Categories
Could Bexley & Sidcup be another by-election punters are getting wrong? – politicalbetting.com
Could Bexley & Sidcup be another by-election punters are getting wrong? – politicalbetting.com
A week tomorrow voters in Old Bexley and Sidcup go to the polls in the second Tory by-election defence of this parliament. So far betting has been fairly limited with less than £40k being traded on Smarkets and Betfair put together. In the former the odds on the Tories have now moved to a 94% chance and I just wonder whether, once again, punters have this wrong.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Gotta go, drunken friend just fell through the door.
Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
England numbers
Age First Second Gap
12 to 15 42.76% 0.58% 42.18%
16 to 17 64.80% 16.01% 48.79%
18 to 24 76.60% 66.04% 10.55%
25 to 29 78.20% 69.97% 8.23%
30 to 34 85.21% 77.82% 7.40%
35 to 39 87.62% 81.79% 5.83%
40 to 44 92.76% 88.13% 4.63%
45 to 49 89.91% 86.57% 3.34%
50 to 54 94.75% 92.17% 2.57%
55 to 59 97.34% 94.99% 2.35%
60 to 64 99.46% 97.33% 2.12%
65 to 69 96.90% 95.66% 1.24%
70 to 74 96.12% 95.30% 0.82%
75 to 79 102.61% 101.84% 0.77%
80 to 84 95.06% 94.33% 0.73%
85 to 89 96.00% 95.17% 0.84%
90+ 90.75% 89.74% 1.00%
On my way home tonight I am confronted by this leading story in the Standard:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-borough-breakdown-unvaccinated-hotspots-covid-b967975.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_trending_article_component&itm_campaign=trending_section&itm_content=3
Okay, I am told 130,000 adults aged 18 or over in Newham have not had any vaccination. How is this figure derived, how can it be verified?
The Government's own website claims 60% have had a first vaccination which equates to 228,589 people so that would make the adult population 380,000 which seems a bit on the high side given the projected total population of 365,000 so that puts a huge question mark over the numbers.
I presume the Standard have found the vaccination figures and subtracted them from the population estimate - er, no, that's the whole population including children and Newham is a "young" area with a lot of children.
The GLA estimate for the over 16 population is 284,000 (roughly 78% of the total) so to have first vaccinated 229,000 (let's say) would suggest 80.6% of the adult population first vaccinated which, while still below the national average, is more respectable.
So, the 130,000 is in fact 57,000 (if that) so the Standard's figures represent, I would argue, a significant economising of the truth. That's not to say there isn't a problem with a minority not having been vaccinated but that doesn't excuse some sloppy journalism and some dodgy analysis (I'm not sure mine is foolproof either ).
In Scotland they took the approach that anything over 100% was rounded to .... 100% - see the bottom of https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=Scotland#card-vaccination_uptake_by_vaccination_date_age_demographics
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
I still don't understand why NIMS is being used, it's a really niche question but I really wish someone in the media gets an answer on it, ONS 2020 might have a few quirks (see the 101% of 70-80 total vaccinated as an example) but it's on the whole a lot more accurate and we accept that there are ~67.5m people in the UK vs NIMS which rates it at closer to 75m iirc.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/censustransformationprogramme/census2021outputs/abouttheteam
I suspect we'll be able to refine our population and demographic data from then. It's unfortunate the pandemic occurred right at the end of the census cycle.
Code,Name,Geography,All ages,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90+
E09000025,Newham,London Borough,355266,5441,5301,5353,5387,5411,5250,5462,5408,5328,4649,4217,4300,4406,4199,4165,4154,3985,4098,3893,4066,4306,4589,5052,5865,6537,6614,6907,7117,7043,7743,7989,8130,8029,7754,7923,7798,7497,7237,6783,6013,5706,5351,4862,4697,4688,4319,4215,4045,4166,4235,4227,4158,3995,3805,3654,3509,3480,3319,3112,3101,2920,2729,2640,2580,2390,2059,1949,1848,1852,1690,1666,1362,1444,1384,1137,1043,1018,932,937,787,817,779,749,688,589,522,478,358,381,303,1192
So total population of 355,266
65,913 under 12
293,759 12+
276,835 16+
268,752 18+
I can see the Tories dipping below 50% but I can't see them losing.
Something like
Con 48%
Lab 31%
Reform 14%
Others 7%
turnout 40% (-30)
FFFFFFuk
Lockdown Ist Kommen
I would expect a solid Conservative hold with maybe a slight fall in the Tory majority but with RefUK perhaps taking 3rd. It is a strong Leave seat unlike Chesham and Amersham and the Labour by election machine is also much weaker than Labour's
My point is we have London's only evening newspaper producing headline stories based on obviously doubtful or just plain wrong data so I've called them out to a tiny extent.
