Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Oh, I hate winter with a passion. Having it kick off in late Nov is not great. It also extends into early March, very often
Remember last winter/spring? Jesus fuckin Christ. That endless cold and grey which crept into May..... Awful
Winter has been at this time of year for quite a while - if you loathe it so much, as a man of means by no means, can't you abscond for three months to somewhere warmer - southern Spain or Palm Springs?
Normally, I head out to hot sunshine for at least 6 weeks of the wintry 12. Usually Bangkok for 3-4 weeks with a fortnight somewhere weirder
Last winter was the first full British winter I have endured for probably 2 decades. So it was a shock anyway. Then add in lockdown, and the particularly miserable weather....
I would spend December and January in Palm Springs if I could - plenty of sunshine, low 20s by day, the evenings can be cool but nothing of any concern.
Lovely climate to be sure, but my last trip to Palm Springs was a bit disappointing - the USA's homeless opioid problem was obvious, even there
Oh, I hate winter with a passion. Having it kick off in late Nov is not great. It also extends into early March, very often
Remember last winter/spring? Jesus fuckin Christ. That endless cold and grey which crept into May..... Awful
Winter has been at this time of year for quite a while - if you loathe it so much, as a man of means by no means, can't you abscond for three months to somewhere warmer - southern Spain or Palm Springs?
Spain is way too far north, unless you count the Canaries
Even the Canaries are iffy in Jan or Feb. Often overcast, coolish, drizzly
Was thinking Cape Verde in Feb until 4 days ago. A bugger to get to though.
Hah. I have just been looking at the same!
I've never been. Google says it is windy?
Back to Egypt maybe. OMICRON willing. Quite easy to get to. Outstanding climate in Luxor and Aswan in Jan and Feb
We should stick with 'Omicron' until it earns its spurs as a real frightener. If we've gone OMICRON already we leave ourselves nowhere to go.
Lack of ambitione there - we've got:
OMICRON
and even
OMICRON
Does Vanilla allow the use of flashing coloured lettering? That would allow a nice range of escalation, with the colour according to the Threat Warning system.
Oh, I hate winter with a passion. Having it kick off in late Nov is not great. It also extends into early March, very often
Remember last winter/spring? Jesus fuckin Christ. That endless cold and grey which crept into May..... Awful
Winter has been at this time of year for quite a while - if you loathe it so much, as a man of means by no means, can't you abscond for three months to somewhere warmer - southern Spain or Palm Springs?
Spain is way too far north, unless you count the Canaries
Even the Canaries are iffy in Jan or Feb. Often overcast, coolish, drizzly
Was thinking Cape Verde in Feb until 4 days ago. A bugger to get to though.
Hah. I have just been looking at the same!
I've never been. Google says it is windy?
Back to Egypt maybe. OMICRON willing. Quite easy to get to. Outstanding climate in Luxor and Aswan in Jan and Feb
We should stick with 'Omicron' until it earns its spurs as a real frightener. If we've gone OMICRON already we leave ourselves nowhere to go.
Lack of ambitione there - we've got:
OMICRON
If it's really bad presumably gets an upgrade to OMEGA?
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
Problem is that the left is increasingly open door migration and the right is moving to closed door. We need a viable solution and less polarisation.
Oh, I hate winter with a passion. Having it kick off in late Nov is not great. It also extends into early March, very often
Remember last winter/spring? Jesus fuckin Christ. That endless cold and grey which crept into May..... Awful
Winter has been at this time of year for quite a while - if you loathe it so much, as a man of means by no means, can't you abscond for three months to somewhere warmer - southern Spain or Palm Springs?
Spain is way too far north, unless you count the Canaries
Even the Canaries are iffy in Jan or Feb. Often overcast, coolish, drizzly
Was thinking Cape Verde in Feb until 4 days ago. A bugger to get to though.
Hah. I have just been looking at the same!
I've never been. Google says it is windy?
Back to Egypt maybe. OMICRON willing. Quite easy to get to. Outstanding climate in Luxor and Aswan in Jan and Feb
We should stick with 'Omicron' until it earns its spurs as a real frightener. If we've gone OMICRON already we leave ourselves nowhere to go.
Lack of ambitione there - we've got:
OMICRON
If it's really bad presumably gets an upgrade to OMEGA?
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Oh, I hate winter with a passion. Having it kick off in late Nov is not great. It also extends into early March, very often
Remember last winter/spring? Jesus fuckin Christ. That endless cold and grey which crept into May..... Awful
Winter has been at this time of year for quite a while - if you loathe it so much, as a man of means by no means, can't you abscond for three months to somewhere warmer - southern Spain or Palm Springs?
Spain is way too far north, unless you count the Canaries
Even the Canaries are iffy in Jan or Feb. Often overcast, coolish, drizzly
Was thinking Cape Verde in Feb until 4 days ago. A bugger to get to though.
Hah. I have just been looking at the same!
I've never been. Google says it is windy?
Back to Egypt maybe. OMICRON willing. Quite easy to get to. Outstanding climate in Luxor and Aswan in Jan and Feb
We should stick with 'Omicron' until it earns its spurs as a real frightener. If we've gone OMICRON already we leave ourselves nowhere to go.
