Howdy, Stranger!

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

December 2024: A tongue-in-cheek prediction – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 27 in General
imageDecember 2024: A tongue-in-cheek prediction – politicalbetting.com

The new premier cast her eye across the Cabinet table and took in the empty room. Soon her newly assembled cabinet would gather for the first meeting since the General Election of December 2024. 

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,586
    First like Rachael
  • Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676
    Johnson’s unprecedented sacking of the Bank of England governor for his refusal to do something about the roaring inflation level

    Ummm, surely this should read "...for raising interest rates to 3% to try to tackle inflation."
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    You've put 'Pidcock' and 'winner' in the same sentence - surely some mistake?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,403

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,504
    Not sure about the "all woman Shadow cabinet", but otherwise a fun (albeit not particularly likely) scenario.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 15,067
    edited October 27
    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,481
    Thanks Mike. That was a fast turn around!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,481
    rcs1000 said:

    Not sure about the "all woman Shadow cabinet", but otherwise a fun (albeit not particularly likely) scenario.

    I nicked the idea from one the later series of House of Cards (US), when it all got very silly.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,586

    Thanks Mike. That was a fast turn around!

    Very arous... er, I mean entertaining thread, @rottenborough :)
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025
    edited October 27

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    "Labour poll lead by end of 2021" ? Which bookies CHB, I can't find that market?

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Where? Odds? I might join you (at 1000 ppm or so :wink: ) or else take some of your money, depending on the odds.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    If at first you don't succeed try, try and try again.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/27/paul-dacre-will-get-second-chance-to-apply-for-ofcom-chair-ministers-confirm

    The chutzpath is astonishing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    edited October 27
    rcs1000 said:

    Not sure about the "all woman Shadow cabinet", but otherwise a fun (albeit not particularly likely) scenario.

    It will get Sunil excited, at least.

    (edit, I see it already has.)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    Alistair said:

    Farooq said:

    Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.

    Different vaccines/rates of take up?
    Different behaviour?

    Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
    I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
    They do care about population density though.

    Denmark population density 137 / km^2
    England population density 445 / km^2
    Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
    A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
    Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2
    Islington population density 16,097 / km^2

    What figure do you have for Copenhagen that its higher than London?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    Alistair said:

    If at first you don't succeed try, try and try again.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/27/paul-dacre-will-get-second-chance-to-apply-for-ofcom-chair-ministers-confirm

    The chutzpath is astonishing.

    One hopes they will tell him to eff off again.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025
    I don't understand this John Lewis advert thing. You are covered by accidental damage if you have elected for this on your policy. Otherwise you are not.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,481
    tlg86 said:

    Johnson’s unprecedented sacking of the Bank of England governor for his refusal to do something about the roaring inflation level

    Ummm, surely this should read "...for raising interest rates to 3% to try to tackle inflation."

    :lol: To be honest, the first draft was written a couple of weeks ago when BoE seemed determined to believe there was no need to do ought about inflation at it was all transitory.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,478
    Selebian said:

    You've put 'Pidcock' and 'winner' in the same sentence - surely some mistake?

    Thats easy - "Pidcock will never be a winner"
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,478

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676

    tlg86 said:

    Johnson’s unprecedented sacking of the Bank of England governor for his refusal to do something about the roaring inflation level

    Ummm, surely this should read "...for raising interest rates to 3% to try to tackle inflation."

    :lol: To be honest, the first draft was written a couple of weeks ago when BoE seemed determined to believe there was no need to do ought about inflation at it was all transitory.
    My comment was more about the government than the BoE. I doubt the BoE will do anything nearly as dramatic as raise rates much above the 0.75% that they were at pre-COVID.

    What I was getting at is that the government is more likely to go to war with the BoE if they raise rates too much. I think the government would rather accept inflation rather than pain to those with mortgages.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,594
    Stocky said:

    I don't understand this John Lewis advert thing. You are covered by accidental damage if you have elected for this on your policy. Otherwise you are not.

    It was obnoxiously smug & middle class regardless of whether it misled or not.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,746
    Stocky said:

    I don't understand this John Lewis advert thing. You are covered by accidental damage if you have elected for this on your policy. Otherwise you are not.

    Accidental damage is an optional extra and isn't included as standard.

    Also I'm not sure the damage shown counts as Accidental...
  • Alistair said:

    Farooq said:

    Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.

    Different vaccines/rates of take up?
    Different behaviour?

    Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
    I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
    They do care about population density though.

    Denmark population density 137 / km^2
    England population density 445 / km^2
    Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
    A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
    Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2
    Islington population density 16,097 / km^2

    What figure do you have for Copenhagen that its higher than London?
    Wiki has this for Copenhagen

    Population (1 January 2021)[3]
    • City 799,033
    • Density 4,400/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Urban 1,336,982
    • Urban density 4,600/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Metro 2,057,142
    • Metro density 1,200/km2 (3,000/sq mi)

    For London,

    Area
    • Total[A] 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
    • Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
    • Metro 8,382 km2 (3,236 sq mi)
    • City of London 2.90 km2 (1.12 sq mi)
    • Greater London 1,569 km2 (606 sq mi)
    Population (2021)[5]
    • Total[A] 8,961,989[1]
    • Density 5,666/km2 (14,670/sq mi)
    • Urban 9,950,000
    • Metro 14,257,962
    • City of London 8,706
    • Greater London 9,425,622

    which gives urban density as 5,725/km2 and metro density as 1,700/km2
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,839
    The fundamental problem for Reeves is whether she could be elected leader post-Starmer. Can't help but feel that if Starmer goes Labour will look leftwards.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025
    edited October 27
    Selebian said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Where? Odds? I might join you (at 1000 ppm or so :wink: ) or else take some of your money, depending on the odds.
    As far as I know only Smarkets has been running these markets.

    They have "Labour poll lead before 2 November" (1.2 no, 4.7 yes) but this is the only one I can see.

    @CorrectHorseBattery - please can you confirm. You may have £3k on 2 Nov rather than end of year? If so you only have six days - not impossible, but ...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676
    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    I don't understand this John Lewis advert thing. You are covered by accidental damage if you have elected for this on your policy. Otherwise you are not.

    Accidental damage is an optional extra and isn't included as standard.

    Also I'm not sure the damage shown counts as Accidental...
    Getting an advert banned and have news outlets report on it. Brilliant tactic.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,746
    edited October 27
    FPT:

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Snap verdict: This was the anti-Osborne budget.

