Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2024 12:06:27 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2024 12:25:13 GMT
I think there are two main ways of looking at Lab's backtracking on its green investment pledge. Most voters won't register the detail, so the message they take will be (a) when tough choices have to be made green issues aren't a priority or (b) Lab is prepared to be fiscally responsible and pragmatic. I suppose that some will read it as an indication that Starmer doesn't keep his promises, but at this stage (before the election's been called) I think most people give opposition parties plenty of latitude, they're much less forgiving of politicians who go back on the spirit of the manifesto with which they won an election. It's been clear for a long time that Lab isn't targeting green-minded voters and potential Con-Lab switchers will need plenty of reassurance that the Treasury is safe in Starmer and Reeves' hands, because they don't have a track record and memories of the Truss-Kwarteng craziness. The catastrophe is that there just aren't enough voters who see urgent action on climate as the non-negotiable, in the way that fiscal responsibility is a sine qua non for a lot of people. Lab and Con have set targets, but in practice both of them are taking the approach of spending what they think the country can afford and seeing where that gets us (nowhere near). I think we have to take the targets much more seriously - they weren't plucked out of the air, they're derived from the evidence we have about how carbon emissions are affecting global climate. We desperately need an honest debate about the real costs of transition to net zero and what a sustainable future will look like, but just like with the real cost of restoring public services, we're not getting it from out politicians. It's hard to avoid concluding that democracy is broken. I suspect part of Lab's mistake was to peddle the myth of imminent green prosperity. We've underinvested for so long that massive investment is needed simply to catch up with our competitors (our creaking, obsolescing infrastructure is a terrible drag on productivity) and the pay-off for investing in the transition to net zero is a long way off, if it materialises at all. There may be some early mover advantage, but for the rest of this century I think we'll struggle to offset the costs of the impact of climate change. My guess is that although the geographical and sectoral distribution of jobs and production will change during transition, it won't - over the medium to long term - result in growth. Great post. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Feb 2, 2024 12:27:05 GMT
Survation
NEW: Westminster Voting Intention from Survation’s fortnightly tracker.
LAB 44 (-1)
CON 27 (-1)
LD 11 (+1)
GRN 3 (+1)
RFM 7 (-1)
SNP 4 (+2)
OTH 5 (+1)
Leadership approval
Sunak is -28
Starmer is +5.
F/w 30th - 31st January. Changes vs. 18th December 2023.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Feb 2, 2024 12:28:38 GMT
Techne
NEW POLL: Labour extends its lead as Conservatives falter:
Lab 45% (+1)
Con 23% (-1)
Lib Dem 10% (=)
Reform 10% (+1)
Green 6% (-1)
SNP 3% (=)
Others 3% (=)
👥 1,634 surveyed
🗓️ +/- 25 Jan 2024
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 2, 2024 12:32:47 GMT
Techne NEW POLL: Labour extends its lead as Conservatives falter: Lab 45% (+1) Con 23% (-1) Lib Dem 10% (=) Reform 10% (+1) Green 6% (-1) SNP 3% (=) Others 3% (=) 👥 1,634 surveyed 🗓️ +/- 25 Jan 2024 Great post. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,718
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Feb 2, 2024 12:35:32 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Feb 2, 2024 12:41:26 GMT
Techne NEW POLL: Labour extends its lead as Conservatives falter: Lab 45% (+1) Con 23% (-1) Lib Dem 10% (=) Reform 10% (+1) Green 6% (-1) SNP 3% (=) Others 3% (=) 👥 1,634 surveyed 🗓️ +/- 25 Jan 2024 Great post. I'm not sure, I feel like I've let Dave down, the board down and myself down by not reporting the tories on under 20% this week |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,518
|
Post by Danny on Feb 2, 2024 12:43:56 GMT
A couple of fascinating covid snippets: In the US, the CDC has put out a new public information campaign aimed at encouraging uptake of boosters, with the headline " your next covid infection could be your worst". Bit of a contrast to the HIV campaign under Thatcher, whose slogan was 'AIDS, dont die of ignorance'. We have abandoned using truth to persuade people to act, instead the government embarked on a propaganda campaign, for which we now have proof thanks to the enquiry that they deliberately lied. Quite apart from where they simply promoted falsehoods in ignorance. I was reminded of that having caught a film yesterday, somewhat on the lines of the recent 'its a sin' By Russel Davies. Both about what happened to in particular gay youth and drug users in that epidemic. In other countries of course, this became a massive epidemic spreading throughout the whole heterosexual population with truly high death tolls. The government policy of honesty on that occasion worked to safeguard the majority of the population, by honestly explaining the risk and actually where there was no risk. Whereas this time, frankly we totally failed to exploit the potential from splitting our approach between those truly at risk, the old, and those essentially safe, the young. And