Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
That's 1 stop on the Victoria or Northern lines..
For years it was sold as a through-line from the north and Midlands without having to get off the train.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
Not really. He was anti HS2 a few years ago as MP for Holburn & St Pancras. He's pro HS2 as leader of the Labour Party now. People will make their minds up about how terrible this is. For example, did he tell all and sundry that he would "lie down in front of the diggers" if necessary to stop it? Stuff like that, while all a bit soapy, can play into perceptions.
Interviewers of SKS will just bring it up over and over, as a politician you cannot go from someone delivering petetions against something a couple of years ago to now being totally in favour of it and beating the Government for not completing HS2 in its entirety.
Its very much like his position on 2nd jobs. He now says they shoud be banned even though he has benefited from having one over the past 5 years.
All a bit petty though. Really small beer. If that's going to be the best the Tories have to offer come the GE after 14 years in power I need to radically uplift my percentage chance of a Labour majority.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Ever tried to get from the Victoria line to the Circle line at Kings Cross with luggage?
Bloody awful experience. No lifts. It's easier to walk down the street a lot of of the time.
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
That's 1 stop on the Victoria or Northern lines..
For years it was sold as a through-line from the north and Midlands without having to get off the train.
HS2 was? Have you got a link to a document that says as much as I can't remember that (were you doing that you do it at Reading not in central London) nor OOC because that already has access issues (but was the best of no great options),
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
I haven’t been through the report but suspect that is strongly correlated to prior real estate ownership
Only read the abstract, but it uses matching (with unsuccessful parliamentary candidates) and regression discontinuity (not absolutely convinced the latter makes sense - not enough very close to the win/lose boundary? - but I haven't read the detail; if the discontinuity is election it sounds more like interrupted time series...). Anyway, prior real estate ownership is unlikely to explain, unless successful parliamentary candidates have more than unsuccessful ones. The abstract also states the wealth is mainly from outside employment positions.
Edit: Had a skim of the article - it is RD on whether elected or not, looking only at 'competitive' candidates. Potentially valid enough. A big caveat though - wealth is based on probate values, so only applies to MPs who have died. So, somewhat historical data and may depend in part on the backgrounds of the respective parties' MPs in that era. Although there's still the point that MPs who got elected did better than unsuccessful candidates. But maybe the Conservative party selected the 'right' kind of people for the more winnable seats...
My point was more about asset classes
Since 1980 you have seen massive outperformance of equities and property wages. So people with more wealth on becoming an MP are more likely to increase their wealth regardless of what they do as an MP.
Basically the analysis is meaningless
Matching (done well, which it isn't, always) should take care of that. As should RD (I'm not fully convinced the data match the design that well but the idea is that winning/not winning a seat is - for those winning/losing narrowly - randomised, so you can compare Con MPs who just won a seat with Con candidates who just failed to win a seat and assume randomisation and causation between becoming an MP and changes in wealth (apologies if I'm teaching grandma to suck eggs).
Better criticisms, imho, are: (i) it's a very historical analysis (only MPs who had died when the study was done) so any differences between Labour and Con may not be applicable now (Con an Lab MPs used to be much more different in background) (ii) it's wealth accumulation over whole life, not tenure as MP. I don't find it surprising - nor a bad thing - that having being an MP on your CV would lead to better opportunities in later life compared ot never being an MP
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
Brown too increased Labour's voteshare in Scotland in 2010 unlike the rest of the UK.
Though absent an SNP collapse yes difficult to see Starmer making major progress there
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
How many of the 60 times it was promised were after the start of the pandemic?
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
An INCREASED Con majority just as likely as NOM? Gosh, Philip, that's massively contra consensus. So is Con majority of any size at 75%.
It's a punting view to die for. Can I have it please?
I'm stuck with Con maj and NOM both around 50%.
Considering I could lay NOM at better than evens right now, why would I do a multiple of laying NOM and backing an increased majority for evens?
If you wish to offer interesting terms then I'd consider them.
No, I mean I'd love to have your view! You can coin it on betfair. That's my point. I'd never try and leg you over on a bet, Philip. What would that make me? A heel, that's what.
Hey, so the drums are beating a bit more for no big Art 16 shenanigans now, I see. No longer 'likely' but maybe still not quite 'unlikely'. What drama.
Oh my view? Yes my view is that Con majority is a massive value bet, and I think NOM is majorly overvalued.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
I suspect Hunt’s time has passed. But he’s clean as and when the Tories come to their senses
Would Hunt have won a big majority against Corbyn in 2019 as Boris did? I doubt it, he would have got roughly the same result May did in 2017 and not had the appeal of Boris to voters in the Redwall. The Brexit Party would have stood candidates in Tory held seats which they did not do with Boris as Tory leader so he would have lost some to the LDs too
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
All things considered, it's better than the government deserves.
The tories could not have had a worse November yet they are ahead, and with Reform on 5% they are probably further ahead.
The similarity with Labour after c. 2 years of Blair Government are quite striking. Plenty of scandals popping up, Hague tearing into Blair at the Dispatch Box and yet almost no difference at the next election. Labour, to many people, are simply unelectable.
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
How many of the 60 times it was promised were after the start of the pandemic?
To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?
Someone's knifing him. Probably Rishi - he can pluck numbers out of his arse to frighten Johnson in the absolute certainty Johnson won't understand them.
The only thing that makes sense is that Sunak has panicked about interest rate rises whacking the public finances and has therefore somehow scared Johnson into breaking cast iron promises over rail. Even that doesn't make sense as this is investment over decades not day to day spending.
So we are left with just Sunak trying to help bring forward the day Johnson is booted out.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
The trouble I have with that analysis is that the SNP are already displacing Tories at Westminster fairly [edit] successfully. So if displacing Tories is your aim, why vote Labour? IIRC all the existing Tory seats are Tory-SNP battlegrounds, so again why vote Labour there?
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
How many of the 60 times it was promised were after the start of the pandemic?
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
But surely the point is that Boris is arguing that he hasn't broken his promises on rail. He's lying. I, and others, might be more sympathetic if he'd said yes, I'm breaking my pledges because Covid means we can't afford it now. But that's not what he's saying.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
Being more of a Scotch expert than Scottish expert, I thought the 2017 performance was attributed more to Davidson - first time I've heard it suggested that May was popular. Is that wrong? I can see how she could have had more appeal than Johnson or Cameron.
What you suggest is possible, of course. But does the chain of events (Stugeon goes, Johnson stays*, Conservatives continue to be this inept*) add up to 16% chance of Lab majority?
*these may also be necessary for the required decent Labour wins in England, even with partial recovery in Scotland, to get a majority?
