Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why the Conservatives could increase their majority – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • Barry Sheerman (Labour, MP for Huddersfield since 1979 GE) has announced earlier this evening that he will stand down at next GE.
    He is the third Labour MP to announce retirement.
    The other 2 are Margaret Hodge (Barking) and Alex Cunningham (Stockton North).

    Labour NEC has recently agreed the timeframe of reselection trigger ballots (which are expected to finish by June 2022). So expect some more announcements by the end of the year from those not wanting to go through the reselection process.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great thread.

    I think you absolutely could be right.

    I think there is only you me and Whispering Oracle gets it on here.

    Majority view seems to be that people like SKS and YC are attractive to voters.

    I think some Centrists are in for a shock

    The issue there is that Labour needs (to win) to BOTH (a) be attractive to 30% of voters (so they actually tun out) and (b) be not alarming to 40% of voters. That gives a decent chance of getting to 40 without the Tories getting even more. Corbyn got (a) but not (b). Starmer has (b) but not (a). It remains possible that he can get to (a) by 2023.
    I am an (a) and i will definitely be turning out


    To vote anyone but Starmer


    And by the way Corbyn got 40% in 2017 nearly all from (a) unfortunately there were plenty of (b)'s within Labour and even the PLP under Corbyn
    Corbyn also got some from Remainers in b in 2017 who wanted to stop a hard Brexit, they went LD in 2019 leaving him with the Labour socialist core of 32%
    Corbyn did not have a "socialist core" of 32%. Many voters who were repulsed by Johnson held their noses and voted Labour despite Corbyn. Had May or Cameron still been Con. leader that 32% would have been more like 23% or lower.
    No. voters who were repulsed by Johnson but despised Corbyn voted LD or SNP in 2019, not Labour.
    Why would I do that? The only way to unseat Alun Cairns was vote Labour.
    If you wanted neither Boris or Corbyn to become PM obviously you would vote neither Tory nor Labour in 2019.

    In 2019 the Labour vote was down 7.9% on 2017, the LD vote was up 4.2% on 2017 and the SNP vote was up 0.8% on 2017.

    The Tory vote was up 1.2% in 2019 on 2017, so more 2017 Labour voters went LD than Tory in 2019 because of Corbyn and in Scotland the SNP vote rose while the SCon vote fell on 2017
    Some would have voted Labour in an attempt to reduce Johnson's majority on the basis that a wings-clipped Johnson was optimal compared to what we now have.
    No, such Remain voters voted Labour in 2017 on the assumption Corbyn would at least oppose a hard Brexit effectively or even campaign for Remain in an EUref2.

    In 2019 they did not make that mistake again and most of them voted LD instead.

    2019's Labour vote was the Corbynite Labor hardcore, 2017 saw a Labour vote inflated by votes lent by diehard Remainers who went LD in 2019 and are now mostly back voting Starmer Labour (albeit with some Corbynites from 2019 now voting Geen)
    As I am neither the Corbynite hardcore nor a diehard Remainer my Labour vote must be something of an outlier then.

    You were a Leaver not a Remainer and almost always vote Labour so effectively you count as Corbynite hardcore, neither Tory or centrist LD Remainer.

    As you voted for Corbyn Labour in 2017 and 2019 you are certainly Corbynite hardcore
    You voted REMAIN in 2016. So you are not a real Tory.
    No, plenty of Tories voted Remain, including the leader of the Tory party at the time of the 2016 referendum.

    However like him I also accepted the result
    Given that most Tories voted Leave in 2016, you are still not a proper Tory.
    A proper Tory is someone who votes Tory at every general election.

    A Leaver who voted Labour in 2017 and Labour or Brexit Party in 2019 does not count as a proper Tory however
    I would just say that I am proud I am not a proper tory as it shows I can be persuaded by a good argument and am not just a blind follower

    As I said to my dear lady this morning if I lived in North Staffs I would vote Lib Dem s in protest against Paterson and Boris's unacceptable behaviour and attempts to rig the process
    Yes, well BigG we don't need to rehash my view that you are not a proper Tory, you are more One Nation Tory./LD/New Labour swing voter
    You do know that I actively supported the party and voted for it ever since 1965 and have only voted labour twice under Blair and have never voted lib dems

    However, as I said the other day I am pleased Boris is PM at present as he is the only person standing against the crescendo of lockdown demands from the broadcasters, so called medical experts, and the labour party

    The time will come when he is no longer PM and each day that seems to be getting closer

    He couldn't even remember the North Staffordshire candidates name yesterday for goodness sake
    You are still the closest thing we have to a genuine swing voter on here though BigG.