    There was so much in this budget that undid the work of George Osborne's budgets, that I found a lot to like, the centrepiece being the cut in the Universal Credit taper.

    As to how it's being paid for, worth remembering the freeze to thresholds, which means anticipated inflation of 4% results in a considerable tax increase.

    Lots I don't like too, of course, but special mention to the cut in alcohol duty for draught beer and cider - a change that I've suggested on here many times.

    Also the annual cancellation of the fuel duty rise is beyond absurd now. It's a complete fiction at this stage that a rise is planned and then cancelled. It's become such a pointless tradition that Chancellors might continue it right up until the point that sales of fossil-sourced motor fuels are eventually banned.

    Raising fuel duty only extends the hole you need to fill, which grows every year from 2030 onwards (As no new ICE cars are sold). So I think it's a long term fool's errand to raise it now.
    Fuel Duty is a nightmare for Chancellors - it’s one of very few products where the price is very visible, it raises something like £30bn a year, but cars are getting more fuel-efficient and electric, so it’s going to reduce over the next few years. The government needs to find a way to deal with those reduced revenues.
    So the cost of the Fuel Duty Freeze has now reached around £14-15bn a year.

    Not cool.
    Given that the government will, in the not too distant future, have to learn to live without it, I think it's only right that they don't milk it for any more than they already do.
    It will be replaced. One of the things that Osborne got right starting in 2015 (ish?) when he started pivoting VED to a new basis imo.

    Spending benefits on things they were designed for seems reasonable.


    The question is what to replace it with. It shouldn't be another tax on drivers, drivers aren't a cash cow and the environmental excuse for the tax doesn't exist in a clean electric future.

    A tax on people who view the homes other people need to live in as a source of profit would be a better replacement than milking drivers.
    There is no shortage of reasons to tax vehicles for their impact, which goes far beyond pollution.

    There's a huge amount of work to do on unravelling infrastructure modes, which needs funding (if we are into hypothecated taxes), or to pay for HS2B (Boris having used the money to inflate the housing market, and to stuff nimbies mouths with gold :smile: ).

    London may be a bit of a canary in the coalmine before long. Mayor Sadiq's latest may raise some ire, but from whom, and will they be a majority?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    Just wait until the Brexit food shortages really bite :tongue:
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    "The all-woman shadow cabinet"

    That would kill off a whole generation of gammonati in one collective paroxysm.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207

    Alistair said:

    Farooq said:

    Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.

    Different vaccines/rates of take up?
    Different behaviour?

    Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
    I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
    They do care about population density though.

    Denmark population density 137 / km^2
    England population density 445 / km^2
    Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
    A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
    Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2
    Islington population density 16,097 / km^2

    What figure do you have for Copenhagen that its higher than London?
    Wiki has this for Copenhagen

    Population (1 January 2021)[3]
    • City 799,033
    • Density 4,400/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Urban 1,336,982
    • Urban density 4,600/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Metro 2,057,142
    • Metro density 1,200/km2 (3,000/sq mi)

    For London,

    Area
    • Total[A] 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
    • Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
    • Metro 8,382 km2 (3,236 sq mi)
    • City of London 2.90 km2 (1.12 sq mi)
    • Greater London 1,569 km2 (606 sq mi)
    Population (2021)[5]
    • Total[A] 8,961,989[1]
    • Density 5,666/km2 (14,670/sq mi)
    • Urban 9,950,000
    • Metro 14,257,962
    • City of London 8,706
    • Greater London 9,425,622

    which gives urban density as 5,725/km2 and metro density as 1,700/km2
    So Copenhagen has nothing like the density of London then.

    Under Copenhagen Metropolitan Area it says 725/km^2 which is where I got my figure from.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    I do not bet but putting £3,000 on a Labour lead this year amazes me, not because it could not win but that anyone has that kind of money to put at rsk
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,580
    So, does she go for rejoin the EEA/SM through EFTA or full-on rejoin the EU?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    Stocky said:

    Selebian said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Where? Odds? I might join you (at 1000 ppm or so :wink: ) or else take some of your money, depending on the odds.
    As far as I know only Smarkets has been running these markets.

    They have "Labour poll lead before 2 November" (1.2 no, 4.7 yes) but this is the only one I can see.

    @CorrectHorseBattery - please can you confirm. You may have £3k on 2 Nov rather than end of year? If so you only have six days - not impossible, but ...
    CHB already replied to Philip making a similar point in the last thread (not the Smarkets market, apparently).

    Well hidden, indeed.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,580
    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    If at first you don't succeed try, try and try again.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/27/paul-dacre-will-get-second-chance-to-apply-for-ofcom-chair-ministers-confirm

    The chutzpath is astonishing.

    One hopes they will tell him to eff off again.
    Wasn't there an issue that they couldn't find a new selection panel because everyone they asked was why should we bother if you're going to ignore us and appoint him again anyway?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    Bravo!

    Great knockabout stuff from @rottenborough
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,481
    Reeves is 10.5 for leader, for those who want to follow my tongue-in-cheek prediction! :smile:
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,481

    Bravo!

    Great knockabout stuff from @rottenborough

    Thanks.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    Typo in the (excellent) threader – she's a Rachel not a Rachael
  • eekeek Posts: 15,746

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    I do not bet but putting £3,000 on a Labour lead this year amazes me, not because it could not win but that anyone has that kind of money to put at rsk
    I can see the bet my issue is that I don't see enough time left for it to occur - now late Jan / Feb I can see it but between now and December 31st, I really can't..
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    Selebian said:

    Stocky said:

    Selebian said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Where? Odds? I might join you (at 1000 ppm or so :wink: ) or else take some of your money, depending on the odds.
    As far as I know only Smarkets has been running these markets.

    They have "Labour poll lead before 2 November" (1.2 no, 4.7 yes) but this is the only one I can see.

    @CorrectHorseBattery - please can you confirm. You may have £3k on 2 Nov rather than end of year? If so you only have six days - not impossible, but ...
    CHB already replied to Philip making a similar point in the last thread (not the Smarkets market, apparently).

    Well hidden, indeed.
    I'm curious what market CHB is betting on because Smarkets only have less than £2,000 matched on their market so far and that's the one that's been publicised on this site. If there's another market out there that's taken £3,000 from just one punter then maybe it should be publicised?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    And then the alarm went off and it was still raining.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Great header.

    Reeves looks and sounds like a leader. Dressed for business rather than teaching primary school; nice deep voice like post-elocution Thatcher; no sibilance like Nandy; can deliver a joke; can think on her feet. Policies unneeded in this post-truth age.

