Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

How GE2019 would have been with the new boundaries – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 19 in General
imageHow GE2019 would have been with the new boundaries – politicalbetting.com

Above is the main analysis from Electoral Calculus on the impact of the new boundaries. The table seeks to show what would have happened at GE2019 if these boundaries were in place.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676
    First.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,273
    Second, like air source heat pumps when compared to hydrogen boilers!
  • The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,707
    third
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,707
    There is always that period when the old thread is more interesting than the new one, and it's tempting to go back to it ...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,173
    So that's a notional 2019 majority of 106.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,504
    In Scotland, I presume that the LibDems are forecast to lose whatever the successor seats are to North East Fife, and Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross.

    Given that the Liberal Democrats (outside Orkney & Shetland) only win seats thanks to the magic of unionist tactical voting, then they may be able to repeat the trick in 2024 in whatever the successor to North East Fife is. Pulling the same trick off in the Highlands will be harder.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,602
    15% is 7/1 ish, yes?

    Screaming lay.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676
    The figure that stands out is the increase of seven seats in South East England. It's hardly a surprise that this benefits the Tories, but I am a little surprised the proposed boundaries give the Tories a net increase of seven seats. I guess there must be a few seats where the Tory majority is reduced but they still win (e.g. Woking).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,504

    So that's a notional 2019 majority of 106.

    That's right.

    That being said, it makes relatively little difference to the maths for Labour Majority, as the increase in Tory seats (when on a 44% vote share) is balanced out by some fairly chunky losses should the Conservative vote drop below about 35%.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    rcs1000 said:

    In Scotland, I presume that the LibDems are forecast to lose whatever the successor seats are to North East Fife, and Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross.

    Given that the Liberal Democrats (outside Orkney & Shetland) only win seats thanks to the magic of unionist tactical voting, then they may be able to repeat the trick in 2024 in whatever the successor to North East Fife is. Pulling the same trick off in the Highlands will be harder.

    Must say the idea that both of the losses in Scotland being Lib Dems is not the best news I have heard today. Really surprised that there were not some rotten burghs in and around Glasgow to be squeezed out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932

    Second, like air source heat pumps when compared to hydrogen boilers!

    Eleventh, and still well ahead of hydrogen for domestic heating.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    edited October 19
    IshmaelZ said:

    15% is 7/1 ish, yes?

    Screaming lay.

    When the BoE has interest rates back up at 15%*, you'll be regretting that twice over... :smile:

    *For the avoidance of doubt, that is a joke.
    Probably.
  • Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,589
    edited October 19

    Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062. This is based on registered electors
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062
    what does that mean though? People eligible to vote in WM elections?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,589
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062
    what does that mean though? People eligible to vote in WM elections?
    People registered to vote at Westminster, yes. It's this:
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/elections/electoralregistration/bulletins/electoralstatisticsforuk/march2020
  • Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062. This is based on registered electors
    I'm guessing there's exceptions for places like the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar ?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062
    what does that mean though? People eligible to vote in WM elections?
    People registered to vote at Westminster, yes. It's this:
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/elections/electoralregistration/bulletins/electoralstatisticsforuk/march2020
    ok, so constituencies with more children, non-citizens, etc., will have much larger populations than those that are made up of more old people.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,589
    edited October 19

    Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062. This is based on registered electors
    I'm guessing there's exceptions for places like the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar ?
    Five exceptions. Two on the Isle of Wight, two in the Scottish Isles and Ynys Mon

    Ynys Mon is only slightly too small at 52k as will the two IoW seats at 56k. Only the two Scottish seats are much smaller than target.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,358
    Thank you. A very clear analysis. Two comments: I think it is doubtful whether the DUP would prop up any government whatsoever, as current politics reinforces their ignoble tradition of being clear what they are against but opaque as to what (of non unicorn form) would please them. So the maths of possible governments needs to take account of the certainty of SF absence and the likelihood of DUP presence taking Groucho Marx's position of 'Whatever it is, I'm against it'.

    This, I think, increases the range in which there is no possible government to command a majority.

    Secondly, I think there is a chance that the LD performance in areas of the south east will bear no relation to overall polling if there is a successful movement in 20-30 Remain seats where they are a strong second to topple the Tories.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,357
    2023 - Reduced Con majority (1992 and 2005 elections spring to mind)

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062. This is based on registered electors
    I'm guessing there's exceptions for places like the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar ?
    Five exceptions. Two on the Isle of Wight, two in the Scottish Isles and Ynys Mon
    Why Ynys Mon? It's not hard to get to/from. Having a constituency overlap the Menai Strait is of no real consequence to the constituents or MP. It's not even 200 metres.
  • Just 16% of Britons with gas boilers think it’s likely they’ll replace them within the next few years, after the government has been criticised in their attempt to get people to replace their boilers with low carbon heat pumps

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1450491180366565391
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    I mentioned a few days ago that I was up for a small bet on an increased majority for the Tories at anything better than 5/1. This rather reinforces that view. Does anyone know where there is a market?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    edited October 19

    Just 16% of Britons with gas boilers think it’s likely they’ll replace them within the next few years, after the government has been criticised in their attempt to get people to replace their boilers with low carbon heat pumps

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1450491180366565391

    Well that's a lot more than the new government subsidy seems to be planning for...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    Kids these days have DNA sequencers in school...
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-020-00370-0
  • Just 16% of Britons with gas boilers think it’s likely they’ll replace them within the next few years, after the government has been criticised in their attempt to get people to replace their boilers with low carbon heat pumps

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1450491180366565391

    I expect many will due to breakdown but with existing combi boilers
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,438

    Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062. This is based on registered electors
    I'm guessing there's exceptions for places like the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar ?
    Five exceptions. Two on the Isle of Wight, two in the Scottish Isles and Ynys Mon
    I really like the constituency Ynys Mon. The fifty pounds or so I've made betting there are really amongst my favourite ever wins.