    Most PBers on here either voted Labour or LD or SNP in 2019 or voted Tory in 2019 as they always do, very few voted for Blair and have voted Tory since including for Boris in 2019 (Philip Thompson maybe the other exception but he is more libertarian than the average voter unlike you)
    I have voted conservative in elections since 1964 including 2019 so your theory is nonsense

    The only two I voted Blair was 1997 and 2001

    Given I doubt there is a single PBer who voted for Wilson, Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Tory since I think we can still safely say you are the closest thing we have to a PB swing voter having voted for Blair but for Boris in 2019
    I voted Labour in 1997, LD in 2001 and 2005, Tory in 2010, Labour in 2015, Tory in 2017 and 2019.
    Close but you only voted for Blair once and did not vote Tory in 2015, so still not quite as big a swing voter as BigG
    You talk utter rubbish

    Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and never Lib Dems
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,468
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    I AM NEGATIVE

    The future of British lithic sex toy carving is secured

    You just had a cold. Anyone familiar with your hyperbolic panic about the slightest little thing should have known that from the outset.
    I know you’re a boring, humourless, middle brow dickhead, just as i am a hyperbolic twat with a drama queen complex, and I imagine we probably agree on these diagnoses, but on this point I beg to differ.

    This was not a cold. No sneezing, no runny nose, no sore throat, no temperatures, it attacked my chest FIRST and then left me virtually comatose for 48 hours (I was literally awake for about 90 minutes out of 48 hours). No cold has ever done that. And yet flu - I have had flu - is considerably worse. Intense fevers. Etc

    So what was it? I dunno. I feel like I am almost better after being bedridden 12 hours ago. Very strange

    I wonder if we will encounter many of these strange ailments. We - as a species (especially in the rich world) have just gone thru an unprecedented experiment in quarantine and isolation. There will be peculiar consequences
    And yet you were well enough to post (regularly). Not exactly deaths door.
    Ah fuck off. Seriously. Fuck off and do one


    For 48 hours I felt absolutely terrible. Really really shit. I was fairly convinced I had some kind of Covid - because it was all so strange and new and odd

    And yet every three or six hours I would wake up and feel OK. And then - because I was ill and still in bed and unable to go to the pub 9 miles away, because I AM ENTIRELY ALONE IN A REMOTE COTTAGE - I came on PB and chatted with you guys, because you are funny and smart and clever albeit quite geeky (like me) and there is nearly always someone around to talk to.

    It’s like waking up in a hospital ward full of quirky Cambridge Phds and superb racing tipsters and drunken computer experts happy to chat - it’s great. It is better than any ward.

    I am grateful for that. I am grateful for PB being there. I am grateful to TSE and OGH and RCS and everyone else for providing this forum. It has kept me sane these last three days and I hope, if and when you ever get disquietingly ill - you too will be able to rely on this forum as a way of communicating, and of diluting your loneliness. Because that is what it has done for me. And if you do find yourself in that situation, I will be happy to chat to you, because this is what we do. We chat and we argue and somehow we help each other, as a weird by-product.

    It is a good thing.
    It's just all so emotionally extreme. Going from one panic to another. And some very very unpleasant comments at the expense of @IanB2 and @kinabalu to name but two. You need calling out on this stuff. Happy to dish it out, not so happy when you get it back.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    I AM NEGATIVE

    The future of British lithic sex toy carving is secured

    You just had a cold. Anyone familiar with your hyperbolic panic about the slightest little thing should have known that from the outset.
    I know you’re a boring, humourless, middle brow dickhead, just as i am a hyperbolic twat with a drama queen complex, and I imagine we probably agree on these diagnoses, but on this point I beg to differ.

    This was not a cold. No sneezing, no runny nose, no sore throat, no temperatures, it attacked my chest FIRST and then left me virtually comatose for 48 hours (I was literally awake for about 90 minutes out of 48 hours). No cold has ever done that. And yet flu - I have had flu - is considerably worse. Intense fevers. Etc

    So what was it? I dunno. I feel like I am almost better after being bedridden 12 hours ago. Very strange

    I wonder if we will encounter many of these strange ailments. We - as a species (especially in the rich world) have just gone thru an unprecedented experiment in quarantine and isolation. There will be peculiar consequences
    And yet you were well enough to post (regularly). Not exactly deaths door.
    I had Covid, and a fever for four days while managing to post.
    It’s not a great diagnostic for the degree of illness - and @Leon wasn’t claiming to be on death’s door.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745


    Surrey and Waverley don't get on very well, partly because of party differences and partly because Surrey wanted to abolish Waverley. Waverley and Godalming get along splendidly, with a massive overlap of members.

