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
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?
Sorry that's what I meant - by population density.
Density Region Deaths 1 LONDON 8 2 NORTH WEST 1 3 SOUTH EAST 7 4 WEST MIDLANDS 3 5 YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER 6 6 EAST 5 7 NORTH EAST 2 8 EAST MIDLANDS 4 9 SOUTH WEST 9
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!
A line manager of mine was promoted to a role in which she made tea for the Prince of Wales (which he didn't drink) and I suspect that HRH has no knowledge of my existence.
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
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
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
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.
I think as the PBer who probably has most knowledge of Denmark I should probably step in - Copenhagen's pop density is 12,000 or so per sq/km -the reason Denmark has such a good covid track record is in my opinion down to a couple of things - luck. low population density in general and a population that trusts its government and does what it is asked - but we have got rid of all regulations now and I find it hard to conceive of them returning - also Denmark is just not that popular a destination so not much inbound travel - one benefit of covid has been Copenhagen returning to how it was about 10 years ago before the big cruise ships started dumping thousands of people.
Huge mistakes were made such as illegally killing all the mink, banning AZ for dubious reasons but overall stuff works in Denmark and the vaccine rollout when it got going was excellent.
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.
Again, maybe not. Did you even read the bit about cycling? Lifestyle matters. Are people crowding into pubs or sitting outside on pavement tables? How is the wfh culture? Are supermarkets airier? Are people avoiding crowds more or less? All these things matter. And block-level housing density affects all of the above, yes. But looking at bulk density isn't going to get you very far. Do a regression analysis if you don't believe me, but just to hammer the point home, consider Brazil is one of the least-densely populated countries in the world. That should help you see why distribution of crowdedness is more important than bulk density.
What does this mean? Two big things. 1. Total debt continues to rise from £2.1tn now to £2.5tn in 2025. 2. The UK is still paying £28bn a year in debt interest. That means debt is the equivalent of the 5th biggest spending ministry, after Health, DfE, MoD and Scotland. Yikes. https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1453403289584816132/photo/1
If Starmer was ahead in the polls in 2024 why would he succumb to a bout of despair? After all most politicians* seem to believe they are The One who can make everything better
So, I wonder if Levelling Up will amount to much more than tarting up a few northern town centres with thirty pieces of (borrowed) silver previously confiscated from their local councils?
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?
Sorry that's what I meant - by population density.
Density Region Deaths 1 LONDON 8 2 NORTH WEST 1 3 SOUTH EAST 7 4 WEST MIDLANDS 3 5 YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER 6 6 EAST 5 7 NORTH EAST 2 8 EAST MIDLANDS 4 9 SOUTH WEST 9
I guess population age comes into it in the South West.
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.
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.
Again, maybe not. Did you even read the bit about cycling? Lifestyle matters. Are people crowding into pubs or sitting outside on pavement tables? How is the wfh culture? Are supermarkets airier? Are people avoiding crowds more or less? All these things matter. And block-level housing density affects all of the above, yes. But looking at bulk density isn't going to get you very far. Do a regression analysis if you don't believe me, but just to hammer the point home, consider Brazil is one of the least-densely populated countries in the world. That should help you see why distribution of crowdedness is more important than bulk density.
Honestly I think you could boil most of it down to 2 things... 1) age structure of population 2) did you get people vaccinated before they caught the disease.
And for 2) I suppose you might say that population density has some impact... but not much. Good policies can obviously more than counteract the effect -> Singapore obviously has a high density and very few COVID deaths.
Bugger. The end of the world is definitely nigh. I have just read an opinion piece I agreed with without looking at the author. Then I found out it was written by Paul Krugman!!! Arggh!
What does this mean? Two big things. 1. Total debt continues to rise from £2.1tn now to £2.5tn in 2025. 2. The UK is still paying £28bn a year in debt interest. That means debt is the equivalent of the 5th biggest spending ministry, after Health, DfE, MoD and Scotland. Yikes. https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1453403289584816132/photo/1
I have thought for ages that debt will rise to £3.1tn (+) before we get to some sort of stability.
Since 2008 it has all been balanced budgets tomorrow and it never came. All it would need would be 15 years of normal interest rates and we would be in some difficulties.
From the Guardian live blog (no broccoli present):
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Bugger. The end of the world is definitely nigh. I have just read an opinion piece I agreed with without looking at the author. Then I found out it was written by Paul Krugman!!! Arggh!
Interesting formulation of the reporting: "now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging" when in fact they have not revised at all their estimate of the damage Brexit would do, but rather the revision is to the lesser damage COVID will have done. Also, they don't state over what period the 4% Brexit damage will happen, or whether it is 'lost growth' vs actual reduction in output, as was COVID.
Bugger. The end of the world is definitely nigh. I have just read an opinion piece I agreed with without looking at the author. Then I found out it was written by Paul Krugman!!! Arggh!
Bugger. The end of the world is definitely nigh. I have just read an opinion piece I agreed with without looking at the author. Then I found out it was written by Paul Krugman!!! Arggh!
Interesting formulation of the reporting: "now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging" when in fact they have not revised at all their estimate of the damage Brexit would do, but rather the revision is to the lesser damage COVID will have done. Also, they don't state over what period the 4% Brexit damage will happen, or whether it is 'lost growth' vs actual reduction in output, as was COVID.
Tricky stuff.
The reality is of course that today's budget will be far more significant than Brexit to our economic performance over the next few years for good or ill. The scale of intervention by the government in terms of additional spending and taxation is orders of magnitude greater. If this gamble on state investment and spending works Brexit will be forgotten by all except @Scott_xP . If it fails the scenario in the thread header may become just a little less fanciful.
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.
