|
Post by bardin1 on Jan 2, 2024 7:50:10 GMT
A few weeks ago, we had a discussion, Lord alone knows why, about Sidney Poitier's annus mirabilis, 1967, when he appeared in three significant films, 'To Sir With Love', 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' and 'In the Heat of the Night'. I voted for 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' as my favourite of the three, mainly because of its commendable earnest integrity and the fact that it marked the last performance of the legendary Spencer Tracy. For the first time in ages, I caught the last half of 'In the Heat of the Night' on BBC2 just now, in all its visceral intensity. I'd like to change my vote. Should be an immediate ban from this site - having told the pollsters what you were going to vote for you've just randomly changed your mind at the polling booth Why do we bother, I ask myself?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 2, 2024 7:51:36 GMT
mercian A narrow majority of those who voted in the referendum voted to leave, it was never a majority of the electorate. In most.other circumstances seven and a half years after a vote the electorate could have had an opportunity to change its mind at least once and don't pretend that the 2019 general election was some how a proxy referendum, or do if you like given that the majority of voters voted for parties who either wanted a confirmatory referendum or to scrap the whole disastrous project. I'm sorry you didn't find The short video informative, you're mistaken about any change of direction in the European union since its translation to The EU from the eec it was always The intent that closer union should tie members so closely economically and socially as to rule out war between member nations and in this it's succeeded. Here's a survey from an outside observer on The current support for the failed Brexit project within the uk. youtu.be/cB3CzyKAtJs?si=cOgHcjH_mp_w7V8tThe sands of time knocking off the overwhelmingly aged brexitanians and the fact that brexit didn't remotely resemble what people who supported it thought they were voting for explains the overwhelming levels of regret. In the opinium survey last week just 9% of respondents thought Brexit had improved their situation while around 40% thought it had made their circumstances worse. And less than 20% now think it was a good idea to leave. There are still a few village idiots and Tory brexitanian enablers left but they're a rapidly shrinking group, their representative here does however add to the bizarre entertainment of this site. Attachments:
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 2, 2024 7:56:55 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 2, 2024 8:02:11 GMT
Current birth rate in the UK is 1.6 per woman , so for every 100 people alive in the current child bearing generation will result in only 45 in three generations. This is why we have the unbalanced age distribution today. The rate of population growth has been falling for decades, any growth in recent years has been a result of people living longer, as life expectancy levels off we will start to see significant falls in population. erm, you says the rate of GROWTH has been falling for years? So then its still growing? Yep, we have an AGING population with therefore more non-working pensioners in poor health needing much more resources to keep them alive for yet longer. So they are consuming national resources, not adding to them. And we have for a very long time relied upon immigration to increase the population size. But nonetheless, its been a rising population not a falling one and still is. The 'unbalanced age distribution' we curently have is one where there is a surplus of young people. This is working through the system as the proportion of elderly moves towards balance and a smaller proportion of what we call working age. Recent rises in retirement age have been sold to the public on the basis we cannot afford hese pensions. But in reality the problem isnt money, but having enough workers. The changes in state retirement age do not affect people who are wealthy, who can retire whenever they want. But only those dependent on the state pension. So its about making the poor work longer to keep the rich in the level of health care they want.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 2, 2024 8:03:21 GMT
A few weeks ago, we had a discussion, Lord alone knows why, about Sidney Poitier's annus mirabilis, 1967, when he appeared in three significant films, 'To Sir With Love', 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' and 'In the Heat of the Night'. I voted for 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' as my favourite of the three, mainly because of its commendable earnest integrity and the fact that it marked the last performance of the legendary Spencer Tracy. For the first time in ages, I caught the last half of 'In the Heat of the Night' on BBC2 just now, in all its visceral intensity. I'd like to change my vote. Should be an immediate ban from this site - having told the pollsters what you were going to vote for you've just randomly changed your mind at the polling booth Why do we bother, I ask myself? I suspected the Guess Who's Coming to Dinner vote was soft and there would be a slow drift back to In the Heat of the Night nearer polling time. Rod Steiger's persistently strong approval ratings a factor too, I think.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 2, 2024 8:10:15 GMT
@danny Falling birth rates anywhere initially mean the rate of population growth slows and then eventually starts to fall, we've seen that last year in China where the one child policy has now reached tipping point and the population will fall. Even if the birth rate picks up to over 2 their population will continue to fall as their are less women of child bearing age.
