever got in a UK GE is something over 14 million. Therefore if turnout in the next GE matched that in the referendum, Labour would have the landslide to end all landslides.
Somehow that size of vote seems unlikely to me. Labour do seem very likely to win an overall majority, but the last time a party got over 50% of the popular vote was back in the early 1950s if I remember correctly, and it was much more of a 2-party system back then.

Also roughly equivalent to the Remain vote in 2016, which was over 16 million, in a vote where we were told it was 'indicative' and didn't necessarily have to be followed through by the government. Only after the event did it morph into a national priority that had to be done.

[domjg]

Nov 30, 2022 9:44:50 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

Nov 30, 2022 0:38:40 GMT mercian said:

I've just remembered why I logged on tonight. I had a thought about a different way to look at the recent polls. Labour have consistently in the low 50% range. This is roughly equivalent to the Leave vote in 2016, which was over 17 million. The most any political party has ever got in a UK GE is something over 14 million. Therefore if turnout in the next GE matched that in the referendum, Labour would have the landslide to end all landslides.
Somehow that size of vote seems unlikely to me. Labour do seem very likely to win an overall majority, but the last time a party got over 50% of the popular vote was back in the early 1950s if I remember correctly, and it was much more of a 2-party system back then.

Also roughly equivalent to the Remain vote in 2016, which was over 16 million, in a vote where we were told it was 'indicative' and didn't necessarily have to be followed through by the government. Only after the event did it morph into a national priority that had to be done.

Indeed, a binary, expressly non-binding referendum question cannot be at all equated with party support

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 30, 2022 9:44:50 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

Nov 30, 2022 0:38:40 GMT mercian said:

I've just remembered why I logged on tonight. I had a thought about a different way to look at the recent polls. Labour have consistently in the low 50% range. This is roughly equivalent to the Leave vote in 2016, which was over 17 million. The most any political party has ever got in a UK GE is something over 14 million. Therefore if turnout in the next GE matched that in the referendum, Labour would have the landslide to end all landslides.
Somehow that size of vote seems unlikely to me. Labour do seem very likely to win an overall majority, but the last time a party got over 50% of the popular vote was back in the early 1950s if I remember correctly, and it was much more of a 2-party system back then.

Also roughly equivalent to the Remain vote in 2016, which was over 16 million, in a vote where we were told it was 'indicative' and didn't necessarily have to be followed through by the government. Only after the event did it morph into a national priority that had to be done.

You can thank Gina Miller for that (I know I do). The SC verdict "parliament is sovereign" gave the cover for Corbyn-LAB to vote with May-CON and trigger Article 50.

However, for politicians and their promises then I was pinky "promised"* by our PM at the time that he'd immediately trigger Article50 if Leave won and I interpreted that as meaning we would Leave.EU on or before 24Jun'18. Instead we had to endure the shenanigans of Remain MPs trying to over-turn the ref and all the extensions to A50 (that Remain would hope would give them the chance to over-turn the ref). Years of gridlock in HoC with nothing else getting done**. Thankfully we finally got the Final Say, People's Vote #3 of GE'19 and then Boris did finally 'Get Brexit Done'

* I never trust much that any politician says and as per the Ipsos veracity polling then it seems very few people do. 
** The only small +ve from that is that it will be very unlikely any HMG in the future will want to go through that again and hence UK's 'experiment' with Refs to solve very divisive issues that will result in a huge change are very unlikely to happen for at least a generation (although I don't mind giving Scots*** one 'final say' chance under the old rules of 50%+, with Starmer deciding on the timing (early into his 2nd term is my guess, but it will depend on many factors)
*** Latha fèill Anndrais sona dhuibh 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (Happy St. Andrew's Day to you!)

[Deleted]

Nov 30, 2022 9:39:31 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Nov 30, 2022 9:10:09 GMT colin said:

 

Caveats on my 'OK' with a LAB HMG led by Sir Keir, Rachel, Miliband (and some folks I need to hear a bit more from). 

Mine would include Miliband.

And how KS would ACTUALLY handle Public Sector double digit pay rise demands.

[Deleted]

oldnat

“ robbiealive

It is certainly a valid analysis to look at which board members would support Labour in a UK election, and who wouldn't.

It would be equally valid to look at which board members would support Tories in a UK election, and who wouldn't, or support REFUK in a UK election, and who wouldn't, or support the Lib Dems a UK election, and who wouldn't, or support the SNP in a UK election, and who wouldn't, or support the DUP or SF or Alliance in a UK election, and who wouldn't, or any other binary comparison.”

Gosh - I don’t think anybody else would have considered that*. Or explained it at such great length. However, as you pleasantly go on to tell us, Robbie is just a “simple” Anglocentric.

*(Though you missed out the Monster Raving Loony Party.)

[Deleted]

Nov 30, 2022 10:21:56 GMT colin said:

Nov 30, 2022 9:39:31 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Caveats on my 'OK' with a LAB HMG led by Sir Keir, Rachel, Miliband (and some folks I need to hear a bit more from). 

Mine would include Miliband.

And how KS would ACTUALLY handle Public Sector double digit pay rise demands.

Who cares? 

[Deleted]

Nov 30, 2022 10:21:56 GMT colin said:

Nov 30, 2022 9:39:31 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Caveats on my 'OK' with a LAB HMG led by Sir Keir, Rachel, Miliband (and some folks I need to hear a bit more from). 

Mine would include Miliband.

And how KS would ACTUALLY handle Public Sector double digit pay rise demands.

Well that's easy .. he can use the extra £350 million a week that's now available to spend on the NHS as a result of  Brexit

[somerjohn]

Colin: "Who cares?"