Oh, I hate winter with a passion. Having it kick off in late Nov is not great. It also extends into early March, very often
Remember last winter/spring? Jesus fuckin Christ. That endless cold and grey which crept into May..... Awful
Winter has been at this time of year for quite a while - if you loathe it so much, as a man of means by no means, can't you abscond for three months to somewhere warmer - southern Spain or Palm Springs?
Spain is way too far north, unless you count the Canaries
Even the Canaries are iffy in Jan or Feb. Often overcast, coolish, drizzly
Was thinking Cape Verde in Feb until 4 days ago. A bugger to get to though.
Hah. I have just been looking at the same!
I've never been. Google says it is windy?
Back to Egypt maybe. OMICRON willing. Quite easy to get to. Outstanding climate in Luxor and Aswan in Jan and Feb
We should stick with 'Omicron' until it earns its spurs as a real frightener. If we've gone OMICRON already we leave ourselves nowhere to go.
Lack of ambitione there - we've got:
OMICRON
and even
OMICRON
Does Vanilla allow the use of flashing coloured lettering? That would allow a nice range of escalation, with the colour according to the Threat Warning system.
Dunno - I couldn't get html 'head' to work so gave up.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
Oh, I hate winter with a passion. Having it kick off in late Nov is not great. It also extends into early March, very often
Remember last winter/spring? Jesus fuckin Christ. That endless cold and grey which crept into May..... Awful
Winter has been at this time of year for quite a while - if you loathe it so much, as a man of means by no means, can't you abscond for three months to somewhere warmer - southern Spain or Palm Springs?
Spain is way too far north, unless you count the Canaries
Even the Canaries are iffy in Jan or Feb. Often overcast, coolish, drizzly
Was thinking Cape Verde in Feb until 4 days ago. A bugger to get to though.
Hah. I have just been looking at the same!
I've never been. Google says it is windy?
Back to Egypt maybe. OMICRON willing. Quite easy to get to. Outstanding climate in Luxor and Aswan in Jan and Feb
We should stick with 'Omicron' until it earns its spurs as a real frightener. If we've gone OMICRON already we leave ourselves nowhere to go.
Lack of ambitione there - we've got:
OMICRON
If it's really bad presumably gets an upgrade to OMEGA?
That too, though where does one go after that?
PS Maybe we should save OMEGA for when we're all calling on Moonshine for rat barbecue.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Those views are almost certainly majority views in the whole electorate, but luckily for you none of the political parties will ever take real action to address those wishes.
The question was illogical anyway.
Ditching human rights and refugee treaties is not going to stop a single boat.
Oh, I hate winter with a passion. Having it kick off in late Nov is not great. It also extends into early March, very often
Remember last winter/spring? Jesus fuckin Christ. That endless cold and grey which crept into May..... Awful
Winter has been at this time of year for quite a while - if you loathe it so much, as a man of means by no means, can't you abscond for three months to somewhere warmer - southern Spain or Palm Springs?
Spain is way too far north, unless you count the Canaries
Even the Canaries are iffy in Jan or Feb. Often overcast, coolish, drizzly
Was thinking Cape Verde in Feb until 4 days ago. A bugger to get to though.
Hah. I have just been looking at the same!
I've never been. Google says it is windy?
Back to Egypt maybe. OMICRON willing. Quite easy to get to. Outstanding climate in Luxor and Aswan in Jan and Feb
We should stick with 'Omicron' until it earns its spurs as a real frightener. If we've gone OMICRON already we leave ourselves nowhere to go.
Lack of ambitione there - we've got:
OMICRON
and even
OMICRON
OMICRON
But micron means small, no way round it. Like trying to be macho by saying I've got a TINY PENIS.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Push polling? No, absolutely no point defending that.
Stupid push poll from a non-BPC non-pollster.
Its worth noting even Blair's greatest fan Rentoul picked up on the push polling language too in his own second Tweet, so why he chose to share the first one is beyond me.
14.5% growth advantage is really small, the Delta subvariant is about the same. I think it might actually struggle to take off in Europe if that's the case.
Other insights from doing lots of listening and question asking - these guys are eminently relaxed about Omicron and other variants. The three people in academia are definitely more less so than industry people who all seem extremely bullish about everything being on track and this just being a slight detour rather than a completely new direction.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Those views are almost certainly majority views in the whole electorate, but luckily for you none of the political parties will ever take real action to address those wishes.
The question was illogical anyway.
Ditching human rights and refugee treaties is not going to stop a single boat.
Machine gunning women and children in the channel might - when can we expect Priti to announce?
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
“When assessed” is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting there isn’t it.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
Problem is that the left is increasingly open door migration and the right is moving to closed door. We need a viable solution and less polarisation.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
There was an article I read yesterday about why people come to Britain and not France and Germany, based on first person accounts. The key driver was economic - that its too easy to work tax-free cash-in-hand regardless of settled status.
I think it was @MaxPB who previously suggested a Swiss style system where I believe employees can shop in their employers in such a scenario for a big reward and thus the practice is basically non-existent.
If I remember correctly - that's what we need to do. Not this fannying about in the channel nonsense.