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
Not really. He was anti HS2 a few years ago as MP for Holburn & St Pancras. He's pro HS2 as leader of the Labour Party now. People will make their minds up about how terrible this is. For example, did he tell all and sundry that he would "lie down in front of the diggers" if necessary to stop it? Stuff like that, while all a bit soapy, can play into perceptions.
Interviewers of SKS will just bring it up over and over, as a politician you cannot go from someone delivering petetions against something a couple of years ago to now being totally in favour of it and beating the Government for not completing HS2 in its entirety.
Its very much like his position on 2nd jobs. He now says they shoud be banned even though he has benefited from having one over the past 5 years.
All a bit petty though. Really small beer. If that's going to be the best the Tories have to offer come the GE after 14 years in power I need to radically uplift my percentage chance of a Labour majority.
How is it petty? It reminds me of his opposition to Brexit and all the wheezes he tried with that which he is now trying to distance himself from. I think people are more prepared to forgive hopelessness than they are hypocrisy. And he stinks of it. This HS2 conversion is like Greta Thunberg working in a coal mine. This is not something he felt strongly about in his youth. he delivered a petition against HS2 a couple of years ago.
If his line was now "I was opposed to HS2 but now its started I can see the benefits of it" than he might get away with it. But to berate the Government for not delivering something that he signed and delivered a petition against only recently is bizarre. He shows he lacks political nous of the highest order.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
The trouble I have with that analysis is that the SNP are already displacing Tories at Westminster fairly [edit] successfully. So if that is your aim, why vote Labour? IIRC all the existing Tory seats are Tory-SNP battlegrounds, so again why vote Labour there?
Yougov Scottish subsample today has the SNP on 40% and the Tories on 24%, would be a swing of 2% from SNP to the Tories since 2019 and see the Tories gain Gordon from the SNP.
"Around thirty current and former journalists from the Telegraph were present at the Garrick Club dinner." One of them, ex hypothesi, a bean-spiller. Plus waiting staff.
Wowser.
ETA how utterly splendid if his cor lumme public speaking style, and a woman scorned, turn out to be his nemeses.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
But surely the point is that Boris is arguing that he hasn't broken his promises on rail. He's lying. I, and others, might be more sympathetic if he'd said yes, I'm breaking my pledges because Covid means we can't afford it now.
I'm breaking my pledges because I don't give a damn about Yorkshire and the NE.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
Given what happened to it, 'titanic' is a most apt (!) description for the Labour vote in Scotland.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
Being more of a Scotch expert than Scottish expert, I thought the 2017 performance was attributed more to Davidson - first time I've heard it suggested that May was popular. Is that wrong? I can see how she could have had more appeal than Johnson or Cameron.
What you suggest is possible, of course. But does the chain of events (Stugeon goes, Johnson stays*, Conservatives continue to be this inept*) add up to 16% chance of Lab majority?
*these may also be necessary for the required decent Labour wins in England, even with partial recovery in Scotland, to get a majority?
Ms Davidson (as she was then) was a "Boris"-type figure - a journalist, a TV reporter, knew how to make a media construct of herself, lots of photo opportunities - and, adding to the comparison, attracting quite a few Labour voters in a negative analogue of Get Brexit Done, by having a simple message - going on about no referendum. I'd be surprised if Ms May made much difference. But it's an interesting thought.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 24m BREAKING: Austria to go into full lockdown on Monday as Covid surges - and jabs to be COMPULSORY from Feb.
Are you still confident that it's all over and this could never happen here? Really? Are you *sure* about that?
It never ends until we say it does
===
Well, I'm certainly not totally confident it wont happen here. But remain reasonably optimistic. I think there's less chance of a lurch in that direction with Javid than Hancock at NHS.
The pressure for it shouldn't happen here as we've sensibly accepted the exit wave and got much of it done before the winter.
I doubt the government meant it, but the sleaze and rail stories have actually been brilliant in diverting attention from COVID. Is this the longest we've gone without COVID being the main story in the UK?
Ironically, the success of the government in avoiding winter restrictions, even if they are brought in elsewhere, is unlikely to make headlines - and the headlines that are being made, are mostly bad news for the government!
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?
I was wondering that too. Best theory I've heard is that to successfully oppose the might of the Treasury even a landslide PM needs to have a real grip on the issue in question and to truly care about it, thus be prepared to invest the time and effort required to win the argument. But this is Boris Johnson.
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
Well if it results in Austria getting 100% double vaccination it should ensure they have the lowest Covid death rate in Europe, maybe even the world, from next year.
However yes I do have concerns about the compulsion element too
On Starmer's changed view of HS2 I wonder if he has thought this through
The whole costs of both HS2 and NPR will now be additional to the total 96 billion announced and in view of his other high spending commitments on home insulation and green investment where is all this money coming from
It will be popular in metropolitan areas but these are already labour but with just 28% giving it the thumbs up yesterday it may not be the vote winner he thinks it is
Furthermore his opposition to HS2 is going to be played on repeat and has he thought how the Greens will react as he could lose supporters to the Greens
In politics nothing is as simple as it seems
Lets pick this apart: 1. The "£96bn announced" hasn't been announced. Its a press release statement with nothing behind it. As an example, part of your £96bn is the 12-minute journey time Leeds to Bradford which isn't even yet a project, its an "we'll ask Network Rail" and will then be "subject to a business case" and treasury approval. 2. When you strip away pre-announced and already budgeted monies the total is £54bn. So no, HS2E / NPR is not additional to the £96bn £54bn -large chunks are still HS2E / NPR 3. Where the money comes from is where all the money comes from. We borrow money. Invest in something. Receive a return on the investment. Its called "capitalism" 4. From the sizeable choir of angry red wall Tories and at least one mayor, the areas in question are not already Labour. 5. Opposition to 2015 Euston plans - which have already been curtailed - is not going to get Boris off the hook. People are not stupid.
Big_G, you are supposedly past your previous "defend at all costs" position. This isn't even a shit sandwich as they have cancelled the bread roll. All the people celebrating the end of blight on their homes are now realising the blight continues indefinitely. All the people being told "this delivers quicker" can see that the previous 2043 timeline is now a much sooner 2043.
Please stop. They aren't worth it. Let the remaining PB parrots try and excuse this fiasco.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.
To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?
Someone's knifing him. Probably Rishi - he can pluck numbers out of his arse to frighten Johnson in the absolute certainty Johnson won't understand them.
The only thing that makes sense is that Sunak has panicked about interest rate rises whacking the public finances and has therefore somehow scared Johnson into breaking cast iron promises over rail. Even that doesn't make sense as this is investment over decades not day to day spending.
So we are left with just Sunak trying to help bring forward the day Johnson is booted out.