    As noted on the last thread, Bet365 cut her from 16/1 into 7/1.

    Let's see how she gets through the budget debate next.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    DavidL said:

    And then the alarm went off and it was still raining.

    Could be worse. Could be 'still Rayner'.
  • eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    I do not bet but putting £3,000 on a Labour lead this year amazes me, not because it could not win but that anyone has that kind of money to put at rsk
    I can see the bet my issue is that I don't see enough time left for it to occur - now late Jan / Feb I can see it but between now and December 31st, I really can't..
    Maybe because I have never bet I am a bit naive at the amount of money people are prepared to risk
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Selebian said:

    Stocky said:

    Selebian said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Where? Odds? I might join you (at 1000 ppm or so :wink: ) or else take some of your money, depending on the odds.
    As far as I know only Smarkets has been running these markets.

    They have "Labour poll lead before 2 November" (1.2 no, 4.7 yes) but this is the only one I can see.

    @CorrectHorseBattery - please can you confirm. You may have £3k on 2 Nov rather than end of year? If so you only have six days - not impossible, but ...
    CHB already replied to Philip making a similar point in the last thread (not the Smarkets market, apparently).

    Well hidden, indeed.
    That qualification noted, we will surely see any number of polls testing reactions to the budget.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025
    Selebian said:

    Stocky said:

    Selebian said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Where? Odds? I might join you (at 1000 ppm or so :wink: ) or else take some of your money, depending on the odds.
    As far as I know only Smarkets has been running these markets.

    They have "Labour poll lead before 2 November" (1.2 no, 4.7 yes) but this is the only one I can see.

    @CorrectHorseBattery - please can you confirm. You may have £3k on 2 Nov rather than end of year? If so you only have six days - not impossible, but ...
    CHB already replied to Philip making a similar point in the last thread (not the Smarkets market, apparently).

    Well hidden, indeed.
    No market with Betfair or Betdaq either. If someone finds this market please let me know. I'd want 4/1 or more I think.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,777
    The totality is daft, but could elements happen. Perhaps. I could just see a Kier "right thing to do" step down, but Reeves would be unlikely to submarine into the leadership by that point.

    I think the last date for an election under reinstated royal prerogative would be early 2025, iirc, not December 24 as commonly presumed, I think dissolution is the thing that has to take place within 5 years. But I could be remembering wrong.

    I also think that if the polls turn bad Boris knows he has another 63 in majority to defend if he can jettison Scotland and NI in good time. If the polls turned terrible this winter, I think he is venal enough to grant Sindyref2 for personal convenience. (Whether the loss of Scotland in addition to all else would just provoke an even bigger backlash may not occur to the chancer).

    It is like when I said the purpose of HS2 was to build London Birmingham David Attenborough (Electric) Airport and some scamp's riposte was to suggest London Wolverhampton Walter Mitty Airport.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,239
    edited October 27

    Great header.

    Reeves looks and sounds like a leader. Dressed for business rather than teaching primary school; nice deep voice like post-elocution Thatcher; no sibilance like Nandy; can deliver a joke; can think on her feet. Policies unneeded in this post-truth age.

    As noted on the last thread, Bet365 cut her from 16/1 into 7/1.

    Let's see how she gets through the budget debate next.

    Rachel is labour's future but labour being labour I would expect them to elect someone to lead who is wholly unsuitable
  • The tricky bit is engineering Starmer out for not doing well when (had he but known) a Bonfire Night Guy would be able to win.

    Because if the Conservatives lose from their starting point, it will be down to them having failed rather than any brilliance by the opposition. But then you look at graphs like this one;



    And it's not hard to see how the government can lose.

    (And for those who reasonably point out how well EICINPM was doing in 2012-3ish, check out the boomlet in 2014-15. Looks like that saved Cameron's bacon, so to speak.)
  • Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    I do not bet but putting £3,000 on a Labour lead this year amazes me, not because it could not win but that anyone has that kind of money to put at rsk
    £3,000 is half a bottle of wine to some PBers (subject to duty changes).
    Not on my pension !!!!!!
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 3,636
    edited October 27
    maaarsh said:

    Stocky said:

    I don't understand this John Lewis advert thing. You are covered by accidental damage if you have elected for this on your policy. Otherwise you are not.

    It was obnoxiously smug & middle class regardless of whether it misled or not.
    If being smug and middle class were banned PB would not exist
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    edited October 27
    Pro_Rata said:

    The totality is daft, but could elements happen. Perhaps. I could just see a Kier "right thing to do" step down, but Reeves would be unlikely to submarine into the leadership by that point.

    I think the last date for an election under reinstated royal prerogative would be early 2025, iirc, not December 24 as commonly presumed, I think dissolution is the thing that has to take place within 5 years. But I could be remembering wrong.

    I also think that if the polls turn bad Boris knows he has another 63 in majority to defend if he can jettison Scotland and NI in good time. If the polls turned terrible this winter, I think he is venal enough to grant Sindyref2 for personal convenience. (Whether the loss of Scotland in addition to all else would just provoke an even bigger backlash may not occur to the chancer).

    It is like when I said the purpose of HS2 was to build London Birmingham David Attenborough (Electric) Airport and some scamp's riposte was to suggest London Wolverhampton Walter Mitty Airport.

    If the polls turn bad, Boris will be off to America before they give all their money to Emma Raducanu. Losing an election will hurt his ego but also his market value as the man who always won against the odds.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    edited October 27

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    I do not bet but putting £3,000 on a Labour lead this year amazes me, not because it could not win but that anyone has that kind of money to put at rsk
    I can see the bet my issue is that I don't see enough time left for it to occur - now late Jan / Feb I can see it but between now and December 31st, I really can't..
    Maybe because I have never bet I am a bit naive at the amount of money people are prepared to risk
    Far beyond what I bet. I have however had more in (personal, not pension fund - well, those too, but I don't count those) shares. Low risk shares, for the most part, but risk all the same. I know people with more in bitcoin.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924

    Great header.

    Reeves looks and sounds like a leader. Dressed for business rather than teaching primary school; nice deep voice like post-elocution Thatcher; no sibilance like Nandy; can deliver a joke; can think on her feet. Policies unneeded in this post-truth age.

    As noted on the last thread, Bet365 cut her from 16/1 into 7/1.

    Let's see how she gets through the budget debate next.