On topic - the header has some interesting analysis but I'm not sure that the conclusion necessarily follows. The historical distribution of results corresponds to a kind of naive prior over the distribution of potential results at the next election. It would only be a reliable guide to the result if there were no information contained in any other signal, such as the picture from opinion polls or the economic or Covid outlook. I'm not sure we can simply ignore all this other information, and so it's not obvious to me that the naive prior is more likely to be right than the betting markets. In my opinion the betting markets look more or less right.
Fair enough, which is why I specifically said punters can also take views on events and personalities and factor those in. I don't think that any of the other factors you list are helpful however - midterm polls are uncorrelated with the subsequent general election, and the economic and health outlooks - well, who knows what they will be in a couple of years time? So from that point of view, without ignoring all the other information, the historical distribution of results is perhaps a slightly more reliable guide to a ballpark figure (which is of course all you'll ever get from something like this).
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
“When assessed” is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting there isn’t it.
Not really, not on this point. Take any of these boats coming in and the odds are that most of the people in it will pass the test for being classed as refugees.
I like the analogy of tossing coins, where we as humans are terrible as analyzing if it is a rigged coin or if it is natural sequence of randomness, hint it is totally normal to get many many heads in the row without a rigged coin.
If I start tossing a coin and the 1st 100 are heads, ok, so that exact sequence HHHHHHH etc is no more unlikely with a fair coin than any other exact sequence HTHHTHHT etc. Nevertheless I'd strongly suspect a bent coin. Are you saying I'd be wrong to suspect that?
It depends how many people are tossing fair coins 100 times to check whether they are fair, and how often.
Consider the odds of winning the lottery. For the Euromillions these are approximately 1-in-140 million. This is roughly equivalent to tossing 28 consecutive heads (or tails). Sufficiently many people buy lottery tickets that the jackpot is won reasonably often. I imagine you'd be quite annoyed if they suspected the draw of being bent when you won, on the basis that it was incredibly unlikely that you would win.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Those views are almost certainly majority views in the whole electorate, but luckily for you none of the political parties will ever take real action to address those wishes.
The question was illogical anyway.
Ditching human rights and refugee treaties is not going to stop a single boat.
Machine gunning women and children in the channel might - when can we expect Priti to announce?
There was an article I read yesterday about why people come to Britain and not France and Germany, based on first person accounts. The key driver was economic - that its too easy to work tax-free cash-in-hand regardless of settled status.
I think it was @MaxPB who previously suggested a Swiss style system where I believe employees can shop in their employers in such a scenario for a big reward and thus the practice is basically non-existent.
If I remember correctly - that's what we need to do. Not this fannying about in the channel nonsense.
It was actually @rcs1000 but yep - it's something that we need to do - as it would quickly kill it stone dead provided the fines were significant enough.
My concern would be that people would think a £2000 fine is enough when the fines need to be £20,000+
There was an article I read yesterday about why people come to Britain and not France and Germany, based on first person accounts. The key driver was economic - that its too easy to work tax-free cash-in-hand regardless of settled status.
I think it was @MaxPB who previously suggested a Swiss style system where I believe employees can shop in their employers in such a scenario for a big reward and thus the practice is basically non-existent.
If I remember correctly - that's what we need to do. Not this fannying about in the channel nonsense.
It was actually @rcs1000 but yep - it's something that we need to do - as it would quickly kill it stone dead provided the fines were significant enough.
My concern would be that people would think a £2000 fine is enough when the fines need to be £20,000+
Shop in your employer and you get settled status AND the employer gets a prison sentence or a huge fine would kill the practice over night
There was an article I read yesterday about why people come to Britain and not France and Germany, based on first person accounts. The key driver was economic - that its too easy to work tax-free cash-in-hand regardless of settled status.
I think it was @MaxPB who previously suggested a Swiss style system where I believe employees can shop in their employers in such a scenario for a big reward and thus the practice is basically non-existent.
If I remember correctly - that's what we need to do. Not this fannying about in the channel nonsense.
It was actually @rcs1000 but yep - it's something that we need to do - as it would quickly kill it stone dead provided the fines were significant enough.
My concern would be that people would think a £2000 fine is enough when the fines need to be £20,000+
It's not a fine, it's jail time for the employer and indefinite leave to remain for the illegal immigrant.
Seems like this will be relevant pretty soon. Lesson number 1 from these by-elections is that it's usually a bad idea to try to take lessons from by-elections. Imagine if only one of the three had happened and not the other two?
As for whether they tell you much about public opinion, well, in the spring there were three Westminster by-elections in England that gave wildly different results, so bear that in mind before getting carried away with whatever happens next month...
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
“When assessed” is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting there isn’t it.
Not really, not on this point. Take any of these boats coming in and the odds are that most of the people in it will pass the test for being classed as refugees.
If you went to a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan or Turkey most would also pass. This is the problem - we have arrived at a system where there are tens of millions around the world that would pass the current standards. We then filter on those who can most afford the trafficker fees.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
If tax & spend was determined purely by popularity contest we'd have 10 million nurses and 5 million bobbies on the beat. And they'd be working for nothing because income tax would be a flat rate 0%.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
Problem is that the left is increasingly open door migration and the right is moving to closed door. We need a viable solution and less polarisation.
