|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Mar 21, 2023 11:42:18 GMT
The polls are interesting with large differences in the Labour lead. Curiously the Labour VI in them all is very similar in them all 44-47% yet there is huge differences with the other parties. Con 26/35/20/29 Lib Dem 11/7/9/8 Green 6/13/6 reform 5/6/7. Maybe there is sampling errors , prompting differences, and different accounting for those who say they are undecided/ will not vote. With local elections soon it might increase the smaller parties vote VI's short term as they tend to collect more votes in these elections. in an election you would expect the Lib Dem share to be more lumpy than 2019. The Lib Dems polled 11.6% in 2019.They are now polling 7-8%. In 2019 Lib Dem VI generally increased by 3% from previous election. This was due to Anti Corbyn And pro Eu factors. You would expect that 3% plus little bit more to go back to Labour, with Lib Dems still performing strongly in their small number of target seats How close the next election is depends on the economy. There are signs that inflationary pressures are falling with UK gas prices today 94.25 lowest since june 21. If these pressures ease and the Tories show a bit more competence and dont self destruct they will get closer to Labour before the election given how undecideds are having a big affect on their poll ratings In the distant past we'd have had quite a few contributors who would have been able to dig deep into the tables and weightings (possibly a couple left but perhaps not in the same detail as 10 years ago) but my gut feeling from brief looks at the tables is that mostly the current movement is down to movement in the Tory don't knows rather than any direct movement from Lab back to Con. So just the voters who were probably going to end up in the Tory column anyway with, say, a 30% absolute minimum vote under almost any circumstances. It's difficult- Yougov is probably the most easy to understand and they have the raw figures and weighted figures (excluding don't knows) but then the weighted figures include getting a fair sample as well as likelihood to vote so you can't take the raw figures as accurate until adjusted but the weighted figures include other adjustments based on their methodology. I think the Lab lead has fallen 2-3 points in the last 3 months but it still seems to be mostly around the Tory don't knows rather than any genuine shift from Con to Lab and then back again. So currently just what would have been expected with don't knows drifting back as there has been less bad news, but it won't be nearly enough for the Tories unless they start winning back some of the people who were Con and now saying Lab and that's a very different issue from just winning back their remaining don't knows. Lib Dems main problem in their lumpy vote translating into more seats is that they aren't really in that strong a position in the seats you might think they had a chance of the ABT vote (I guess mostly the 50 seats they held pre Clegg meltdown plus some new blue wall) and in many cases having to jump from 3rd to 1st even if they are the only ones likely to beat the Tories in those seats, so it won't be that obvious to the electorate who the ABT vote should go to. A lot of potential ABT seats may be missed by both Lab and Lib Dem because no-one was a clear second and there's unlikely to be the same sort of dynamics as the by elections where one party takes it easy.
In the last few months when, I've occasionally had time to delve into the data of polls, my impression/conclusion has very much been the same as shevii's. What's hard to ascertain for the DKs is the breakdown between which way they may currently be leaning. A lot of the info from focus groups, supports the narrative that Starmer is still away from closing the deal with voters, with many still to be convinced, leaving the Tories with an opportunity to claw more back. However, it does look like a significant portion of the '19 vote that went from Lab-Con has now gone 'home' to Labour. Given the Tory failure to deliver benefits from Brexit, the state of the economy they have definitely lost ground and one shouldn't forget there was a large element of a personal vote for Johnson there. Even with the focus on immigration it may not be enough to claw theses voters back.
What's happening in the so called 'blue wall' and with the LDs is interesting and just as critical. Like others, I find it difficult to visualise Labour making massive gains in rural seats. In areas such as Northamptonshire, where there is no real recent history of LD success, I can see Lab doing as well as '97 in the more urban seats such as the Northampton seats, Wellingborough and Kettering. But seats such as Daventry and South Northamptonshire, they didn't go Labour even under Blair. Now even in '19 Labour came second in these seats - and the likelihood that there will be enough tactical voting in such seats to the LDs and direct switches from LD to Con is low.