While overall a significant fall in the world population from unsustainable levels is positive there are clearly economic and social consequences while it is happening.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 2, 2024 8:12:57 GMT
The real reason behind the European union project and why it was never just a trade deal. Tragic failure of brexitanian luddites sees us outside by all recent polling overwhelmingly wishing we hadn't left. youtu.be/VSpl6dvRhx8?si=OrF708egunxyzQrqI watched that, and there were so many holes in the argument and distortions of history that I'm not going to bother going through them all. The main thing was that the speaker skipped over pretty much everything between the two referenda - the creeping power of what became the EU subsuming the power of individual states - which was why the majority turned against the EU. Only about 1/3 of the nation voted for Brexit. So yes, that side won but it was nothing like the overwhelming vote for membership at the first referendum, it was a very narow win for leave. May confirmed that when she called her election asking for a strong mandate to carry out brexit, and didnt get it. Leavers have used descriptions like 'the creeping powers of the EU'. But the opposite interpretation is that the EU is the biggest international trade agreement in history, and it is that precisely because the members keep adding to it, bit by bit. Where each new measure separately is agreed by all as being a net benefit to their individual states. One man's creeping power is another man's widening rights and wealth. There seems wide agreement the Uk is better off because Wales, Scotland, Mercia, Wessex, all agree to follow the same rules decided centrally. Its odd you cannot see how that same logic applies to europe as a whole. Indeed, its odder you dont recognise that many things attributed to the EU are really world agrements not EU ones, and our leaving the EU hasnt made any difference. For example, the current spat over the convention on human rights banning us abusing refugees.
As to why 'the majority turned against the EU', the one thing leavers had in common was they all agreed leaving would not cost them any wealth. The big red bus was how leave won, by persuading people whatever the outcome they would be better off not worse off. Shame it didnt turn out like that. So in as much as a minority did turn against the Eu, it was because leave lied to them about the likely outcome from leaving. Its not really expressed like this, but what proportion of those who have currently turrned away from con have done so exactly because they equate con with brexit, and see it as a huge lie?
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 2, 2024 8:20:42 GMT
Rob Ford predictions: Summary- Farage back as leader of REFUK- 10% vote share Greens 4.5%- might lose Brighton but remain on one seat somewhere else LD- 12%- SNP- Thinks Lab will overtake SNP in Scotland (Westminster) 36% to 33% but gain proportionately more seats with 28 Lab gains off SNP Lab 40.5 Con 28 vote share Overall: Lab: 388 Cons: 156 LD: 64 SNP: 18 Lab majority of 126 The Lib Dems look improbably high (can't see them getting more than about 35) and the SNP improbably low, which tends to make the rest of it doubtful. Still, we can have our own 2024 predictions game and offer up our best guesses. What was the final outcome of the 2023 version I wonder? I think it is mid-table mediocrity for me.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 2, 2024 8:29:37 GMT
Home secretary James Cleverly being challenged on why he called somewhere 'a shit hole' in parliament. He denied this claiming what he really did was call someone a shit so thats ok. Challenged that others heard him say 'a shit hole', he said they could not have done so because it was not what he said, so its physically impossible they did. He argues they were wrong. And yet his logic that there was only ever one reality might suggest if they are the ones correct, he is the one who could not have called someone a shit.
In the same interview Cleverly also took issue with the interviewer taking the total number of boat people arrivals in the Uk for 2023, dividing by the number of weeks and arriving at an average rate. He said this was incorrect.