The Tories are not moving to a closed door. They just gave a pathway to citizenship to millions of Hong Kongers. They have made business visas easier. The only door closing is to low skill, low income migrants that will be a burden on the UK taxpayer for decades.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Those views are almost certainly majority views in the whole electorate, but luckily for you none of the political parties will ever take real action to address those wishes.
The question was illogical anyway.
Ditching human rights and refugee treaties is not going to stop a single boat.
Machine gunning women and children in the channel might - when can we expect Priti to announce?
I believe it is termed 'projectile based discouragement operations', it sounds better.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Those views are almost certainly majority views in the whole electorate, but luckily for you none of the political parties will ever take real action to address those wishes.
The question was illogical anyway.
Ditching human rights and refugee treaties is not going to stop a single boat.
Machine gunning women and children in the channel might - when can we expect Priti to announce?
I believe it is termed 'projectile based discouragement operations', it sounds better.
Important question. Will the machine gunners be on jet skis?
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
I like the analogy of tossing coins, where we as humans are terrible as analyzing if it is a rigged coin or if it is natural sequence of randomness, hint it is totally normal to get many many heads in the row without a rigged coin.
If I start tossing a coin and the 1st 100 are heads, ok, so that exact sequence HHHHHHH etc is no more unlikely with a fair coin than any other exact sequence HTHHTHHT etc. Nevertheless I'd strongly suspect a bent coin. Are you saying I'd be wrong to suspect that?
It depends how many people are tossing fair coins 100 times to check whether they are fair, and how often.
Consider the odds of winning the lottery. For the Euromillions these are approximately 1-in-140 million. This is roughly equivalent to tossing 28 consecutive heads (or tails). Sufficiently many people buy lottery tickets that the jackpot is won reasonably often. I imagine you'd be quite annoyed if they suspected the draw of being bent when you won, on the basis that it was incredibly unlikely that you would win.
Yes, my example is kind of like it's just me doing that lottery. Just checked something btw, the world record for roulette is 32 reds in a row. Happened in 1947. A common fallacy is if it's been lots of reds in a row the next one is likely to be black. And what's odd is how you can know with your stats brain that's tosh - it's a misapplication of 'reversion to the mean' - but yet if you're there by the wheel it feels true.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Was that the one trying to join her husband?
I believe so. Ignoring the family visa route.
I know I'm callous, but given all the demographics of these trafficing routes, when the first case study the media can find is a pretty young woman my reaction is more cynicism than sympathy.
That's actually already been happening in lots of schools, at the urging of local authorities.
Edit - I am really not sure it is a good idea, that said. All other points aside, do we really want these children taking pieces of cloth that may be impregnated with virus on and off all the time and putting them on desks, chairs, books...
As for the NEU rep who wants masks in classrooms, he's a twat and a liar and always has been, and he is also unelected having effectively engineered a coup to stay in position far beyond his normal tenure.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Was that the one trying to join her husband?
I believe so. Ignoring the family visa route.
Um... depends on the immigration status of the husband surely?
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Was that the one trying to join her husband?
Fiance, I think. Reading their personal stories is moving and educational. It makes it harder to discuss the issue just in terms of numbers.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Was that the one trying to join her husband?
I believe so. Ignoring the family visa route.
I know I'm callous, but given all the demographics of these trafficing routes, when the first case study the media can find is a pretty young woman my reaction is more cynicism than sympathy.
Can I just reassure you that "callous" is definitely the first descriptor that springs to mind when reading that post.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
The decisions being made are completely irrational.
The gangs are pretty much grooming these people into making an attempt at the channel. Huge financial cost, good chance of drowning - what is being promised?
Case numbers have actually fallen these past couple of days, which means mask mandates might be credited for the fall which arrived just a few days earlier than the mandates.
"Britain is staring down the barrel of a three-pronged crisis on immigration, NHS waiting times and rising inflation, according to Nigel Farage, who is reportedly considering a comeback to front-line politics." (Mail)
Jane Merrick @janemerrick23 · 1h Quite an extraordinary statistic: Cyril Ramaphosa, in an address to nation(world) says case positivity in South Africa has gone from 2% to 9% in less than a week. That is a leap
On topic - the header has some interesting analysis but I'm not sure that the conclusion necessarily follows. The historical distribution of results corresponds to a kind of naive prior over the distribution of potential results at the next election. It would only be a reliable guide to the result if there were no information contained in any other signal, such as the picture from opinion polls or the economic or Covid outlook. I'm not sure we can simply ignore all this other information, and so it's not obvious to me that the naive prior is more likely to be right than the betting markets. In my opinion the betting markets look more or less right.
Fair enough, which is why I specifically said punters can also take views on events and personalities and factor those in. I don't think that any of the other factors you list are helpful however - midterm polls are uncorrelated with the subsequent general election, and the economic and health outlooks - well, who knows what they will be in a couple of years time? So from that point of view, without ignoring all the other information, the historical distribution of results is perhaps a slightly more reliable guide to a ballpark figure (which is of course all you'll ever get from something like this).
I think your analysis is interesting but you must question it too (as indeed you do). The idea that there's some sort of static random number generator producing Tory seat outcomes for all these years seems something of a stretch. The hypothesis included that too of course.
Nonetheless just seeing what there is to be seen even when you know there are issues is no bad thing.