Again, maybe not. Did you even read the bit about cycling? Lifestyle matters. Are people crowding into pubs or sitting outside on pavement tables? How is the wfh culture? Are supermarkets airier? Are people avoiding crowds more or less? All these things matter. And block-level housing density affects all of the above, yes. But looking at bulk density isn't going to get you very far. Do a regression analysis if you don't believe me, but just to hammer the point home, consider Brazil is one of the least-densely populated countries in the world. That should help you see why distribution of crowdedness is more important than bulk density.
Honestly I think you could boil most of it down to 2 things... 1) age structure of population 2) did you get people vaccinated before they caught the disease.
And for 2) I suppose you might say that population density has some impact... but not much. Good policies can obviously more than counteract the effect -> Singapore obviously has a high density and very few COVID deaths.
I think averages like population density may not be prime movers in epidemiology. I think network theory is a more productive approach. How many hubs are there, which are the highest density hubs with the most traffic, and how long do people stay in those dense, highly-trafficked hubs?
That coupled with age structure, vaccination rates and (pre-vaccination) adherence to social measures, I think is the way to look at this.
From the Guardian live blog (no broccoli present):
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Total bullshit.
That's good news because if the OBR are basing their forecasts on such unrealistic pessimism then they'll be revising up the outturns in future years.
From the Guardian live blog (no broccoli present):
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Total bullshit.
That's good news because if the OBR are basing their forecasts on such unrealistic pessimism then they'll be revising up the outturns in future years.
Those who do not accept Brexit will continue not to accept it, while the rest of us move on
From the Guardian live blog (no broccoli present):
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Total bullshit.
That's good news because if the OBR are basing their forecasts on such unrealistic pessimism then they'll be revising up the outturns in future years.
Well yes, and it could turn out worse, too.
I know the OBR has a better grasp on this than I do. I also suspect that they have a better grasp than you do too.
From the Guardian live blog (no broccoli present):
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Total bullshit.
That's good news because if the OBR are basing their forecasts on such unrealistic pessimism then they'll be revising up the outturns in future years.
Those who do not accept Brexit will continue not to accept it, while the rest of us move on
The OBR's job isn't really to "accept" anything. You'd best hope they know what they're talking about, though, because the whole budget is based on their work.
From the Guardian live blog (no broccoli present):
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Total bullshit.
That's good news because if the OBR are basing their forecasts on such unrealistic pessimism then they'll be revising up the outturns in future years.
Those who do not accept Brexit will continue not to accept it, while the rest of us move on
The OBR's job isn't really to "accept" anything. You'd best hope they know what they're talking about, though, because the whole budget is based on their work.
I do not dispute that, but we are out of the EU and little sign any political party other than the SNP are going to change that status
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
From the Guardian live blog (no broccoli present):
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Total bullshit.
That's good news because if the OBR are basing their forecasts on such unrealistic pessimism then they'll be revising up the outturns in future years.
Those who do not accept Brexit will continue not to accept it, while the rest of us move on
The OBR's job isn't really to "accept" anything. You'd best hope they know what they're talking about, though, because the whole budget is based on their work.
I do not dispute, but we are out of the EU and little sign any political party other than the SNP are going to change that status
I think we all know that we're out of the EU. The budgetary consequences of that are with us now and in the future, for good or for ill. You need to move on from the vote and think about the choices it leaves us with.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They will lose some (but Lib-Dems will probably underperform expectations as they usually do in general elections) I can see the Con majority being more than halved but still being relatively comfortable due to how big it was to start off with.
Remember the notional Con majority after boundary changes is over 90 so a 40 seat majority in 2023 while relatively comfortable is still a historically big loss of seats.
Boris will go in 2025/2026 and Labour will win the 2028 general election.
The next election is 1992 and 2005 all over again.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
Bugger. The end of the world is definitely nigh. I have just read an opinion piece I agreed with without looking at the author. Then I found out it was written by Paul Krugman!!! Arggh!
At least it was only tangentially about economics.
I saw the first episode of foundation for free. It did not make me inclined to pay for the rest but it did make me go back to the books. Which, to be honest, was something of a disappointment. Asimov's characters are very much based in the 1950s. There is hardly a significant female character in the first 3 books and the patriarchy is so painfully obvious that even I noticed it. Most of the characters are paste board and gone in a flash. Salvor Hardin is a modest exception but jeez. The scope and vision of the concept is still excellent, bordering on brilliant but the way it is written is frankly a distraction. His Caves of Steel trilogy was much better written.
Dune, on the other hand, is simply a work of genius. It is a complicated, interconnected and evolving society where shards of humanity have been teased out and perfected at a cost. The characters have flaws and depth. I am really looking forward to the new film as the previous effort was so disappointing.
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.
Of course:
There are lots and lots of factors that matter more than "density", and that's even before we come to things like vaccine roll outs.
1. Number of single person households. You know where most people get Covid? At home. One person brings it home, and then everyone gets it. All the Nordics have way more single person households than Southern Europe or the UK.
2. Public transport / apartment complexes. You know another place where people get Covid? On subways and buses (look at the truly frightening statistics on bus drivers in the UK). If - on the other had - people tend to cycle around, then there's far less opportunity for disease to spread.
3. Education. The younger kids are, the easier it is for Covid to go right through a class. And kids start school two years later in Demark (6), than in the UK (4). That's also helped Germany (7), a lot.
Plus there's another thing: Denmark is 90% Pfizer, and most people only got vaccinated relatively recently. That means they have rather better coverage (right now). Of course, they'll need to keep up with boosters to maintain this performance. But there's no doubt that they have a bit more of a benefit right now than we do.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
I believe we are seeing a major change, not only to a high wage economy but the end of Gordon Brown's nonsense of subsidising low wages and allowing complete freedom of movement
I assume that in todays budget the tax and NI take in the next year is going to be much higher with increased wages and the NLW at £9.50
It may be a gamble as wage costs feed through into inflation, but we could not continue having the exchequer pay tax payers money to support employers paying low wages
I would just comment on Rachel and labour insisting Amazon pay more tax as we know this is an international issue which I understand the leading economies, including importantly the US, are set to agree in 2022 a minimum 15% tax on all tech companies, which will finally address the issue
If I have read this wrong please correct me someone, but that is my understanding of this issue
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
Not according to the punters.