I'm not convinced. I think a more likely scenario is that Johnson wants to be able to make plenty of new expensive promises at the next election, and Sunak has told him he has to jettison some of his expensive promises from the last election first.
This might sound like a political tactic with diminishing returns, but then I've been continually surprised by the general public's willingness to trust Johnson, so I am ready to be amazed when they do so again.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
Increased Tory majority as we speak is wishful thinking, although that could change (very, very unlikely I would say).
And your Labour majority figure is 5% too high.
Odds are not just about "as we speak" though they're about what could happen. As we speak then a reduced Tory majority would be the only real game in town, but over three years things can change.
Of course it is. Which is why the market is fluctuating for a Tory majority after the last two weeks.
My Labour 0% is based on fact. And fact that is unlikely to change. The current direction of travel for the Tories is down, which is why your prediction of a Tory increased majority appears counter intuitive. When things change. Boris invents another vaccine, or Sunak replaces Johnson, maybe you wishful prediction will be borne out by the odds.
An increased Tory majority may be counterintuitive but counterintuitive things can happen and identifying which ones can happen and why is how we identify value.
Labour 0% is not fact. 0% means its impossible and never say never.
With a 1997-style swing (unlikely but possible) then Labour could gain a majority via English and Welsh seats, while picking up a handful of Scottish ones. Is that likely? No. Is it possible? Yes - and if its possible its not 0%
Overturning the Tory majority is going to take such a large swing that an overshoot into Labour majority is possible.
I one hundred percent agree with no Labour majority, but the numbers are potentially there for NOM.
As a confirmed punter your longshots are legendary (hat tip for Sunak). An increased Johnson majority due to the collapse of UKIP and boundary changes may come to pass, although current evidence suggests that should be more than offset by the current ****storm. Tories increased seats is a counter intuitive long shot at present that might pay off, but you can't apply 20% to a counter intuitive long shot.
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
I disagree with the Austrian policy, but have much less issue with the French strategy.
Frankly, banning the unvaccinated from certain activities is not that uncontroversial. After all, the costs of the unvaccinated (such as health care) fall on all the citizens.
Anna Soubry @Anna_Soubry · 2h Listening to @grantshapps on #Today it’s as if he’s taken a mind bending hallucinatory substance. Shapps is spinning the cancellation of #HS2 E leg & #HS3 as being better for passengers & investment/ levelling up than honouring the promise to deliver them both. The arrogance.
He repeated his 12m from Bradford to Leeds promise this morning, not as an aspiration, but saying "it will happen this decade". Ditto tripling the capacity between Leeds and Manchester.
Its laughable pig ignorance. Why promise stuff that absolutely cannot be delivered?
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.
Those statistics don't reflect my memory....
But hey I'm happy that you think HS2 is cancelled and everything is going to be all right.
I'm looking forward to the screams when people discover everything they were told on Thursday is based on fantasies (all the new "plans") and lies (yup your house is still blighted).
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.
Everything is at its most popular when it is being cancelled.
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
I disagree with the Austrian policy, but have much less issue with the French strategy.
Frankly, banning the unvaccinated from certain activities is not that uncontroversial. After all, the costs of the unvaccinated (such as health care) fall on all the citizens.
Yeah the best policy I've heard on it is making unvaccinated by choice people get additional insurance cover for COVID healthcare costs and if they don't then bill them for the cost of care.
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
But surely the point is that Boris is arguing that he hasn't broken his promises on rail. He's lying. I, and others, might be more sympathetic if he'd said yes, I'm breaking my pledges because Covid means we can't afford it now.
I'm breaking my pledges because I don't give a damn about Yorkshire and the NE.
Red Wall Tory MPs - start job hunting because in 2023 you are going to need to find a new career.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.
You forget Northern Powerhouse Rail at your peril. Also the absolute bunfights in places like Sheffield over the routing to ensure they get the benefits from it.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.
You forget Northern Powerhouse Rail at your peril. Also the absolute bunfights in places like Sheffield over the routing to ensure they get the benefits from it.
Wish it away if you want...
Likewise the fact that HS2 now needs to go to Nottingham itself because the station at Toton (which was actually accessible for people) has been scrapped.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.
I have always been against HS2. Unnecessary and hugely damaging to the environment. However, it is happening. The damage is being done to the most sensitive areas along the route. We can't reverse that. So if you are going to do the damage, the least you can do is actually provide the benefits that the project was claimed to be based on - faster trains from Leeds and the North East to London, and freed up capacity on the ECML being part of that.
So now we have all the damage, but only a fraction of the benefits. And northerners get shafted.
Sad news — Anthony Well's UKPollingReport is finally going to shut down. It's been going since 2004. The constituency section of the site hadn't been updated for a long time so it always looked like it might close down.
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
I disagree with the Austrian policy, but have much less issue with the French strategy.
Frankly, banning the unvaccinated from certain activities is not that uncontroversial. After all, the costs of the unvaccinated (such as health care) fall on all the citizens.
Yeah the best policy I've heard on it is making unvaccinated by choice people get additional insurance cover for COVID healthcare costs and if they don't then bill them for the cost of care.
I understand that the Austrian policy is for fines on the unvaccinated. Depending on the level of fine levied it might not turn out far from what you propose, though presented in a more adversarial way.
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
But surely the point is that Boris is arguing that he hasn't broken his promises on rail. He's lying. I, and others, might be more sympathetic if he'd said yes, I'm breaking my pledges because Covid means we can't afford it now.
I'm breaking my pledges because I don't give a damn about Yorkshire and the NE.
Red Wall Tory MPs - start job hunting because in 2023 you are going to need to find a new career.
I sometimes, briefly, wonder what happens to one-term MP's. Fairly easy to go back to their old jobs of course.
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
Is forcing people to get vaccinated compatible with human rights legislation?
To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?
Someone's knifing him. Probably Rishi - he can pluck numbers out of his arse to frighten Johnson in the absolute certainty Johnson won't understand them.
The only thing that makes sense is that Sunak has panicked about interest rate rises whacking the public finances and has therefore somehow scared Johnson into breaking cast iron promises over rail. Even that doesn't make sense as this is investment over decades not day to day spending.
So we are left with just Sunak trying to help bring forward the day Johnson is booted out.
I'm not convinced. I think a more likely scenario is that Johnson wants to be able to make plenty of new expensive promises at the next election, and Sunak has told him he has to jettison some of his expensive promises from the last election first.
This might sound like a political tactic with diminishing returns, but then I've been continually surprised by the general public's willingness to trust Johnson, so I am ready to be amazed when they do so again.
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
I disagree with the Austrian policy, but have much less issue with the French strategy.
Frankly, banning the unvaccinated from certain activities is not that uncontroversial. After all, the costs of the unvaccinated (such as health care) fall on all the citizens.