A few weeks ago before Paterson some were suggesting that the Tory odds were value. They were a little. Since then much has changed but the prices haven't moved a huge amount, and whilst I don't think laying the Tories is a particularly great idea, if pressed I'd prefer to do that than back them. In part this is because I expect level-ish-pegging opinion polls for a good while now.
"Britain is staring down the barrel of a three-pronged crisis on immigration, NHS waiting times and rising inflation, according to Nigel Farage, who is reportedly considering a comeback to front-line politics." (Mail)
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Was that the one trying to join her husband?
I believe so. Ignoring the family visa route.
I know I'm callous, but given all the demographics of these trafficing routes, when the first case study the media can find is a pretty young woman my reaction is more cynicism than sympathy.
Can I just reassure you that "callous" is definitely the first descriptor that springs to mind when reading that post.
Jane Merrick @janemerrick23 · 1h Quite an extraordinary statistic: Cyril Ramaphosa, in an address to nation(world) says case positivity in South Africa has gone from 2% to 9% in less than a week. That is a leap
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Was that the one trying to join her husband?
Fiance, I think. Reading their personal stories is moving and educational. It makes it harder to discuss the issue just in terms of numbers.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
The decisions being made are completely irrational.
The gangs are pretty much grooming these people into making an attempt at the channel. Huge financial cost, good chance of drowning - what is being promised?
Is that right? 1 in 1,000 odd channel crossers are drowning this year. until a week ago that number was indistinguishable from zero per 1,000.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
“When assessed” is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting there isn’t it.
Not really, not on this point. Take any of these boats coming in and the odds are that most of the people in it will pass the test for being classed as refugees.
If you went to a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan or Turkey most would also pass. This is the problem - we have arrived at a system where there are tens of millions around the world that would pass the current standards. We then filter on those who can most afford the trafficker fees.
It's a massive and very difficult issue, yes. A new international agreement is surely needed. But just for now, since that's a longer term thing, the fact is we take very few cf to what we could and imo should. So let's pull our finger out and get some safe passage in place. And 2 sentiments I hold which I think are relevant. We have played our part in fucking up many of these countries. We are the same as them, exactly the same, apart from the accident of where we were born.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
How should I differentiate the half-wittery post June 2019 and what went before?
My most alarming take away on Johnsonianism is the coach and horses driven through the GFA to furnish Johnson's Brexit. Mrs May's tiptoeing around Northern Irish sensitivities cost her Number 10. And then JohnsonIans have the gaul to contend Brexit was perfect but for the "fact" the GFA was flawed.
On topic - the header has some interesting analysis but I'm not sure that the conclusion necessarily follows. The historical distribution of results corresponds to a kind of naive prior over the distribution of potential results at the next election. It would only be a reliable guide to the result if there were no information contained in any other signal, such as the picture from opinion polls or the economic or Covid outlook. I'm not sure we can simply ignore all this other information, and so it's not obvious to me that the naive prior is more likely to be right than the betting markets. In my opinion the betting markets look more or less right.
Fair enough, which is why I specifically said punters can also take views on events and personalities and factor those in. I don't think that any of the other factors you list are helpful however - midterm polls are uncorrelated with the subsequent general election, and the economic and health outlooks - well, who knows what they will be in a couple of years time? So from that point of view, without ignoring all the other information, the historical distribution of results is perhaps a slightly more reliable guide to a ballpark figure (which is of course all you'll ever get from something like this).
I think your analysis is interesting but you must question it too (as indeed you do). The idea that there's some sort of static random number generator producing Tory seat outcomes for all these years seems something of a stretch.
...
What I said is subtly different from that - it's that markets overreact in the short term to items of news - hence my reference to the Dornbusch overshooting model in the first part of this thread. And that, given this, and without any strong reason to believe otherwise (like a political genius appearing, or a world war), evens is a more rational price than 36%, given the historical evidence.
There is an analogy in the financial markets - the price of futures contracts is much better predictor of the current price than it is of the price when the contract is dated. Futures prices tend to underestimate the prospect of mean reversion: see e.g. Huang et al (2020) European Review of Agricultural Economics.
Jane Merrick @janemerrick23 · 1h Quite an extraordinary statistic: Cyril Ramaphosa, in an address to nation(world) says case positivity in South Africa has gone from 2% to 9% in less than a week. That is a leap
Perhaps we finally have a variant that fits Sunetra Gupta's models.
Jane Merrick @janemerrick23 · 1h Quite an extraordinary statistic: Cyril Ramaphosa, in an address to nation(world) says case positivity in South Africa has gone from 2% to 9% in less than a week. That is a leap
Perhaps we finally have a variant that fits Sunetra Gupta's models.
But have we got a variant that fulfils SeanT'sLeon's Eadric's vision of two million British dead?
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
How should I differentiate the half-wittery post June 2019 and what went before?
My most alarming take away on Johnsonianism is the coach and horses driven through the GFA to furnish Johnson's Brexit. Mrs May's tiptoeing around Northern Irish sensitivities cost her Number 10. And then JohnsonIans have the gaul to contend Brexit was perfect but for the "fact" the GFA was flawed.
Yes, this is where your acute and legendary Benny Hill ref doesn't totally cover things. It really is no joke.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
Now that would be a tall order. Not impossible, but very, very unlikely.