    Personally I think, leaving parties aside, that 2 levels is good and 3 is too many. As you say, town/parish councils are not all effective (and in many areas don't exist), and where they do they are understaffed and short of powers and their unpaid councillors knock themselves out to limited effect. County/borough feels about right.

    Having regional mayors would certainly make a difference. Not sure it's a good idea - personalises politics more - but would create rival power bases to the centre, which doesn't seem a very Boris thing to do.

    I think it's no secret relations between Surrey County and some of its Borough/District Councils are glacial.

    Various alternative structures were proposed over and above the County's view.

    As an example, combining Guildford, Waverley and Mole Valley would produce a single council serving a population of 355,000 so about the preferred size based on the Government's earlier recommendations.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    There's no way Labour will win again. Thatcher is too popular and Labour is split between hard-left and centrist. There's no way the Tories will ever form a government. Blair and Brown are too popular. The Right are completely split anyway over Europe. A new anti-EU party will ensure they are never elected. Labour will never win again as the Left are being 'left' behind, meaning Labour are only just ahead in the polls. Nothing can change in the next few years until the next election. Yeah?

    Lib Dems will disappear as it's been over 5 years since they were in government. FIVE YEARS! Can anyone remember where they were even living then?!??

    Starmer not visiting Shropshire is no mistake. A subtle LD-Labour agreement, a la Blair/Ashdown will emerge. I predict a hung parliament with Brown's offer of instant PR imposed, ensuring the Tories will never win again (see above).

    They can go swivel with any instant change to the voting system. AV set the bar a constitutional change like that has to goto a referendum and it will get voted down. The voting system does not belong to parties or to parliament it belongs to us the people and if you want to change it you damn well better ask us if it is ok!
    It was already offered by Brown without a referendum. Precedes AV. Unless the Supreme Court strikes it down (can't see why), a majority in the HoC, especially if it confers with manifestos (currently favoured by Green, LD, SNP and PC - was also favoured by Ukip), is entirely in line with the FPTP style of government. The ultimate in irony.
    Don't care what brown offered, the av referendum sets a precedent. The voting system belongs to us not for parties to change because it gives them an advantage which is exactly what it is. You and your party only want to bring it in without referendum because you know where the electorate will tell you where to shove your preferred voting system,
    I don't have a party. I'm a floating voter. Voted for multiple parties, based on what was best at the time. I'm confident though, a majority in parliament with PR in their manifestos would be unchallengeable, no matter what your preference. I also think PR would win. AV was struck down due to LD allying themselves with the Tories. Not because people liked minority rule.
    If you are confident it will win then no reason not to ask people before changing it if they are ok with it then is there. Clue I am confident it will be shot down by about the same margin as AV
    I doubt anyone will ask me to decide. Clue: I am also confident you are totally wrong. Leaving aside the Don't Knows, there's a clear majority: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-we-change-our-current-british-voting-system
    Which will change the moment campaigning starts and people realise it will mean a lot of labour led governments
    And permanent coalitions.
    Which will almost always include the SNP. Yeah campaign starts pr is dead in the water
    What's wrong with that? SNP MPs are MPs too.
    Didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I was merely noting that there is an antipathy to what many see as a party devoted to regional advantage being too big a part of governing
    You think the Conservative Party isn't devoted to regional advantage? Or the DUP? Both of which have or had rather a large part of governing of late. But only a gentle comment rather than wanting to start an argument. It's Saturday night, so night all.
    It's just most pronounced for the SNP given their numbers, and how they would only ever consider backing one of the two parties. An effective argument for the anti-PR side.
    It isn't just the SNP - the harsh reality is that no other party will work with the Tories. The absolute shafting of the DUP is not something that political opponents forget quickly.
    lol, as if they would have worked with the Tories before that.
    No, the SNP may not. My point is that NO party will work with the Tories, why pull out just the SNP?
    Because of the number of their MPs, as I mentioned before. With PR it is highly likely they will always be in coalition government with Labour.
    With PR its highly possible they won't enter into coalition with anyone. The SNP would make demands that unionist parties would struggle to agree to - I expect they will be C&S at best.