Saying 130,000 adults in Newham have not been vaccinated just isn't supported by the data - it might well be 50,000 and that doesn't mean there's not a problem but it's an order of magnitude less of a problem.
Okay, if the headline gets people vaccinated, fair enough but it also encourages the mindset the virus is somehow out of control (it isn't) and the rise in cases will lead to renewed restrictions (it won't or shouldn't).
Today's best number for this observer is the continuing decline in hospitalisations. I know some on here were predicting a sharper fall in cases than has happened and is happening but what we seem to be seeing is a larger number of milder cases and it may well require more booster vaccinations to get that substantial case number reduction but we are certainly moving in a better direction.
Sir David Jason recently said out of all his roles Dangermouse was his favourite
I highly doubt they would get 31%, a smaller rise from 23% in 2019 to 25-30% is more likely on current polls
But for the New European to post that he's having a bad day is pretty much the equivalent of the Morning Star saying that we should nationalise all industry and shoot the Jews.
And for much the same reason.
That paper reminds me of being at running club on a glorious Sunday morning at 9am, running up a steep hill and hearing the ardent Remainer (who bored even those who had voted Remain) moaning about some Brexit act. It just cannot help itself.
Sorry to sound crass given the horrendous circumstances but the UK has the right to accept who comes in and who doesn't. France wants the problem somewhere else. Anyone with any experience of the French Police / State in general knows that, if they are truly against something, they will use all force necessary. They just can't be arsed.
In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.
Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.
It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
The wrinkles are seeing cases fall, quite steadily.
This is why hospitalisations are heading down. The correlation between the groups that are falling and the level of boosters is quite remarkable.
As for cases, I think the fact that schools are open, the economy is open and mask wearing seems to be non-existent now, even on the tube with cases only rising very slightly is a big victory. In fact the current R looks to have dropped to about 1 and we're still doing over 1m booster shots every 3 days plus we really are running out of unvaccinated people to get infected meaning the virus is now having to contend with vaccinated hosts that have got full immunity from three doses, high level immunity from two doses or partial immunity from one dose. That puts a pretty big brake on onwards transmission, even someone who is 30% less likely to pass it to other people with one dose of AZ/Pfizer reduces the base R by a pretty big number, when you get to the triple dosed it's more like a 90% reduction in transmission (at least by the modelled number).
The net effect would be a fall in the Conservative Party vote and vote share to something akin to @Gary_Burton's prediction? Turnout in the constituency at general elections is generally 70% - I suspect the by-election turnout will be substantially lower.
and she has resigned in less than 24 hours, so will we have a GE?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59400539
There was probably a New Jacobite news-paper that had a circulation of 93 in 1756. That's the equivalent
The Achilles heel in that plan is, of course, that the current Government has no intention of ever embarking upon such a course. Their pathetic, half-hearted attempts at border security - appointing a clandestine non-existent patrol commander, bunging a few million quid at the French interior ministry, and so on - are all for show. They don't want to do the hard graft, it's easier and less expensive to let them all in.
This is the only solution. The Australian method. It's not ideal and it is extremely pricey at first, but it is a nettle that must be grasped. Any UKG will, I reckon, reach the same conclusion in the end
I vaguely recall there being reduced availability of some frozen foods around the time of that panic about the carbon dioxide supply. Also, M&S were without chocolate salted caramel pinecones for several weeks, but even they have reappeared. I think that's about it so far.
Certainly wine is one of the products that has always been in plentiful supply, even at the very apogee of panic buying. The notion that there's going to be a shortage at Christmas, which is now only a month away, is risible.
Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
It was said of Bath that he led 'the most wise and honest of all administrations, the minister having ... never transacted one rash thing; and, what is more marvellous, left as much money in the T[reasur]y as he found in it.'
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/11/the-mass-exodus-of-americas-health-care-workers/620713/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Fuck business Boris!
So for us it is going to be much more expensive and significantly more difficult. Probably an African or South American nation, that needs the money, and will accept the modest stress.
It will cost a fuck of a lot, but it will - in the end - save many lives, eventually save cash, and solve the problem long term. I have yet to see any sensible alternatives which aren't versions of "let them all in" or "let them all drown"
Why do sceptics think so many reputable wine companies signed that letter?
The Falkland Islands are on the other side of the world, remote and inescapable, and have oodles of space in which to build facilities (the size of Northern Ireland with the population of a small market town.)
It'd cost a fortune, but it's eminently doable. The Government just doesn't want to.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
You're surely too smart to be ignorant of this. And, besides, do you have any alternative solution? I see none