On topic - the header has some interesting analysis but I'm not sure that the conclusion necessarily follows. The historical distribution of results corresponds to a kind of naive prior over the distribution of potential results at the next election. It would only be a reliable guide to the result if there were no information contained in any other signal, such as the picture from opinion polls or the economic or Covid outlook. I'm not sure we can simply ignore all this other information, and so it's not obvious to me that the naive prior is more likely to be right than the betting markets. In my opinion the betting markets look more or less right.
Fair enough, which is why I specifically said punters can also take views on events and personalities and factor those in. I don't think that any of the other factors you list are helpful however - midterm polls are uncorrelated with the subsequent general election, and the economic and health outlooks - well, who knows what they will be in a couple of years time? So from that point of view, without ignoring all the other information, the historical distribution of results is perhaps a slightly more reliable guide to a ballpark figure (which is of course all you'll ever get from something like this).
I think your analysis is interesting but you must question it too (as indeed you do). The idea that there's some sort of static random number generator producing Tory seat outcomes for all these years seems something of a stretch.
...
What I said is subtly different from that - it's that markets overreact in the short term to items of news - hence my reference to the Dornbusch overshooting model in the first part of this thread. And that, given this, and without any strong reason to believe otherwise (like a political genius appearing, or a world war), evens is a more rational price than 36%, given the historical evidence.
There is an analogy in the financial markets - the price of futures contracts is much better predictor of the current price than it is of the price when the contract is dated. Futures prices tend to underestimate the prospect of mean reversion: see e.g. Huang et al (2020) European Review of Agricultural Economics.
Yes indeed.
The second bit about futures is a nonsense, Anyone, but anyone who has ever worked in forwards or futures markets knows that the pricing is all about arbitrage relationships. It has to be such otherwise it's free money.
I think you missed my point though. By applying a model, you're assuming a process, and I'd be uncomfortable doing so.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
That’s very shortsighted my friend
Overseas aid isn’t charity, it’s geopolitics.
The best way to reduce migration from Africa to Europe, for example, is to invest in the Sahel. Limit the supply of desperate people trying to come to squat on your doorstep as it were
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
There have been two to date. Before and after 12/12/19. I am not hoping for more
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
"Johnsonian" implies some kind of ideology or principle, when it becomes evident with time that Johnson runs around like a headless chicken running from post to post. He has no ideology at all and nothing with which to draw from.
Cummings obviously deserved to go but it's clear he was the brains of the organisation - and without him BoJo is really useless.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Sure. The treaties were suitable for the 1950s and 1960s when they were written but no longer are. Instead of making lives of individual immigrants more and more unpleasant (to discourage migration) it’s more humane to revisit the treaties
Jane Merrick @janemerrick23 · 1h Quite an extraordinary statistic: Cyril Ramaphosa, in an address to nation(world) says case positivity in South Africa has gone from 2% to 9% in less than a week. That is a leap
Perhaps we finally have a variant that fits Sunetra Gupta's models.
According to her model haven't we all had it 27 times by now?
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
There have been two to date. Before and after 12/12/19. I am not hoping for more
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
“When assessed” is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting there isn’t it.
Not really, not on this point. Take any of these boats coming in and the odds are that most of the people in it will pass the test for being classed as refugees.
If you went to a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan or Turkey most would also pass. This is the problem - we have arrived at a system where there are tens of millions around the world that would pass the current standards. We then filter on those who can most afford the trafficker fees.
It's a massive and very difficult issue, yes. A new international agreement is surely needed. But just for now, since that's a longer term thing, the fact is we take very few cf to what we could and imo should. So let's pull our finger out and get some safe passage in place.
But putting in more safe passage from Calais to Dover will just increase the number crossing the Med to qualify, which risks lives. Angela Merkel showed this clearly. This is the crux of things which the "more refugees!" crowd just ignore. And of course then there will still be loads we aren't letting in meaning the "more refugees!" crowd still won't be happy. It is hard not to feel you just want as many immigrants as possible.
And 2 sentiments I hold which I think are relevant. We have played our part in fucking up many of these countries. We are the same as them, exactly the same, apart from the accident of where we were born.
The first sentiment is a leftist guilt mentality I don't subscribe to. Syria was screwed up long before we turned up, whether we are talking about Assad's response to the Arab Spring or Ottoman Misrule. Eritrea and Ethiopia was liberated by us from Italian colonialism and DFID has sunk hundreds of millions into them. And of course it's not wealthier liberals like yourself that have to have your neighborhoods transformed by the inflows.
As for the second sentiment, it's just not true. We aren't the same as these people. We are culturally British, Western and democratic. They are culturally Middle Eastern, conservative and Islamic. That comes with very different mindsets for how society should be run, what we think of women and gay people, how to integrate with our neighbours etc. I personally don't want to create more Tower Hamlets local politics.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
How should I differentiate the half-wittery post June 2019 and what went before?