here you are, still trying to scare nations into bankruptcy. There was another lesson from what happened. When all this was unrolling, I was at prime age to be involved. Russel Davies was interviewed and asked similarly whether any of his drama was based upon his own experience. He replied he had been way too timid, though of course he made the point where one of his character who was hardly involved in anything ended up catching HIV and dying. Similarly I was also rather too timid. But even so I once dated a guy who had a couple of friends die, another whose partner died but who himself survived long enough for the drugs to arrive which can now fairly straightforwardly control the disease, albeit not cure it. Rather like high blood pressure. Another guy still living with HIV, and another way back then who suspected he might have it. I was once scared nearly to death by a doctor when being tested, you then had to come back a week later for results, who was going on so much about the disease that I spent a week thinking he knew something more which I didnt, which made him think I had it. On the whole I was pretty cautious based on the advice how to stay safe, and I was. fine. But the point is, this was a swathe of young people dying from a truly dangerous disease. At that time I thought about this and concluded it is simply no good ending your life voluntarily by hiding at home. Better to live it, risks and all. Some people objected publicly to lockdown this time round, was one Ken Clarke? I suspect anyone who lived through a war might have had this same feeling, its absurd to hide at home cowering from something which could end your life, but instead end it anyway yourself by just hiding. And in this case, the evidence suggests we did totally the wrong thing, Government lied, government fell victim to 'the precautionary principle', which is a sure way to ruin lives. Theres no evidence covid is becoming more severe. Rather it seems authorities faced with the disease fading away are resorting to shouting 'FIRE' louder and louder. Possibly because the scale and cost of the errors made during this epidemic are so vast no one dares admit to them. It was clear from Johnsons testimony he understood lockdown was pointless back in autumn 2020, yet he declined to take this line in his own defence. Its just too big a disaster to admit to causing. You keep stating the obvious. If someone has 'long' disease, then obviously the disease is still at work and has caused longer lasting damage. Which still doesnt say they will never recover, just it will take longer, nor does it say that the numbers involved and extent of illness is significant nationally. Why dont you just let us all get on with living? |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Feb 2, 2024 12:47:12 GMT
However you spin it Labour's shifting green pledge policy comes across as irresolute and messy.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,518
|
Post by Danny on Feb 2, 2024 12:49:55 GMT
Danny Wtf are you talking about? I had no allegation at all just pointed out that your analogy with two youngsters sending each other sexy texts was total bollocks. Ah, sorry. It was Neilj who made the original comment. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Feb 2, 2024 13:04:05 GMT
I find the recent talk of 'national service' depressing. I think that it fundamentally misunderstands how the world is today and suspect that there is an element of, for want of a better phrase, 'bisto nostalgia', harking back to a world now long gone. Yes there is a touch of the gammons of yesteryear, 1960s. "What these long-hairs, yobboes, footnall hooligans need is two years' national serive, that would sort them out. etc etc." There is a funny moment in A Hard Day's Night ( key film the critics say?) , where I think its old git Wilf Bramble says to the boys: "We fought & won a World War for the Likes of you ! (splutter)" And John says: "Yeh, and now I bet you wished youd lost". "Bisto nostalgia". I dont even know what it means it's so cool. We obviously move in quite different social circles. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 2, 2024 13:06:43 GMT
I'm not sure, I feel like I've let Dave down, the board down and myself down by not reporting the tories on under 20% this week Never mind, it's probably just MoE variation. And even if it is real, does it matter if the Labour majority is, say, 170 rather than the 253 of Electoral Calculus's median estimate? Whilst I would love to see the Tories reduced to the sixth party in British politics, I would be quite happy with any Labour majority over 100. That's more than enough to get through a Government's policies over a five-year term. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 2, 2024 13:17:06 GMT
The three most miserable words you see on UKPR? " Danny quoted you" |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 2, 2024 13:33:10 GMT