    Yes, worth noting that as well as her undeniable intellectual credentials (A-level maths and further maths, Oxford first degree, Msc Economics, UK girls' chess champion etc etc) she presents extremely well. She's a good speaker, great on the telly and a sharp dresser.

    Definitely one to watch.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 3,636

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    I do not bet but putting £3,000 on a Labour lead this year amazes me, not because it could not win but that anyone has that kind of money to put at rsk
    If you have a pension scheme you are paying into then you have more than that at risk!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    On topic: what would happen if the loto actually did say 'f**king mess' in the Commons?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    Alistair said:

    Farooq said:

    Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.

    Different vaccines/rates of take up?
    Different behaviour?

    Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
    I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
    They do care about population density though.

    Denmark population density 137 / km^2
    England population density 445 / km^2
    Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
    A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
    Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2
    Islington population density 16,097 / km^2

    What figure do you have for Copenhagen that its higher than London?
    Wiki has this for Copenhagen

    Population (1 January 2021)[3]
    • City 799,033
    • Density 4,400/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Urban 1,336,982
    • Urban density 4,600/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Metro 2,057,142
    • Metro density 1,200/km2 (3,000/sq mi)

    For London,

    Area
    • Total[A] 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
    • Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
    • Metro 8,382 km2 (3,236 sq mi)
    • City of London 2.90 km2 (1.12 sq mi)
    • Greater London 1,569 km2 (606 sq mi)
    Population (2021)[5]
    • Total[A] 8,961,989[1]
    • Density 5,666/km2 (14,670/sq mi)
    • Urban 9,950,000
    • Metro 14,257,962
    • City of London 8,706
    • Greater London 9,425,622

    which gives urban density as 5,725/km2 and metro density as 1,700/km2
    So Copenhagen has nothing like the density of London then.

    Under Copenhagen Metropolitan Area it says 725/km^2 which is where I got my figure from.
    Not even close to comparing like with like there. Hovedstadsområdet includes areas as far away as Stevns, which is >75km drive away. That's like putting Milton Keynes in the London area. No.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 533
    If the thread header comes to pass then I'll have have had two Labour Prime Ministers as my local MP (assuming I don't upsticks before the next GE).
  • eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    I do not bet but putting £3,000 on a Labour lead this year amazes me, not because it could not win but that anyone has that kind of money to put at rsk
    I can see the bet my issue is that I don't see enough time left for it to occur - now late Jan / Feb I can see it but between now and December 31st, I really can't..
    The "true" lead is down to about 4 points or so, maybe a bit less, in which case ties or Labour leads ought to be starting to happen in individual polls at the edge of the margin of error.

    And, without very much happening (lots of noise but not much that's obviously permanently cut through), the gap has been closing by a couple of points a month since June (C down about 1.4 points, L up about 0.6 points a month).
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,777
    rpjs said:

    So, does she go for rejoin the EEA/SM through EFTA or full-on rejoin the EU?

    I wonder again about Switzerland. On the basis of commonalities in our services economies and the EU not wanting to maintain another bipartite relationship, we come to agreement with Switzerland to negotiate custom EEA plus in a tripartite fashion. If Rachel has become PM, anything could happen.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,746

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    I do not bet but putting £3,000 on a Labour lead this year amazes me, not because it could not win but that anyone has that kind of money to put at rsk
    £3,000 is half a bottle of wine to some PBers (subject to duty changes).
    That PBer rarely pays for the wine, it's a freebie within the free holiday he has been asked to write 1,000 words on
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    Alistair said:

    Farooq said:

    Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.

    Different vaccines/rates of take up?
    Different behaviour?

    Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
    I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
    They do care about population density though.

    Denmark population density 137 / km^2
    England population density 445 / km^2
    Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
    A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
    Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2
    Islington population density 16,097 / km^2

    What figure do you have for Copenhagen that its higher than London?
    Wiki has this for Copenhagen

    Population (1 January 2021)[3]
    • City 799,033
    • Density 4,400/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Urban 1,336,982
    • Urban density 4,600/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Metro 2,057,142
    • Metro density 1,200/km2 (3,000/sq mi)

    For London,

    Area
    • Total[A] 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
    • Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
    • Metro 8,382 km2 (3,236 sq mi)
    • City of London 2.90 km2 (1.12 sq mi)
    • Greater London 1,569 km2 (606 sq mi)
    Population (2021)[5]
    • Total[A] 8,961,989[1]
    • Density 5,666/km2 (14,670/sq mi)
    • Urban 9,950,000
    • Metro 14,257,962
    • City of London 8,706
    • Greater London 9,425,622

    which gives urban density as 5,725/km2 and metro density as 1,700/km2
    Ok, these are better stats than the quick googling, but it's still the wrong metric. Is the distribution of crowdedness, not bulk densities that matter. If you have everyone living in one enormous tower and then King Charles III with exclusive access to the rest, versus a homogeneous array of millions of semi-detatcheds, they might have the same density, but not the same health outcomes.

    Density is really just a starting point on a proper analysis.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,358
    edited October 27
    A fun read, thank you. The flesh needed on these bones is the list of 127 seats that Labour manage to take off other parties to achieve this.

    If they don't take some seats off the SNP then their targets need to look at seats that are up to 150th on their list. For example Basingstoke, requiring a 12.97% swing, 148th on the list. JRM' s seat would also have to be in the frame.

    We could do loads worse than a Labour government led by Rachel Reeves and her all women cabinet, but it is still a Black Swan. It won't happen.

    Back in reality, Labour have a much tougher sell: We can't win, but the centre left Labour led alliance government, with all the instability of the SNP as part of it, is better than a Tory government.

    For myself, I would vote for the first, which can't happen, but not the second, which easily could.

    This is Labour's real dilemma.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,834
    Great thread header @rottenborough, many thanks.

    Stranger things have happened!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    What is crystal clear is that for the first time since Ed Balls lost his seat in 2015 Labour has some sort of coherence and grip on the economy. As the thread header might put it, it's about fucking time.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    rcs1000 said:

    Not sure about the "all woman Shadow cabinet", but otherwise a fun (albeit not particularly likely) scenario.

    I nicked the idea from one the later series of House of Cards (US), when it all got very silly.
    That was such a disappointment, after a great first two seasons. A textbook case as to how the US can f****p a good idea.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    Farooq said:

    Alistair said:

    Farooq said:

    Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.

    Different vaccines/rates of take up?
    Different behaviour?

    Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
    I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
    They do care about population density though.