This will be a slow drip drip effect - Tories support will ebb away albeit slowly.
One thing is for sure, the Tories are finished in London. Why would a young, progressive and educated populace vote for the vile Tories?
Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it
Where? Odds? I might join you (at 1000 ppm or so ) 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?
How exactly do exchanges measure matched money? If I have £100 on a 5.0 shot and a counterparty lays my full stake they will have put up £400. So is the matched total £100? £400? £500? Averaged to £250?
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
I believe we are seeing a major change, not only to a high wage economy but the end of Gordon Brown's nonsense of subsidising low wages and allowing complete freedom of movement
I assume that in todays budget the tax and NI take in the next year is going to be much higher with increased wages and the NLW at £9.50
It may be a gamble as wage costs feed through into inflation, but we could not continue having the exchequer pay tax payers money to support employers paying low wages
I would just comment on Rachel and labour insisting Amazon pay more tax as we know this is an international issue which I understand the leading economies, including importantly the US, are set to agree in 2022 a minimum 15% tax on all tech companies, which will finally address the issue
If I have read this wrong please correct me someone, but that is my understanding of this issue
Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it
Where? Odds? I might join you (at 1000 ppm or so ) 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?
How exactly do exchanges measure matched money? If I have £100 on a 5.0 shot and a counterparty lays my full stake they will have put up £400. So is the matched total £100? £400? £500? Averaged to £250?
I think it's the back stake that gets counted, not the lay?
From the Guardian live blog (no broccoli present):
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Total bullshit.
That's good news because if the OBR are basing their forecasts on such unrealistic pessimism then they'll be revising up the outturns in future years.
Those who do not accept Brexit will continue not to accept it, while the rest of us move on
The OBR's job isn't really to "accept" anything. You'd best hope they know what they're talking about, though, because the whole budget is based on their work.
I do not dispute, but we are out of the EU and little sign any political party other than the SNP are going to change that status
I think we all know that we're out of the EU. The budgetary consequences of that are with us now and in the future, for good or for ill. You need to move on from the vote and think about the choices it leaves us with.
I would be delighted not to speak about Brexit again and move on, but many do not
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
What is this "swingback" you speak of?
Rod Crosby formerly of this site spoke very frequently about swingback and accurately forecast the Tory majority in the next election during the 2010-15 Parliament. Swingback is the nature of how polls go away from the government in midterms and back to the government for the next election. 2010-15 is a very good example of swingback.
Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it
Where? Odds? I might join you (at 1000 ppm or so ) 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?
How exactly do exchanges measure matched money? If I have £100 on a 5.0 shot and a counterparty lays my full stake they will have put up £400. So is the matched total £100? £400? £500? Averaged to £250?
On betfair it would be counted as £200.
£100 stake for both back and lay. The liability is ignored.
Dunno about other exchanges. IMO, they should really just count the back/lay stake once.
German cases are still rising vertically. It looks like they'll exceed the peak from last winter soon.
Eastern Germany has very low levels of vaccine coverage (c. 55%) of population. Looking at the per-state breakdown, it looks like it's Bavaria (in the South East), Berlin and Saxony (in the East) that are seeing the big surges.
German cases are still rising vertically. It looks like they'll exceed the peak from last winter soon.
They're months behind the UK in lifting restrictions.
They're going to either have to maintain restrictions at least until spring or summer next year, or face their exit wave in the winter. Neither is an attractive option.
Not lifting restrictions in the summer was a terrible mistake by a lot of countries. I really worry for their winter - I hope I'm wrong!
I’ll be surprised if the base rate goes above 1%, but if it does, then we could be in for some interesting politics. We’ve had over a decade where this dog didn’t bark. There are millions of mortgage holders out there who have known nothing but ultra low interest rates.
I suspect that it would be bad news for the government, but it would be fun to see how the politicians react to it.
From the Guardian live blog (no broccoli present):
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Total bullshit.
That's good news because if the OBR are basing their forecasts on such unrealistic pessimism then they'll be revising up the outturns in future years.
Those who do not accept Brexit will continue not to accept it, while the rest of us move on
The OBR's job isn't really to "accept" anything. You'd best hope they know what they're talking about, though, because the whole budget is based on their work.
I do not dispute, but we are out of the EU and little sign any political party other than the SNP are going to change that status
I think we all know that we're out of the EU. The budgetary consequences of that are with us now and in the future, for good or for ill. You need to move on from the vote and think about the choices it leaves us with.
I would be delighted not to speak about Brexit again and move on, but many do not
Ah, unfortunately the consequences are still with us (see above), so it's still relevant. You try to pretend that there's no space in between "reverse this outrage now!" and "let's never mention it again!", but my feeling that almost everyone in the country is to be found in that space between.
As in, let's be honest about what this is costing us, and do our best to have it cost less. That's a forward-thinking question, and there are a number of possible answers.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
I believe we are seeing a major change, not only to a high wage economy but the end of Gordon Brown's nonsense of subsidising low wages and allowing complete freedom of movement
I assume that in todays budget the tax and NI take in the next year is going to be much higher with increased wages and the NLW at £9.50
It may be a gamble as wage costs feed through into inflation, but we could not continue having the exchequer pay tax payers money to support employers paying low wages
I would just comment on Rachel and labour insisting Amazon pay more tax as we know this is an international issue which I understand the leading economies, including importantly the US, are set to agree in 2022 a minimum 15% tax on all tech companies, which will finally address the issue
If I have read this wrong please correct me someone, but that is my understanding of this issue
I’ll be surprised if the base rate goes above 1%, but if it does, then we could be in for some interesting politics. We’ve had over a decade where this dog didn’t bark. There are millions of mortgage holders out there who have known nothing but ultra low interest rates.