I think there are two main ways of looking at Lab's backtracking on its green investment pledge. Most voters won't register the detail, so the message they take will be (a) when tough choices have to be made green issues aren't a priority or (b) Lab is prepared to be fiscally responsible and pragmatic. I suppose that some will read it as an indication that Starmer doesn't keep his promises, but at this stage (before the election's been called) I think most people give opposition parties plenty of latitude, they're much less forgiving of politicians who go back on the spirit of the manifesto with which they won an election. It's been clear for a long time that Lab isn't targeting green-minded voters and potential Con-Lab switchers will need plenty of reassurance that the Treasury is safe in Starmer and Reeves' hands, because they don't have a track record and memories of the Truss-Kwarteng craziness. The catastrophe is that there just aren't enough voters who see urgent action on climate as the non-negotiable, in the way that fiscal responsibility is a sine qua non for a lot of people. Lab and Con have set targets, but in practice both of them are taking the approach of spending what they think the country can afford and seeing where that gets us (nowhere near). I think we have to take the targets much more seriously - they weren't plucked out of the air, they're derived from the evidence we have about how carbon emissions are affecting global climate. We desperately need an honest debate about the real costs of transition to net zero and what a sustainable future will look like, but just like with the real cost of restoring public services, we're not getting it from out politicians. It's hard to avoid concluding that democracy is broken. I suspect part of Lab's mistake was to peddle the myth of imminent green prosperity. We've underinvested for so long that massive investment is needed simply to catch up with our competitors (our creaking, obsolescing infrastructure is a terrible drag on productivity) and the pay-off for investing in the transition to net zero is a long way off, if it materialises at all. There may be some early mover advantage, but for the rest of this century I think we'll struggle to offset the costs of the impact of climate change. My guess is that although the geographical and sectoral distribution of jobs and production will change during transition, it won't - over the medium to long term - result in growth. I agree with all of this (highlighted). There are many roadblocks in the way of transitioning to net zero; the energisation of my wind farm (I'm a member of the co-operative funding it) has just been delayed by another month to the end of April. The problem began with Scottish Power's supplier of their cables to the wind farm not being able to supply them (you may think that one piece of wire is like another, but these have a fibre optic cable inside them). Our project manager helped them find another supplier, but now it turns out that special connectors are needed that are also unavailable; hence the delay. Scale this sort of problem up by the number of wind turbines that need to be installed and it is obvious that supplier issues could be a major constraint. We all have heard about wind farm projects being delayed because National Grid and their Scottish equivalent cannot guarantee grid connections and this will only get worse in future. Major infrastructure investment in the electricity grid is essential and I was hoping that part of that £28 billion was going into it. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,518
|
Post by Danny on Feb 2, 2024 13:53:36 GMT
One to keep an eye on; GPs have rejected the government's pay off of a 1.9% rise. It's not difficult to understand why, and given that GP services are under intense stress, this offer seems remarkably poorly framed. Strike action is already being discussed within the GP sector, apparently. Disastrous. From whose perspective? I presume the government has acted in the manner it thinks maximises its chances of election? Working backwards then, it is probably starting from the assumption its not very likely to get the support of voters worried about needing GP serices, or even aware there are problems. Rather perhaps its looking to get support from those who think doctors are overpaid and need to learn a lesson. Thats not such a hard sell, because they are pretty high in the rankings compared to average pay. But more than that, its part of their wider campaign not to pay any public employees if they can avoid doing so. And they think the general idea of cutting employee pay so as to also cut taxes has appeal to a certain group of voters, again the sort more likely to be voting for them anyway, but thats their USP. Finally, they presumably expect to lose this election. So it doesnt matter how many problems are created for government in 2025 to solve, it wont be their problem. In fact, the worse things are for that government, the better for thir prospects in 2029. There is a subtext of course for voodoo economic justification. The lower public sector pay overall, the more they can notionally claim is available for pre election last minute tax cuts, or tax cut promises. And the worse will look labour performance in 2025 when they fail to deliver those conservative promises. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Feb 2, 2024 13:57:44 GMT
Survation NEW: Westminster Voting Intention from Survation’s fortnightly tracker. F/w 30th - 31st January. Changes vs. 18th December 2023. I'm no expert on calendars but since when has Survation been "fortnightly"? Be good if it did move to that. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,518
|
Post by Danny on Feb 2, 2024 14:03:16 GMT