    Certainly the position for Labour in 2015 was that there wouldn't need to be an SNP deal - ultimately they wouldn't repeat 1979 and vote out a minority Labour government in favour of the Tories. So an informal C&S at best.
    With PR the LDs would almost always be Kingmakers, the SNP and DUP only have a chance of being Kingmakers under FPTP
    Sounds good to me.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    I AM NEGATIVE

    The future of British lithic sex toy carving is secured

    You just had a cold. Anyone familiar with your hyperbolic panic about the slightest little thing should have known that from the outset.
    I know you’re a boring, humourless, middle brow dickhead, just as i am a hyperbolic twat with a drama queen complex, and I imagine we probably agree on these diagnoses, but on this point I beg to differ.

    This was not a cold. No sneezing, no runny nose, no sore throat, no temperatures, it attacked my chest FIRST and then left me virtually comatose for 48 hours (I was literally awake for about 90 minutes out of 48 hours). No cold has ever done that. And yet flu - I have had flu - is considerably worse. Intense fevers. Etc

    So what was it? I dunno. I feel like I am almost better after being bedridden 12 hours ago. Very strange

    I wonder if we will encounter many of these strange ailments. We - as a species (especially in the rich world) have just gone thru an unprecedented experiment in quarantine and isolation. There will be peculiar consequences
    And yet you were well enough to post (regularly). Not exactly deaths door.
    Ah fuck off. Seriously. Fuck off and do one


    For 48 hours I felt absolutely terrible. Really really shit. I was fairly convinced I had some kind of Covid - because it was all so strange and new and odd

    And yet every three or six hours I would wake up and feel OK. And then - because I was ill and still in bed and unable to go to the pub 9 miles away, because I AM ENTIRELY ALONE IN A REMOTE COTTAGE - I came on PB and chatted with you guys, because you are funny and smart and clever albeit quite geeky (like me) and there is nearly always someone around to talk to.

    It’s like waking up in a hospital ward full of quirky Cambridge Phds and superb racing tipsters and drunken computer experts happy to chat - it’s great. It is better than any ward.

    I am grateful for that. I am grateful for PB being there. I am grateful to TSE and OGH and RCS and everyone else for providing this forum. It has kept me sane these last three days and I hope, if and when you ever get disquietingly ill - you too will be able to rely on this forum as a way of communicating, and of diluting your loneliness. Because that is what it has done for me. And if you do find yourself in that situation, I will be happy to chat to you, because this is what we do. We chat and we argue and somehow we help each other, as a weird by-product.

    It is a good thing.
    It's just all so emotionally extreme. Going from one panic to another. And some very very unpleasant comments at the expense of @IanB2 and @kinabalu to name but two. You need calling out on this stuff. Happy to dish it out, not so happy when you get it back.
    Why can’t we all just get along?😀
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    Barry Sheerman (Labour, MP for Huddersfield since 1979 GE) has announced earlier this evening that he will stand down at next GE.
    He is the third Labour MP to announce retirement.
    The other 2 are Margaret Hodge (Barking) and Alex Cunningham (Stockton North).

    Labour NEC has recently agreed the timeframe of reselection trigger ballots (which are expected to finish by June 2022). So expect some more announcements by the end of the year from those not wanting to go through the reselection process.

    I assume by re-selection, that's selection to the new constituency's? or is it reselection to the existing ones, that will then be adjusted when the new ones are confirmed?

    Sorry this is a bit pedantic but asking anyway?
  • StarryStarry Posts: 103
    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    There's no way Labour will win again. Thatcher is too popular and Labour is split between hard-left and centrist. There's no way the Tories will ever form a government. Blair and Brown are too popular. The Right are completely split anyway over Europe. A new anti-EU party will ensure they are never elected. Labour will never win again as the Left are being 'left' behind, meaning Labour are only just ahead in the polls. Nothing can change in the next few years until the next election. Yeah?

    Lib Dems will disappear as it's been over 5 years since they were in government. FIVE YEARS! Can anyone remember where they were even living then?!??

    Starmer not visiting Shropshire is no mistake. A subtle LD-Labour agreement, a la Blair/Ashdown will emerge. I predict a hung parliament with Brown's offer of instant PR imposed, ensuring the Tories will never win again (see above).