Yeah the best policy I've heard on it is making unvaccinated by choice people get additional insurance cover for COVID healthcare costs and if they don't then bill them for the cost of care.
I understand that the Austrian policy is for fines on the unvaccinated. Depending on the level of fine levied it might not turn out far from what you propose, though presented in a more adversarial way.
Not really, this isn't a fine and people can refuse to get the health insurance if they wanted to, it just means they are potentially liable for the cost of their COVID care if they get seriously ill.
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
Is forcing people to get vaccinated compatible with human rights legislation?
I wouldn't have thought so, even where it has been mandated they've done it through no jab/no job measures which are between an employer and employee rather than the state and a citizen.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
Not really. He was anti HS2 a few years ago as MP for Holburn & St Pancras. He's pro HS2 as leader of the Labour Party now. People will make their minds up about how terrible this is. For example, did he tell all and sundry that he would "lie down in front of the diggers" if necessary to stop it? Stuff like that, while all a bit soapy, can play into perceptions.
Interviewers of SKS will just bring it up over and over, as a politician you cannot go from someone delivering petetions against something a couple of years ago to now being totally in favour of it and beating the Government for not completing HS2 in its entirety.
Its very much like his position on 2nd jobs. He now says they shoud be banned even though he has benefited from having one over the past 5 years.
All a bit petty though. Really small beer. If that's going to be the best the Tories have to offer come the GE after 14 years in power I need to radically uplift my percentage chance of a Labour majority.
How is it petty? It reminds me of his opposition to Brexit and all the wheezes he tried with that which he is now trying to distance himself from. I think people are more prepared to forgive hopelessness than they are hypocrisy. And he stinks of it. This HS2 conversion is like Greta Thunberg working in a coal mine. This is not something he felt strongly about in his youth. he delivered a petition against HS2 a couple of years ago.
If his line was now "I was opposed to HS2 but now its started I can see the benefits of it" than he might get away with it. But to berate the Government for not delivering something that he signed and delivered a petition against only recently is bizarre. He shows he lacks political nous of the highest order.
"Starmer's HS2 position is like Greta Thunberg working in a coal mine".
My wires fuse if I try to process stuff like this.
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
Is forcing people to get vaccinated compatible with human rights legislation?
Yep - pandemics trump human rights but the question becomes whether vaccination is now a proportional response as we get closer to herd immunity.
It's a tough one though as the other option is let the unvaccinated have a 10x great chance of dying while the population gets to herd immunity..
Obviously I'm not going not repeat what was alleged to have been said, but could end up in a VERY messy fight.
Maybe not..
@PoliticsForAlI NEW: Downing Street have DENIED they are taking legal action against The New European
Who would have paid the legal fees [edit] in the purely hypothetical case of a case being brought? HMG or Mr Johnson personally?
A Tory donor of course. Funded via the cabinet office and CCHQ in an "of course we haven't declared it" manner.
Getting a friendly donor to do it via no win no fee style deal seems easy to arrange and difficult to prove any corrupt intent. The donor can assign an inflated chance of success to make the value appear proportionate to the work effort.
Make sure you allow enough time for any necessary security checks which may include random searches. Small personal bags are permitted - please ensure your bags are no larger than A5 and only one bag per person is allowed. It is advised you only bring a bag if it is absolutely essential, please see our checklist of what can/cannot be brought in to the stadium here.
Arsenal tried to do something similar at the start of the season (you could only use a clear bag purchased from the Arsenal shop for £1), but thankfully enough fans kicked off that they reverted to allowing reasonable sized rucksacks in.
Not happy, the fan groups have been liaising with the club. There kick offs for a couple of pre season friendlies were delayed because the system couldn’t cope.
The club have offered £2 pints and cheaper food to allow the fans to get to the ground earlier.
But the teething problems aren’t as bad as they were in July/August.
Interesting that Liverpool have persisted with the policy. Arsenal folded after a couple of games! I only looked up Liverpool's policy, because I got this email from Arsenal yesterday:
We have been advised by Liverpool FC that there will be a zero-bag policy enforced (with the exception of medical bags) for supporters entering the stadium on Saturday, November 20, 2021.
There will be no bag drop/storage facility at the stadium so please avoid bringing a bag with you as you will be refused entry.
Not a problem for me as I drive to away games outside of London, but it's not great that away fans are being discriminated against in this way.
Why would you take a bag to the football in any event. That was only necessary when you used to take your own booze to the games , and that was a long time ago.
A Southampton fan travelling to Newcastle for a midweek 8.00 pm kick-off will need an overnight bag.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.
Those statistics don't reflect my memory....
But hey I'm happy that you think HS2 is cancelled and everything is going to be all right.
I'm looking forward to the screams when people discover everything they were told on Thursday is based on fantasies (all the new "plans") and lies (yup your house is still blighted).
I have no idea about HS2 and I have no idea how it will play, but the 28% figure from yesterday does not indicate that it is a widely popular scheme. From this site over the past 2 days you would think that figure would be 90%.
Make sure you allow enough time for any necessary security checks which may include random searches. Small personal bags are permitted - please ensure your bags are no larger than A5 and only one bag per person is allowed. It is advised you only bring a bag if it is absolutely essential, please see our checklist of what can/cannot be brought in to the stadium here.
Arsenal tried to do something similar at the start of the season (you could only use a clear bag purchased from the Arsenal shop for £1), but thankfully enough fans kicked off that they reverted to allowing reasonable sized rucksacks in.
Not happy, the fan groups have been liaising with the club. There kick offs for a couple of pre season friendlies were delayed because the system couldn’t cope.
The club have offered £2 pints and cheaper food to allow the fans to get to the ground earlier.
But the teething problems aren’t as bad as they were in July/August.
Interesting that Liverpool have persisted with the policy. Arsenal folded after a couple of games! I only looked up Liverpool's policy, because I got this email from Arsenal yesterday:
We have been advised by Liverpool FC that there will be a zero-bag policy enforced (with the exception of medical bags) for supporters entering the stadium on Saturday, November 20, 2021.
There will be no bag drop/storage facility at the stadium so please avoid bringing a bag with you as you will be refused entry.
Not a problem for me as I drive to away games outside of London, but it's not great that away fans are being discriminated against in this way.
Why would you take a bag to the football in any event. That was only necessary when you used to take your own booze to the games , and that was a long time ago.
A Southampton fan travelling to Newcastle for a midweek 8.00 pm kick-off will need an overnight bag.
Not for much longer. ShappTrains inc will be running services to get them back before midnight (to be delivered long after he has left office of course).
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.
Those statistics don't reflect my memory....
But hey I'm happy that you think HS2 is cancelled and everything is going to be all right.