My most alarming take away on Johnsonianism is the coach and horses driven through the GFA to furnish Johnson's Brexit. Mrs May's tiptoeing around Northern Irish sensitivities cost her Number 10. And then JohnsonIans have the gaul to contend Brexit was perfect but for the "fact" the GFA was flawed.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
There have been two to date. Before and after 12/12/19. I am not hoping for more
I know Wikipedia believes this, but I am not sure this is correct. My understanding and in this the Institute for Government would appear to agree with me, is that an incumbent PM who wins a general election continues to lead the same government. Only if there is a break of service with a different PM do you have 'first and second governments' i.e. only Churchill and Wilson since the war (and there is some dispute about whether Churchill was PM twice or three times).
So there has been one Johnson government.
It's still one too many of course, and doesn't really address the substantive point.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Was that the one trying to join her husband?
I believe so. Ignoring the family visa route.
Had it coming.
What an ugly comment. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
“When assessed” is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting there isn’t it.
Not really, not on this point. Take any of these boats coming in and the odds are that most of the people in it will pass the test for being classed as refugees.
If you went to a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan or Turkey most would also pass. This is the problem - we have arrived at a system where there are tens of millions around the world that would pass the current standards. We then filter on those who can most afford the trafficker fees.
It's a massive and very difficult issue, yes. A new international agreement is surely needed. But just for now, since that's a longer term thing, the fact is we take very few cf to what we could and imo should. So let's pull our finger out and get some safe passage in place. And 2 sentiments I hold which I think are relevant. We have played our part in fucking up many of these countries. We are the same as them, exactly the same, apart from the accident of where we were born.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
"Johnsonian" implies some kind of ideology or principle, when it becomes evident with time that Johnson runs around like a headless chicken running from post to post. He has no ideology at all and nothing with which to draw from.
Cummings obviously deserved to go but it's clear he was the brains of the organisation - and without him BoJo is really useless.
Unfair. He has a firm and unwavering ideology. He believes deeply and passionately in the greater power and glory of Boris Johnson.
As for Cummings, he has no brains, as he has amply demonstrated many times.
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Was that the one trying to join her husband?
I believe so. Ignoring the family visa route.
Had it coming.
What an ugly comment. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....Positivity rate has jumped a lot in a week. It takes time for that to feed through to the hospitals.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration. FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.
The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.
Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.
I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.
Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.
As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well
Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.
Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
"Johnsonian" implies some kind of ideology or principle, when it becomes evident with time that Johnson runs around like a headless chicken running from post to post. He has no ideology at all and nothing with which to draw from.
Cummings obviously deserved to go but it's clear he was the brains of the organisation - and without him BoJo is really useless.
Unfair. He has a firm and unwavering ideology. He believes deeply and passionately in the greater power and glory of Boris Johnson.
As for Cummings, he has no brains, as he has amply demonstrated many times.
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.
Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.
In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.
Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?
There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected
JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.
Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.
I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.
"Johnsonian" implies some kind of ideology or principle, when it becomes evident with time that Johnson runs around like a headless chicken running from post to post. He has no ideology at all and nothing with which to draw from.
Cummings obviously deserved to go but it's clear he was the brains of the organisation - and without him BoJo is really useless.
Unfair. He has a firm and unwavering ideology. He believes deeply and passionately in the greater power and glory of Boris Johnson.
As for Cummings, he has no brains, as he has amply demonstrated many times.
Alrighty, you got me there.
Hope you're well.
I'm fucking hanging through being grossly overworked trying to deal with many ongoing Covid related problems.
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
It seems ramping up boosters while suppressing the initial seeding of Omicron is going to be the policy. On the first part, reason we couldn't get up to 500k per day on average over the first three weeks of December if we cut the gap by a month?
Even with a comparative advantage over Delta, it should take longer than that for Omicron to become dominant in the UK given how many cases we have a day. We then have the best preparation possible for when it hits.
Next on the agenda should be making a huge order for amended Pfizer vaccines if/when needed.
- New cases: 2,858 - Average: 1,975 (+310) - Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6) - In hospital: 2,232 (+3) - In ICU: 231 (-2) - New deaths: 6 - Average: 32 (+1)
That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging
Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....
I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats
Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.
Is PB really critting me for being faintly optimistic?!
Does anyone seriously want to try and defend this?
Rather than moral high horsing about it, the left would do well to help come up with workable solutions. Because if none are found, those numbers indicate you might before too long end up with a government that you find to be multiples less to your liking than the current one.
I draw the line at breaking international law and human rights legislation but that's just me?
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Mostly these are economic migrants though arent they. You could accept another few hundred k refugees a year and it wouldn’t stop the boats. As for “stopping the gangs”, good idea. How do you propose to do that when they are operating from French not British soil and are being wilfully encouraged by Macron’s government?
It's not true to say they are mostly economic migrants. When assessed most pass the test for 'refugee' status.
"economic migrant" is a tricky one anyway. It tends to mean "I would like to have enough money so my family can eat" but to be interpreted as "I would like to have a 105" plasma TV to watch Man Utd on"
One of the women that drowned was living in Germany for four years. Clearly people like that are already able to eat.
Real refugee: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country PDQ!" Non-refugee: "I WANT to get to the UK by any means!"
Comments
As to what needs to be done, shut down and stop the gangs that allow this behaviour to happen and also take our fair share of refugees
Southern Arizona? Still a bit nippy there tho
Mexico USED to be perfect
Ditching human rights and refugee treaties is not going to stop a single boat.
Stupid push poll from a non-BPC non-pollster.
