Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 20, 2023 17:42:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jul 20, 2023 17:56:43 GMT
Quote (from a lobbyist): "On hydrogen, he said that heat pumps were not suitable for all homes, and hydrogen offered a potential alternative."
A lot more on the special interest thread, but to anyone who can't see they why that quote (from a vested interest) is %$#&^%, then, again, if you make electricity from fossil fuel then for every kWh of FF, you'll get less than a kWh of electricity out. Make gas from green electricity and it's the other way round - starting with a kWh of electricity, you'll end up with much less than a kWh of gas. Of course, most hydrogen today is made from reforming fossil fuels and green hydrogen is at a big cost disadvantage anyway. It may well be true that "heat pumps are not suitable for all homes", but simple resistive heating will still then be much more efficient than the hydrogen route. (Less capital cost than a heat pump, but a higher running cost.) I wish green hydrogen a lot of success - but in displacing "dirty" hydrogen in the chemical industry, where there is no alternative. (And massive quantities will be necessary for the foreseeable future.) But for new uses such as domestic heating and road transport - no.
"...Grant Shapps, the energy secretary, recently appeared to cool on hydrogen for home heating. In a significant shift of stance, he .......... said: “I came in [to office] thinking, because this was the narrative that was around, that one day hydrogen will fuel homes. I think that’s unlikely to be the way forward.” |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 20, 2023 18:00:03 GMT
pjw1961I do agree with much of what you say. I just don’t think that poor old history should get the blame for it! Also I am not nearly as certain as you. It depends on the programme offered, and who is offering it and how credible they are. I mean how did the Labour Party get going in the first place? The Greens don’t really have anything that might be called a coherent left wing programme. Nobody beforehand really thought Corbyn could or would achieve the result in 2017. And Livingstone achieved an astonishing result with the 2000 London mayoralty. And what is your betting on Jamie Driscoll? Simply saying it could never happen is a big mistake. For my part, I really don’t want it to happen, but like many, I despair at the benefit cap and at what has happened to Driscoll and others. It seems so terribly ill-judged and based on highly suspect data. Kettle’s piece this morning was mildly encouraging, and Stephen Bush had an interesting FT piece over the weekend and seemed certain that a Labour government would reverse the regardless of what it says now.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 20, 2023 18:17:20 GMT
I wonder if any other LW LAB politicians will take notice and realise Starmer-LAB is not the LAB they want to be part of and stand as Inds or get together and form a genuine LoC party? I'm not sure Greens would take in LAB 'refugees' but in the Corbyn era there was quite a bit of overlap between LAB and Green policy and a lot of Greens were 'squeezed' into voting LAB in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 18:20:46 GMT
Well of course some of us do have political wisdom to impart: Dear Sir Kid Starver, In the interests of being elected I would suggest that you bring back the death penalty for certain cases, bring in enforced deportation of foreign criminals when their sentences have been served, build more prisons, and increase defence spending. That should sort it. Yours sincerely Mercian Libs have raised support on a policy of legalising currently illegal drugs. Something I notice the SNP are after. The rationale is this might actually cut harm, because much of the harm stems from criminal involvement, plus more people might get to enjoy their sensible use. It seems clear the reason some oppose legalisation is they dont believe others should be allowed to enjoy using such drugs. And again we get a generational divide where the old believe what they learnt when young, and the young currently are learning something different not least because of the massive changes brought by the internet and huge increase in ability for individuals to associate differently. Cant help thinking that in closing youth centres, closing pubs, etc, conservatives helped bring about these changes they dont like, they forced patterns of behaviour to change. I don't know about youth centres, but I'd like to know why you think conservatives closed pubs. If any party adversely affected pubs it was Labour because of banning smoking in pubs. I don't know why you brought drugs into it, as I hadn't mentioned them, but as it happens I think they should be legalised at least back to where the laws stood in the early 1960s before Labour copied the USA and started banning them even for medicinal purposes. Dr Collis Browne's Adult Cough Linctus was a doozy. It had opium and other stuff in it. Cured anything! Also legalising some drugs would reduce criminality caused by wars between drug gangs. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2023 18:28:13 GMT
Quote (from a lobbyist): "On hydrogen, he said that heat pumps were not suitable for all homes, and hydrogen offered a potential alternative."