Cleverly done.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 2, 2024 8:48:22 GMT
The changes made to inheritance tax by Darling and Osborne in effect allow an exemption of £1 Mill on an estate. This is mainly house-price inflation. I was merely pointing out that IHT, to a limited degree, retrospectively taxes that inflation & the high costs of sustaining the couple who left the estate in the 20 years typically following their retirement. After all general inflation increases tax for the working population. I can't see why dead people should not contribute. Your formatting mucked up so it looks like your words are mine and the context is lost. Happens to me too, but makes it difficult to respond. You argued that asset redistribution on a death is good for the economy. I noted that therefore covid was good for the economy to the extent it caused elderly people to die a bit early and so create that boost. I have pointed this out before, but its good that someone else came to the same conclusion from a different approach. The biggest negative impact of covid was caused by worldwide lockdown, and then inadequate planning for a resumption of that closed economy (eg fuel supplies had been allowed to run down, so we got immediate fuel price inflation as demand picked up).
The changes were probably made because of the huge housing shortage, which has pushed up prices far ahead of historic values compared to incomes. I remember 50 years ago how we all talked about how expensive property had become compared to decades before that. And yet here we are 50 years on and the cost has surged ahead of incomes even further. Its not because construction costs have risen, because we are perfectly able to build cost effectively if we try.
Housing has become a special case skewing inheritance tax rules. A poor person can end up notionally rich because their home once cheap is now worth a million, and they may wish to transfer their right to own a house to their children. Which translates into leaving a million, untaxed, to their kids. But this same rule also can be used simply to allow a rich person to leave a million pounds without tax. Perhaps there should be a clawback mechanism, so anyone making use of these tax loopholes to leave property to children should be taxed extra on assets beyong a million until the allowance is made up? Which still leaves the problem of people without chldren, feeling betrayed they cannot leave assets to other family on a similar basis. And better yet, if we shrank hosue prices back to historic levels, say 1/4 what they are now on average, anyone wanting to but a house would be in a far better position whether their older relatives own one or not.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 2, 2024 8:58:32 GMT
Rob Ford predictions: Summary- Farage back as leader of REFUK- 10% vote share Greens 4.5%- might lose Brighton but remain on one seat somewhere else LD- 12%- SNP- Thinks Lab will overtake SNP in Scotland (Westminster) 36% to 33% but gain proportionately more seats with 28 Lab gains off SNP Lab 40.5 Con 28 vote share Overall: Lab: 388 Cons: 156 LD: 64 SNP: 18 Lab majority of 126 The Lib Dems look improbably high (can't see them getting more than about 35) and the SNP improbably low, which tends to make the rest of it doubtful. Still, we can have our own 2024 predictions game and offer up our best guesses. What was the final outcome of the 2023 version I wonder? I think it is mid-table mediocrity for me. Ford is predicting that a Lib Dem vote share of 12% is going to do some extraordinarily heavy lifting to garner 64 seats, isn't he? While I suppose it's feasible if some very effective tactical ABT voting takes place, but I think he might be wrong on both counts. I'm a bit with you and see about 30 seats for the Lib Dems with a national vote share circa 15%. I don't disagree with much of the rest, although I suspect the Tories will recover to the very low 30s vote share and get nearer to 200 seats. If they run a very strong culture war type campaign, which might be the most effective weapon left in their threadbare Arsenal (sorry, Crofty), then I could see them holding a few more Red Wall seats than some are currently predicting. They will suffer in their old heartlands though at the hands of both Labour and the Lib Dems. Ford is right about Scotland, I think, and this may well be Labour's ace in the pack in the next election, coupled with a strong showing in Wales too. I could see a sort of 2019 election in reverse in terms of Labour/Tory seat/vote shares with Labour getting a 60-80 overall majority. I think Ford is over-egging the Reform UK vote share, though. Shorn of the Brexit factor I think it will be essentially a Far Right vote circa 4-5%. Sane brexiteers will return to the mainstream parties and RefUK will feed off the old EDF and NF vote.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 2, 2024 9:01:15 GMT
@danny Falling birth rates anywhere initially mean the rate of population growth slows and then eventually starts to fall, we've seen that last year in China where the one child policy has now reached tipping point and the population will fall. My point was that yes there was a one child policy, but to challenge whether it was caused th falling population. Other developing nations universally see a falling birth rate, it seems to be a natural rule of human society. about that...I seem to recall some statistics that amongst those single children are statistically too many boys. Implying medical intervention to choose the sex of the child, one way or another. Indeed. But no one seems willing to address them and come up for a plan how to manage resources which are reducing rather than growing. The most obvious one is to make rich people work harder. Tricky sell that one, because of their political power and influence. Another is to make it worthwhile for poor people to work harder, again by offering wealth in return. Its funny how we incentivise the rich by giving them more of what will not make them work harder because they already have so much, yet refuse to incentivise the poor who would respond to extra money, by refusing them pay rises. Does any political party have a plan how to resolve our economic problems other than by growth of the economy (thus reliant upon population growth)?