Its worth noting even Blair's greatest fan Rentoul picked up on the push polling language too in his own second Tweet, so why he chose to share the first one is beyond me.
Other insights from doing lots of listening and question asking - these guys are eminently relaxed about Omicron and other variants. The three people in academia are definitely more less so than industry people who all seem extremely bullish about everything being on track and this just being a slight detour rather than a completely new direction.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/what-sector-is-the-uk-government-spending-too-much-on
I think it was @MaxPB who previously suggested a Swiss style system where I believe employees can shop in their employers in such a scenario for a big reward and thus the practice is basically non-existent.
If I remember correctly - that's what we need to do. Not this fannying about in the channel nonsense.
Consider the odds of winning the lottery. For the Euromillions these are approximately 1-in-140 million. This is roughly equivalent to tossing 28 consecutive heads (or tails). Sufficiently many people buy lottery tickets that the jackpot is won reasonably often. I imagine you'd be quite annoyed if they suspected the draw of being bent when you won, on the basis that it was incredibly unlikely that you would win.
My concern would be that people would think a £2000 fine is enough when the fines need to be £20,000+
Lesson number 1 from these by-elections is that it's usually a bad idea to try to take lessons from by-elections. Imagine if only one of the three had happened and not the other two?
As for whether they tell you much about public opinion, well, in the spring there were three Westminster by-elections in England that gave wildly different results, so bear that in mind before getting carried away with whatever happens next month...
https://twitter.com/MattSingh
Won't stop me getting carried away with though, that's against the spirit of political wonkism.
"COVID-19: Schools in England told pupils in years 7 and above should wear face masks in communal areas"
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1465005427150794756?s=20
Edit - I am really not sure it is a good idea, that said. All other points aside, do we really want these children taking pieces of cloth that may be impregnated with virus on and off all the time and putting them on desks, chairs, books...
As for the NEU rep who wants masks in classrooms, he's a twat and a liar and always has been, and he is also unelected having effectively engineered a coup to stay in position far beyond his normal tenure.
Definitely.
The gangs are pretty much grooming these people into making an attempt at the channel. Huge financial cost, good chance of drowning - what is being promised?
"Britain is staring down the barrel of a three-pronged crisis on immigration, NHS waiting times and rising inflation, according to Nigel Farage, who is reportedly considering a comeback to front-line politics." (Mail)
@janemerrick23
·
1h
Quite an extraordinary statistic: Cyril Ramaphosa, in an address to nation(world) says case positivity in South Africa has gone from 2% to 9% in less than a week. That is a leap
Nonetheless just seeing what there is to be seen even when you know there are issues is no bad thing.
A few weeks ago before Paterson some were suggesting that the Tory odds were value. They were a little. Since then much has changed but the prices haven't moved a huge amount, and whilst I don't think laying the Tories is a particularly great idea, if pressed I'd prefer to do that than back them. In part this is because I expect level-ish-pegging opinion polls for a good while now.
My most alarming take away on Johnsonianism is the coach and horses driven through the GFA to furnish Johnson's Brexit. Mrs May's tiptoeing around Northern Irish sensitivities cost her Number 10. And then JohnsonIans have the gaul to contend Brexit was perfect but for the "fact" the GFA was flawed.
There is an analogy in the financial markets - the price of futures contracts is much better predictor of the current price than it is of the price when the contract is dated. Futures prices tend to underestimate the prospect of mean reversion: see e.g. Huang et al (2020) European Review of Agricultural Economics.
SeanT'sLeon'sEadric's vision of two million British dead?The second bit about futures is a nonsense, Anyone, but anyone who has ever worked in forwards or futures markets knows that the pricing is all about arbitrage relationships. It has to be such otherwise it's free money.
I think you missed my point though. By applying a model, you're assuming a process, and I'd be uncomfortable doing so.
Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.
Overseas aid isn’t charity, it’s geopolitics.
The best way to reduce migration from Africa to Europe, for example, is to invest in the Sahel. Limit the supply of desperate people trying to come to squat on your doorstep as it were
- New cases: 2,858
- Average: 1,975 (+310)
- Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6)
- In hospital: 2,232 (+3)
- In ICU: 231 (-2)
- New deaths: 6
- Average: 32 (+1)
Cummings obviously deserved to go but it's clear he was the brains of the organisation - and without him BoJo is really useless.
As for the second sentiment, it's just not true. We aren't the same as these people. We are culturally British, Western and democratic. They are culturally Middle Eastern, conservative and Islamic. That comes with very different mindsets for how society should be run, what we think of women and gay people, how to integrate with our neighbours etc. I personally don't want to create more Tower Hamlets local politics.
So there has been one Johnson government.
It's still one too many of course, and doesn't really address the substantive point.
For God's sake, get a grip man
As for Cummings, he has no brains, as he has amply demonstrated many times.
May I ask how you normally vote?
Hope you're well.
But otherwise, yes, I am well.
Good to know you're feeling a bit better too.
Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.
Even with a comparative advantage over Delta, it should take longer than that for Omicron to become dominant in the UK given how many cases we have a day. We then have the best preparation possible for when it hits.
Next on the agenda should be making a huge order for amended Pfizer vaccines if/when needed.
Jeeez Denise
Non-refugee: "I WANT to get to the UK by any means!"