A lot more on the special interest thread, but to anyone who can't see they why that quote (from a vested interest) is %$#&^%, then, again, if you make electricity from fossil fuel then for every kWh of FF, you'll get less than a kWh of electricity out. Make gas from green electricity and it's the other way round - starting with a kWh of electricity, you'll end up with much less than a kWh of gas. Of course, most hydrogen today is made from reforming fossil fuels and green hydrogen is at a big cost disadvantage anyway. It may well be true that "heat pumps are not suitable for all homes", but simple resistive heating will still then be much more efficient than the hydrogen route. (Less capital cost than a heat pump, but a higher running cost.) I also heard a green activist speaking, not sure if it was the same one, saying he doubted use of hydrogen for home heating. However he did not dismiss it for energy storage. As I hope everyone realises, the problem with wind and solar is what do you do when it is dark and calm. The answer is NOT nuclear, because nuclear is an always on technology. It is fundamentally incompatible with a policy of using intermittent renewables. it is of course compatible with cross subsidising military nuclear technology, and creating an entire private industry to which we commit paying huge sums for the next 50 years with no way to cancel however cheap renewables become. Its a brilliant way to lock in wealth redistribution to the rich which is very difficult for a future government to undo. Renewables need a technology for storing power to use while it is calm. Hydrogen is an obvious and workable solution how this might be done, re-using exisiting infrastructure for gas distribution, storage and then burning to recreate electricity. Or indeed, home heating. Not saying it will eventually be the best, but we do know how we could do it and much of the equipment already exists. Other options include redesigning industry so that staff are laid off and plants closed when energy isnt available. But the obvious solution is to build much more renewables capacity then is needed for maximum demand, and then store surpluses for calm times.
You need to remember renewables share with nuclear the property that while 'on' the energy is basically free. There is negligible fuel costs. The real cost is the capital costs. So just like nuclear, the more a wind turbine is turning the more free power you are getting. Probably more so than nuclear, wind will suffer mechanical wear and tear while it running, so it does wear out faster if you use it more. Thats not exactly true for nuclear, which is never truly off whatever you do. But that does mean a wind turbine stalled for lack of wind for 50% of the time, will also have a 50% longer working life. Thats absolutely not true for nuclear.
Regarding the losses in the process, its fundamental to renewables that we have a problem of varying generation. Saying we are going to use it anyway, means we have to store energy. Any viable renewables system will have periods where it over produces, and right now we are already paying these people to switch off their equipment. Instead we could be using power already being paid for but wasted, so basically free, to generate hydrogen. It should be obvious, inefficiencies in changing from one form to another are besides the point when the raw electricity for the process is free and otherwise being wasted anyway.
People need to get away from the idea that generating costs are fixed, ie because if you burn a cubic metre of gas it will have a fixed cost and create a fixed amount of electricity. When the energy is free on a windy day the actual cost is tiny, so it doesnt matter if the process of turning it into hydrogen and then back to electricity is inefficient. Its still using a (nearly) free raw material.
Incidentally, all plans for replacing home heating with heat pumps assume massive improvements in insulation to make those heat pumps in any sense adequate for the job at short of crippling costs. Such a level of insulation applied to current gas heated homes would massively reduce demand anyway, whether or not we changed the heat source. But of course, con cancelled schemes subsidising home insulation. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jul 20, 2023 18:29:55 GMT
'Starmer sock puppets'.
Hmmm....From the man who brought us 'Ready for Rishi'......