In reality, many of the seats the LDs would hope to win/target are suburban/urban, are currently just as likely to go Lab than LD, and there is a high level of probability of a split anti-Tory vote letting them retain the seats. The LD's will naturally be looking to the Locals to be a launch pad - but theses seats were last fought in '19 when Lab and Con did badly (dog days of the May regime) and the LDs did well, so its not clear if they will get any momentum from them. |
|
|
|
Post by James E on Mar 21, 2023 11:47:43 GMT
shevii "Lib Dems main problem in their lumpy vote translating into more seats is that they aren't really in that strong a position in the seats you might think they had a chance of the ABT vote (I guess mostly the 50 seats they held pre Clegg meltdown plus some new blue wall) and in many cases having to jump from 3rd to 1st even if they are the only ones likely to beat the Tories in those seats..." The LibDems have had a number of by-election wins from 3rd place, but I can't recall them ever doing so in a General Election. And it seems to me highly unlikely that they will in 2024. Polling cross-breaks show them losing 30-45% of their 2019 voters to Labour, while regional cross-breaks and polling such as R&W's 'Blue Wall' show the largest Labour progress in exactly the places where they have traditionally been weakest - especially the South-West. R&W South West England average 12 polls from 3 Jan to 19 March Lab 47% (+24) Con 26% (-27) LD 15% (-3) To give some examples of seats that I think now are realistic Labour targets, I'd go for Weston-Super-Mare, which was an LD seat from 1997-2005. The current Conserative majority of 31% is right in line with their lead in the whole SW region in 2019. Other 'non-traditional' targets in the SW region would be St Austell and Newquay (also needing a 15% swing) and Somerset North (14%). www.electionpolling.co.uk/constituencies/uk-parliament/weston-super-mare
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 21, 2023 11:58:12 GMT
The polls are interesting with large differences in the Labour lead. Curiously the Labour VI in them all is very similar in them all 44-47% yet there is huge differences with the other parties. Con 26/35/20/29 Lib Dem 11/7/9/8 Green 6/13/6 reform 5/6/7. Maybe there is sampling errors , prompting differences, and different accounting for those who say they are undecided/ will not vote. With local elections soon it might increase the smaller parties vote VI's short term as they tend to collect more votes in these elections. in an election you would expect the Lib Dem share to be more lumpy than 2019. The Lib Dems polled 11.6% in 2019.They are now polling 7-8%. In 2019 Lib Dem VI generally increased by 3% from previous election. This was due to Anti Corbyn And pro Eu factors. You would expect that 3% plus little bit more to go back to Labour, with Lib Dems still performing strongly in their small number of target seats How close the next election is depends on the economy. There are signs that inflationary pressures are falling with UK gas prices today 94.25 lowest since june 21. If these pressures ease and the Tories show a bit more competence and dont self destruct they will get closer to Labour before the election given how undecideds are having a big affect on their poll ratings In the distant past we'd have had quite a few contributors who would have been able to dig deep into the tables and weightings (possibly a couple left but perhaps not in the same detail as 10 years ago) but my gut feeling from brief looks at the tables is that mostly the current movement is down to movement in the Tory don't knows rather than any direct movement from Lab back to Con. So just the voters who were probably going to end up in the Tory column anyway with, say, a 30% absolute minimum vote under almost any circumstances. It's difficult- Yougov is probably the most easy to understand and they have the raw figures and weighted figures (excluding don't knows) but then the weighted figures include getting a fair sample as well as likelihood to vote so you can't take the raw figures as accurate until adjusted but the weighted figures include other adjustments based on their methodology. I think the Lab lead has fallen 2-3 points in the last 3 months but it still seems to be mostly around the Tory don't knows rather than any genuine shift from Con to Lab and then back again. So currently just what would have been expected with don't knows drifting back as there has been less bad news, but it won't be nearly enough for the Tories unless they start winning back some of the people who were Con and now saying Lab and that's a very different issue from just winning back their remaining don't knows. Lib Dems main problem in their lumpy vote translating into more seats is that they aren't really in that strong a position in the seats you might think they had a chance of the ABT vote (I guess mostly the 50 seats they held pre Clegg meltdown plus some new blue wall) and in many cases having to jump from 3rd to 1st even if they are the only ones likely to beat the Tories in those seats, so it won't be that obvious to the electorate who the ABT vote should go to. A lot of potential ABT seats may be missed by both Lab and Lib Dem because no-one was a clear second and there's unlikely to be the same sort of dynamics as the by elections where one party takes it easy. A problem which the LibDems now have as an ongoing consequence of the Coalition is that they now face serious competition from the Greens for disillusioned left of centre voters. Such voters simply do not trust the LibDems again, and when fed up with Labour will switch to the Green option. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Mar 21, 2023 12:04:17 GMT
A problem which the LibDems now face as an ongoing consequence of the Coalition is that they now face serious competition from the Greens re- disillusioned left of centre voters. Such voters simply do not trust the LibDems again, and when fed up with Labour will switch to the Green option. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 12:13:53 GMT
Spaffer genuinely appears to be relying on the moron defence, if no one told him the parties he attended were parties then how was he to know.