    (I seem to recall Hull and Norwich being very good, but I can't remember the details. And there are of course seats I'm trying to forget.)
  • DavidL said:

    I mentioned a few days ago that I was up for a small bet on an increased majority for the Tories at anything better than 5/1. This rather reinforces that view. Does anyone know where there is a market?

    Conservatives to increase their majority from 2019 (80 seats) at 2/1 with Ladbrokes

    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/uk/uk-politics/next-uk-general-election/229577000/all-markets
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,273

    Just 16% of Britons with gas boilers think it’s likely they’ll replace them within the next few years, after the government has been criticised in their attempt to get people to replace their boilers with low carbon heat pumps

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1450491180366565391

    I expect many will due to breakdown but with existing combi boilers
    Which, in a few years time, will be hydrogen-ready by default.

    (My final post on this topic today!)
  • Just 16% of Britons with gas boilers think it’s likely they’ll replace them within the next few years, after the government has been criticised in their attempt to get people to replace their boilers with low carbon heat pumps

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1450491180366565391

    I expect many will due to breakdown but with existing combi boilers
    Which, in a few years time, will be hydrogen-ready by default.

    (My final post on this topic today!)
    That was the opinion of my gas engineer who serviced my boiler last week or a green gas yet to be developed
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,454
    edited October 19
    Nigelb said:

    Kids these days have DNA sequencers in school...
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-020-00370-0

    Hmm, much simpler than the eukaryotic nuclear chromosomes. Just the plant chloroplast DNA (roughly like a symbiotic bacterium with a single ring shaped stretch of DNA IIRC). But still impressive.

    PS: not trying to explain cpDNA to you - just providing wider context for others!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,589
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062. This is based on registered electors
    I'm guessing there's exceptions for places like the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar ?
    Five exceptions. Two on the Isle of Wight, two in the Scottish Isles and Ynys Mon
    Why Ynys Mon? It's not hard to get to/from. Having a constituency overlap the Menai Strait is of no real consequence to the constituents or MP. It's not even 200 metres.
    Omnium said:

    Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062. This is based on registered electors
    I'm guessing there's exceptions for places like the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar ?
    Five exceptions. Two on the Isle of Wight, two in the Scottish Isles and Ynys Mon
    I really like the constituency Ynys Mon. The fifty pounds or so I've made betting there are really amongst my favourite ever wins.

    (I seem to recall Hull and Norwich being very good, but I can't remember the details. And there are of course seats I'm trying to forget.)
    This might actually be the same reason: the seat is competitive (and only slightly smaller than the Welsh target number).
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,853
    edited October 19
    On energy we just need cheap and plentiful electricity. That’s all we need. The electricity can then do the work we need to produce bio fuels for aeroplanes, bio plastics, carbon capture, water desalination, etc. Suddenly it doesn’t matter if the electric usage is 1 to 1.

    Cheap electricity solves a lot of our problems.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    edited October 19

    DavidL said:

    I mentioned a few days ago that I was up for a small bet on an increased majority for the Tories at anything better than 5/1. This rather reinforces that view. Does anyone know where there is a market?

    Conservatives to increase their majority from 2019 (80 seats) at 2/1 with Ladbrokes

    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/uk/uk-politics/next-uk-general-election/229577000/all-markets
    Conservatives to fail to get a majority 8/11
    Conservatives to get an increased majority 2/1

    Not exactly much value there, is there?

    That's definitely a market where they're only offering one side of the bet at those odds.

    Perhaps @shadsy might consider putting something on Smarkets?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389
    Certainly the boundary changes help the Tories a little but still not a major difference. As OGH states Starmer's target is still to deprive the Tories of their majority, he just has even more near zero chance of a Labour majority once they are in place.

    Note too that the parties most hit proportionally are the LDs and PC
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
  • pingping Posts: 1,409
    edited October 19

    DavidL said:

    I mentioned a few days ago that I was up for a small bet on an increased majority for the Tories at anything better than 5/1. This rather reinforces that view. Does anyone know where there is a market?

    Conservatives to increase their majority from 2019 (80 seats) at 2/1 with Ladbrokes

    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/uk/uk-politics/next-uk-general-election/229577000/all-markets
    The value is the other side of the bet @1/2

    ladbrokes aren’t offering it, though. Typical bookie.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446
    edited October 19

    DavidL said:

    I mentioned a few days ago that I was up for a small bet on an increased majority for the Tories at anything better than 5/1. This rather reinforces that view. Does anyone know where there is a market?