I suspect that it would be bad news for the government, but it would be fun to see how the politicians react to it.
I well remember when an interest rate rise to 15% was muted and I told my business partner who was on holiday in the US not to come home
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
What is this "swingback" you speak of?
Rod Crosby formerly of this site spoke very frequently about swingback and accurately forecast the Tory majority in the next election during the 2010-15 Parliament. Swingback is the nature of how polls go away from the government in midterms and back to the government for the next election. 2010-15 is a very good example of swingback.
Ok, thanks. Have subsequent elections reaffirmed this? Do previous elections look the same? My sense is they often do not.
I’ll be surprised if the base rate goes above 1%, but if it does, then we could be in for some interesting politics. We’ve had over a decade where this dog didn’t bark. There are millions of mortgage holders out there who have known nothing but ultra low interest rates.
I suspect that it would be bad news for the government, but it would be fun to see how the politicians react to it.
It would be interesting to see how politicians react to falling house prices.
From the Guardian live blog (no broccoli present):
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Total bullshit.
That's good news because if the OBR are basing their forecasts on such unrealistic pessimism then they'll be revising up the outturns in future years.
Those who do not accept Brexit will continue not to accept it, while the rest of us move on
The OBR's job isn't really to "accept" anything. You'd best hope they know what they're talking about, though, because the whole budget is based on their work.
I do not dispute, but we are out of the EU and little sign any political party other than the SNP are going to change that status
I think we all know that we're out of the EU. The budgetary consequences of that are with us now and in the future, for good or for ill. You need to move on from the vote and think about the choices it leaves us with.
I would be delighted not to speak about Brexit again and move on, but many do not
Ah, unfortunately the consequences are still with us (see above), so it's still relevant. You try to pretend that there's no space in between "reverse this outrage now!" and "let's never mention it again!", but my feeling that almost everyone in the country is to be found in that space between.
As in, let's be honest about what this is costing us, and do our best to have it cost less. That's a forward-thinking question, and there are a number of possible answers.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
What is this "swingback" you speak of?
Rod Crosby formerly of this site spoke very frequently about swingback and accurately forecast the Tory majority in the next election during the 2010-15 Parliament. Swingback is the nature of how polls go away from the government in midterms and back to the government for the next election. 2010-15 is a very good example of swingback.
Ok, thanks. Have subsequent elections reaffirmed this? Do previous elections look the same? My sense is they often do not.
Every parliament/election up to 2015 shows "swingback" - The one exception is 2017 when Theresa blew that she that massive poll lead she had at the start of the campaign!
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
I believe we are seeing a major change, not only to a high wage economy but the end of Gordon Brown's nonsense of subsidising low wages and allowing complete freedom of movement
I assume that in todays budget the tax and NI take in the next year is going to be much higher with increased wages and the NLW at £9.50
It may be a gamble as wage costs feed through into inflation, but we could not continue having the exchequer pay tax payers money to support employers paying low wages
I would just comment on Rachel and labour insisting Amazon pay more tax as we know this is an international issue which I understand the leading economies, including importantly the US, are set to agree in 2022 a minimum 15% tax on all tech companies, which will finally address the issue
If I have read this wrong please correct me someone, but that is my understanding of this issue
15% of what?
Profits as I understand
ok, and do you know if the offshoring of profits is covered? A trick in tech is to make unprofitable accounting units in the countries where they generate revenue. If they're actually going to smash that nasty little practice up, I'll be very glad.
I’ll be surprised if the base rate goes above 1%, but if it does, then we could be in for some interesting politics. We’ve had over a decade where this dog didn’t bark. There are millions of mortgage holders out there who have known nothing but ultra low interest rates.
I suspect that it would be bad news for the government, but it would be fun to see how the politicians react to it.
LOL! Inflation in housing costs have exceeded 6% per annum compounded for the past two decades. But we've had "no inflation" in recent years because we don't count that cost in the basket of goods.
Inflation of 5.4% at a peak being spoken about in horror is absolutely laughable. That's lower than the average inflation in normal circumstances in recent years.
Wages need to rise faster than costs not the other way around, if that means some CPI to pay for it, then that's completely fine by me.
Besides the Triple Lock really means we should view 2.5% as the absolute floor that we want inflation to be and if its lower than 2.5% then we need to be getting it back up again.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
I believe we are seeing a major change, not only to a high wage economy but the end of Gordon Brown's nonsense of subsidising low wages and allowing complete freedom of movement
I assume that in todays budget the tax and NI take in the next year is going to be much higher with increased wages and the NLW at £9.50
It may be a gamble as wage costs feed through into inflation, but we could not continue having the exchequer pay tax payers money to support employers paying low wages
I would just comment on Rachel and labour insisting Amazon pay more tax as we know this is an international issue which I understand the leading economies, including importantly the US, are set to agree in 2022 a minimum 15% tax on all tech companies, which will finally address the issue
If I have read this wrong please correct me someone, but that is my understanding of this issue
15% of what?
Profits as I understand
ok, and do you know if the offshoring of profits is covered. A trick in tech is to make unprofitable accounting units in the countries where they generate revenue. If they're actually doing to smash that nasty little practice up, I'll be very glad.
As I said I do not know the detail and am sure someone on here can explain it better than I have and confirm that this is an international agreement due to be signed in 2022
Labour poll lead by end of the year, I have £3000 on it
Where? Odds? I might join you (at 1000 ppm or so ) 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?
How exactly do exchanges measure matched money? If I have £100 on a 5.0 shot and a counterparty lays my full stake they will have put up £400. So is the matched total £100? £400? £500? Averaged to £250?