    They can go swivel with any instant change to the voting system. AV set the bar a constitutional change like that has to goto a referendum and it will get voted down. The voting system does not belong to parties or to parliament it belongs to us the people and if you want to change it you damn well better ask us if it is ok!
    It was already offered by Brown without a referendum. Precedes AV. Unless the Supreme Court strikes it down (can't see why), a majority in the HoC, especially if it confers with manifestos (currently favoured by Green, LD, SNP and PC - was also favoured by Ukip), is entirely in line with the FPTP style of government. The ultimate in irony.
    Don't care what brown offered, the av referendum sets a precedent. The voting system belongs to us not for parties to change because it gives them an advantage which is exactly what it is. You and your party only want to bring it in without referendum because you know where the electorate will tell you where to shove your preferred voting system,
    I don't have a party. I'm a floating voter. Voted for multiple parties, based on what was best at the time. I'm confident though, a majority in parliament with PR in their manifestos would be unchallengeable, no matter what your preference. I also think PR would win. AV was struck down due to LD allying themselves with the Tories. Not because people liked minority rule.
    If you are confident it will win then no reason not to ask people before changing it if they are ok with it then is there. Clue I am confident it will be shot down by about the same margin as AV
    I doubt anyone will ask me to decide. Clue: I am also confident you are totally wrong. Leaving aside the Don't Knows, there's a clear majority: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-we-change-our-current-british-voting-system
    Which will change the moment campaigning starts and people realise it will mean a lot of labour led governments
    And permanent coalitions.
    Which will almost always include the SNP. Yeah campaign starts pr is dead in the water
    What's wrong with that? SNP MPs are MPs too.
    Didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I was merely noting that there is an antipathy to what many see as a party devoted to regional advantage being too big a part of governing
    You think the Conservative Party isn't devoted to regional advantage? Or the DUP? Both of which have or had rather a large part of governing of late. But only a gentle comment rather than wanting to start an argument. It's Saturday night, so night all.
    It's just most pronounced for the SNP given their numbers, and how they would only ever consider backing one of the two parties. An effective argument for the anti-PR side.
    It isn't just the SNP - the harsh reality is that no other party will work with the Tories. The absolute shafting of the DUP is not something that political opponents forget quickly.
    lol, as if they would have worked with the Tories before that.
    No, the SNP may not. My point is that NO party will work with the Tories, why pull out just the SNP?
    Because of the number of their MPs, as I mentioned before. With PR it is highly likely they will always be in coalition government with Labour.
    Another good anti pr argument is that in 2017 we would have ended up with a coalition headed by corbyn
    In 2015 we would have ended up with Farage kingmaker under PR, with Cameron effectively Nige's puppet
    Phew! Farage would probably have demanded a referendum on the EU. Lucky escape. If you're ugly, don't blame the mirror. PR, for me, has the fairest system (STV), rather than because I want some party in. A core belief for me, rather than a temporary advantage.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great thread.

    I think you absolutely could be right.

    I think there is only you me and Whispering Oracle gets it on here.

    Majority view seems to be that people like SKS and YC are attractive to voters.

    I think some Centrists are in for a shock

    The issue there is that Labour needs (to win) to BOTH (a) be attractive to 30% of voters (so they actually tun out) and (b) be not alarming to 40% of voters. That gives a decent chance of getting to 40 without the Tories getting even more. Corbyn got (a) but not (b). Starmer has (b) but not (a). It remains possible that he can get to (a) by 2023.
    I am an (a) and i will definitely be turning out


    To vote anyone but Starmer


    And by the way Corbyn got 40% in 2017 nearly all from (a) unfortunately there were plenty of (b)'s within Labour and even the PLP under Corbyn
    Corbyn also got some from Remainers in b in 2017 who wanted to stop a hard Brexit, they went LD in 2019 leaving him with the Labour socialist core of 32%
    Corbyn did not have a "socialist core" of 32%. Many voters who were repulsed by Johnson held their noses and voted Labour despite Corbyn. Had May or Cameron still been Con. leader that 32% would have been more like 23% or lower.
    No. voters who were repulsed by Johnson but despised Corbyn voted LD or SNP in 2019, not Labour.
    Why would I do that? The only way to unseat Alun Cairns was vote Labour.
    If you wanted neither Boris or Corbyn to become PM obviously you would vote neither Tory nor Labour in 2019.