    Conservatives to increase their majority from 2019 (80 seats) at 2/1 with Ladbrokes

    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/uk/uk-politics/next-uk-general-election/229577000/all-markets
    If Con MAJ is EVS, and increased majority is 2/1, that implies Con Maj less than 80 is about 5/1! Must be the worst bet in the world that 2/1
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932

    On energy we just need cheap and plentiful electricity. That’s all we need. The electricity can then do the work we need to produce bio fuels for aeroplanes, bio plastics, carbon capture, water desalination, etc. Suddenly it doesn’t matter if the electric usage is 1 to 1.

    Cheap electricity solves a lot of our problems.

    Venture cap is starting to invest in fusion, FWIW...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/business/fusion-energy.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    Of course Cameron failed to win a majority in 2010 too, however he did manage to deprive Labour of their majority and get enough seats to form a government with the LDs.

    If Starmer does become PM it is much more likely that he would do so via the Cameron 2010 route than the Blair 1997 route, just most likely with the SNP added onto the LDs too
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,023

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    I disagree, for two reasons. Starmer has no charisma or political judgement. I was never a huge fan of Cameron, but he at least had a modicum of both.

    And Starmer is hugely dishonest and opportunistic. The editor of Socialist Challenge in his youth, then sitting in Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, then running as a Corbynista for the Labour leadership, now pretending to be a centrist. So while I don't think Johnson has much if any credibility after all his opportunistic U-turns, I don't think Starmer has much if any more, and arguably considerably less.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.

    Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.

    (*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446
    edited October 19

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    I think Sir Keir would be up to the job if he became PM - I just don't think he has the personality to convince people to vote him into it
  • Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kids these days have DNA sequencers in school...
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-020-00370-0

    Hmm, much simpler than the eukaryotic nuclear chromosomes. Just the plant chloroplast DNA (roughly like a symbiotic bacterium with a single ring shaped stretch of DNA IIRC). But still impressive.

    PS: not trying to explain cpDNA to you - just providing wider context for others!
    eukaryotic - related to good nuts. eu- Ancient Greek εὖ means 'good' or 'well'; -karyo- from Ancient Greek κάρυον meaning 'nut' or 'kernel'

    Lots of EU- words are from this Ancient Greek "good" origin. But not Europe (from the Phoenician erob - meaning 'where the sun sets')

    eulogy - good words (from λόγος, lógos)
    euthanasia - good death (from θάνατος, thánatos)
    euphemism - good voice (from φήμη, phḗmē)
    eugenics - good breeding (from γίγνομαι, gígnomai)
    euphoria - good bearing (from φέρειν, phérein)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164

    On energy we just need cheap and plentiful electricity. That’s all we need. The electricity can then do the work we need to produce bio fuels for aeroplanes, bio plastics, carbon capture, water desalination, etc. Suddenly it doesn’t matter if the electric usage is 1 to 1.

    Cheap electricity solves a lot of our problems.

    Cheap electricity solves a massive amount of problems. True 'electricity too cheap to meter' would revolutionise the world.

    ... and then a Carrington event would send us all back to the stone age ...
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.

    Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.

    (*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
    "Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    HYUFD said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    Of course Cameron failed to win a majority in 2010 too, however he did manage to deprive Labour of their majority and get enough seats to form a government with the LDs.

    If Starmer does become PM it is much more likely that he would do so via the Cameron 2010 route than the Blair 1997 route, just most likely with the SNP added onto the LDs too
    Indeed, that is my point.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,357
    DavidL said:

    I mentioned a few days ago that I was up for a small bet on an increased majority for the Tories at anything better than 5/1. This rather reinforces that view. Does anyone know where there is a market?

    If Con actually increase their majority again Lab might as well throw in the towel lol!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,746
    IshmaelZ said:

    15% is 7/1 ish, yes?

    Screaming lay.

    You been earwigging SeanT?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    You've made this fallacious comparison more than a few times.

    Cameron wasn't underestimated. He led in the polls consistently for all but 3 months of his leadership from when he became Leader of the Opposition, to when he became Prime Minister. Only for a small 3 month window was he not in the lead.
    Chart

    Starmer has never achieved crossover to lead in the polls for the rolling average. Not once.
    Chart

    Starmer isn't remotely in the same league as Cameron.
    Your judgement is, as ever, incapable of seeing beyond what you want to see. Get out more.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207

    HYUFD said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    Of course Cameron failed to win a majority in 2010 too, however he did manage to deprive Labour of their majority and get enough seats to form a government with the LDs.

    If Starmer does become PM it is much more likely that he would do so via the Cameron 2010 route than the Blair 1997 route, just most likely with the SNP added onto the LDs too
    Indeed, that is my point.
    Except that Cameron was almost always in the lead in the polls. He was consistently taken seriously as next PM, with only the very brief Brown bounce when his party wasn't in the lead.

    You're rewriting history to say he was underestimated. He wasn't, he was consistently topping the polls. Starmer isn't. Not remotely the same thing.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    isam said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    I think Sir Keir would be up to the job if he became PM - I just don't think he has the personality to convince people to vote him into it
    That is a well balanced view. Time will tell though.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    You've made this fallacious comparison more than a few times.