    Denmark population density 137 / km^2
    England population density 445 / km^2
    Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
    A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
    Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2
    Islington population density 16,097 / km^2

    What figure do you have for Copenhagen that its higher than London?
    Wiki has this for Copenhagen

    Population (1 January 2021)[3]
    • City 799,033
    • Density 4,400/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Urban 1,336,982
    • Urban density 4,600/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Metro 2,057,142
    • Metro density 1,200/km2 (3,000/sq mi)

    For London,

    Area
    • Total[A] 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
    • Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
    • Metro 8,382 km2 (3,236 sq mi)
    • City of London 2.90 km2 (1.12 sq mi)
    • Greater London 1,569 km2 (606 sq mi)
    Population (2021)[5]
    • Total[A] 8,961,989[1]
    • Density 5,666/km2 (14,670/sq mi)
    • Urban 9,950,000
    • Metro 14,257,962
    • City of London 8,706
    • Greater London 9,425,622

    which gives urban density as 5,725/km2 and metro density as 1,700/km2
    Ok, these are better stats than the quick googling, but it's still the wrong metric. Is the distribution of crowdedness, not bulk densities that matter. If you have everyone living in one enormous tower and then King Charles III with exclusive access to the rest, versus a homogeneous array of millions of semi-detatcheds, they might have the same density, but not the same health outcomes.

    Density is really just a starting point on a proper analysis.
    It's not perfect but it's the best rule of thumb and whatever way you slice it, Denmark has a teensy tiny fraction of England's density.

    Covid cases and deaths scaled almost perfectly with density through the pandemic in like for like areas.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    I do not bet but putting £3,000 on a Labour lead this year amazes me, not because it could not win but that anyone has that kind of money to put at rsk
    If you have a pension scheme you are paying into then you have more than that at risk!
    My pension has matured so I do not have that problem to be fair
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,834
    algarkirk said:

    A fun read, thank you. The flesh needed on these bones is the list of 127 seats that Labour manage to take off other parties to achieve this.

    If they don't take some seats off the SNP then their targets need to look at seats that are up to 150th on their list. For example Basingstoke, requiring a 12.97% swing, 148th on the list. JRM' s seat would also have to be in the frame.

    We could do loads worse than a Labour government led by Rachel Reeves and her all women cabinet, but it is still a Black Swan. It won't happen.

    Back in reality, Labour have a much tougher sell: We can't win, but the centre left Labour led alliance government, with all the instability of the SNP as part of it, is better than a Tory government.

    For myself, I would vote for the first, which can't happen, but not the second, which easily could.

    This is Labour's real dilemma.

    SNP implode through some hitherto unknown scandal breaking?
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,535
    Farooq said:

    Alistair said:

    Farooq said:

    Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.

    Different vaccines/rates of take up?
    Different behaviour?

    Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
    I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
    They do care about population density though.

    Denmark population density 137 / km^2
    England population density 445 / km^2
    Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
    A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
    Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2
    Islington population density 16,097 / km^2

    What figure do you have for Copenhagen that its higher than London?
    Wiki has this for Copenhagen

    Population (1 January 2021)[3]
    • City 799,033
    • Density 4,400/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Urban 1,336,982
    • Urban density 4,600/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Metro 2,057,142
    • Metro density 1,200/km2 (3,000/sq mi)

    For London,

    Area
    • Total[A] 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
    • Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
    • Metro 8,382 km2 (3,236 sq mi)
    • City of London 2.90 km2 (1.12 sq mi)
    • Greater London 1,569 km2 (606 sq mi)
    Population (2021)[5]
    • Total[A] 8,961,989[1]
    • Density 5,666/km2 (14,670/sq mi)
    • Urban 9,950,000
    • Metro 14,257,962
    • City of London 8,706
    • Greater London 9,425,622

    which gives urban density as 5,725/km2 and metro density as 1,700/km2
    Ok, these are better stats than the quick googling, but it's still the wrong metric. Is the distribution of crowdedness, not bulk densities that matter. If you have everyone living in one enormous tower and then King Charles III with exclusive access to the rest, versus a homogeneous array of millions of semi-detatcheds, they might have the same density, but not the same health outcomes.

    Density is really just a starting point on a proper analysis.
    Does the proportion of single person households help? 22% for London, 28% for Copenhagen is what a quick Google gets.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,535

    algarkirk said:

    A fun read, thank you. The flesh needed on these bones is the list of 127 seats that Labour manage to take off other parties to achieve this.

    If they don't take some seats off the SNP then their targets need to look at seats that are up to 150th on their list. For example Basingstoke, requiring a 12.97% swing, 148th on the list. JRM' s seat would also have to be in the frame.

    We could do loads worse than a Labour government led by Rachel Reeves and her all women cabinet, but it is still a Black Swan. It won't happen.

    Back in reality, Labour have a much tougher sell: We can't win, but the centre left Labour led alliance government, with all the instability of the SNP as part of it, is better than a Tory government.

    For myself, I would vote for the first, which can't happen, but not the second, which easily could.

    This is Labour's real dilemma.

    SNP implode through some hitherto unknown scandal breaking?
    Waiting for the SNP to implode is not the greatest electoral strategy that I can think of.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    Brewery. Piss up.

    Eagle-eyed @nickeardleybbc has spotted that the draught tax cut only applies if kegs are larger than 40 litres. Most crafties distribute in a smaller barrel - like these, called pony kegs, which are about 30L. So I don't think these kegs from today's photoshoot would qualify https://twitter.com/silvesterldn/status/1453391623975493635/photo/1
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    Great header.

    Reeves looks and sounds like a leader. Dressed for business rather than teaching primary school; nice deep voice like post-elocution Thatcher; no sibilance like Nandy; can deliver a joke; can think on her feet. Policies unneeded in this post-truth age.

    As noted on the last thread, Bet365 cut her from 16/1 into 7/1.

    Let's see how she gets through the budget debate next.

    Yes, worth noting that as well as her undeniable intellectual credentials (A-level maths and further maths, Oxford first degree, Msc Economics, UK girls' chess champion etc etc) she presents extremely well. She's a good speaker, great on the telly and a sharp dresser.

    Definitely one to watch.
    It might be worth keeping an eye on her hair as a sign she intends running. Apart from NZ's Jacinda Ardern, most female leaders tend to have shorter hair, though this might be a relic of outdoor rallies in days past, when long hair would be blown about by the wind or helicopter rotors. (Sounds terribly sexist but no more than telling Corbyn or Foot to smarten themselves up.)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,834
    Reeves worked for HBOS while I was there apparently but I'm beggered if I can remember her.