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jan 2, 2024 9:02:05 GMT
@danny Falling birth rates anywhere initially mean the rate of population growth slows and then eventually starts to fall, we've seen that last year in China where the one child policy has now reached tipping point and the population will fall. Even if the birth rate picks up to over 2 their population will continue to fall as their are less women of child bearing age. While overall a significant fall in the world population from unsustainable levels is positive there are clearly economic and social consequences while it is happening. fewer women. ( as a former English teacher I used to teach the kids this at secondary school in their first term aged 11 - Less is a lump, fewer is a number OR if you can count it it's fewer.) You have to keep it simple for kids to remember. They don't need the mechanics. Similarly for apostrophes I used to teach that they are all to replace missing letters a) where abbreviations are used ( it's for it is etc) b) where you've shortened a possessive ( the boy his hat - the boy's hat removing the 'hi' ). I'm aware it's not technically accurate but You can always go on and add exceptions. Kids near clear and simple rules they can follow until they gain a more sophisticated understanding of grammar and punctuation.
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jan 2, 2024 9:12:34 GMT
Rob Ford predictions: Summary- Farage back as leader of REFUK- 10% vote share Greens 4.5%- might lose Brighton but remain on one seat somewhere else LD- 12%- SNP- Thinks Lab will overtake SNP in Scotland (Westminster) 36% to 33% but gain proportionately more seats with 28 Lab gains off SNP Lab 40.5 Con 28 vote share Overall: Lab: 388 Cons: 156 LD: 64 SNP: 18 Lab majority of 126 The Lib Dems look improbably high (can't see them getting more than about 35) and the SNP improbably low, which tends to make the rest of it doubtful. Still, we can have our own 2024 predictions game and offer up our best guesses. What was the final outcome of the 2023 version I wonder? I think it is mid-table mediocrity for me. Agreed. I also think LD gains will go hand in hand with Lab gains and the LD @ 64 doesn't really equate too well to the Lab total where Lab have a lot more opportunities from second place. So if LD make those sorts of gains it seems likely Lab would as well. Both SNP prediction and Greens in Brighton/Bristol I don't have much of a clue. SNP is relatively small margins and complex movements/motivations between Lab, SNP & Con. I'd say easier for Greens to hold Brighton than to gain the new Bristol Central even if local election results make it seem like Bristol is a better hunting ground.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 2, 2024 9:13:10 GMT
fewer women. ( as a former English teacher I used to teach the kids at school - Less is a lump, fewer is a number OR if you can count it it's fewer) Whether there are fewer or less women, its also the case that the chance of each one having any children is reduced by social factors such as the need to work to buy a home to live in. Theres plenty of women who do not have the time to have children even though they would like them. Tressel trust calculated that after universal credit had been introduced to an area for one year, food bank usage rose 50%. (random fact curtesy of R4 just floating past my ear.) But it makes the point, theres lots of people constrained by poverty from having children. Not just the middle classes.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 2, 2024 9:34:49 GMT