    Cameron wasn't underestimated. He led in the polls consistently for all but 3 months of his leadership from when he became Leader of the Opposition, to when he became Prime Minister. Only for a small 3 month window was he not in the lead.
    Chart

    Starmer has never achieved crossover to lead in the polls for the rolling average. Not once.
    Chart

    Starmer isn't remotely in the same league as Cameron.
    Yes, as soon as the public saw Cameron vs Brown instead of Cameron vs Blair, he never looked back. I think Brown led Cameron at first, during recess, but once Parliament started again, if I have got my dates right, Cameron took the lead forever
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,746
    edited October 19
    FPT:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/furious-motorist-drives-into-eco-protesters-blocking-road-near-dartford-crossing/

    This is going to get serious if the coppers' bosses don't start enforcing the law.

    What happens when the first IB nutter gets themselves killed?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8hmPj77/

    Insulate Britain protestor getting tied to a railing with his own banner.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,584
    edited October 19
    Starmer may well still become PM after the next GE, but only initially for a very few weeks.

    Clearly given the effect of the boundary changes then in that scenario the initial parliament would be badly hung, such that the SNP would effectively be able to hold Starmer to ransom. I am sure that is in Sturgeon's planning - prop up a Labour minority government only if she gets a new vote on secession. In those circumstances, rather than prolong the agony (aka May in 2018/19), Starmer would I think call the SNP's bluff. That is, put forward a progressive popular programme without giving an inch to SNP constitutional demands, resulting in the SNP following the Conservatives into the lobby on an immediate vote of confidence which Starmer would lose. The fallout would I think then offer the prospect of at least a modest Labour recovery in Scotland at the ensuing general election, the "Tartan Tories" label of 1979 having some renewed resonance. (I am assuming in all this that the Conservatives will by then have changed the FTPA sufficiently to avoid a repeat of the 2019 zombie parliament.)

    The other development, after a hung GE, could be some formal tactical cooperation between Labour and the LDs at the ensuing GE, with both coming to a pact to stand down candidates at the second GE. That would distribute both Labour and LD votes more effectively.

    That route I think offers the best prospect of a relatively stable Labour minority government that could survive for a parliamentary term with LD support, either in coalition or via C&S. A majority Labour government will I think still be out of reach.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,319
    edited October 19
    IshmaelZ said:

    15% is 7/1 ish, yes?

    Screaming lay.

    And I've duly screamed. What with that and other stuff I have a really solid UK portfolio. The problem is what I have stateside. I'm short 'the darkness returns' - which I like to think of as 'long the American people' - at prices considerably bigger than current. Well underwater I am there. Not worried though. When I do get worried I just play a few Bob Dylan songs, or the Boss, or the Eagles, or Dolly Parton, or I remember any one of a million novels and films, and I think about that America - the real one.
  • https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8hmPj77/

    Insulate Britain protestor getting tied to a railing with his own banner.

    It's a bit crap, he just tied the guy's rucksack to the railing.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,504
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In Scotland, I presume that the LibDems are forecast to lose whatever the successor seats are to North East Fife, and Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross.

    Given that the Liberal Democrats (outside Orkney & Shetland) only win seats thanks to the magic of unionist tactical voting, then they may be able to repeat the trick in 2024 in whatever the successor to North East Fife is. Pulling the same trick off in the Highlands will be harder.

    Must say the idea that both of the losses in Scotland being Lib Dems is not the best news I have heard today. Really surprised that there were not some rotten burghs in and around Glasgow to be squeezed out.
    It's inevitable: the LDs have essentially no votes in seats they aren't either the holders of, or the challengers to the SNP. If you therefore add a couple of wards to any seat, you will add next to no LibDem votes.

    That being said... the LDs in Scotland are expert at persuading people that "Only They Can Beat The SNP". And I'm sure they will persuade a fair number of unionists who were formerly in Glenrothes or Ochil & South Perthshire to go Yellow.

    The boundary changes in the Highlands are much more extensive, and that will be much harder for them.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    isam said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    You've made this fallacious comparison more than a few times.

    Cameron wasn't underestimated. He led in the polls consistently for all but 3 months of his leadership from when he became Leader of the Opposition, to when he became Prime Minister. Only for a small 3 month window was he not in the lead.
    Chart

    Starmer has never achieved crossover to lead in the polls for the rolling average. Not once.
    Chart

    Starmer isn't remotely in the same league as Cameron.
    Yes, as soon as the public saw Cameron vs Brown instead of Cameron vs Blair, he never looked back. I think Brown led Cameron at first, during recess, but once Parliament started again, if I have got my dates right, Cameron took the lead forever
    Actually Cameron consistently led versus Blair too. He took the lead immediately as soon as he became LOTO.

    Cameron led in the polls the entire time he was Leader of the Opposition, apart from a very brief interregnum while Brown became PM.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/furious-motorist-drives-into-eco-protesters-blocking-road-near-dartford-crossing/

    This is going to get serious if the coppers' bosses don't start enforcing the law.

    What happens when the first IB nutter gets themselves killed?

    How none of them have been given a good hiding by now amazes me.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,504

    Farooq said:

    How are seats designed to be equal? Population? Adult population? Registered to vote? Registered and eligible to vote in WM elections? Or Other?