On betfair it would be counted as £200.
£100 stake for both back and lay. The liability is ignored.
Dunno about other exchanges. IMO, they should really just count the back/lay stake once.
Thanks. And bloody hell. I had 4 guesses and they were all wrong.
Ladies and gentlemen, for your edification, I present the latest entrant in the crowded field for Hypocrite of the Year:
From the Graun, one week ago:
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, the BMA’s council chair, said plan B was devised to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. “As doctors working on the frontline, we can categorically say that time is now,” he added.
...
He added: “It is wilfully negligent of the Westminster government not to be taking any further action to reduce the spread of infection, such as mandatory mask wearing, physical distancing and ventilation requirements in high-risk settings, particularly indoor crowded spaces."
And today:
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said: “The BMA fully supports the Covid vaccination rollout and, given the effectiveness of the vaccine, it’s important that every NHS worker is vaccinated, other than those who can’t for medical reasons.
“There is, however, an important distinction between believing every healthcare worker should be vaccinated and advocating for mandatory vaccinations; this comes with its own legal, ethical and practical implications that must be considered."
Summary: enforcement of masks and social distancing for the entire population by legislative diktat, every day until God alone knows when = urgent and necessary, should be done right now. Medical staff having an inoculation once every six months = an unacceptable infringement of personal choice.
Memo to Dr Nagpaul: If we are all to be forced to put up with an endless diet of miserable, destructive rules to please your members, then the least you can all fucking well do in return is co-operate with an initiative to crush this pandemic that is vastly more important and effective than having to go back to wrapping a stupid piece of cloth around your face every time you get out of your seat in a restaurant to take a damn piss, or deciding which five other members of your social circle are going to be invited to your birthday party at said restaurant. Besides which, I think we are all reasonably entitled to expect medical professionals employed by the state to follow good medical science, rather than digging their heels in because of bullshit they read on Facebook about Bill Gates's invisible microchips.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
What is this "swingback" you speak of?
Rod Crosby formerly of this site spoke very frequently about swingback and accurately forecast the Tory majority in the next election during the 2010-15 Parliament. Swingback is the nature of how polls go away from the government in midterms and back to the government for the next election. 2010-15 is a very good example of swingback.
Ok, thanks. Have subsequent elections reaffirmed this? Do previous elections look the same? My sense is they often do not.
Previous elections yes they do, which is why Rod was speaking about it before that one.
Subsequent elections are harder to judge because no election went full-term. 2017 obviously didn't affirm this but I think we'd all agree that 2017 was a weird exception to normal politics. 2019 majorly affirmed this on steroids, but I again would say that was a weird exception to normal politics, so those two should cancel each out.
German cases are still rising vertically. It looks like they'll exceed the peak from last winter soon.
Eastern Germany has very low levels of vaccine coverage (c. 55%) of population. Looking at the per-state breakdown, it looks like it's Bavaria (in the South East), Berlin and Saxony (in the East) that are seeing the big surges.
Well, in Bavaria, observance of the precautions was super-impressive. If nevertheless their case numbers skyrocket, I would take it as pretty conclusive proof that the contagion of the latest variants is now such that all the mask wearing and distancing and the rest is essentially a waste of time.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
What is this "swingback" you speak of?
Rod Crosby formerly of this site spoke very frequently about swingback and accurately forecast the Tory majority in the next election during the 2010-15 Parliament. Swingback is the nature of how polls go away from the government in midterms and back to the government for the next election. 2010-15 is a very good example of swingback.
Ok, thanks. Have subsequent elections reaffirmed this? Do previous elections look the same? My sense is they often do not.
There are cases where it's happened, and cases where it hasn't. The Conservatives spent a lot of 1992-7 hoping for a big swingback that didn't save them;
And I do wonder what PB would have been saying in 1977/8;
Rough take: Governments try to save some goodies for just before the election, which makes them more popular at the critical moment. One of the reasons for being Bearish on Boris is that he hasn't been able to save much in the first half of the Parliament to provide said goodies. And if events go wrong shortly before the election, there's not a lot a government can do to save itself.
So if the government's economic plan works, they will win. If it is the gabbling of idiots in the bar and fails, they will lose.
There's no agreement on whether the government's plan will work or not, hence the uncertainty about the next election.
Memo to Dr Nagpaul: If we are all to be forced to put up with an endless diet of miserable, destructive rules to please your members, then the least you can all fucking well do in return is co-operate with an initiative to crush this pandemic that is vastly more important and effective than having to go back to wrapping a stupid piece of cloth around your face every time you get out of your seat in a restaurant to take a damn piss, or deciding which five other members of your social circle are going to be invited to your birthday party at said restaurant. Besides which, I think we are all reasonably entitled to expect medical professionals employed by the state to follow good medical science, rather than digging their heels in because of bullshit they read on Facebook about Bill Gates's invisible microchips.
These bloody people.
I wish we could do a Reagan on the anti-vaxxers, vaccine skeptics, and other similiar idiots in the NHS and sack the lot of them.
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.
TBF that is obviously because the data isn’t age-adjusted
Also: - rank correlation isn't really appropriate for cases (such as this) where you expect Variable Y to be a linear function of Variable X (albeit I wouldn't expect Pearson's r to be much different) - 8% isn't "basically no relationship", it just isn't a very strong one - London's population is probably quite a bit less now in practice than the data on which those statistics rely
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
Not according to the punters.
This will be a slow drip drip effect - Tories support will ebb away albeit slowly.
One thing is for sure, the Tories are finished in London. Why would a young, progressive and educated populace vote for the vile Tories?