Complete gumbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 18:32:26 GMT
Rafwan I didn't actually say I entirely backed the 2017 Labour manifesto broadly it was positive compared to the Tory inadequacy . But given that I was a member of the liberal democrats by then and voted liberal democrat that's not entirely surprising. Just that with a less divisive and politically toxic leader given that May didn't really bother to turn up for the election campaign that without Corbyn at the helm Labour might well have won irrespective of the manifesto. Similarly Starmer a far less divisive figure for the electorate is likely to win despite having little fundamentally to offer other than not leading the worst regime in living memory. It's an anti Tory vote while Labour's loss in 2017 was primarily anti Corbyn. OK, yes, what I said was uncalled for. But what you say in your second para does not stack up. May started the 2017 election campaign with around 43% support and a 20 point lead over Labour (the basis on which she called the election) She ended on much the same polling support. So she HAD 'turned up'. But Labour had garnered so much support from elsewhere it came within 3 points of her. Moreover, the uplift in Labour's vote since 2015 was evidently the largest between consecutive elections since 1945. This suggests the precise opposite of 'divisiveness'. The 2017 manifesto brought credible hope of an ending to austerity. The crushing of Corbyn and anything vaguely lefty is now heralding its return. I agree with steve on this one. May ran a very lack-lustre campaign and yet the Tory vote increased by over 2 million compared to 2015. Of course it's just a matter of opinion but I think that the increase in the Tory vote was because of fear of Corbyn. A 'safer' Labour leader might have won despite not enthusing the young so much. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 18:36:40 GMT
Re-Farage. There really is a lot of arrant pigs droppings being spouted in the media right now. The bottom line is that, for this VERY exclusive bank, you need to have a certain amount in cash or assets. Fall below threshold and you are likelyto be assessed - whoever you are... "Tally ho, what do you make of Tim? He's gone below the line here" "Oh, Tim is a decent chap...and he's the sort of chap the chaps trust" ...type thing. Yes, it is entirely posible, likely I would say that, when Fartage fel below threshold, he would have been subjected to the second, possibly informal part. While his political views may have played a part, it's more about "is he one of us?"...and the verdict on the conman came back a resounding "no". Then, he was readily and instantly offered a bank account with sister company, NatWest. All this blethering on about "everyone needs a bank acount", those with that line have been utterly silent when it comes to homeless people needing a bank account to be able to access social security and help them get off the streets, or those who don't have the correct ID (try opening a bank account with a birth certificate and see how far it gets you). But, Fartage being readily offered an alternative account and it's the end of civilisation as we know it. I think the fuss is because he has documentary evidence that the reason his account was closed was because his publicly expressed views did not coincide with the bank's 'values'. So the question is, does a bank have the right to do this? |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jul 20, 2023 18:38:27 GMT
Danny - "The answer is NOT nuclear, because nuclear is an always on technology." Different topic, same result. It's wrong. Modern nuclear is perfectly compatible with short term grid balancing, older plants less so - www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/No, the issue isn't 'always on', the issue is it's 'so bloody expensive that the investors will only invest if it's kept always on'. It's the same with the guff about the money spent on telling wind farms to close down. They only get these because it's the cheapest option. National Grid could tell nuclear plants to ramp down without any issues, but that would cost so much more, because of the contractual arrangements. So every time anyone flags up the amount of cash being trousered by wind farms to switch off, just remember that it's because nuclear is so bloody expensive.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 20, 2023 18:39:19 GMT
mercian It's a bit early for a letter to Santa but my letter would be something like Dear Sir Kid Starver, In the interests of being elected I would suggest that you: - keep the 2child limit on benefits - keep the bedroom tax - don't hike higher rate of tax - don't bring back 'purple passports' - keep Uni fees and copy Rishi's 'crack down on rip off degrees from graduate farms' - copy CON's immigration policy and, once the flights to Rwanda start, then do a 'U-turn' on your objection to that very important 'deterrent' - let Streeting do what needs to be done to the NHS money pit that LAB created (and you can say your copying Europe to keep the EUphiliacs happy) - continue to purge the Left Wing nutters from LAB and keep FPTP to ensure no future LAB govt ever has to do a deal with the Corbynites/istas - treat the Scots as per the description used by Boris in his poem - don't go in for any of that woke nonsense - lose some weight I probably still won't vote for you but LAB are very unlikely to win my specific seat anyway. Yours sincerely Trevor He's already given me most of my list and pretty sure the others will come in due course - although maybe not the last one? 