    In 2019 the Labour vote was down 7.9% on 2017, the LD vote was up 4.2% on 2017 and the SNP vote was up 0.8% on 2017.

    The Tory vote was up 1.2% in 2019 on 2017, so more 2017 Labour voters went LD than Tory in 2019 because of Corbyn and in Scotland the SNP vote rose while the SCon vote fell on 2017
    Some would have voted Labour in an attempt to reduce Johnson's majority on the basis that a wings-clipped Johnson was optimal compared to what we now have.
    No, such Remain voters voted Labour in 2017 on the assumption Corbyn would at least oppose a hard Brexit effectively or even campaign for Remain in an EUref2.

    In 2019 they did not make that mistake again and most of them voted LD instead.

    2019's Labour vote was the Corbynite Labor hardcore, 2017 saw a Labour vote inflated by votes lent by diehard Remainers who went LD in 2019 and are now mostly back voting Starmer Labour (albeit with some Corbynites from 2019 now voting Geen)
    As I am neither the Corbynite hardcore nor a diehard Remainer my Labour vote must be something of an outlier then.

    You were a Leaver not a Remainer and almost always vote Labour so effectively you count as Corbynite hardcore, neither Tory or centrist LD Remainer.

    As you voted for Corbyn Labour in 2017 and 2019 you are certainly Corbynite hardcore
    You voted REMAIN in 2016. So you are not a real Tory.
    No, plenty of Tories voted Remain, including the leader of the Tory party at the time of the 2016 referendum.

    However like him I also accepted the result
    Given that most Tories voted Leave in 2016, you are still not a proper Tory.
    A proper Tory is someone who votes Tory at every general election.

    A Leaver who voted Labour in 2017 and Labour or Brexit Party in 2019 does not count as a proper Tory however
    I would just say that I am proud I am not a proper tory as it shows I can be persuaded by a good argument and am not just a blind follower

    As I said to my dear lady this morning if I lived in North Staffs I would vote Lib Dem s in protest against Paterson and Boris's unacceptable behaviour and attempts to rig the process
    Yes, well BigG we don't need to rehash my view that you are not a proper Tory, you are more One Nation Tory./LD/New Labour swing voter
    You do know that I actively supported the party and voted for it ever since 1965 and have only voted labour twice under Blair and have never voted lib dems

    However, as I said the other day I am pleased Boris is PM at present as he is the only person standing against the crescendo of lockdown demands from the broadcasters, so called medical experts, and the labour party

    The time will come when he is no longer PM and each day that seems to be getting closer

    He couldn't even remember the North Staffordshire candidates name yesterday for goodness sake
    You are still the closest thing we have to a genuine swing voter on here though BigG.

    Most PBers on here either voted Labour or LD or SNP in 2019 or voted Tory in 2019 as they always do, very few voted for Blair and have voted Tory since including for Boris in 2019 (Philip Thompson maybe the other exception but he is more libertarian than the average voter unlike you)
    I have voted conservative in elections since 1964 including 2019 so your theory is nonsense

    The only two I voted Blair was 1997 and 2001

    Given I doubt there is a single PBer who voted for Wilson, Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Tory since I think we can still safely say you are the closest thing we have to a PB swing voter having voted for Blair but for Boris in 2019
    I voted Labour in 1997, LD in 2001 and 2005, Tory in 2010, Labour in 2015, Tory in 2017 and 2019.
    Close but you only voted for Blair once and did not vote Tory in 2015, so still not quite as big a swing voter as BigG
    You talk utter rubbish

    Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and never Lib Dems
    The UK has been Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and 2005 in the last 40 years so you are still very much a swing voter
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    I AM NEGATIVE

    The future of British lithic sex toy carving is secured

    You just had a cold. Anyone familiar with your hyperbolic panic about the slightest little thing should have known that from the outset.
    I know you’re a boring, humourless, middle brow dickhead, just as i am a hyperbolic twat with a drama queen complex, and I imagine we probably agree on these diagnoses, but on this point I beg to differ.