I'm looking forward to the screams when people discover everything they were told on Thursday is based on fantasies (all the new "plans") and lies (yup your house is still blighted).
I have no idea about HS2 and I have no idea how it will play, but the 28% figure from yesterday does not indicate that it is a widely popular scheme. From this site over the past 2 days you would think that figure would be 90%.
Also from the angry response of so many red wall Tory MPs presumably from their email boxes from angry constituents.
Again, if you think yesterday is a Good Thing for your Tories, good luck.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.
Those statistics don't reflect my memory....
But hey I'm happy that you think HS2 is cancelled and everything is going to be all right.
I'm looking forward to the screams when people discover everything they were told on Thursday is based on fantasies (all the new "plans") and lies (yup your house is still blighted).
I have no idea about HS2 and I have no idea how it will play, but the 28% figure from yesterday does not indicate that it is a widely popular scheme. From this site over the past 2 days you would think that figure would be 90%.
This site isn't the general public (heck it's probably one of the most educated sites in the country).
Sad news — Anthony Well's UKPollingReport is finally going to shut down. It's been going since 2004. The constituency section of the site hadn't been updated for a long time so it always looked like it might close down.
That's a shame. I started following him in about 2004 and was a BTL commentator there originally before moving over here instead eventually. He's done a very good job but wanting to step down is entirely understandable.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
This one thinks he is a just useless tw*t and almost as useless as Boris. I just see him as another useless London donkey. Brown was dour. He is also anti democracy and so how anyone in Scotland would want to vote for him or the fake Scottish Labour party amazes me. At least with SNP it is a Scottish party you are voting for even if full of fakes.
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
Is forcing people to get vaccinated compatible with human rights legislation?
Yep - pandemics trump human rights but the question becomes whether vaccination is now a proportional response as we get closer to herd immunity.
It's a tough one though as the other option is let the unvaccinated have a 10x great chance of dying while the population gets to herd immunity..
Your first point definitely isn't true, the Netherlands and other countries in Europe have been hamstrung by human rights laws on implementing lockdown measures last year even with emergency laws in place.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
I haven’t been through the report but suspect that is strongly correlated to prior real estate ownership
Only read the abstract, but it uses matching (with unsuccessful parliamentary candidates) and regression discontinuity (not absolutely convinced the latter makes sense - not enough very close to the win/lose boundary? - but I haven't read the detail; if the discontinuity is election it sounds more like interrupted time series...). Anyway, prior real estate ownership is unlikely to explain, unless successful parliamentary candidates have more than unsuccessful ones. The abstract also states the wealth is mainly from outside employment positions.
Edit: Had a skim of the article - it is RD on whether elected or not, looking only at 'competitive' candidates. Potentially valid enough. A big caveat though - wealth is based on probate values, so only applies to MPs who have died. So, somewhat historical data and may depend in part on the backgrounds of the respective parties' MPs in that era. Although there's still the point that MPs who got elected did better than unsuccessful candidates. But maybe the Conservative party selected the 'right' kind of people for the more winnable seats...
My point was more about asset classes
Since 1980 you have seen massive outperformance of equities and property wages. So people with more wealth on becoming an MP are more likely to increase their wealth regardless of what they do as an MP.
Basically the analysis is meaningless
Successful candidates have a motive, and financial assistance, to buy a flat in London. Unsuccessful ones don't.
Rather the Tories have the cash for the deposits and after that it is all free and paid for by the plebs. They also tend to be greedier and bigger grifters than their equivalents.
On Starmer's changed view of HS2 I wonder if he has thought this through
The whole costs of both HS2 and NPR will now be additional to the total 96 billion announced and in view of his other high spending commitments on home insulation and green investment where is all this money coming from
It will be popular in metropolitan areas but these are already labour but with just 28% giving it the thumbs up yesterday it may not be the vote winner he thinks it is
Furthermore his opposition to HS2 is going to be played on repeat and has he thought how the Greens will react as he could lose supporters to the Greens
In politics nothing is as simple as it seems
Lets pick this apart: 1. The "£96bn announced" hasn't been announced. Its a press release statement with nothing behind it. As an example, part of your £96bn is the 12-minute journey time Leeds to Bradford which isn't even yet a project, its an "we'll ask Network Rail" and will then be "subject to a business case" and treasury approval. 2. When you strip away pre-announced and already budgeted monies the total is £54bn. So no, HS2E / NPR is not additional to the £96bn £54bn -large chunks are still HS2E / NPR 3. Where the money comes from is where all the money comes from. We borrow money. Invest in something. Receive a return on the investment. Its called "capitalism" 4. From the sizeable choir of angry red wall Tories and at least one mayor, the areas in question are not already Labour. 5. Opposition to 2015 Euston plans - which have already been curtailed - is not going to get Boris off the hook. People are not stupid.
Big_G, you are supposedly past your previous "defend at all costs" position. This isn't even a shit sandwich as they have cancelled the bread roll. All the people celebrating the end of blight on their homes are now realising the blight continues indefinitely. All the people being told "this delivers quicker" can see that the previous 2043 timeline is now a much sooner 2043.
Please stop. They aren't worth it. Let the remaining PB parrots try and excuse this fiasco.
I am not taking any lectures from someone who is anti anything HMG does and yesterday was fine by me and many others
Your idea you are always the expert, always right, and attempts to insult those who see things differently referring to them as stupid is arrogant and simply an attempt to close down debate
Make sure you allow enough time for any necessary security checks which may include random searches. Small personal bags are permitted - please ensure your bags are no larger than A5 and only one bag per person is allowed. It is advised you only bring a bag if it is absolutely essential, please see our checklist of what can/cannot be brought in to the stadium here.
Arsenal tried to do something similar at the start of the season (you could only use a clear bag purchased from the Arsenal shop for £1), but thankfully enough fans kicked off that they reverted to allowing reasonable sized rucksacks in.
Not happy, the fan groups have been liaising with the club. There kick offs for a couple of pre season friendlies were delayed because the system couldn’t cope.
The club have offered £2 pints and cheaper food to allow the fans to get to the ground earlier.
But the teething problems aren’t as bad as they were in July/August.
Interesting that Liverpool have persisted with the policy. Arsenal folded after a couple of games! I only looked up Liverpool's policy, because I got this email from Arsenal yesterday:
We have been advised by Liverpool FC that there will be a zero-bag policy enforced (with the exception of medical bags) for supporters entering the stadium on Saturday, November 20, 2021.
There will be no bag drop/storage facility at the stadium so please avoid bringing a bag with you as you will be refused entry.
Not a problem for me as I drive to away games outside of London, but it's not great that away fans are being discriminated against in this way.
Why would you take a bag to the football in any event. That was only necessary when you used to take your own booze to the games , and that was a long time ago.