    Not sure, but a fairer way might be actual voters at the last election (obvs would be a considerable ball-ache to actually do after each election) as a way of encouraging turnout
    All recommended constituencies must have no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors and no more than 77,062. This is based on registered electors
    I'm guessing there's exceptions for places like the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar ?
    There are three or four protected constituencies.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,481
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/furious-motorist-drives-into-eco-protesters-blocking-road-near-dartford-crossing/

    This is going to get serious if the coppers' bosses don't start enforcing the law.

    What happens when the first IB nutter gets themselves killed?

    Sadly, I really am worried it is only a matter of time.

    They've made their point. Now stop.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025

    DavidL said:

    I mentioned a few days ago that I was up for a small bet on an increased majority for the Tories at anything better than 5/1. This rather reinforces that view. Does anyone know where there is a market?

    Conservatives to increase their majority from 2019 (80 seats) at 2/1 with Ladbrokes

    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/uk/uk-politics/next-uk-general-election/229577000/all-markets
    Conservatives to fail to get a majority 8/11
    Conservatives to get an increased majority 2/1

    Not exactly much value there, is there?

    That's definitely a market where they're only offering one side of the bet at those odds.

    Perhaps @shadsy might consider putting something on Smarkets?
    All mug punts.

    Conservatives Do Not Win Most Seats 6/4!
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025
    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    15% is 7/1 ish, yes?

    Screaming lay.

    And I've duly screamed. What with that and other stuff I have a really solid UK portfolio. The problem is what I have stateside. I'm short 'the darkness returns' - which I like to think of as 'long the American people' - at prices considerably bigger than current. Well underwater I am there. Not worried though. When I do get worried I just play a few Bob Dylan songs, or the Boss, or the Eagles, or Dolly Parton, or I remember any one of a million novels and films, and I think about that America - the real one.
    The one with big tits
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 885
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly the boundary changes help the Tories a little but still not a major difference. As OGH states Starmer's target is still to deprive the Tories of their majority, he just has even more near zero chance of a Labour majority once they are in place.

    Note too that the parties most hit proportionally are the LDs and PC

    Only according to Political Calculus, which we agreed here a long time ago, is rubbish when it comes to individual seats.

    The people who voted Conservative last time are a disparate bunch. The wild fluctuations on Conservative policy under Johnson's leadership is bound to upset many previous Tory voters. He cannot possibly keep them together, especially now there is no longer a bogeyman to whip them in.

    But Political Calculus does not take into account local factors - it is just a broad mathematical model and entirely impersonal (unless it has changed, of course). If we want to know what is going to happen in a particular seat, we need to look at the local campaign and the strength of the local organisation. A good proxy for this is the result of recent local elections. DYOR
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    2 out of 2 for Scotland at the T20 World Cup

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58968444
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377

    HYUFD said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    Of course Cameron failed to win a majority in 2010 too, however he did manage to deprive Labour of their majority and get enough seats to form a government with the LDs.

    If Starmer does become PM it is much more likely that he would do so via the Cameron 2010 route than the Blair 1997 route, just most likely with the SNP added onto the LDs too
    Indeed, that is my point.
    Except that Cameron was almost always in the lead in the polls. He was consistently taken seriously as next PM, with only the very brief Brown bounce when his party wasn't in the lead.

    You're rewriting history to say he was underestimated. He wasn't, he was consistently topping the polls. Starmer isn't. Not remotely the same thing.
    No, Philip, I am giving an opinion on how I recall he was treated by the media and your equivalents on the other side of the political spectrum. He was a lightweight, a chameleon, lacks substance etc etc.

    In case you hadn't noticed, times are a little different now from when Cameron was LoTO. The Tory Party had also already been reformed and the nutters (who are now largely in charge of the Tory Party) were largely silent. You are so partisan you desperately want Starmer to be rubbish. He isn't, but keep believing it if it makes you happy!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Census results should be out before the new constituency boundaries which, of course, are based on registered electors rather than population. Nonetheless, it might prove controversial if major anomalies are revealed. If the Census runs into mysterious data processing issues which delay publication, this may be why.
  • isam said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    I think Sir Keir would be up to the job if he became PM - I just don't think he has the personality to convince people to vote him into it
    That is a well balanced view. Time will tell though.
    Much my opinion of Starmer to be fair, but the real problem with labour is I have no idea about their policies and where they raise the money from
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,273

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kids these days have DNA sequencers in school...
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-020-00370-0

    Hmm, much simpler than the eukaryotic nuclear chromosomes. Just the plant chloroplast DNA (roughly like a symbiotic bacterium with a single ring shaped stretch of DNA IIRC). But still impressive.

    PS: not trying to explain cpDNA to you - just providing wider context for others!
    eukaryotic - related to good nuts. eu- Ancient Greek εὖ means 'good' or 'well'; -karyo- from Ancient Greek κάρυον meaning 'nut' or 'kernel'

    Lots of EU- words are from this Ancient Greek "good" origin. But not Europe (from the Phoenician erob - meaning 'where the sun sets')

    eulogy - good words (from λόγος, lógos)
    euthanasia - good death (from θάνατος, thánatos)
    euphemism - good voice (from φήμη, phḗmē)
    eugenics - good breeding (from γίγνομαι, gígnomai)
    euphoria - good bearing (from φέρειν, phérein)
    european union - good riddance!
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446

    isam said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    You've made this fallacious comparison more than a few times.