Un-f****** believable.
"The committee appears to be mounting a case that, despite the absence of any evidence of warnings or advice, it should have been “obvious” to me that the rules and guidance were not being followed, because of the gatherings that I attended. It is important to be frank: this amounts to an allegation that I deliberately lied to parliament."
Well Spaffer got that bit right.
It does.
Because he did.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,127
|
Post by domjg on Mar 21, 2023 12:29:45 GMT
In the distant past we'd have had quite a few contributors who would have been able to dig deep into the tables and weightings (possibly a couple left but perhaps not in the same detail as 10 years ago) but my gut feeling from brief looks at the tables is that mostly the current movement is down to movement in the Tory don't knows rather than any direct movement from Lab back to Con. So just the voters who were probably going to end up in the Tory column anyway with, say, a 30% absolute minimum vote under almost any circumstances. It's difficult- Yougov is probably the most easy to understand and they have the raw figures and weighted figures (excluding don't knows) but then the weighted figures include getting a fair sample as well as likelihood to vote so you can't take the raw figures as accurate until adjusted but the weighted figures include other adjustments based on their methodology. I think the Lab lead has fallen 2-3 points in the last 3 months but it still seems to be mostly around the Tory don't knows rather than any genuine shift from Con to Lab and then back again. So currently just what would have been expected with don't knows drifting back as there has been less bad news, but it won't be nearly enough for the Tories unless they start winning back some of the people who were Con and now saying Lab and that's a very different issue from just winning back their remaining don't knows. Lib Dems main problem in their lumpy vote translating into more seats is that they aren't really in that strong a position in the seats you might think they had a chance of the ABT vote (I guess mostly the 50 seats they held pre Clegg meltdown plus some new blue wall) and in many cases having to jump from 3rd to 1st even if they are the only ones likely to beat the Tories in those seats, so it won't be that obvious to the electorate who the ABT vote should go to. A lot of potential ABT seats may be missed by both Lab and Lib Dem because no-one was a clear second and there's unlikely to be the same sort of dynamics as the by elections where one party takes it easy. A problem which the LibDems now have as an ongoing consequence of the Coalition is that they now face serious competition from the Greens for disillusioned left of centre voters. Such voters simply do not trust the LibDems again, and when fed up with Labour will switch to the Green option. "and when fed up with Labour will switch to the Green option" - Not if they want their vote to actually count for anything, and not if their main motivation is to harm the tories, especially in the GE. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Mar 21, 2023 12:35:21 GMT
A delightful deconstruction by David Allen Green of the Johnson defence
Today's textual power lifting challenge has been won by "did not turn out to be correct" in Johnson's "It is of course true that my statements to Parliament that the Rules and Guidance had been followed at all times did not turn out to be correct"
The next trophy is for the joint winner of the misdirection and argument from silence contests:
"There is not a single document that indicates that I received any warning or advice that any event broke or may have broken the Rules or Guidance."
This is world-class disingenuity
You have to pay a lot of money for textual-crafting of this international standard.
Almost every sentence is beautiful, in its way.
And - twenty-five uses of "clear"
Given this excuse could be used by almost anyone anywhere facing any sanction then please take a moment to appreciate this gem:
"There is not a single document that indicates that I received any warning or advice that any event broke or may have broken the Rules or Guidance."
That Johnson statement is such a magnificent work of artificial beauty that it should be entered into the Turner Prize.