sheviiFed those numbers through electoral calculus assuming tactical voting and it came up with slightly fewer Tories and a few more Labour mps but with the Lib dems on 60, so on those numbers given particular positive swing in Tory lib dem contests, it doesn't appear to add more than another half a dozen even with the lib dems at 15%. So I'd give Ford a plausible if optimistic on those outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 2, 2024 9:55:53 GMT
@danny Falling birth rates anywhere initially mean the rate of population growth slows and then eventually starts to fall, we've seen that last year in China where the one child policy has now reached tipping point and the population will fall. Even if the birth rate picks up to over 2 their population will continue to fall as their are less women of child bearing age. While overall a significant fall in the world population from unsustainable levels is positive there are clearly economic and social consequences while it is happening. fewer women. ( as a former English teacher I used to teach the kids this at secondary school in their first term aged 11 - Less is a lump, fewer is a number OR if you can count it it's fewer.) You have to keep it simple for kids to remember. They don't need the mechanics. Similarly for apostrophes I used to teach that they are all to replace missing letters a) where abbreviations are used ( it's for it is etc) b) where you've shortened a possessive ( the boy his hat - the boy's hat removing the 'hi' ). I'm aware it's not technically accurate but You can always go on and add exceptions. Kids near clear and simple rules they can follow until they gain a more sophisticated understanding of grammar and punctuation. linguafrankly.blogspot.com/2012/05/everyone-understands-grammar.htmlthere are some interesting thoughts on simplicity here
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 2, 2024 10:09:03 GMT
The Lib Dems look improbably high (can't see them getting more than about 35) and the SNP improbably low, which tends to make the rest of it doubtful. Still, we can have our own 2024 predictions game and offer up our best guesses. What was the final outcome of the 2023 version I wonder? I think it is mid-table mediocrity for me. Ford is predicting that a Lib Dem vote share of 12% is going to do some extraordinarily heavy lifting to garner 64 seats, isn't he? While I suppose it's feasible if some very effective tactical ABT voting takes place, but I think he might be wrong on both counts. I'm a bit with you and see about 30 seats for the Lib Dems with a national vote share circa 15%. I don't disagree with much of the rest, although I suspect the Tories will recover to the very low 30s vote share and get nearer to 200 seats. If they run a very strong culture war type campaign, which might be the most effective weapon left in their threadbare Arsenal (sorry, Crofty), then I could see them holding a few more Red Wall seats than some are currently predicting. They will suffer in their old heartlands though at the hands of both Labour and the Lib Dems. Ford is right about Scotland, I think, and this may well be Labour's ace in the pack in the next election, coupled with a strong showing in Wales too. I could see a sort of 2019 election in reverse in terms of Labour/Tory seat/vote shares with Labour getting a 60-80 overall majority. I think Ford is over-egging the Reform UK vote share, though. Shorn of the Brexit factor I think it will be essentially a Far Right vote circa 4-5%. Sane brexiteers will return to the mainstream parties and RefUK will feed off the old EDF and NF vote. I shall be quite happy with 30 Lib Dem MPs, just as long as the SNP have 29 or fewer. Looking back to 1997, what we saw then was an approximate doubling of Lib Dem MPs and the same result again would be good. What matters far more than number of MPs is becoming the third-largest party in the Commons again, with the resulting benefit of two guaranteed questions every week at PMQs instead of one about every five weeks.