The catastrophe is that there just aren't enough voters who see urgent action on climate as the non-negotiable, in the way that fiscal responsibility is a sine qua non for a lot of people. The leave vote was won by convincing enough voters leaving would not cost them anything. Leave voters believed it wouldnt, remain voters believed it would. Hmm. The worst case impact is London under water. And many other cities. we will struggle to offset that cost. Its obvious notional emissions targets are not going to be met. Its also clear that some aspects of this are net profitable, insulating homes was an obvious one con abandoned. Onshore wind generation another it has abandoned and instead is reaching for horrendously expensive nuclear. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,518
|
Post by Danny on Feb 2, 2024 14:04:29 GMT
Strike action is already being discussed within the GP sector, apparently. Assumed they were all on strike already… But the good news is doctors get paid more while on strike (doing overtime shifts for those on strike that day), so its a way to get their pay rise. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Feb 2, 2024 14:10:10 GMT
Survation NEW: Westminster Voting Intention from Survation’s fortnightly tracker. F/w 30th - 31st January. Changes vs. 18th December 2023. I'm no expert on calendars but since when has Survation been "fortnightly"? Be good if it did move to that. Maybe it's changed for the run up to the election, it came from Survation itself |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 2, 2024 14:26:44 GMT
Survation NEW: Westminster Voting Intention from Survation’s fortnightly tracker. F/w 30th - 31st January. Changes vs. 18th December 2023. I'm no expert on calendars but since when has Survation been "fortnightly"? Be good if it did move to that. Survation produce an incredible number of polls, see their archive here for 2023. Most of these are for different customers and I suspect some may include VI questions which are not picked up by the newspapers/Wikipedia because this question is not publicised by the customer. I found the same with some People Polling polls when they restarted polling last September after six months without a poll. I agree though, monthly or slightly less often is a more accurate description. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 2, 2024 15:05:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 2, 2024 15:11:14 GMT
Survation NEW: Westminster Voting Intention from Survation’s fortnightly tracker. F/w 30th - 31st January. Changes vs. 18th December 2023. I'm no expert on calendars but since when has Survation been "fortnightly"? Be good if it did move to that. When I was younger my nickname was four nightly. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 2, 2024 15:34:37 GMT
Very interesting. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 2, 2024 15:36:41 GMT
I'm no expert on calendars but since when has Survation been "fortnightly"? Be good if it did move to that. When I was younger my nickname was four nightly. Didn't your wrist get tired? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2024 16:19:41 GMT
I'm not sure, I feel like I've let Dave down, the board down and myself down by not reporting the tories on under 20% this week Just make one up Neil. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2024 16:22:44 GMT
Survation NEW: Westminster Voting Intention from Survation’s fortnightly tracker. LAB 44 (-1) CON 27 (-1) LD 11 (+1) GRN 3 (+1) RFM 7 (-1) SNP 4 (+2) OTH 5 (+1) Leadership approval Sunak is -28 Starmer is +5. F/w 30th - 31st January. Changes vs. 18th December 2023. Was this done for the Jibbster? He will be a chuffed boyo |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 2, 2024 16:26:01 GMT
When I was younger my nickname was four nightly. Didn't your wrist get tired? From the one handed midnight keyboard maestro, this is an interesting question. And one, I have to say, that I thought you might be able to answer yourself. By the way, your euphemism "catching up" is rather a clever one. 😅 |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,138
|
Post by domjg on Feb 2, 2024 16:29:08 GMT
I'm not sure, I feel like I've let Dave down, the board down and myself down by not reporting the tories on under 20% this week Just make one up Neil. Do you remember a young roc, can't remember his name, bit of a cheeky chappy who did on occasion make up poll results, none of which were vaguely as crazy as the real ones of today. Can't remember his username for the life of me. Alan something or other possibly.. Had a child then moved to Norway I seem to recall never to be heard from again. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 2, 2024 16:33:21 GMT
Do you remember a young roc, can't remember his name, bit of a cheeky chappy who did on occasion make up poll results, none of which were vaguely as crazy as the real ones of today. Can't remember his username for the life of me. Alan something or other possibly.. Had a child then moved to Norway I seem to recall never to be heard from again. Alan Christie? He used to visit his Granny in the Mendips every now and again. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,606
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 2, 2024 16:46:38 GMT
Techne NEW POLL: Labour extends its lead as Conservatives falter: Lab 45% (+1) Con 23% (-1) Lib Dem 10% (=) Reform 10% (+1) Green 6% (-1) SNP 3% (=) Others 3% (=) 👥 1,634 surveyed 🗓️ +/- 25 Jan 2024 "Conservatives falter" - Blimey, I wonder what percentage the Tories would have to be on for Techne to describe it as a collapse. |
|