Maybe because they both welcome the phasing-out of face masks? Why would a young, progressive and educated populace vote for Lockdown Labour? Out here in the sticks, on the other hand, an old, regressive and ignorant populace are begging for more, harsher restrictions, as envisaged by Sir Keir.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
So the Tories won't lose the Remain seat defences in seats where there are a lot of graduates.
They didn't in 2019
But swingback only tends to ocur when the incumbent Government has fallen well behind in polls. No swingback to Labour in 2001 relative to 1999 - or to the Tories in 1964 relative to mid-1961. That was then before the EU exit. The CON lead is now down by 9-11 points
It's mid-terms. How did the Miliband poll leads in 2012/3 at a comparable stage before the next election turnout?
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
What is this "swingback" you speak of?
Rod Crosby formerly of this site spoke very frequently about swingback and accurately forecast the Tory majority in the next election during the 2010-15 Parliament. Swingback is the nature of how polls go away from the government in midterms and back to the government for the next election. 2010-15 is a very good example of swingback.
But 'swingback' only tends to occur when the incumbent party falls behind in the polls. No swingback to Labour in 2001 relative to 1999 - or to the Tories in 1964 relative to mid-1961 - or indeed in 1992 relative to beginning of 1992
No wealth taxes and no student loan tinkering. Lots of pundits got this budget very wrong.
The ft implies that SL changes could be announced separately in a few weeks.
We’ll see.
@BlancheLivermore give us both barrels on the etymology of "pundit" please. I know you can
One of my favourite type of English etymology: our borrowed Indian words.
It means "a learned man" from the Hindi word पंडित - payndit, and came to Hindi from Sanskrit. We used it from around 1670 to mean "a learned Hindu", came to mean a more generally learned chap in about 1820.
This is his master graph, mid-term vote estimated by average NEV in opposition on the x-axis vs final election result on the y-axis, in terms of opposition lead. Yes, no axis titles, blame Rod and the website I got the graph from.
This is his conclusion to article written on this sit in May 2014.
"So it seems clear now – the Tories are set to win most votes, probably most seats and have an outside, but not insignificant chance of a majority in 2015."
2017 does not help the model. It's an outlier, so lying outside, you could call it Sir Outlier of Outliershire. It's also one of the few cases where there's a Government lead on the NEV.
2019, however, I make it an average NEV lead by Labour of 0 %, which corresponds to a 12 % government win on his graph.
This is his master graph, mid-term vote estimated by average NEV in opposition on the x-axis vs final election result on the y-axis, in terms of opposition lead. Yes, no axis titles, blame Rod and the website I got the graph from.
This is his conclusion to article written on this sit in May 2014.
"So it seems clear now – the Tories are set to win most votes, probably most seats and have an outside, but not insignificant chance of a majority in 2015."
2017 does not help the model. It's an outlier, so lying outside, you could call it Sir Outlier of Outliershire.
2019, however, I make it an average NEV lead by Labour of 0 %, which corresponds to a 12 % government win on his graph.
Now, remind me how that worked out?
Swingback happens often enough that it is a good guide for punters. But it's not infallible.
Events can - and do - intervene.
Nevertheless, I think the markets are underestimating the chances of a Conservative majority. I think it's at least a 60% chance.
Police have arrested a man accused of making threats against the Labour deputy leader, Angela Rayner.
Sources close to Rayner, who is away from parliament on bereavement leave, confirmed she was the women concerned after Greater Manchester police announced the arrest.
The Guardian understands Rayner has cancelled her constituency surgeries in recent weeks amid concerns for her safety – linked to a wider increase of abuse and threats, including death threats, against her.
Friends said she had been deeply affected by the abuse, which had been taken particularly hard by her children. One described the deputy leader as “not in a good place” and said she had been unable to make many public appearances because of fears for her safety.
Ladies and gentlemen, for your edification, I present the latest entrant in the crowded field for Hypocrite of the Year:
From the Graun, one week ago:
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, the BMA’s council chair, said plan B was devised to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. “As doctors working on the frontline, we can categorically say that time is now,” he added.
...
He added: “It is wilfully negligent of the Westminster government not to be taking any further action to reduce the spread of infection, such as mandatory mask wearing, physical distancing and ventilation requirements in high-risk settings, particularly indoor crowded spaces."
And today:
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said: “The BMA fully supports the Covid vaccination rollout and, given the effectiveness of the vaccine, it’s important that every NHS worker is vaccinated, other than those who can’t for medical reasons.
“There is, however, an important distinction between believing every healthcare worker should be vaccinated and advocating for mandatory vaccinations; this comes with its own legal, ethical and practical implications that must be considered."
Summary: enforcement of masks and social distancing for the entire population by legislative diktat, every day until God alone knows when = urgent and necessary, should be done right now. Medical staff having an inoculation once every six months = an unacceptable infringement of personal choice.
Memo to Dr Nagpaul: If we are all to be forced to put up with an endless diet of miserable, destructive rules to please your members, then the least you can all fucking well do in return is co-operate with an initiative to crush this pandemic that is vastly more important and effective than having to go back to wrapping a stupid piece of cloth around your face every time you get out of your seat in a restaurant to take a damn piss, or deciding which five other members of your social circle are going to be invited to your birthday party at said restaurant. Besides which, I think we are all reasonably entitled to expect medical professionals employed by the state to follow good medical science, rather than digging their heels in because of bullshit they read on Facebook about Bill Gates's invisible microchips.
These bloody people.
Yes, there is a pretty large constituency that believes mask wearing and social distancing should be mandatory but vaccination should be voluntary!
I believe neither should be mandatory, which I think is at least a consistent defendable position. I simply cannot fathom the worldview of the Must-Mask-May-Vax brigade.
I mean, compulsory vaccination affects just 10% of the population and causes two hours admin vs 100% of the population and indefinite inconvenience. And vaccination is vastly more effective than masking.
Bizarre.