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 18:44:50 GMT
Yes. Isn't that pretty much what TUSC is? I'm not going to research details, but from memory when they do stand their vote is pretty derisory. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2023 18:45:40 GMT
I don't know about youth centres, but I'd like to know why you think conservatives closed pubs. If any party adversely affected pubs it was Labour because of banning smoking in pubs. The first step is the Uk policy of expensive and ever rising accommodation costs. If you need a building costing a miilion pounds for a pub, then it instantly harms the viability compared to £100,000. And that is the sort of scale of the price hike in property since we began this policy of expensive property under Thatcher. I specifically blame con for this. Similarly there has been a policy of loading taxation onto property. However its certainly true lab has done little to change this while it was in power. Alcohol is a drug. Its really very comparable to certain banned drugs, and has been argued to be more dangerous too. Again, it is controlled by taxation to discourage its use. Yes, lab too has done this. My point though was it seems to be in particular conservative voters, not labour ones, who are objecting to changes in society. So while both parties might have had similar input, its the conservatives who were acting against what their voters wanted in contributing to cause the changes. Of course, con also joined the EU, if that means anything to brexit voters. So a pattern of acting against their voters is quite normal. . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 18:47:37 GMT
I wonder if any other LW LAB politicians will take notice and realise Starmer-LAB is not the LAB they want to be part of and stand as Inds or get together and form a genuine LoC party? I'm not sure Greens would take in LAB 'refugees' but in the Corbyn era there was quite a bit of overlap between LAB and Green policy and a lot of Greens were 'squeezed' into voting LAB in the past. Its two different political parties isn't it ? A festering open sore-like the one the Conservative Party will probably develop in opposition ? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 18:49:45 GMT
It is highly probable that once this point is reached, one side, likely Russia will fire a tactical nuclear missile. I really dont think they will. Even the Russian people arent that gullible. How much say do you think the Russian people would have? |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 20, 2023 18:58:59 GMT
Its two different political parties isn't it ? A festering open sore-like the one the Conservative Party will probably develop in opposition ? TBC but once in opposition then it does seem likely the suicidal factions within CON will return to being 'rats in a sack' - noting that some of the 'usual suspects' for 'Blue-on-blue' are in safe seats (eg Truss who seems to have reestablished a bit of base 🤦♂️) Memories of the long period in the wilderness from 1997 to 2010 having been forgotten? However, since Starmer is a Tory and ensuring few Corbynites/istas survive then I'll restate that Badenoch as LOTO would IMO ensure Starmer keeps on the Right (as in RoC) track. Still a few things Rishi needs to get done before he hands over the keys but a Red Tory is Tory Plan B  |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 18:59:10 GMT
Mr PoppyYour manifesto seems a bit leftie to me, but I'd settle for it. 😁
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 20, 2023 19:03:38 GMT
Mr Poppy Your manifesto seems a bit leftie to me, but I'd settle for it. 😁 I've been called worse but it's handbags at five paces if you ever call me a liberal I'm not opposed to some of your suggestions. Maybe save some of those for Sir Keith Stalin's 2nd term |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 19:07:15 GMT
Its two different political parties isn't it ? A festering open sore-like the one the Conservative Party will probably develop in opposition ? TBC but once in opposition then it does seem likely the suicidal factions within CON will return to being 'rats in a sack' - noting that some of the 'usual suspects' for 'Blue-on-blue' are in safe seats (eg Truss who seems to have reestablished a bit of base 🤦♂️) Memories of the long period in the wilderness from 1997 to 2010 having been forgotten? However, since Starmer is a Tory and ensuring few Corbynites/istas survive then I'll restate that Badenoch as LOTO would IMO ensure Starmer keeps on the Right (as in RoC) track. Still a few things Rishi needs to get done before he hands over the keys but a Red Tory is Tory Plan B The trouble with ideological factions is they quite like the wilderness. A place where contemplating your navel and thinking of nirvana passes for political engagement. Starmer's not a Tory. Have you thought of it like this-if his policies appeal to you then you are Soc. Dem.  |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 20, 2023 19:09:45 GMT
Managed to get some popcorn in for the early hours of tomorrow morning. Late supplies arrived in our area this afternoon and I joined a long queue at our local Co-op store. The scenes were incredible. Desperate people besieged the popcorn-laden army lorries as they arrived and had to be beaten back by flail-wielding Labour Party activists managing the distribution.
I think I saw grown men weep when a lorry was emptied of popcorn sacks before they could get there. Scuffles broke out between disappointed amateur psephologists who claimed priority. Some of the crowd turned on them. My Sir John Curtice mask didn't go down well with some either.
There is huge anticipation in the air for the by-election counts to come.
Richter scale shocks on the cards.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2023 19:11:22 GMT
I agree with steve on this one. May ran a very lack-lustre campaign and yet the Tory vote increased by over 2 million compared to 2015. Of course it's just a matter of opinion but I think that the increase in the Tory vote was because of fear of Corbyn. A 'safer' Labour leader might have won despite not enthusing the young so much. The 2017 election was all about Brexit, as indeed 2019. Did you somehow not hear about brexit? About how it was streets ahead in polling on what mattered to voters? Similarly it wasnt corbyn who mattered but labour identifying as the remain party. By 2019 labour had frankly lost that label as it was desperately spinning to appeal to both remainers and leavers. In my opinion, this cost it perhaps not a victory in 2019, but at least a closer parity with MPs to con. Refusing to adopt a strong remain line lost lab that election. And similarly lab right now stands for little. It may be true there arent enough strong remainers now to win an election, although that really hasnt been demonstrated because there is no party offering this. But labour doesnt have any other cause either to use to rally opposition to con. Yes, it has time, and I think Blair too tried to keep his powder dry till the last moment. But we really arent seeing lab offering more than tory light. Which didn't do it for the libs.