TW: "Quite"

I think quite a lot of people here do. The reason Colin's views are of interest, to me and I suspect others who don't share his perspective, is the hope that he might provide an insight into the mood and intentions of an apparently rational and analytical RoC contributor. In other words, that he might serve as a bellwether.

If Colin is indeed seriously open to voting Labour, and not just 'avin a larf, then that is quite something in the light of previous posts. I don't think anyone had picked up on it in those terms. So a straightforward, clear statement of that would be useful and appreciated.

Colin is really the last hope of those hoping for an insight into the way developments are viewed from the right (with apologies to Mercian, whose valued and valuable contributions tend more towards entertainment than insight).

[ladyvalerie]

Nov 30, 2022 10:33:21 GMT @crofty said:

Nov 30, 2022 10:21:56 GMT colin said:

Mine would include Miliband.

And how KS would ACTUALLY handle Public Sector double digit pay rise demands.

Who cares? 

Ooh you are awful 😀

EDIT There was a stray “a” 🥺

[steve]

Took me a moment.

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 30, 2022 10:21:56 GMT colin said:

Nov 30, 2022 9:39:31 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Caveats on my 'OK' with a LAB HMG led by Sir Keir, Rachel, Miliband (and some folks I need to hear a bit more from). 

Mine would include 1. Miliband.

2. And how KS would ACTUALLY handle Public Sector double digit pay rise demands.

1. Miliband as PM with his hands on the Magic Money Tree would be a 'NO' from me but in his current role with Rachel in charge of the purse and BoE+markets enforcing fiscal discipline then I think Ed's enthusiasm to roll out a load more British Energy supply will be very good news for UK (and me personally). He has IMO finally found his place.

2. Union power and strikes certainly concern me but by GE'24 then inflation should be a lot lower and CON will have had to deal with the current issue of public sector pay demands. Sir Keir's speech to the CBI was more along the lines of 'automation', ending the 'low wage' model of EU-Centric neoliberalism and expecting/enabling business investment - however, that was very likely aimed at people he needs to win over, not his core backers (like the unions who fund LAB). The risk of even more militant unions is a concern with a LAB HMG but on balance one I'm less worried about with Sir Keir and NewLABv2 team, certainly compared to Comrade Corbyn and his team. 

Related to 'double digit' pay rises then I would like LAB commit to scrapping the 'triple lock' or at least saying they'd 'review it' (code for not alienating older voters but scrapping it once you get into power). Someone has to end that policy and I doubt it will be CON after May tried and U-turned into GE'17. 

[ladyvalerie]

Nov 30, 2022 10:40:41 GMT somerjohn said:

Colin: "Who cares?"

TW: "Quite"

I think quite a lot of people here do. The reason Colin's views are of interest, to me and I suspect others who don't share his perspective, is the hope that he might provide an insight into the mood and intentions of an apparently rational and analytical RoC contributor. In other words, that he might serve as a bellwether.

If Colin is indeed seriously open to voting Labour, and not just 'avin a larf, then that is quite something in the light of previous posts. I don't think anyone had picked up on it in those terms. So a straightforward, clear statement of that would be useful and appreciated.

Colin is really the last hope of those hoping for an insight into the way developments are viewed from the right (with apologies to Mercian, whose valued and valuable contributions tend more towards entertainment than insight).

He did vote Labour in 1997.

Like the rest of the world, I suppose.

Apart from Graham, of course 😀

[crossbat11]

Nov 30, 2022 10:49:05 GMT ladyvalerie said:

Nov 30, 2022 10:33:21 GMT @crofty said:

Who cares? 

Ooh you are awful 😀

EDIT There was a stray “a” 🥺

But I do, I do. It haunts my every waking hour!

😉🤣😎

[somerjohn]

LadyV: :"He did vote Labour in 1997."

I didn't know that. Thanks.

Reinforces the bellwether point, perhaps.

[alec]

Danny - "I really dont understand why you consider a randomized trial as hopeless."

I don't. They are brilliant for measuring medical outcomes when you can't directly measure what is actually going on. It's the application of them to engineered systems, where you really can measure all the variables and parameters, that is a bit hopeless.

So, for another example, as we developed nuclear power, we didn't build a series of reactors with alternative designs, fire them up and then see which ones exploded under a randomized controlled trial, did we? That would be a bit hopeless. What we did is design carefully controlled experiments to learn about and measure the key parameters etc etc.

It's about applying the correct methods to the right type of problem. For doctors, it's RCTs, for engineers it isn't.

But I have to say, it's VERY FUNNY INDEED reading the man who 'thinks he got covid in 2019 when Hastings had a big outbreak but no one noticed' now leaping to the defence of randomized clinical trials as the dogs bollocks for evidence. Don't you think?

[graham]

Nov 30, 2022 0:38:40 GMT mercian said:

I've just remembered why I logged on tonight. I had a thought about a different way to look at the recent polls. Labour have consistently in the low 50% range. This is roughly equivalent to the Leave vote in 2016, which was over 17 million. The most any political party has ever got in a UK GE is something over 14 million. Therefore if turnout in the next GE matched that in the referendum, Labour would have the landslide to end all landslides.
Somehow that size of vote seems unlikely to me. Labour do seem very likely to win an overall majority, but the last time a party got over 50% of the popular vote was back in the early 1950s if I remember correctly, and it was much more of a 2-party system back then.

No party has managed over 50% in national vote share since 1935 - though the the Tories came very close in 1955 with 49.8% and again in 1959 with 49.5%. Results from the 1950s though are not really comparable because most constituencies only had two candidates - hundreds of seats were straight fights between Tory and Labour. Back in 1951 the Liberals fought just 109 seats out of 625 - and in 1955 the party contested 110 out of 630.