    (I suspect that's mutual tbf 😂)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,834

    algarkirk said:

    A fun read, thank you. The flesh needed on these bones is the list of 127 seats that Labour manage to take off other parties to achieve this.

    If they don't take some seats off the SNP then their targets need to look at seats that are up to 150th on their list. For example Basingstoke, requiring a 12.97% swing, 148th on the list. JRM' s seat would also have to be in the frame.

    We could do loads worse than a Labour government led by Rachel Reeves and her all women cabinet, but it is still a Black Swan. It won't happen.

    Back in reality, Labour have a much tougher sell: We can't win, but the centre left Labour led alliance government, with all the instability of the SNP as part of it, is better than a Tory government.

    For myself, I would vote for the first, which can't happen, but not the second, which easily could.

    This is Labour's real dilemma.

    SNP implode through some hitherto unknown scandal breaking?
    Waiting for the SNP to implode is not the greatest electoral strategy that I can think of.
    Indeed not. I wasn't proposing it as a strategy, merely as a potential solution to the 'how might Labour win a majority in 2024' conundrum.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924

    Great header.

    Reeves looks and sounds like a leader. Dressed for business rather than teaching primary school; nice deep voice like post-elocution Thatcher; no sibilance like Nandy; can deliver a joke; can think on her feet. Policies unneeded in this post-truth age.

    As noted on the last thread, Bet365 cut her from 16/1 into 7/1.

    Let's see how she gets through the budget debate next.

    Yes, worth noting that as well as her undeniable intellectual credentials (A-level maths and further maths, Oxford first degree, Msc Economics, UK girls' chess champion etc etc) she presents extremely well. She's a good speaker, great on the telly and a sharp dresser.

    Definitely one to watch.
    It might be worth keeping an eye on her hair as a sign she intends running. Apart from NZ's Jacinda Ardern, most female leaders tend to have shorter hair, though this might be a relic of outdoor rallies in days past, when long hair would be blown about by the wind or helicopter rotors. (Sounds terribly sexist but no more than telling Corbyn or Foot to smarten themselves up.)
    Interesting, because I think her glossy long dark hair is part of her signature 'look'. As you say, most female politicians have shorter bobs.
  • Farooq said:

    Alistair said:

    Farooq said:

    Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.

    Different vaccines/rates of take up?
    Different behaviour?

    Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
    I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
    They do care about population density though.

    Denmark population density 137 / km^2
    England population density 445 / km^2
    Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
    A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
    Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2
    Islington population density 16,097 / km^2

    What figure do you have for Copenhagen that its higher than London?
    Wiki has this for Copenhagen

    Population (1 January 2021)[3]
    • City 799,033
    • Density 4,400/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Urban 1,336,982
    • Urban density 4,600/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Metro 2,057,142
    • Metro density 1,200/km2 (3,000/sq mi)

    For London,

    Area
    • Total[A] 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
    • Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
    • Metro 8,382 km2 (3,236 sq mi)
    • City of London 2.90 km2 (1.12 sq mi)
    • Greater London 1,569 km2 (606 sq mi)
    Population (2021)[5]
    • Total[A] 8,961,989[1]
    • Density 5,666/km2 (14,670/sq mi)
    • Urban 9,950,000
    • Metro 14,257,962
    • City of London 8,706
    • Greater London 9,425,622

    which gives urban density as 5,725/km2 and metro density as 1,700/km2
    Ok, these are better stats than the quick googling, but it's still the wrong metric. Is the distribution of crowdedness, not bulk densities that matter. If you have everyone living in one enormous tower and then King Charles III with exclusive access to the rest, versus a homogeneous array of millions of semi-detatcheds, they might have the same density, but not the same health outcomes.

    Density is really just a starting point on a proper analysis.
    On the "distribution of crowdedness" we have about twice the Population of Denmark in London. I'd say that distributes a lot more of the crowdedness in London than it does anywhere in Denmark.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,358

    algarkirk said:

    A fun read, thank you. The flesh needed on these bones is the list of 127 seats that Labour manage to take off other parties to achieve this.

    If they don't take some seats off the SNP then their targets need to look at seats that are up to 150th on their list. For example Basingstoke, requiring a 12.97% swing, 148th on the list. JRM' s seat would also have to be in the frame.

    We could do loads worse than a Labour government led by Rachel Reeves and her all women cabinet, but it is still a Black Swan. It won't happen.

    Back in reality, Labour have a much tougher sell: We can't win, but the centre left Labour led alliance government, with all the instability of the SNP as part of it, is better than a Tory government.

    For myself, I would vote for the first, which can't happen, but not the second, which easily could.

    This is Labour's real dilemma.

    SNP implode through some hitherto unknown scandal breaking?
    Three problems with this: if it were to happen it already would have; if it happens it benefits Tories as much as Labour (maybe more); finally there is a massive independence vote that has to go somewhere. If it doesn't do to the Front for the Liberation of Scotland, it would go to the Scottish Liberation Front.

    It isn't going to Labour.

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924

    Reeves worked for HBOS while I was there apparently but I'm beggered if I can remember her.

    (I suspect that's mutual tbf 😂)


    Surely not, I suspect she speaks very highly and wistfully of you!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,834
    edited October 27

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    I was pretty confident that England would be Hungary, but they didn't.
    I do not bet but putting £3,000 on a Labour lead this year amazes me, not because it could not win but that anyone has that kind of money to put at rsk
    If you have a pension scheme you are paying into then you have more than that at risk!
    My pension has matured so I do not have that problem to be fair
    Anyone whose pension scheme hasn't matured already is showing a distinct propensity for being born too late imo.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,173
    algarkirk said:

    A fun read, thank you. The flesh needed on these bones is the list of 127 seats that Labour manage to take off other parties to achieve this.

    If they don't take some seats off the SNP then their targets need to look at seats that are up to 150th on their list. For example Basingstoke, requiring a 12.97% swing, 148th on the list. JRM' s seat would also have to be in the frame.

    We could do loads worse than a Labour government led by Rachel Reeves and her all women cabinet, but it is still a Black Swan. It won't happen.

    Back in reality, Labour have a much tougher sell: We can't win, but the centre left Labour led alliance government, with all the instability of the SNP as part of it, is better than a Tory government.

    For myself, I would vote for the first, which can't happen, but not the second, which easily could.

    This is Labour's real dilemma.