    Cameron wasn't underestimated. He led in the polls consistently for all but 3 months of his leadership from when he became Leader of the Opposition, to when he became Prime Minister. Only for a small 3 month window was he not in the lead.
    Chart

    Starmer has never achieved crossover to lead in the polls for the rolling average. Not once.
    Chart

    Starmer isn't remotely in the same league as Cameron.
    Yes, as soon as the public saw Cameron vs Brown instead of Cameron vs Blair, he never looked back. I think Brown led Cameron at first, during recess, but once Parliament started again, if I have got my dates right, Cameron took the lead forever
    Actually Cameron consistently led versus Blair too. He took the lead immediately as soon as he became LOTO.

    Cameron led in the polls the entire time he was Leader of the Opposition, apart from a very brief interregnum while Brown became PM.
    Yes, you are correct. Brown took over in July 2007, you can see the honeymoon period here

    Dark Blue DC GP, Light Blue DC NS
    Red Labour PM GP, Pink Labour PM NS


  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164
    isam said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.

    Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.

    (*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
    "Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
    In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load. ;)

    We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.

    (I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,319
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    15% is 7/1 ish, yes?

    Screaming lay.

    And I've duly screamed. What with that and other stuff I have a really solid UK portfolio. The problem is what I have stateside. I'm short 'the darkness returns' - which I like to think of as 'long the American people' - at prices considerably bigger than current. Well underwater I am there. Not worried though. When I do get worried I just play a few Bob Dylan songs, or the Boss, or the Eagles, or Dolly Parton, or I remember any one of a million novels and films, and I think about that America - the real one.
    The one with big tits
    Stocky.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,438

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kids these days have DNA sequencers in school...
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-020-00370-0

    Hmm, much simpler than the eukaryotic nuclear chromosomes. Just the plant chloroplast DNA (roughly like a symbiotic bacterium with a single ring shaped stretch of DNA IIRC). But still impressive.

    PS: not trying to explain cpDNA to you - just providing wider context for others!
    eukaryotic - related to good nuts. eu- Ancient Greek εὖ means 'good' or 'well'; -karyo- from Ancient Greek κάρυον meaning 'nut' or 'kernel'

    Lots of EU- words are from this Ancient Greek "good" origin. But not Europe (from the Phoenician erob - meaning 'where the sun sets')

    eulogy - good words (from λόγος, lógos)
    euthanasia - good death (from θάνατος, thánatos)
    euphemism - good voice (from φήμη, phḗmē)
    eugenics - good breeding (from γίγνομαι, gígnomai)
    euphoria - good bearing (from φέρειν, phérein)
    european union - good riddance!
    That's very amusing.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/furious-motorist-drives-into-eco-protesters-blocking-road-near-dartford-crossing/

    This is going to get serious if the coppers' bosses don't start enforcing the law.

    What happens when the first IB nutter gets themselves killed?

    Sadly, I really am worried it is only a matter of time.

    They've made their point. Now stop.
    What point is that? That there are still pretentious pious twats that get a kick out of disrupting others' lives so they can feel virtuous? I think they all need to do 1000 hours of community service each where they are compelled to insulate peoples' homes in their underwear with old fashioned glass fibre insulation.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940
    Exclusive by me in @theipaper: Sage has met just 3 times since July, is only meeting once a month, because of a lessened demand from ministers for their advice. This is despite fears of a winter wave, with cases, admissions and deaths all rising right now:

    https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1450500948720291843?s=20
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 987
    Officials are keeping a close watch on a new descendant of the Delta variant of Covid that is causing a growing number of infections.

    Delta is the UK's dominant variant, but latest official data suggests 6% of Covid cases that have been genetically sequenced are of a new type.

    AY.4.2, which some are calling "Delta Plus", contains mutations that might give the virus survival advantages.

    Tests are under way to understand how much of a threat it may pose.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58965650
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446

    isam said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.

    Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.

    (*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
    "Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
    In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load. ;)

    We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.

    (I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
    I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.

    Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,319
    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    I mentioned a few days ago that I was up for a small bet on an increased majority for the Tories at anything better than 5/1. This rather reinforces that view. Does anyone know where there is a market?

    Conservatives to increase their majority from 2019 (80 seats) at 2/1 with Ladbrokes

    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/uk/uk-politics/next-uk-general-election/229577000/all-markets
    If Con MAJ is EVS, and increased majority is 2/1, that implies Con Maj less than 80 is about 5/1! Must be the worst bet in the world that 2/1
    It's absolutely shocking. Beyond mug. Any PBer takes that, they don't deserve to be on here, far as I'm concerned. They'd have to be banned.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,358
    ping said:

    DavidL said:

    I mentioned a few days ago that I was up for a small bet on an increased majority for the Tories at anything better than 5/1. This rather reinforces that view. Does anyone know where there is a market?