The crafting of almost every sentence is gorgeous.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 21, 2023 12:42:23 GMT
A problem which the LibDems now have as an ongoing consequence of the Coalition is that they now face serious competition from the Greens for disillusioned left of centre voters. Such voters simply do not trust the LibDems again, and when fed up with Labour will switch to the Green option. "and when fed up with Labour will switch to the Green option" - Not if they want their vote to actually count for anything, and not if their main motivation is to harm the tories, especially in the GE. Many left of centre voters see little difference between Tories and those who were happy to prop them up for 5 years - and who would have done so again in 2015 had the parliamentary arithmetic made it possible. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 12:59:15 GMT
graham If the parliamentary mathematics in both 2010 and 2015 had allowed the Lib Dems to " prop up" a Labour government they would have, that was the overwhelming preference of liberal democrat supporters and explains the 60% fall in support when Clegg chose to support the Tories. Spoiler alert it wasn't the Lib Dems fault that the party we both voted for at the time lost. Incidentally just three of the 14 Lib Dem MPs were in parliament in 2010-2015 all bar one of the others were first elected in 2017. It's tiresome tribalism that some Labour supporters insist the party hasn't changed. If around 75% of Labour MP's were first elected in 2017 I wouldn't pretend they were all members of Blair's government because it would be total bollocks. The parties changed, membership and our representatives are overwhelmingly different from 13 years ago. Why are you so obsessed with criticism of a party that isn't the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Mar 21, 2023 13:03:01 GMT
I have just watched Cruella in the HoC speaking in response to the report on the Met. What a horrible person she is, disgusting attack on Yvette Cooper and also attacking Sadiq Khan. No acceptance that she and the home office are in any way responsible. Her tone in these attacks was absolutely terrible. I do not remember any government minister of any party using the nasty language she uses.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,127
|
Post by domjg on Mar 21, 2023 13:13:13 GMT
"and when fed up with Labour will switch to the Green option" - Not if they want their vote to actually count for anything, and not if their main motivation is to harm the tories, especially in the GE. Many left of centre voters see little difference between Tories and those who were happy to prop them up for 5 years - and who would have done so again in 2015 had the parliamentary arithmetic made it possible. Some do perhaps but most realise now that the LDs (I wasn't talking about them specifically, I'd far rather people tempted to vote Green stick to Labour, as long as it makes sense electorally) would never go into any arrangement with the tories again having lost most of their fingers when getting burnt last time and are at the opposite pole regarding that aspect of toryism that currently they're most identified with, namely, brexit. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 21, 2023 13:15:02 GMT
graham If the parliamentary mathematics in both 2010 and 2015 had allowed the Lib Dems to " prop up" a Labour government they would have, that was the overwhelming preference of liberal democrat supporters and explains the 60% fall in support when Clegg chose to support the Tories. Spoiler alert it wasn't the Lib Dems fault that the party we both voted for at the time lost. I voted Green in 2010 - not Labour. After that election the numbers were there to produce a Rainbow Coalition , but Clegg was clearly not interested. Moreover had the 2015 election produced an outcome of - say - Tory 315 and LD 30, he would happily have seen the Coalition continue. What was very surprising to me post 2010 was the failure of a group of rebel LD MPs to emerge - such as the ERG and Campaign groups- which might have threatened withdrawal of support from the Coalition as issues emerged. Had a group of 15 - 20 LD MPs sat on the Opposition benches , far more would likely have survived in 2015. In truth, Clegg should never have entered a Coalition at all - no arrangement should have gone beyond Confidence & Supply.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 21, 2023 13:18:14 GMT
Many left of centre voters see little difference between Tories and those who were happy to prop them up for 5 years - and who would have done so again in 2015 had the parliamentary arithmetic made it possible. Some do perhaps but most realise now that the LDs (I wasn't talking about them specifically, I'd far rather people tempted to vote Green stick to Labour, as long as it makes sense electorally) would never go into any arrangement with the tories again having lost most of their fingers when getting burnt last time and are at the opposite pole regarding that aspect of toryism that currently they're most identified with, namely, brexit. But the LDs were to the left of Labour under Charles Kennedy - which is why I voted for them in 2001 and 2005. How long did that last? |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,127
|
Post by domjg on Mar 21, 2023 13:19:56 GMT
I have just watched Cruella in the HoC speaking in response to the report on the Met. What a horrible person she is, disgusting attack on Yvette Cooper and also attacking Sadiq Khan. No acceptance that she and the home office are in any way responsible. Her tone in these attacks was absolutely terrible. I do not remember any government minister of any party using the nasty language she uses. If she were not from an immigrant background herself there's no way she could get away with that kind of language. Imagine say Amber Rudd or even May doing this. They would immediately appear as nothing less than the extreme rightist that Braverman herself clearly actually is. Her immigrant background acts as a shield of deniability that allows her to produce this rhetoric with a certain level of impunity. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Mar 21, 2023 13:20:13 GMT