A Southampton fan travelling to Newcastle for a midweek 8.00 pm kick-off will need an overnight bag.
To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?
Someone's knifing him. Probably Rishi - he can pluck numbers out of his arse to frighten Johnson in the absolute certainty Johnson won't understand them.
The only thing that makes sense is that Sunak has panicked about interest rate rises whacking the public finances and has therefore somehow scared Johnson into breaking cast iron promises over rail. Even that doesn't make sense as this is investment over decades not day to day spending.
So we are left with just Sunak trying to help bring forward the day Johnson is booted out.
I'm not convinced. I think a more likely scenario is that Johnson wants to be able to make plenty of new expensive promises at the next election, and Sunak has told him he has to jettison some of his expensive promises from the last election first.
This might sound like a political tactic with diminishing returns, but then I've been continually surprised by the general public's willingness to trust Johnson, so I am ready to be amazed when they do so again.
The bridge to Ireland is back on!
I thought it was a 3-way tunnel, with a roundabout underneath the Isle Of Man.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.
My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.
Those statistics don't reflect my memory....
But hey I'm happy that you think HS2 is cancelled and everything is going to be all right.
I'm looking forward to the screams when people discover everything they were told on Thursday is based on fantasies (all the new "plans") and lies (yup your house is still blighted).
I have no idea about HS2 and I have no idea how it will play, but the 28% figure from yesterday does not indicate that it is a widely popular scheme. From this site over the past 2 days you would think that figure would be 90%.
We've established multiple times that this site isn't representative of the public at large. Big deal.
There have been robust debates over HS2 on here before, and it's normal for those upset about a change to be more vocal about it. Again, I'm just not seeing what point you're making.
Obviously you always get a couple of people who overreact to anything, and identify it as the straw that will break the back of the camel of the day. It's good to see people excited, even if I expect they will be disappointed.
"Average daily case reports have increased more than 20 percent over the past two weeks as outbreaks continue to worsen in the Upper Midwest."
NY Times
England's going to be one of the few countries in the western Northern hemisphere that isn't in lockdown over winter isn't it?
What a shame these countries flapped about with masks and restrictions over the summer and autumn. Completely stupid to be wearing masks and doing any activity to suppress infections in the summer post-vaccinations.
He needs to get on the back benches for the divorce so the alimony is based on £82,000 income
This incident really says everything that needs saying about him
You're really taking the New European as a credible source?
Its a pro-EU zealot Daily Express with no readers.
I know that.
The remark was made, or wasn't, in the presence of 40 journalists. I take the report plus the declining to issue legal proceedings, in conjunction, as being about as certain as anything in this life is.
Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
I disagree with the Austrian policy, but have much less issue with the French strategy.
Frankly, banning the unvaccinated from certain activities is not that uncontroversial. After all, the costs of the unvaccinated (such as health care) fall on all the citizens.
Yeah the best policy I've heard on it is making unvaccinated by choice people get additional insurance cover for COVID healthcare costs and if they don't then bill them for the cost of care.
Unfortunately that wouldn't work here but it does sound like a good policy. I am pro-vax too but would not want to force anyone to have the jab.
"Average daily case reports have increased more than 20 percent over the past two weeks as outbreaks continue to worsen in the Upper Midwest."
NY Times
England's going to be one of the few countries in the western Northern hemisphere that isn't in lockdown over winter isn't it?
What a shame these countries flapped about with masks and restrictions over the summer and autumn. Completely stupid to be wearing masks and doing any activity to suppress infections in the summer post-vaccinations.
Nah the US won't lockdown. It's not in their nature.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
The trouble I have with that analysis is that the SNP are already displacing Tories at Westminster fairly [edit] successfully. So if displacing Tories is your aim, why vote Labour? IIRC all the existing Tory seats are Tory-SNP battlegrounds, so again why vote Labour there?
Hello Carnyx, you could have just said it was bollox and saved yourself some time.
"Average daily case reports have increased more than 20 percent over the past two weeks as outbreaks continue to worsen in the Upper Midwest."
NY Times
England's going to be one of the few countries in the western Northern hemisphere that isn't in lockdown over winter isn't it?
What a shame these countries flapped about with masks and restrictions over the summer and autumn. Completely stupid to be wearing masks and doing any activity to suppress infections in the summer post-vaccinations.
Nah the US won't lockdown. It's not in their nature.
The US won't but I suspect at least a few blue states within the USA will.
To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?
Someone's knifing him. Probably Rishi - he can pluck numbers out of his arse to frighten Johnson in the absolute certainty Johnson won't understand them.
The only thing that makes sense is that Sunak has panicked about interest rate rises whacking the public finances and has therefore somehow scared Johnson into breaking cast iron promises over rail. Even that doesn't make sense as this is investment over decades not day to day spending.
So we are left with just Sunak trying to help bring forward the day Johnson is booted out.
I'm not convinced. I think a more likely scenario is that Johnson wants to be able to make plenty of new expensive promises at the next election, and Sunak has told him he has to jettison some of his expensive promises from the last election first.
This might sound like a political tactic with diminishing returns, but then I've been continually surprised by the general public's willingness to trust Johnson, so I am ready to be amazed when they do so again.
The bridge to Ireland is back on!
I thought it was a 3-way tunnel, with a roundabout underneath the Isle Of Man.
It's an easier fantasy to imagine than the fantasy improvements announced for the ECML?
https://twitter.com/RAIL is currently trying to identify the flows - and one is literally the need to redesign every station between London and Northallerton followed by Durham and Newcastle (I exclude Darlington only because that's now in progress).
And most of those projects would be £x00m projects by themselves because it requires redesigning everything.
To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?
My best guess is that he has been influenced by Carrie, who is opposed on environmental grounds?
On Starmer's changed view of HS2 I wonder if he has thought this through
The whole costs of both HS2 and NPR will now be additional to the total 96 billion announced and in view of his other high spending commitments on home insulation and green investment where is all this money coming from
It will be popular in metropolitan areas but these are already labour but with just 28% giving it the thumbs up yesterday it may not be the vote winner he thinks it is
Furthermore his opposition to HS2 is going to be played on repeat and has he thought how the Greens will react as he could lose supporters to the Greens
In politics nothing is as simple as it seems
Lets pick this apart: 1. The "£96bn announced" hasn't been announced. Its a press release statement with nothing behind it. As an example, part of your £96bn is the 12-minute journey time Leeds to Bradford which isn't even yet a project, its an "we'll ask Network Rail" and will then be "subject to a business case" and treasury approval. 2. When you strip away pre-announced and already budgeted monies the total is £54bn. So no, HS2E / NPR is not additional to the £96bn £54bn -large chunks are still HS2E / NPR 3. Where the money comes from is where all the money comes from. We borrow money. Invest in something. Receive a return on the investment. Its called "capitalism" 4. From the sizeable choir of angry red wall Tories and at least one mayor, the areas in question are not already Labour. 5. Opposition to 2015 Euston plans - which have already been curtailed - is not going to get Boris off the hook. People are not stupid.