    Arguably Labour lost the next UK general election when they failed to make any progress at the recent Holyrood election.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    What are the terms of the bet? Any poll lead ever in any poll?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,352
    Surely the craziest thing is the additional NI and then branding it as a separate tax. It would have been incredibly easy to completely manage without it.

    And how much of the big boost in Departmental spending is going to go on public sector pay? Quite a lot I suspect.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,834

    Reeves worked for HBOS while I was there apparently but I'm beggered if I can remember her.

    (I suspect that's mutual tbf 😂)

    Surely not, I suspect she speaks very highly and wistfully of you!
    I'll expect the call to join her as chief SPAD as soon as she wins the election*.

    (*What is an infinitesimally small chance multiplied by an infinitesimally small chance anyway?)
  • Reeves' chance would have definitely been improved if Starmer could have got the electoral college passed at party conference. Not quite sure whether she can win a OMOV contest amongst the membership.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    Farooq said:

    Alistair said:

    Farooq said:

    Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.

    Different vaccines/rates of take up?
    Different behaviour?

    Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
    I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
    They do care about population density though.

    Denmark population density 137 / km^2
    England population density 445 / km^2
    Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
    A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
    Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2
    Islington population density 16,097 / km^2

    What figure do you have for Copenhagen that its higher than London?
    Wiki has this for Copenhagen

    Population (1 January 2021)[3]
    • City 799,033
    • Density 4,400/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Urban 1,336,982
    • Urban density 4,600/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Metro 2,057,142
    • Metro density 1,200/km2 (3,000/sq mi)

    For London,

    Area
    • Total[A] 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
    • Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
    • Metro 8,382 km2 (3,236 sq mi)
    • City of London 2.90 km2 (1.12 sq mi)
    • Greater London 1,569 km2 (606 sq mi)
    Population (2021)[5]
    • Total[A] 8,961,989[1]
    • Density 5,666/km2 (14,670/sq mi)
    • Urban 9,950,000
    • Metro 14,257,962
    • City of London 8,706
    • Greater London 9,425,622

    which gives urban density as 5,725/km2 and metro density as 1,700/km2
    Ok, these are better stats than the quick googling, but it's still the wrong metric. Is the distribution of crowdedness, not bulk densities that matter. If you have everyone living in one enormous tower and then King Charles III with exclusive access to the rest, versus a homogeneous array of millions of semi-detatcheds, they might have the same density, but not the same health outcomes.

    Density is really just a starting point on a proper analysis.
    Does the proportion of single person households help? 22% for London, 28% for Copenhagen is what a quick Google gets.
    Probably, I don't see why not.
    I imagine higher rates of cycling help, at least, versus sitting on the tube/train/bus to travel to work. There's probably more aspects to this than we can imagine, some of which will be driven by local-scale densities (but probably not wide-scale densities, is my guess).

    Take a look at a satellite view of Copenhagen. Scroll south to the island of Amager, and look at the west side of it. Huge areas of empty land (reclaimed from the sea, as it happens, and only recently-ish opened to the public after being a firing range for a long time) That empty spaces lowers the density by adding to the area, but what it really means is that everyone who lives around it, see Islandsbrygge, is crowded into large apartment buildings. So the "density" that counts here is on the street level.

    This is why bulk densities are largely worthless. What matters is how frequently people are in contact with others, and under what conditions.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,834

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it

    Do you feel like you have too much money in your life or some such ?
    Just got a stonking pay rise.

    I am very confident in this bet though
    What are the terms of the bet? Any poll lead ever in any poll?
    I just bought a case of 1963 port at auction today - a tad better investment than @CorrectHorseBattery's I'd say! 🍷
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    Brexit “twice” as damaging to the economy as Covid, OBR chief Richard Hughes says

    Swipes 4% from GDP (pandemic 2%)

    (don’t expect anyone in govt (or Labour) to start talking about this self-mutilation)

    https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1453395830069682183
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,834
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    A fun read, thank you. The flesh needed on these bones is the list of 127 seats that Labour manage to take off other parties to achieve this.

    If they don't take some seats off the SNP then their targets need to look at seats that are up to 150th on their list. For example Basingstoke, requiring a 12.97% swing, 148th on the list. JRM' s seat would also have to be in the frame.

    We could do loads worse than a Labour government led by Rachel Reeves and her all women cabinet, but it is still a Black Swan. It won't happen.

    Back in reality, Labour have a much tougher sell: We can't win, but the centre left Labour led alliance government, with all the instability of the SNP as part of it, is better than a Tory government.

    For myself, I would vote for the first, which can't happen, but not the second, which easily could.

    This is Labour's real dilemma.

    SNP implode through some hitherto unknown scandal breaking?
    Three problems with this: if it were to happen it already would have; if it happens it benefits Tories as much as Labour (maybe more); finally there is a massive independence vote that has to go somewhere. If it doesn't do to the Front for the Liberation of Scotland, it would go to the Scottish Liberation Front.

    It isn't going to Labour.

    All good points... but it won't stop me reminding you of this post when Labour sweep to 50 Scottish seats in 2024!
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,777

    Reeves worked for HBOS while I was there apparently but I'm beggered if I can remember her.

    (I suspect that's mutual tbf 😂)

    One of the in house economists apparently. Unless you're a related department or she fronted up the House Price Index on the radio, I guess there's no particular reason you should've known her.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Alistair said:

    Farooq said:

    Can anyone explain the Denmark situation to me. They lifted all covid restrictions over a month ago and are doing fine so far as I can see. We, however, seem to be in a more difficult position.

    Different vaccines/rates of take up?
    Different behaviour?

    Perhaps they don't have a clown for a prime minister?
    I don't think viruses care who the prime minister is.
    They do care about population density though.