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,127
|
Post by domjg on Mar 21, 2023 13:22:27 GMT
Some do perhaps but most realise now that the LDs (I wasn't talking about them specifically, I'd far rather people tempted to vote Green stick to Labour, as long as it makes sense electorally) would never go into any arrangement with the tories again having lost most of their fingers when getting burnt last time and are at the opposite pole regarding that aspect of toryism that currently they're most identified with, namely, brexit. But the LDs were to the left of Labour under Charles Kennedy - which is why I voted for them in 2001 and 2005. How long did that last? I'm currently only focussed on getting rid of the tories. Whatever comes after the next GE can be worried about then and will in any case inevitably be far better especially on relations with Europe. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 13:31:46 GMT
grahamI stand corrected on your support . However you are simply wrong on the numbers for a rainbow coalition. Including all parties that could, but wouldn't necessarily have (SNP PC) supported Labour( excluding northern Ireland unionists who wouldn't and SF who don't take their seats) you get to a maximum of 320 a working majority of 1 would have required 321.It would have immediately been labelled the losers coalition. Absolutely zero chance of it lasting five years. If Labour had managed to lose 50 rather than 90 seats I suspect something could have been worked out a Labour lib dem majority around 20. Given that Brown had promised AV without a referendum and a referendum on PR if Clegg and his Orange bookers had suggested the Tories instead he would have been thrown out
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,127
|
Post by domjg on Mar 21, 2023 13:32:39 GMT
graham If the parliamentary mathematics in both 2010 and 2015 had allowed the Lib Dems to " prop up" a Labour government they would have, that was the overwhelming preference of liberal democrat supporters and explains the 60% fall in support when Clegg chose to support the Tories. Spoiler alert it wasn't the Lib Dems fault that the party we both voted for at the time lost. I voted Green in 2010 - not Labour. After that election the numbers were there to produce a Rainbow Coalition , but Clegg was clearly not interested. Moreover had the 2015 election produced an outcome of - say - Tory 315 and LD 30, he would happily have seen the Coalition continue. What was very surprising to me post 2010 was the failure of a group of rebel LD MPs to emerge - such as the ERG and Campaign groups- which might have threatened withdrawal of support from the Coalition as issues emerged. Had a group of 15 - 20 LD MPs sat on the Opposition benches , far more would likely have survived in 2015. In truth, Clegg should never have entered a Coalition at all - no arrangement should have gone beyond Confidence & Supply.
The coalition was a terrible error, the LDs should have allowed Cameron to try a minority government, with the sword of Damocles hanging constantly over it's head. Unfortunately they were desperate to actually experience power and jettisoned principle to achieve this. It was indeed a short lived and illusory high the come down from which they're still recovering from and I don't think they'd ever dare try it again. As for coalition options in 2010 however, once the LDs had decided to form a coalition with someone it's hard to argue against the democratic imperative being to go with the party that won the largest number of seats. The huge error was making that decision in the first place. They probably convinced themselves they were doing it 'for the sake of the country' to produce 'stable' govt but the reality of course is that the driver was their own ambition and desire for power (not that they were ever really able to exercise any..). |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 13:33:30 GMT
"But the LDs were to the left of Labour under Charles Kennedy - which is why I voted for them in 2001 and 2005. How long did that last?"
By any reasonable criteria based on internationalism and democracy they are again now.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 13:42:46 GMT
domjgEntirely agree it was a strategic and political error to agree a coalition with any one. Confidence and supply would have been a much better option, our resident host to the voices of Danny Alexander and others could have saved a fortune on crayons as the Lib dems simply wouldn't have to support those policies where they had no mandate from their membership and voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 21, 2023 13:47:59 GMT
graham I stand corrected on your support . However you are simply wrong on the numbers for a rainbow coalition. Including all parties that could, but wouldn't necessarily have (SNP PC) supported Labour( excluding northern Ireland unionists who wouldn't and SF who don't take their seats) you get to a maximum of 320 a working majority of 1 would have required 321.It would have immediately been labelled the losers coalition. Absolutely zero chance of it lasting five years. If Labour had managed to lose 50 rather than 90 seats I suspect something could have been worked out a Labour lib dem majority around 20. Given that Brown had promised AV without a referendum and a referendum on PR if Clegg and his Orange bookers had suggested the Tories instead he would have been thrown out No - the numbers were there in 2010 - 258 Lab + 57 LD + 3 SDLP + 3 Plaid + 6 SNP + 1 Green +1 Alliance gives a total of 329. The Independent Sylvia Hermon was also a likely supporter. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 21, 2023 13:54:55 GMT
"But the LDs were to the left of Labour under Charles Kennedy - which is why I voted for them in 2001 and 2005. How long did that last?" By any reasonable criteria based on internationalism and democracy they are again now. In terms of economic policy the LDs have been to the Right of Johnson's Tories in that they appear committed to fiscal prudence with little sign of Keynesianism. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Mar 21, 2023 13:56:56 GMT
The Lib Dems cannot be trusted.