Big_G, you are supposedly past your previous "defend at all costs" position. This isn't even a shit sandwich as they have cancelled the bread roll. All the people celebrating the end of blight on their homes are now realising the blight continues indefinitely. All the people being told "this delivers quicker" can see that the previous 2043 timeline is now a much sooner 2043.
Please stop. They aren't worth it. Let the remaining PB parrots try and excuse this fiasco.
I am not taking any lectures from someone who is anti anything HMG does and yesterday was fine by me and many others
Your idea you are always the expert, always right, and attempts to insult those who see things differently referring to them as stupid is arrogant and simply an attempt to close down debate
How about me then? There is nothing in what RD says that isn't 100% accurate no matter how much you dislike the fact..
But tell me, exactly what actual improvements were announced yesterday that can and will be started within the next 5-10 years?
Bu**er. Something hit me halfway through my run today. Felt like sh*t after just three miles; struggled to complete a little over 10KM. Stomach ache, headache, nausea. Very unusual symptoms for me.
Came back to an email from school, saying Covid cases in the little 'uns class had accelerated over the last two days, and that they are encouraging us to book a PCR test for him over the weekend.
So I've just taken an LFT test, and am awaiting the results. Hoping it was just that the milk I had with my grape nuts this morning was a little off. Or exhaustion from all the running ...
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
But surely the point is that Boris is arguing that he hasn't broken his promises on rail. He's lying. I, and others, might be more sympathetic if he'd said yes, I'm breaking my pledges because Covid means we can't afford it now.
I'm breaking my pledges because I don't give a damn about Yorkshire and the NE.
Red Wall Tory MPs - start job hunting because in 2023 you are going to need to find a new career.
I sometimes, briefly, wonder what happens to one-term MP's. Fairly easy to go back to their old jobs of course.
Or, indeed, to new jobs acquired while serving as an MP...
The ones I feel a bit sorry for are the Con MPs who lost their seats in 2017 only two years into what should have been a five year contract. But then, they should have made a better choice of leader (not that they had much of a choice when it came to the voting, but there must have been someone decent they could have nominated)
Make sure you allow enough time for any necessary security checks which may include random searches. Small personal bags are permitted - please ensure your bags are no larger than A5 and only one bag per person is allowed. It is advised you only bring a bag if it is absolutely essential, please see our checklist of what can/cannot be brought in to the stadium here.
Arsenal tried to do something similar at the start of the season (you could only use a clear bag purchased from the Arsenal shop for £1), but thankfully enough fans kicked off that they reverted to allowing reasonable sized rucksacks in.
Not happy, the fan groups have been liaising with the club. There kick offs for a couple of pre season friendlies were delayed because the system couldn’t cope.
The club have offered £2 pints and cheaper food to allow the fans to get to the ground earlier.
But the teething problems aren’t as bad as they were in July/August.
Interesting that Liverpool have persisted with the policy. Arsenal folded after a couple of games! I only looked up Liverpool's policy, because I got this email from Arsenal yesterday:
We have been advised by Liverpool FC that there will be a zero-bag policy enforced (with the exception of medical bags) for supporters entering the stadium on Saturday, November 20, 2021.
There will be no bag drop/storage facility at the stadium so please avoid bringing a bag with you as you will be refused entry.
Not a problem for me as I drive to away games outside of London, but it's not great that away fans are being discriminated against in this way.
Why would you take a bag to the football in any event. That was only necessary when you used to take your own booze to the games , and that was a long time ago.
A Southampton fan travelling to Newcastle for a midweek 8.00 pm kick-off will need an overnight bag.
True but personally I would have dumped it at hotel and had a few beers before the game.
Haven't seen any source for this story, just this tweet quoted -
Paul Delaney @coaimpaul Priti Patel is to make the political wing of Hamas illegal under the Terrorism Act. It means anyone who expresses support for Hamas or flies their flag will be in breach of the law. Her Israeli handlers are now demanding more from her, while they murder with impunity. https://twitter.com/coaimpaul/status/1461614417427288064
When I googled images of the Hamas flag, lots of them are from a story earlier in the year about Germany introducing the same law earlier this year.
Are the German government also thought to have Israeli handlers, or is expression of support for Hamas just widely condemned?
Incidentally I happened to click on the link for the story from Al Jazeera, where the cookie warning seems rather ominous..
"You rely on Al Jazeera for truth and transparency"
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
But surely the point is that Boris is arguing that he hasn't broken his promises on rail. He's lying. I, and others, might be more sympathetic if he'd said yes, I'm breaking my pledges because Covid means we can't afford it now.
I'm breaking my pledges because I don't give a damn about Yorkshire and the NE.
Red Wall Tory MPs - start job hunting because in 2023 you are going to need to find a new career.
I sometimes, briefly, wonder what happens to one-term MP's. Fairly easy to go back to their old jobs of course.
Or, indeed, to new jobs acquired while serving as an MP...
The ones I feel a bit sorry for are the Con MPs who lost their seats in 2017 only two years into what should have been a five year contract. But then, they should have made a better choice of leader (not that they had much of a choice when it came to the voting, but there must have been someone decent they could have nominated)
Look at the options - the saner choices were Boris and Gove.
It's only post 2017 that possible other options have appeared.
Comments
Better criticisms, imho, are:
(i) it's a very historical analysis (only MPs who had died when the study was done) so any differences between Labour and Con may not be applicable now (Con an Lab MPs used to be much more different in background)
(ii) it's wealth accumulation over whole life, not tenure as MP. I don't find it surprising - nor a bad thing - that having being an MP on your CV would lead to better opportunities in later life compared ot never being an MP
Though absent an SNP collapse yes difficult to see Starmer making major progress there
I would read very little into that, beyond Gasly performing well again. He and Norris have been the midfield's standout performers this year.
They started to go quiet on the usual promises a bit after that, in the runup to the budget.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/from-bold-promises-to-disappointment-how-hs2-and-northern-powerhouse-rail-were-scaled-back-3463181
Gasly has been great this season.
So we are left with just Sunak trying to help bring forward the day Johnson is booted out.
Shapps in May this year as well.
I, and others, might be more sympathetic if he'd said yes, I'm breaking my pledges because Covid means we can't afford it now. But that's not what he's saying.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-to-sue-the-new-european-over-buyers-remorse-article/
What you suggest is possible, of course. But does the chain of events (Stugeon goes, Johnson stays*, Conservatives continue to be this inept*) add up to 16% chance of Lab majority?