Polling suggest libs are likely to win a seat tonight. There is no way this suggests the nation loves labour.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 20, 2023 19:19:08 GMT
Reading this thread is starting to feel a little like intruding into private grief.
It would be cruel not to laugh.
😉🤣
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 19:20:55 GMT
. Richter scale shocks on the cards. They wont be shocks will they ? Not if the VI being indicated by national polling for months is accurate. Or the polling in the Byelection constituencies are accurate . Or inflation and mortgage rates and the NHS are things causing hurt and anger to million of people ? A "shock" would surely be if the Tories don't get triply stuffed . |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2023 19:30:20 GMT
Danny - "The answer is NOT nuclear, because nuclear is an always on technology." Different topic, same result. It's wrong. Modern nuclear is perfectly compatible with short term grid balancing, older plants less so - www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/No, the issue isn't 'always on', the issue is it's 'so bloody expensive that the investors will only invest if it's kept always on'. You seem to be agreeing with me yet again? Nuclear has a fixed and massive construction cost and a finite lifetime which is largely unaffected by whether it spends that time switched on or off. So if its off half the time, the average cost of the power it produces doubles. Those investors are saying that to achieve a profit at the contracted price for elctricity, it cannot ever be turned off. Thats written into their contracts, as you say. Its written in because they would never have built the thing if it wasnt. The article you link also says many if not all current generation nuclear plants simply cannot be turned on and off quickly. They were never designed to be able to do this. The article argues new designs could be turned on and off more quickly and without risk (yes, off/on increases wear and tear and thus risk, so of you want to do it then you will have to build in yet more expensive engineering). But designing in the capability to switch on/off fast doesnt change the fundamental economic problem that if you turn it off you are simply throwing away electricity. So realistically you would never do that. If its as cheap to run it 24 hours as it is to run it 6 hours while the wind is not blowing, then just what is the point of having wind at all? You might just as well run the nuclear 24 hours, and save the cost of the wind turbines. Except that in reality the wind turbines are always going to be cheaper. Its cheaper to build wind which doesnt get used much of the time and not bother wiht the nuclear. The problem is how to bridge gaps in calm times, and nuclear is not a solution how to do that. Oh, and the article suggests two hours would be a quick startup time for new nuclear, even if kept in standby. Or french reactors can shift from 500 to 1300 MW (or the reverse) in half an hour, ie always on but shifting between low and high capacity, which would just mean moving control rods. Again you agree with me! yep, 'nuclear is so bloody expensive'. The solution is to stop wasting that free wind energy at times of surplus, and building extra expensive nuclear doesnt do that. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 20, 2023 19:36:01 GMT
. Richter scale shocks on the cards. They wont be shocks will they ? Not if the VI being indicated by national polling for months is accurate. Or the polling in the Byelection constituencies are accurate . Or inflation and mortgage rates and the NHS are things causing hurt and anger to million of people ? A "shock" would surely be if the Tories don't get triply stuffed . You've allowed your expectations to be managed. We don't know the results yet, so we're speculating, but if the scale of these Tory losses are anything like the forecasts, then these will be almost unprecedented Con-Lab swings, even by by-election standards. We've seen gargantuan swings from Con-LD in this and other Parliaments, but 20%+ Con to Lab swings this near to the next election will be extraordinary. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 20, 2023 19:36:26 GMT
TBC but once in opposition then it does seem likely the suicidal factions within CON will return to being 'rats in a sack' - noting that some of the 'usual suspects' for 'Blue-on-blue' are in safe seats (eg Truss who seems to have reestablished a bit of base 🤦♂️) Memories of the long period in the wilderness from 1997 to 2010 having been forgotten? However, since Starmer is a Tory and ensuring few Corbynites/istas survive then I'll restate that Badenoch as LOTO would IMO ensure Starmer keeps on the Right (as in RoC) track. Still a few things Rishi needs to get done before he hands over the keys but a Red Tory is Tory Plan B The trouble with ideological factions is they quite like the wilderness. A place where contemplating your navel and thinking of nirvana passes for political engagement. Starmer's not a Tory. Have you thought of it like this-if his policies appeal to you then you are Soc. Dem. Well at least you didn't call me a liberal  On stuff like - Giving BoE a mandate for 'Yield Curve Targeting' (evolved form of QE/QT) and some tweaks to the 'fiscal rules' to fund a faster transition to Net Zero - Possibly considering a few nationalisations in utilities - Some 'protectionism' for various UK sectors (notably agri-food and a Carbon Border Tariff on goods), especially if it starts a mini trade war with EU (although not just yet - get inflation down a bit first) - State aid (which is already happening with JLR, etc) - Radical reforms to planning and housing (see Issue Specific thread) Then I don't mind being called a 'Leftie' or even a 'Socialist'. IMO there is very little difference between a Sensible Socialist and a Compassionate Conservative - just a different colour Tory IMO and genuine LoCs seem to agree that Starmer is a Tory. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 20, 2023 19:45:56 GMT
Just a little more historical perspective on this set of by elections. Take Selby and Ainsty. Should Labour overturn the Tory majority of 20,000, it will be the biggest majority they've overturned anywhere, and in any circumstances, since the Second World War.