    Denmark population density 137 / km^2
    England population density 445 / km^2
    Bulk densities are a fairly pointless metric, what matters is the distribution of crowdedness. You could change Denmark's population density hugely just by decided whether or not to include Greenland in the figures, but it would have no impact whatsoever to the transmission of the virus, because Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense, and so on would all have exactly the same conditions.
    A quick google tells me Copenhagen has a higher population density than London.
    Copenhagen population density 725/ km^2
    Islington population density 16,097 / km^2

    What figure do you have for Copenhagen that its higher than London?
    Wiki has this for Copenhagen

    Population (1 January 2021)[3]
    • City 799,033
    • Density 4,400/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Urban 1,336,982
    • Urban density 4,600/km2 (12,000/sq mi)
    • Metro 2,057,142
    • Metro density 1,200/km2 (3,000/sq mi)

    For London,

    Area
    • Total[A] 1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
    • Urban 1,737.9 km2 (671.0 sq mi)
    • Metro 8,382 km2 (3,236 sq mi)
    • City of London 2.90 km2 (1.12 sq mi)
    • Greater London 1,569 km2 (606 sq mi)
    Population (2021)[5]
    • Total[A] 8,961,989[1]
    • Density 5,666/km2 (14,670/sq mi)
    • Urban 9,950,000
    • Metro 14,257,962
    • City of London 8,706
    • Greater London 9,425,622

    which gives urban density as 5,725/km2 and metro density as 1,700/km2
    Ok, these are better stats than the quick googling, but it's still the wrong metric. Is the distribution of crowdedness, not bulk densities that matter. If you have everyone living in one enormous tower and then King Charles III with exclusive access to the rest, versus a homogeneous array of millions of semi-detatcheds, they might have the same density, but not the same health outcomes.

    Density is really just a starting point on a proper analysis.
    Does the proportion of single person households help? 22% for London, 28% for Copenhagen is what a quick Google gets.
    Probably, I don't see why not.
    I imagine higher rates of cycling help, at least, versus sitting on the tube/train/bus to travel to work. There's probably more aspects to this than we can imagine, some of which will be driven by local-scale densities (but probably not wide-scale densities, is my guess).

    Take a look at a satellite view of Copenhagen. Scroll south to the island of Amager, and look at the west side of it. Huge areas of empty land (reclaimed from the sea, as it happens, and only recently-ish opened to the public after being a firing range for a long time) That empty spaces lowers the density by adding to the area, but what it really means is that everyone who lives around it, see Islandsbrygge, is crowded into large apartment buildings. So the "density" that counts here is on the street level.

    This is why bulk densities are largely worthless. What matters is how frequently people are in contact with others, and under what conditions.
    And whichever way you slice it people are under more regular contact with others in England than in most other nations. And with fewer firebreaks too.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,128



    It's not perfect but it's the best rule of thumb and whatever way you slice it, Denmark has a teensy tiny fraction of England's density.

    Covid cases and deaths scaled almost perfectly with density through the pandemic in like for like areas.

    The region of the UK with the highest population density is London.
    It has the second lowest death rate per 100,000 people.

    When I do Spearman's rank correlation on regions by population vs regions by deaths-> the coefficient is 0.0833...
    I.e. basically no relationship.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,834
    rkrkrk said:



    It's not perfect but it's the best rule of thumb and whatever way you slice it, Denmark has a teensy tiny fraction of England's density.

    Covid cases and deaths scaled almost perfectly with density through the pandemic in like for like areas.

    The region of the UK with the highest population density is London.
    It has the second lowest death rate per 100,000 people.

    When I do Spearman's rank correlation on regions by population vs regions by deaths-> the coefficient is 0.0833...
    I.e. basically no relationship.
    What about the correlation of regions by population density vs regions by deaths?
  • algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    A fun read, thank you. The flesh needed on these bones is the list of 127 seats that Labour manage to take off other parties to achieve this.

    If they don't take some seats off the SNP then their targets need to look at seats that are up to 150th on their list. For example Basingstoke, requiring a 12.97% swing, 148th on the list. JRM' s seat would also have to be in the frame.

    We could do loads worse than a Labour government led by Rachel Reeves and her all women cabinet, but it is still a Black Swan. It won't happen.

    Back in reality, Labour have a much tougher sell: We can't win, but the centre left Labour led alliance government, with all the instability of the SNP as part of it, is better than a Tory government.

    For myself, I would vote for the first, which can't happen, but not the second, which easily could.

    This is Labour's real dilemma.

    SNP implode through some hitherto unknown scandal breaking?
    Three problems with this: if it were to happen it already would have; if it happens it benefits Tories as much as Labour (maybe more); finally there is a massive independence vote that has to go somewhere. If it doesn't do to the Front for the Liberation of Scotland, it would go to the Scottish Liberation Front.

    It isn't going to Labour.

    All good points... but it won't stop me reminding you of this post when Labour sweep to 50 Scottish seats in 2024!
    To do that they would need to replace the SNP in Scotland

    Not even remotely possible to be fair
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,580

    Reeves worked for HBOS while I was there apparently but I'm beggered if I can remember her.

    (I suspect that's mutual tbf 😂)

    Surely not, I suspect she speaks very highly and wistfully of you!
    I'll expect the call to join her as chief SPAD as soon as she wins the election*.

    (*What is an infinitesimally small chance multiplied by an infinitesimally small chance anyway?)
    I went to school with and knew as an acquaintance if not a friend, the current Minister of State for Transport. I also was briefly worked with someone who's now a full-time award-winning science fiction novelist.

    I doubt either would remember me at all, especially as the first was about 35 years ago and the second about 25 years ago!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,834

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    A fun read, thank you. The flesh needed on these bones is the list of 127 seats that Labour manage to take off other parties to achieve this.

    If they don't take some seats off the SNP then their targets need to look at seats that are up to 150th on their list. For example Basingstoke, requiring a 12.97% swing, 148th on the list. JRM' s seat would also have to be in the frame.

    We could do loads worse than a Labour government led by Rachel Reeves and her all women cabinet, but it is still a Black Swan. It won't happen.

    Back in reality, Labour have a much tougher sell: We can't win, but the centre left Labour led alliance government, with all the instability of the SNP as part of it, is better than a Tory government.

    For myself, I would vote for the first, which can't happen, but not the second, which easily could.

    This is Labour's real dilemma.

    SNP implode through some hitherto unknown scandal breaking?
    Three problems with this: if it were to happen it already would have; if it happens it benefits Tories as much as Labour (maybe more); finally there is a massive independence vote that has to go somewhere. If it doesn't do to the Front for the Liberation of Scotland, it would go to the Scottish Liberation Front.

    It isn't going to Labour.

    All good points... but it won't stop me reminding you of this post when Labour sweep to 50 Scottish seats in 2024!
    To do that they would need to replace the SNP in Scotland

    Not even remotely possible to be fair
    Agreed. But the same could be said for Rachel Reeves PM in 2024.

    And for that matter, we would have said the same in 2010 for D J Trump to become POTUS 😬
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940
    Evening @Ed_Miliband think you forgot to tweet about the £18.6 million announced at #Budget2021 to help level up Doncaster through the Levelling Up Fund.

    There's still time though, graphic here if you need it


    https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1453396533223829510?s=20
This discussion has been closed.