*these may also be necessary for the required decent Labour wins in England, even with partial recovery in Scotland, to get a majority?
This is not something he felt strongly about in his youth. he delivered a petition against HS2 a couple of years ago.
If his line was now "I was opposed to HS2 but now its started I can see the benefits of it" than he might get away with it. But to berate the Government for not delivering something that he signed and delivered a petition against only recently is bizarre. He shows he lacks political nous of the highest order.
Albeit it is only a subsample
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/g8dunbfqqh/TheTimes_VI_211118_W.pdf
Wowser.
ETA how utterly splendid if his cor lumme public speaking style, and a woman scorned, turn out to be his nemeses.
We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.
@PoliticsForAlI
NEW: Downing Street have DENIED they are taking legal action against The New European
However yes I do have concerns about the compulsion element too
1. The "£96bn announced" hasn't been announced. Its a press release statement with nothing behind it. As an example, part of your £96bn is the 12-minute journey time Leeds to Bradford which isn't even yet a project, its an "we'll ask Network Rail" and will then be "subject to a business case" and treasury approval.
2. When you strip away pre-announced and already budgeted monies the total is £54bn. So no, HS2E / NPR is not additional to the
£96bn£54bn -large chunks are still HS2E / NPR3. Where the money comes from is where all the money comes from. We borrow money. Invest in something. Receive a return on the investment. Its called "capitalism"
4. From the sizeable choir of angry red wall Tories and at least one mayor, the areas in question are not already Labour.
5. Opposition to 2015 Euston plans - which have already been curtailed - is not going to get Boris off the hook. People are not stupid.
Big_G, you are supposedly past your previous "defend at all costs" position. This isn't even a shit sandwich as they have cancelled the bread roll. All the people celebrating the end of blight on their homes are now realising the blight continues indefinitely. All the people being told "this delivers quicker" can see that the previous 2043 timeline is now a much sooner 2043.
Please stop. They aren't worth it. Let the remaining PB parrots try and excuse this fiasco.
This might sound like a political tactic with diminishing returns, but then I've been continually surprised by the general public's willingness to trust Johnson, so I am ready to be amazed when they do so again.
As a confirmed punter your longshots are legendary (hat tip for Sunak). An increased Johnson majority due to the collapse of UKIP and boundary changes may come to pass, although current evidence suggests that should be more than offset by the current ****storm. Tories increased seats is a counter intuitive long shot at present that might pay off, but you can't apply 20% to a counter intuitive long shot.
Frankly, banning the unvaccinated from certain activities is not that uncontroversial. After all, the costs of the unvaccinated (such as health care) fall on all the citizens.
But hey I'm happy that you think HS2 is cancelled and everything is going to be all right.
I'm looking forward to the screams when people discover everything they were told on Thursday is based on fantasies (all the new "plans") and lies (yup your house is still blighted).
Any councillor could tell you that for nothing.
Wish it away if you want...
So now we have all the damage, but only a fraction of the benefits. And northerners get shafted.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/10166/comment-page-1#comments
My wires fuse if I try to process stuff like this.
Cheers and the best of luck in all you do.
It's a tough one though as the other option is let the unvaccinated have a 10x great chance of dying while the population gets to herd immunity..
Again, if you think yesterday is a Good Thing for your Tories, good luck.
This incident really says everything that needs saying about him
In the US:
"Average daily case reports have increased more than 20 percent over the past two weeks as outbreaks continue to worsen in the Upper Midwest."
NY Times
Its a pro-EU zealot Daily Express with no readers.
@ALDC
·
15m
BY-ELECTION RESULT
West Devon DC, Bere Ferrers
Con: 362
Lab: 361
Lib Dem: 216
Green: 176
Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat
A bruising loss."
https://twitter.com/ALDC/status/1461668744544112640
"BY-ELECTION RESULT
West Devon DC, Bere Ferrers
Con: 362
Lab: 361
Lib Dem: 216
Green: 176
Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat
A bruising loss."
PS - Bere Ferrers is in Sir Geoffrey Cox's constituency.
Your idea you are always the expert, always right, and attempts to insult those who see things differently referring to them as stupid is arrogant and simply an attempt to close down debate
There have been robust debates over HS2 on here before, and it's normal for those upset about a change to be more vocal about it. Again, I'm just not seeing what point you're making.
Obviously you always get a couple of people who overreact to anything, and identify it as the straw that will break the back of the camel of the day. It's good to see people excited, even if I expect they will be disappointed.
What a shame these countries flapped about with masks and restrictions over the summer and autumn. Completely stupid to be wearing masks and doing any activity to suppress infections in the summer post-vaccinations.
The remark was made, or wasn't, in the presence of 40 journalists. I take the report plus the declining to issue legal proceedings, in conjunction, as being about as certain as anything in this life is.
Allegedly.
https://twitter.com/RAIL is currently trying to identify the flows - and one is literally the need to redesign every station between London and Northallerton followed by Durham and Newcastle (I exclude Darlington only because that's now in progress).
And most of those projects would be £x00m projects by themselves because it requires redesigning everything.
My best guess is that he has been influenced by Carrie, who is opposed on environmental grounds?
https://www.endsreport.com/article/1716657/whos-pulling-green-strings-number-10
But tell me, exactly what actual improvements were announced yesterday that can and will be started within the next 5-10 years?
Came back to an email from school, saying Covid cases in the little 'uns class had accelerated over the last two days, and that they are encouraging us to book a PCR test for him over the weekend.
So I've just taken an LFT test, and am awaiting the results. Hoping it was just that the milk I had with my grape nuts this morning was a little off. Or exhaustion from all the running ...
The ones I feel a bit sorry for are the Con MPs who lost their seats in 2017 only two years into what should have been a five year contract. But then, they should have made a better choice of leader (not that they had much of a choice when it came to the voting, but there must have been someone decent they could have nominated)
Paul Delaney
@coaimpaul
Priti Patel is to make the political wing of Hamas illegal under the Terrorism Act. It means anyone who expresses support for Hamas or flies their flag will be in breach of the law. Her Israeli handlers are now demanding more from her, while they murder with impunity.
https://twitter.com/coaimpaul/status/1461614417427288064
When I googled images of the Hamas flag, lots of them are from a story earlier in the year about Germany introducing the same law earlier this year.
Are the German government also thought to have Israeli handlers, or is expression of support for Hamas just widely condemned?
Incidentally I happened to click on the link for the story from Al Jazeera, where the cookie warning seems rather ominous..
"You rely on Al Jazeera for truth and transparency"
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/25/hamas-flag-banned-in-germany-under-new-terror-rules
It's only post 2017 that possible other options have appeared.