We're in new territory in terms of Tory by-election defeats if they lose Selby to Labour.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 20, 2023 19:50:24 GMT
. Richter scale shocks on the cards. They wont be shocks will they ? Not if the VI being indicated by national polling for months is accurate. Or the polling in the Byelection constituencies are accurate . Or inflation and mortgage rates and the NHS are things causing hurt and anger to million of people ? A "shock" would surely be if the Tories don't get triply stuffed . Pedantry alert but Richter scale is.. well... a scale. 'Micro-Minor' are measurable, just that few people would feel it and there'd be no damage to buildings (political parties in the analogy) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scaleFor 'clickbait' then I will predict some people will be 'shocked' tomorrow - or at least pretend to be. Cricket, golf, women's football World Cup, Farage's bank accounts and what the people next door have done to their garden will be more interesting. By-elections are a 'free' protest vote against whoever is in HMG - 'twas ever thus. Of course a 'magnitude 5' might occur (ie CON actually manage to keep 1 of the 3) but we rarely get magnitude 5 earthquakes in UK - that is the kind of thing that happens in other polities |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jul 20, 2023 19:53:52 GMT
Just a little more historical perspective on this set of by elections. Take Selby and Ainsty. Should Labour overturn the Tory majority of 20,000, it will be the biggest majority they've overturned anywhere, and in any circumstances, since the Second World War. We're in new territory in terms of Tory by-election defeats if they lose Selby to Labour. I think it was 512th on Labour's target list? No sign of anything other than 3 Tory losses tonight from the twitter vibes. Sometimes you do get a bit of gossip around this time that things may be closer than anticipated. I would also say that on the Anthony article linked earlier- he might be right in one respect about "not telling us anything" about a General Election and I imagine Selby will return to Tory, probably Frome as well, but it does tell us the determination to turn out, albeit with lower turnouts than General Elections. Compared to earlier in this parliament where Labour were underperforming in by elections and locals, they are definitely more in line with opinion polls now I think. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Jul 20, 2023 20:03:01 GMT
OK, yes, what I said was uncalled for. But what you say in your second para does not stack up. May started the 2017 election campaign with around 43% support and a 20 point lead over Labour (the basis on which she called the election) She ended on much the same polling support. So she HAD 'turned up'. But Labour had garnered so much support from elsewhere it came within 3 points of her. Moreover, the uplift in Labour's vote since 2015 was evidently the largest between consecutive elections since 1945. This suggests the precise opposite of 'divisiveness'. The 2017 manifesto brought credible hope of an ending to austerity. The crushing of Corbyn and anything vaguely lefty is now heralding its return. I agree with steve on this one. May ran a very lack-lustre campaign and yet the Tory vote increased by over 2 million compared to 2015. Of course it's just a matter of opinion but I think that the increase in the Tory vote was because of fear of Corbyn. A 'safer' Labour leader might have won despite not enthusing the young so much.But May wouldn't have risked calling the election if Corbyn hadn't been perceived as being an electoral liability for Labour. And then she's probably have maintained her opinion poll popularity and been able to force through her Brexit plan.... |
|