(CREDIT TO @ydoethur FOR NAILING THIS PARADOX LAST WEEK)
Comments
Density Region Deaths
1 LONDON 8
2 NORTH WEST 1
3 SOUTH EAST 7
4 WEST MIDLANDS 3
5 YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER 6
6 EAST 5
7 NORTH EAST 2
8 EAST MIDLANDS 4
9 SOUTH WEST 9
And are you doing density or population in your analysis?
Sources are coronavirus.data.gov.uk website (deaths by certificate or within 28 days, has same ranking so doesn't matter) & population density here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland
Huge mistakes were made such as illegally killing all the mink, banning AZ for dubious reasons but overall stuff works in Denmark and the vaccine rollout when it got going was excellent.
Now for realty: Boris 40-50 seat majority after October 2023 general election...
1. Total debt continues to rise from £2.1tn now to £2.5tn in 2025.
2. The UK is still paying £28bn a year in debt interest. That means debt is the equivalent of the 5th biggest spending ministry, after Health, DfE, MoD and Scotland. Yikes. https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1453403289584816132/photo/1
If Starmer was ahead in the polls in 2024 why would he succumb to a bout of despair? After all most politicians* seem to believe they are The One who can make everything better
* except Estelle Morris
And for 2) I suppose you might say that population density has some impact... but not much. Good policies can obviously more than counteract the effect -> Singapore obviously has a high density and very few COVID deaths.
'''''Undecipherable gobbledygook''''' replies the government minister
"Surely you accept the findings of the OBR?" asks Evan at his most pleasant
''''''''Even more gobbledygook bordering on gibberish'''''''' replies government spokeswoman
"But surely this will catch up with us?" tries Evan even more gently with a hint of exasperation
''''''total bollocks'''''from government spokeswoman gurgling like she's drowning
"I think we should move on" says Evan at his most gracious....
That's how to conduct an interview. No trickery required
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/dune-movie-foundation-series.html
At least it was only tangentially about economics.
Since 2008 it has all been balanced budgets tomorrow and it never came. All it would need would be 15 years of normal interest rates and we would be in some difficulties.
Brexit likely to be twice as damaging to economy as Covid, says OBR
Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, also told the PM programme that the OBR now thinks Brexit will be twice as damaging to the economy as Covid. He explained:
In the long run, it’s about twice the effect of the pandemic. Our previous forecasts factored in a 4% loss of output from Brexit. We’ve now revised down our assessment of the pandemic to 2%. And so far the data we’ve seen on trade flows between ourselves and the EU broadly support that judgement that we are losing about 4% of GDP along the way, just based on that relationship between trade intensity and output.
Sunak was no better. Just fireworks and little substance.
Tricky stuff.
That coupled with age structure, vaccination rates and (pre-vaccination) adherence to social measures, I think is the way to look at this.
That's good news because if the OBR are basing their forecasts on such unrealistic pessimism then they'll be revising up the outturns in future years.
I know the OBR has a better grasp on this than I do.
I also suspect that they have a better grasp than you do too.
Tories are consistently polling leads in midterm polls; add swingback back to the Tories, new boundaries, and cannibalising the Brexit vote and anything other than a Tory majority at this stage is a rank outsider.
Remember the notional Con majority after boundary changes is over 90 so a 40 seat majority in 2023 while relatively comfortable is still a historically big loss of seats.
Boris will go in 2025/2026 and Labour will win the 2028 general election.
The next election is 1992 and 2005 all over again.
All in my opinion of course.
Dune, on the other hand, is simply a work of genius. It is a complicated, interconnected and evolving society where shards of humanity have been teased out and perfected at a cost. The characters have flaws and depth. I am really looking forward to the new film as the previous effort was so disappointing.
There are lots and lots of factors that matter more than "density", and that's even before we come to things like vaccine roll outs.
1. Number of single person households. You know where most people get Covid? At home. One person brings it home, and then everyone gets it. All the Nordics have way more single person households than Southern Europe or the UK.
2. Public transport / apartment complexes. You know another place where people get Covid? On subways and buses (look at the truly frightening statistics on bus drivers in the UK). If - on the other had - people tend to cycle around, then there's far less opportunity for disease to spread.
3. Education. The younger kids are, the easier it is for Covid to go right through a class. And kids start school two years later in Demark (6), than in the UK (4). That's also helped Germany (7), a lot.
Plus there's another thing: Denmark is 90% Pfizer, and most people only got vaccinated relatively recently. That means they have rather better coverage (right now). Of course, they'll need to keep up with boosters to maintain this performance. But there's no doubt that they have a bit more of a benefit right now than we do.
No wealth taxes and no student loan tinkering. Lots of pundits got this budget very wrong.
The ft implies that SL changes could be announced separately in a few weeks.
We’ll see.
The cost of living crisis is the swan flying in from a distance and at the moment we can't see what colour the bird is.
I assume that in todays budget the tax and NI take in the next year is going to be much higher with increased wages and the NLW at £9.50
It may be a gamble as wage costs feed through into inflation, but we could not continue having the exchequer pay tax payers money to support employers paying low wages
I would just comment on Rachel and labour insisting Amazon pay more tax as we know this is an international issue which I understand the leading economies, including importantly the US, are set to agree in 2022 a minimum 15% tax on all tech companies, which will finally address the issue
If I have read this wrong please correct me someone, but that is my understanding of this issue
This will be a slow drip drip effect - Tories support will ebb away albeit slowly.
One thing is for sure, the Tories are finished in London. Why would a young, progressive and educated populace vote for the vile Tories?
Oh wait, maybe it was two.
£100 stake for both back and lay. The liability is ignored.
Dunno about other exchanges. IMO, they should really just count the back/lay stake once.
They're going to either have to maintain restrictions at least until spring or summer next year, or face their exit wave in the winter. Neither is an attractive option.