    Conservatives to increase their majority from 2019 (80 seats) at 2/1 with Ladbrokes

    https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/uk/uk-politics/next-uk-general-election/229577000/all-markets
    The value is the other side of the bet @1/2

    Ladbrokes aren’t offering it, though. Typical bookie.
    The maths reason for only offering one side of a two option race is that in truth you haven't got a clue how to price the market, and you are offering one absolutely safe (for the bookie) price. It is by obviously a market to avoid, unless DYOR tells you that they are wrong the other way. In this case they are not, and there is no value.

    Such limited value as there is for a bet over 2 years away is undoubtedly on a Tory majority (+325), which should be about evens, and is slightly odds against, though I would expect that to lengthen further after a brutal winter of inflation, supply problems, reality and Covid.

    Nearer an election I would expect Tory odds to shorten again once they go into election attack mode. It is very obvious they are keeping their powder dry, and they are not short of material.

  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    15% is 7/1 ish, yes?

    Screaming lay.

    And I've duly screamed. What with that and other stuff I have a really solid UK portfolio. The problem is what I have stateside. I'm short 'the darkness returns' - which I like to think of as 'long the American people' - at prices considerably bigger than current. Well underwater I am there. Not worried though. When I do get worried I just play a few Bob Dylan songs, or the Boss, or the Eagles, or Dolly Parton, or I remember any one of a million novels and films, and I think about that America - the real one.
    The one with big tits
    Stocky.
    With Trump the biggest one.

    I shall throw up if he gets elected again.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377

    isam said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.

    Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.

    (*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
    "Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
    In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load. ;)

    We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.

    (I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
    Reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) exchange between Marylin Monroe and Albert Einstein:

    Monroe "if we had a child, imagine: it could have your brains and my looks"

    Einstein: "Yes, but it might equally have your brains and my looks"

    (or something like that!)
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    "Note that in the betting a CON majority is generally defined as being in excess of 325 seats."

    I heard a rumour from my fellow Yoons on twitter that Nippy is thinking of doing a SF and removing their MPs from Parliament.

    Popcorn time all round if you as me.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924

    Exclusive by me in @theipaper: Sage has met just 3 times since July, is only meeting once a month, because of a lessened demand from ministers for their advice. This is despite fears of a winter wave, with cases, admissions and deaths all rising right now:

    https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1450500948720291843?s=20

    Probably because life is back to normal for most people. Morbidity is a fraction of what it was pre-vaccine and most people are learning to live with an endemic virus. In much of London, it’s like the pandemic never happened.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    JBriskin3 said:

    "Note that in the betting a CON majority is generally defined as being in excess of 325 seats."

    I heard a rumour from my fellow Yoons on twitter that Nippy is thinking of doing a SF and removing their MPs from Parliament.

    Popcorn time all round if you as me.

    Unless you live in Scotland of course where you have to cope with the Nightmare that Nippy and Eck have caused.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    isam said:

    isam said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.

    Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.

    (*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
    "Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
    In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load. ;)

    We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.

    (I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
    I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.

    Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
    Cameron vs Brown at PMQs. What was noticeable was the number of Tory astroturfers proclaiming a Cameron win regardless of whether or not their champion had been felled by a big clunking fist. CCHQ presumably imagined journalists came to pb for their verdict.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389
    edited October 19

    isam said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    You've made this fallacious comparison more than a few times.

    Cameron wasn't underestimated. He led in the polls consistently for all but 3 months of his leadership from when he became Leader of the Opposition, to when he became Prime Minister. Only for a small 3 month window was he not in the lead.
    Chart

    Starmer has never achieved crossover to lead in the polls for the rolling average. Not once.
    Chart

    Starmer isn't remotely in the same league as Cameron.
    Yes, as soon as the public saw Cameron vs Brown instead of Cameron vs Blair, he never looked back. I think Brown led Cameron at first, during recess, but once Parliament started again, if I have got my dates right, Cameron took the lead forever
    Actually Cameron consistently led versus Blair too. He took the lead immediately as soon as he became LOTO.

    Cameron led in the polls the entire time he was Leader of the Opposition, apart from a very brief interregnum while Brown became PM.
    A year and a half after Cameron was elected leader, ie the equivalent stage Starmer is at now, in June 2007 Mori had Labour ahead 39% to 36% for the Tories and Yougov had the Tories ahead on 37% to 35% for Labour.

    So Cameron was certainly nowhere near the leads Blair had before he became PM and trailed both Brown and Blair in a number of polls, certainly until Osborne's IHT cut proposal at the October 2007 Tory conference and the 2008 crash
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,746

    https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8hmPj77/

    Insulate Britain protestor getting tied to a railing with his own banner.

    It's a bit crap, he just tied the guy's rucksack to the railing.
    I'm assuming that he knows that if he actually tied him up policemen would perhaps be coming for him.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,358
    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly the boundary changes help the Tories a little but still not a major difference. As OGH states Starmer's target is still to deprive the Tories of their majority, he just has even more near zero chance of a Labour majority once they are in place.

    Note too that the parties most hit proportionally are the LDs and PC

    Only according to Political Calculus, which we agreed here a long time ago, is rubbish when it comes to individual seats.

    The people who voted Conservative last time are a disparate bunch. The wild fluctuations on Conservative policy under Johnson's leadership is bound to upset many previous Tory voters. He cannot possibly keep them together, especially now there is no longer a bogeyman to whip them in.