Led by Sir (for services to the Tory led coalition) Ed Davey - an unrepentant co-author of the Orange Book- they'll say anything and take any idiot in to get a sniff of power.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 14:00:44 GMT
graham My figures assume that secessionist parties particularly the SNP who won't vote on what they deem English matters wouldn't have offered anything other than very conditional support , similarly with PC, the only parties likely to offer fairly across the board support would have been the SDLP and the Lib dems You are correct on the underlying numbers , I could have explained it better.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 14:03:20 GMT
Wondered how long it would take crayon man to emerge.
Ed Davey received a knighthood in 2016 primarily because of his service as climate change minister.
What did you get for backing Brexit and enabling the worst government in living memory?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 14:15:33 GMT
grahamOk so do we agree that on everything other than economic position the current liberal democrat position is to the left of Starmer's labour? I don't incidentally accept for one moment your interpretation of an absence of Keynesian growth, the liberal democrats are committed to rolling back the damaging restrictions caused by Brexit and massive investment in green energy and industry. Reversing brexit alone would add 5% to GDP far greater boost to our economy and investment than any of the welcome but relatively small proposals from Labour.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Mar 21, 2023 14:27:26 GMT
I can see the point in needing to replace CT and MRI scanners as technology for these is continuing to improve, but throwing out a standard X-ray machine just because it is over 10 years old is wasteful. I would like to know where NHS England's advice to replace 10 year-old X-ray machines comes from. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Mar 21, 2023 14:35:06 GMT
But Prof. Bell's comment bears repeating: However, Prof Bell injected a note of caution, saying: "We need a lot more energy storage capacity to get rid of fossil fuels completely... probably 10 to 50 times greater even than the capacity of Coire Glas."Which is why we need to look at converting other hydroelectric power stations to pumped storage as I have repeatedly pointed out. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Mar 21, 2023 14:44:19 GMT
Some do perhaps but most realise now that the LDs (I wasn't talking about them specifically, I'd far rather people tempted to vote Green stick to Labour, as long as it makes sense electorally) would never go into any arrangement with the tories again having lost most of their fingers when getting burnt last time and are at the opposite pole regarding that aspect of toryism that currently they're most identified with, namely, brexit. But the LDs were to the left of Labour under Charles Kennedy - which is why I voted for them in 2001 and 2005. How long did that last? Even centrists were to the left of Bliar's Labour in 2001 and 2005, who had a succession of Home Secretaries of whom it could be (and was) said that they made even Michael Howard look like a liberal Home Secretary. |
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Mar 21, 2023 14:44:21 GMT
Does anyone seriously believe anything will change? The current Commissioner can't even accept that institutional racism exists - not just in the Met, he doesn't believe institutional racism exists at all. I'm not sure Rowley does believe it to be honest but suspect that he feels he has to say it. He is repeating the same mistake that Cressida Dick made, with the short-term objective of keeping the troops onside over-riding the survival chances of the Met. Maybe he has his head in the sand and still feels that rather like those banks in 2008, the Met is too big to fail. Just as likely, he's calculating that if he if can mount a rear-guard action and get to retirement, before what increasingly feels like the inevitable demise of the Met, then he will have had a result. The report has not changed my previously stated opinion. There is no possibility of reform from within for the Met, it is not only institutionally racist, it is institutionally corrupt in deliberate and clear intentional efforts to undermine reforms and government oversight. It needs to be broken up and replaced with new policing bodies that do not result in a 'too big to fail' police force controlling both local policing over a massive area, and national security force duties. Those currently serving as Met officers should have to go through serious and comprehensive vetting before being employed by any other police force. |
|