Not lifting restrictions in the summer was a terrible mistake by a lot of countries. I really worry for their winter - I hope I'm wrong!
I’ll be surprised if the base rate goes above 1%, but if it does, then we could be in for some interesting politics. We’ve had over a decade where this dog didn’t bark. There are millions of mortgage holders out there who have known nothing but ultra low interest rates.
I suspect that it would be bad news for the government, but it would be fun to see how the politicians react to it.
You try to pretend that there's no space in between "reverse this outrage now!" and "let's never mention it again!", but my feeling that almost everyone in the country is to be found in that space between.
As in, let's be honest about what this is costing us, and do our best to have it cost less. That's a forward-thinking question, and there are a number of possible answers.
Inflation of 5.4% at a peak being spoken about in horror is absolutely laughable. That's lower than the average inflation in normal circumstances in recent years.
Wages need to rise faster than costs not the other way around, if that means some CPI to pay for it, then that's completely fine by me.
Besides the Triple Lock really means we should view 2.5% as the absolute floor that we want inflation to be and if its lower than 2.5% then we need to be getting it back up again.
From the Graun, one week ago:
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, the BMA’s council chair, said plan B was devised to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. “As doctors working on the frontline, we can categorically say that time is now,” he added.
...
He added: “It is wilfully negligent of the Westminster government not to be taking any further action to reduce the spread of infection, such as mandatory mask wearing, physical distancing and ventilation requirements in high-risk settings, particularly indoor crowded spaces."
And today:
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said: “The BMA fully supports the Covid vaccination rollout and, given the effectiveness of the vaccine, it’s important that every NHS worker is vaccinated, other than those who can’t for medical reasons.
“There is, however, an important distinction between believing every healthcare worker should be vaccinated and advocating for mandatory vaccinations; this comes with its own legal, ethical and practical implications that must be considered."
Summary: enforcement of masks and social distancing for the entire population by legislative diktat, every day until God alone knows when = urgent and necessary, should be done right now. Medical staff having an inoculation once every six months = an unacceptable infringement of personal choice.
Memo to Dr Nagpaul: If we are all to be forced to put up with an endless diet of miserable, destructive rules to please your members, then the least you can all fucking well do in return is co-operate with an initiative to crush this pandemic that is vastly more important and effective than having to go back to wrapping a stupid piece of cloth around your face every time you get out of your seat in a restaurant to take a damn piss, or deciding which five other members of your social circle are going to be invited to your birthday party at said restaurant. Besides which, I think we are all reasonably entitled to expect medical professionals employed by the state to follow good medical science, rather than digging their heels in because of bullshit they read on Facebook about Bill Gates's invisible microchips.
These bloody people.
Subsequent elections are harder to judge because no election went full-term. 2017 obviously didn't affirm this but I think we'd all agree that 2017 was a weird exception to normal politics. 2019 majorly affirmed this on steroids, but I again would say that was a weird exception to normal politics, so those two should cancel each out.
And I do wonder what PB would have been saying in 1977/8;
Rough take: Governments try to save some goodies for just before the election, which makes them more popular at the critical moment. One of the reasons for being Bearish on Boris is that he hasn't been able to save much in the first half of the Parliament to provide said goodies. And if events go wrong shortly before the election, there's not a lot a government can do to save itself.
So if the government's economic plan works, they will win. If it is the gabbling of idiots in the bar and fails, they will lose.
There's no agreement on whether the government's plan will work or not, hence the uncertainty about the next election.
- rank correlation isn't really appropriate for cases (such as this) where you expect Variable Y to be a linear function of Variable X (albeit I wouldn't expect Pearson's r to be much different)
- 8% isn't "basically no relationship", it just isn't a very strong one
- London's population is probably quite a bit less now in practice than the data on which those statistics rely
It means "a learned man" from the Hindi word पंडित - payndit, and came to Hindi from Sanskrit. We used it from around 1670 to mean "a learned Hindu", came to mean a more generally learned chap in about 1820.
This is his master graph, mid-term vote estimated by average NEV in opposition on the x-axis vs final election result on the y-axis, in terms of opposition lead. Yes, no axis titles, blame Rod and the website I got the graph from.
This is his conclusion to article written on this sit in May 2014.
"So it seems clear now – the Tories are set to win most votes, probably most seats and have an outside, but not insignificant chance of a majority in 2015."
2017 does not help the model. It's an outlier, so lying outside, you could call it Sir Outlier of Outliershire. It's also one of the few cases where there's a Government lead on the NEV.
2019, however, I make it an average NEV lead by Labour of 0 %, which corresponds to a 12 % government win on his graph.
Now, remind me how that worked out?
Events can - and do - intervene.
Nevertheless, I think the markets are underestimating the chances of a Conservative majority. I think it's at least a 60% chance.
Police have arrested a man accused of making threats against the Labour deputy leader, Angela Rayner.
Sources close to Rayner, who is away from parliament on bereavement leave, confirmed she was the women concerned after Greater Manchester police announced the arrest.
The Guardian understands Rayner has cancelled her constituency surgeries in recent weeks amid concerns for her safety – linked to a wider increase of abuse and threats, including death threats, against her.
Friends said she had been deeply affected by the abuse, which had been taken particularly hard by her children. One described the deputy leader as “not in a good place” and said she had been unable to make many public appearances because of fears for her safety.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/27/man-held-on-suspicion-of-making-threats-against-angela-rayner?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I believe neither should be mandatory, which I think is at least a consistent defendable position. I simply cannot fathom the worldview of the Must-Mask-May-Vax brigade.
I mean, compulsory vaccination affects just 10% of the population and causes two hours admin vs 100% of the population and indefinite inconvenience. And vaccination is vastly more effective than masking.
Bizarre.
(CREDIT TO @ydoethur FOR NAILING THIS PARADOX LAST WEEK)