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jan 2, 2024 10:12:18 GMT
fewer women. ( as a former English teacher I used to teach the kids this at secondary school in their first term aged 11 - Less is a lump, fewer is a number OR if you can count it it's fewer.) You have to keep it simple for kids to remember. They don't need the mechanics. Similarly for apostrophes I used to teach that they are all to replace missing letters a) where abbreviations are used ( it's for it is etc) b) where you've shortened a possessive ( the boy his hat - the boy's hat removing the 'hi' ). I'm aware it's not technically accurate but You can always go on and add exceptions. Kids near clear and simple rules they can follow until they gain a more sophisticated understanding of grammar and punctuation. linguafrankly.blogspot.com/2012/05/everyone-understands-grammar.htmlthere are some interesting thoughts on simplicity here I agree. That's why all this nonsense that Cummings insisted Gove introduced into grammar teaching for primary school pupils makes me so mad. Effing 'fronted adverbials". When I first heard that term it took me a moment or two to understand it. Parents can't help their kids when they ask them to give them a fronted adverbial in a sentence. It's absolute bollocks. I always took the view that grammar is a very simple set of rules rather like the blog above introduces. It's enough for children to be able to write sensibly and as they get older, children will learn the backbone and subtleties of it. Similarly with punctuation, it's not for hte sake of it, it's about ensuring what you write ends up meaning what you want it to. I found the book, "Eats, shoots and leaves" invaluable in helping children (and their parents) why punctuation is important. Later in life when I spoke at conferences and school prizegivings and the such like I used to say how important the humble comma is and I always got a great laugh from the parents (and cheers from the women) at this one: Woman without her man is nothing Woman COMMA without her COMMA man is nothing
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jan 2, 2024 10:19:52 GMT
Happy New Year to all. A refreshing Christmas break and here I am ready to take the sword to the destructive Tories and their duplicitous allies. Fantastic news. When are you going to make a belated start on attacking the actual Tories rather than their enablers-of-that-time? I know they're not the experts' pollsters of choice but seeing as I'm no expert, I do actually LOOOOOVVE a people polling poll. The figures are always so bloody marvellous. When's the next one out? Anyway, happy new year to you all and here's to getting the b******s out this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2024 10:22:08 GMT
An interesting take on the connection between the forecast change in this years EP elections , and Starmer's EU policy:-
"There is a terrible paradox for Sir Keir Starmer and all those like him in Labour who opposed Brexit and tried to mitigate its worst effects. It now looks as if, for the first time in half a century, the Europe question will not feature in the forthcoming general election. On the Continent, in the Brussels headquarters of the mainstream centre-left, centre-right and liberal European political groups, parties are advancing to the European parliament elections in June with a grim despair that they will be hammered as voters elect MEPs from the far right, always anti-immigrant, often racist nationalist parties. The main reason is the huge rise of non-European immigrants arriving to do the work that native Germans or Italians or Swedes will not do, mixed with asylum seekers — mainly Muslims — fleeing from, or via, the failed states of Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan that EU, UK and American foreign policy blunders have created this century."
"It ( Brexit) has not turned out well. Polls now show very clear majorities saying that the Brexit deal promoted by Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak is hurting British economic interests and denying Britons rights of easy travel, work and retirement in Europe that they once enjoyed. But Labour can sail serenely above this. Starmer is the party’s first leader in decades not having to, as Harold Wilson put it, “wade in shit” on Europe. Labour shadow ministers, MPs and candidates are not going to reopen the EU question with demands for a new referendum. Europe is now a problem for Sunak not Starmer. Leaving the EU was meant to be a crowning achievement for the Tory right but not having to defend EU policy has freed Labour, for the time being, from what is seriously hurting their sister parties across the Channel.
The first law of politics is unintended consequences. And Labour’s poll leads prove the point."
From "Keir Starmer has been spared the usual angst over Europe"
Denis MacShane - Minister for Europe under Tony Blair Times today
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 2, 2024 10:25:10 GMT
The Lib Dems look improbably high (can't see them getting more than about 35) and the SNP improbably low, which tends to make the rest of it doubtful. Still, we can have our own 2024 predictions game and offer up our best guesses. What was the final outcome of the 2023 version I wonder? I think it is mid-table mediocrity for me. Agreed. I also think LD gains will go hand in hand with Lab gains and the LD @ 64 doesn't really equate too well to the Lab total where Lab have a lot more opportunities from second place. So if LD make those sorts of gains it seems likely Lab would as well. Both SNP prediction and Greens in Brighton/Bristol I don't have much of a clue. SNP is relatively small margins and complex movements/motivations between Lab, SNP & Con. I'd say easier for Greens to hold Brighton than to gain the new Bristol Central even if local election results make it seem like Bristol is a better hunting ground. I think the Greens problem in retaining Brighton is incumbency, with both the sitting MP and local council having records in office to defend. Lucas probably had a strong personal vote too and her successor won't. I think Bristol may be more promising ground for them where the insurgency label, essential for small party success, still adheres to the party.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 2, 2024 10:33:46 GMT