    But Political Calculus does not take into account local factors - it is just a broad mathematical model and entirely impersonal (unless it has changed, of course). If we want to know what is going to happen in a particular seat, we need to look at the local campaign and the strength of the local organisation. A good proxy for this is the result of recent local elections. DYOR
    It is now notorious that UNS does not work. The problem is that nothing works brilliantly except John Curtice on the day. At a fairly recent election the great Iain Dale spent weeks doing a seat by seat analysis of what would happen everywhere,taking account of local circumstances, and fascinating stuff it was. But IIRC he was no more accurate than anyone else.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,319
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    15% is 7/1 ish, yes?

    Screaming lay.

    And I've duly screamed. What with that and other stuff I have a really solid UK portfolio. The problem is what I have stateside. I'm short 'the darkness returns' - which I like to think of as 'long the American people' - at prices considerably bigger than current. Well underwater I am there. Not worried though. When I do get worried I just play a few Bob Dylan songs, or the Boss, or the Eagles, or Dolly Parton, or I remember any one of a million novels and films, and I think about that America - the real one.
    The one with big tits
    Stocky.
    With Trump the biggest one.

    I shall throw up if he gets elected again.
    He won't. But, yes, I know what you mean. It'd be harrowing and visceral. Not just a lowering of spirit, there'd be a physical reaction.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    JBriskin3 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    "Note that in the betting a CON majority is generally defined as being in excess of 325 seats."

    I heard a rumour from my fellow Yoons on twitter that Nippy is thinking of doing a SF and removing their MPs from Parliament.

    Popcorn time all round if you as me.

    Unless you live in Scotland of course where you have to cope with the Nightmare that Nippy and Eck have caused.
    I wonder why "we" keep voting for this "nightmare"?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207

    HYUFD said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    Of course Cameron failed to win a majority in 2010 too, however he did manage to deprive Labour of their majority and get enough seats to form a government with the LDs.

    If Starmer does become PM it is much more likely that he would do so via the Cameron 2010 route than the Blair 1997 route, just most likely with the SNP added onto the LDs too
    Indeed, that is my point.
    Except that Cameron was almost always in the lead in the polls. He was consistently taken seriously as next PM, with only the very brief Brown bounce when his party wasn't in the lead.

    You're rewriting history to say he was underestimated. He wasn't, he was consistently topping the polls. Starmer isn't. Not remotely the same thing.
    No, Philip, I am giving an opinion on how I recall he was treated by the media and your equivalents on the other side of the political spectrum. He was a lightweight, a chameleon, lacks substance etc etc.

    In case you hadn't noticed, times are a little different now from when Cameron was LoTO. The Tory Party had also already been reformed and the nutters (who are now largely in charge of the Tory Party) were largely silent. You are so partisan you desperately want Starmer to be rubbish. He isn't, but keep believing it if it makes you happy!
    Once again as always you have me backwards.

    I quit the Tory Party already. So especially now but even when in it, I'd quite like an Opposition that could hold the Government to account.

    It isn't healthy for the nation to have only one credible party of Government and that's the situation we are in now sadly and Starmer has not changed that.

    He hasn't even attempted to set out an alternative vision for the country. Blair did, Cameron did, Boris did.

    Starmer just seems to want to win by default. Simply not being Corbyn and not being Boris may be enough for those who are set in their own views already and regard the PM as a "clown". But it isn't enough to become Prime Minister. He needs to do the hard work and that isn't happening.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    HYUFD said:

    The job becomes even more difficult for Starmer.

    Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.

    The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
    Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.

    He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
    Of course Cameron failed to win a majority in 2010 too, however he did manage to deprive Labour of their majority and get enough seats to form a government with the LDs.

    If Starmer does become PM it is much more likely that he would do so via the Cameron 2010 route than the Blair 1997 route, just most likely with the SNP added onto the LDs too
    Indeed, that is my point.
    Except that Cameron was almost always in the lead in the polls. He was consistently taken seriously as next PM, with only the very brief Brown bounce when his party wasn't in the lead.

    You're rewriting history to say he was underestimated. He wasn't, he was consistently topping the polls. Starmer isn't. Not remotely the same thing.
    No, Philip, I am giving an opinion on how I recall he was treated by the media and your equivalents on the other side of the political spectrum. He was a lightweight, a chameleon, lacks substance etc etc.

    In case you hadn't noticed, times are a little different now from when Cameron was LoTO. The Tory Party had also already been reformed and the nutters (who are now largely in charge of the Tory Party) were largely silent. You are so partisan you desperately want Starmer to be rubbish. He isn't, but keep believing it if it makes you happy!
    Once again as always you have me backwards.

    I quit the Tory Party already. So especially now but even when in it, I'd quite like an Opposition that could hold the Government to account.

    It isn't healthy for the nation to have only one credible party of Government and that's the situation we are in now sadly and Starmer has not changed that.

    He hasn't even attempted to set out an alternative vision for the country. Blair did, Cameron did, Boris did.

    Starmer just seems to want to win by default. Simply not being Corbyn and not being Boris may be enough for those who are set in their own views already and regard the PM as a "clown". But it isn't enough to become Prime Minister. He needs to do the hard work and that isn't happening.
    You're off by 1
This discussion has been closed.