An interesting take on the connection between the forecast change in this years EP elections , and Starmer's EU policy:- "There is a terrible paradox for Sir Keir Starmer and all those like him in Labour who opposed Brexit and tried to mitigate its worst effects. It now looks as if, for the first time in half a century, the Europe question will not feature in the forthcoming general election. On the Continent, in the Brussels headquarters of the mainstream centre-left, centre-right and liberal European political groups, parties are advancing to the European parliament elections in June with a grim despair that they will be hammered as voters elect MEPs from the far right, always anti-immigrant, often racist nationalist parties. The main reason is the huge rise of non-European immigrants arriving to do the work that native Germans or Italians or Swedes will not do, mixed with asylum seekers — mainly Muslims — fleeing from, or via, the failed states of Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan that EU, UK and American foreign policy blunders have created this century." "It ( Brexit) has not turned out well. Polls now show very clear majorities saying that the Brexit deal promoted by Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak is hurting British economic interests and denying Britons rights of easy travel, work and retirement in Europe that they once enjoyed. But Labour can sail serenely above this. Starmer is the party’s first leader in decades not having to, as Harold Wilson put it, “wade in shit” on Europe. Labour shadow ministers, MPs and candidates are not going to reopen the EU question with demands for a new referendum. Europe is now a problem for Sunak not Starmer. Leaving the EU was meant to be a crowning achievement for the Tory right but not having to defend EU policy has freed Labour, for the time being, from what is seriously hurting their sister parties across the Channel. The first law of politics is unintended consequences. And Labour’s poll leads prove the point." From "Keir Starmer has been spared the usual angst over Europe" Denis MacShane - Minister for Europe under Tony Blair Times today Aren't the almost derisory turnouts in European Assembly elections the perfect playground for extreme parties to flourish? As Mercian loves to often remind us, UKIP once won them in the UK and I think the Tories polled 9% in them too, proving their near farcical status as far as national elections go. Whilst a proliferation of Far Right fruit cases and racists in Brussels isn't great, these elections have far less traction and import than those taking place in the member states that make up the EU. In those elections, certainly in the larger and more important states, the centre is holding.
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jan 2, 2024 10:37:46 GMT
That poll the other day that suggested, what was it? - if I recall correctly, up to 16 million of us could vote tactically. That's the thing that could get the Liberals beyond the late 20s/ early to mid-30s in terms of seats and beyond say the 40 seat mark. For that to happen though, I think they will need the lead between Labour and the Tories to narrow. As it is, in most seats Labour voters will be able to vote for their party of choice. If it's getting tight the likes of me would vote Liberal if they were the best placed to beat the Tory. (Not that I have to do that - as in my constituency, Dartford the Liberals are nowhere). Labour would also benefit from tactical voting, in that I think we've seen polls that suggest that even more Liberal voters are prepared to vote tactically. If the gap narrowed I think many Liberal voters will vote Labour in order to get rid of the Tory. That looks a bit convoluted and as ever, I've used hyphens and commas poorly but basically what I'm saying is if the lead doesn't narrow then I think people will have as free pass to vote for who they want. If it does narrow I expect (broadly) that whoever is second placed behind the Tory will benefit from tactical voting by Labour/ Liberal vioters (delete as applicable in each particular constituency). Regardless of where the Tories get to, just too many of us want them gone and to make that happen, are prepared to vote for another party that we wouldn't normally vote for. As I say, for that tactical voting to happen en masse, I think depends on a significant narrowing of the polls which in any case, I'm not convinced we'll see. Oh, I think they will narrow but I just can't see Labour falling below, say 38% and even if the Tories break through their long-standing 30% arse ceiling (copyright moi) I can't see them getting beyond say, 32%. That for me that is an absolute worse case scenario for Labour and a best-case one for the Tories. Set in stone? No. Events - I know. But that's how it feels to me right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2024 10:43:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 2, 2024 10:49:31 GMT
The Greens will not win in Bristol and will struggle to hold Brighton Pavilion.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 2, 2024 11:14:23 GMT
The Greens will not win in Bristol and will struggle to hold Brighton Pavilion. I wish I had your certainty about future events!
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 2, 2024 11:17:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 2, 2024 11:18:37 GMT
Forty years of the FTSE100 www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/02/footsie-40-ftse-100-index-tech-stocksThe graph illustrates just how much the index has gone sideways over the last 23 years, but some shares have done very well Relx (founded in 1993 by the merger of Reed International and Elsevier) is the one I wish I had known about at the time - since 2005 its earnings per share has gone from 31p to over 100p. That's the sort of growth that has been absent from most of the companies in the index.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2024 11:21:21 GMT
Current birth rate in the UK is 1.6 per woman , so for every 100 people alive in the current child bearing generation will result in only 45 in three generations. This is why we have the unbalanced age distribution today. The rate of population growth has been falling for decades, any growth in recent years has been a result of people living longer, as life expectancy levels off we will start to see significant falls in population. Not if we keep importing hundreds of thousands every year. That will certainly determine the course of our population change-as can be seen from Fig. 1.5 in the 2023 Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) annual report. :- www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-advisory-committee-annual-report-2023/migration-advisory-committee-mac-annual-report-2023-accessibleThat report together with other data from ONS and other sources feature in a Times two pager today by Neil O'Brien MP titled "Visa policy scandal that lets poorest migrants stay in the UK" His analysis reveal a shocking shambles , with two areas of particular concern :- The Two -Year post study Student Work Visa ; and the Shortage Occupation List. First some numbers for context :- "Non-EU net migration to the UK over the last 5 years was 2,008,000. The ONS broke this down as 309,000 for work (15 per cent); 269,000 work dependants; 450,000 study; 133,000 study dependants; 230,000 family; 88,000 other; 269,000 asylum; 226,000 Hong Kong and Ukraine humanitarian; and 34,000 other humanitarian cases." O'Brien claims that universities, especially those of lower academic standing ,in order to attract overseas applicants to bolster their shaky finances took advantage of Boris Johnson’s misjudged decision to reintroduce the two-year post-study work visa by offering students, as well as their dependants, the chance to study and then work in Britain. The result has been that very many come not to study but to take advantage of the work opportunities. They recoup the fees paid to study in Britain, by earning enough over the next two years to send remittances home and then to manipulate the system to move to other jobs and eventually apply for permanent residence. ( After five years of living in the UK people can obtain indefinite leave to remain, and then move on to gain citizenship.) Few extra students came from rich countries or applied to the most selective universities; very many came from poorer countries and then took jobs where their earnings were surprisingly low.Many have taken what O’Brien calls “Deliveroo” jobs that contribute almost nothing to Britain’s skills needs or tax base. They are a net drain on the economy as they are allowed to bring over dependants, whose numbers accounted for 148,000 visas in 2022 — some 24 per cent of all student visas. They took full advantage of social security and education provision. On the SOL , O'Brien says "about half of all skilled worker visas over the past year went to care workers and the FoI data shows the average salary they were offered was about £21,200. If you work 40 hours a week on the national living wage, you earn £21,600. So half of “skilled worker” visas are in reality going to very low-paid people.SOL and other routes provide a way around the general threshold, and enable people to come for low skilled, low-wage work. People are increasingly aware of the abuse of the social care visa. The MAC annual report noted that: “[The anti-slavery charity] Unseen UK indicated that there were over 700 potential cases of modern slavery in the care sector in 2022 (though they use a less stringent definition compared to the Modern Slavery Act). This accounted for 18 per cent of all potential victims raised through its helpline." He quotes examples of bonded labour linked to the adult social care sector , a sector being used as a route into the UK by people who do not then work in the sector. The MAC report noted Border Force finding a migrant who was sponsored by one care provider, who had had 498 visas granted since May 2022. The Care Quality Commission confirmed that this care provider had been dormant since September 2021 and was no longer providing any services. O'Brien says that the database for all migrant visas is poor, the Home Office has no proper records and abuse is rife. It seems to me that the Student post study work visa needs scrapping , and the Care Sector funding has to increase sufficiently to allow its workers to be paid higher wages. I doubt a Starmer administration will do any better than this lot on any of this. When you consider that one of UK's key economic problems is low productivity & lack of investment, a work visa system which encourages the availability of a low paid workforce really is a joke.
|
|