    This was not a cold. No sneezing, no runny nose, no sore throat, no temperatures, it attacked my chest FIRST and then left me virtually comatose for 48 hours (I was literally awake for about 90 minutes out of 48 hours). No cold has ever done that. And yet flu - I have had flu - is considerably worse. Intense fevers. Etc

    So what was it? I dunno. I feel like I am almost better after being bedridden 12 hours ago. Very strange

    I wonder if we will encounter many of these strange ailments. We - as a species (especially in the rich world) have just gone thru an unprecedented experiment in quarantine and isolation. There will be peculiar consequences
    And yet you were well enough to post (regularly). Not exactly deaths door.
    Ah fuck off. Seriously. Fuck off and do one


    For 48 hours I felt absolutely terrible. Really really shit. I was fairly convinced I had some kind of Covid - because it was all so strange and new and odd

    And yet every three or six hours I would wake up and feel OK. And then - because I was ill and still in bed and unable to go to the pub 9 miles away, because I AM ENTIRELY ALONE IN A REMOTE COTTAGE - I came on PB and chatted with you guys, because you are funny and smart and clever albeit quite geeky (like me) and there is nearly always someone around to talk to.

    It’s like waking up in a hospital ward full of quirky Cambridge Phds and superb racing tipsters and drunken computer experts happy to chat - it’s great. It is better than any ward.

    I am grateful for that. I am grateful for PB being there. I am grateful to TSE and OGH and RCS and everyone else for providing this forum. It has kept me sane these last three days and I hope, if and when you ever get disquietingly ill - you too will be able to rely on this forum as a way of communicating, and of diluting your loneliness. Because that is what it has done for me. And if you do find yourself in that situation, I will be happy to chat to you, because this is what we do. We chat and we argue and somehow we help each other, as a weird by-product.

    It is a good thing.
    It's just all so emotionally extreme. Going from one panic to another. And some very very unpleasant comments at the expense of @IanB2 and @kinabalu to name but two. You need calling out on this stuff. Happy to dish it out, not so happy when you get it back.
    I know. The panics are ridiculous.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    edited December 2021

    Barry Sheerman (Labour, MP for Huddersfield since 1979 GE) has announced earlier this evening that he will stand down at next GE.
    He is the third Labour MP to announce retirement.
    The other 2 are Margaret Hodge (Barking) and Alex Cunningham (Stockton North).

    Labour NEC has recently agreed the timeframe of reselection trigger ballots (which are expected to finish by June 2022). So expect some more announcements by the end of the year from those not wanting to go through the reselection process.

    2 of those 3 are in so-called Red Wall areas.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited December 2021

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Personally I could keep all county government, merge county and district/borough councils outside the big cities and just have town and parish councils below them. Albeit in the biggest counties there may be a few more unitaries to reflect the urban and rural split.

    Currently there are too many layers of local government outside big cities. London for example has only 2 layers of local government, the London Assembly and the boroughs, Manchester and other big cities only have 1 city council.

    In more rural counties though like Essex you mostly have 3 layers, county council, distrct/borough councils and town and parish councils

    I see what you're saying and where you have active Town and Parish Councils it's a good idea but that isn't universally the case.

    @NickPalmer would have more insight but you have Surrey County Council, Waverley District Council and Godalming Town Council in his patch. How well do the three work together? I don't know.

    If there were to be a West Surrey Council and a Godalming Town Council, would that be better or easier?

    Surrey and Waverley don't get on very well, partly because of party differences and partly because Surrey wanted to abolish Waverley. Waverley and Godalming get along splendidly, with a massive overlap of members.

    Personally I think, leaving parties aside, that 2 levels is good and 3 is too many. As you say, town/parish councils are not all effective (and in many areas don't exist), and where they do they are understaffed and short of powers and their unpaid councillors knock themselves out to limited effect. County/borough feels about right.

    Having regional mayors would certainly make a difference. Not sure it's a good idea - personalises politics more - but would create rival power bases to the centre, which doesn't seem a very Boris thing to do.
    County and borough merged with town and parish having more powers would be better than County and borough and no town and parish at all. Especially as town and parish councils are the closest councils to most residents of towns or villages.

    You don't get town and parish councils in cities but then cities already have their own council and often now their own elected Mayor too. London is an exception but it has the London Assembly for the whole city as well as London borough councils
  • stodge said:


    Surrey and Waverley don't get on very well, partly because of party differences and partly because Surrey wanted to abolish Waverley. Waverley and Godalming get along splendidly, with a massive overlap of members.

    Personally I think, leaving parties aside, that 2 levels is good and 3 is too many. As you say, town/parish councils are not all effective (and in many areas don't exist), and where they do they are understaffed and short of powers and their unpaid councillors knock themselves out to limited effect. County/borough feels about right.

    Having regional mayors would certainly make a difference. Not sure it's a good idea - personalises politics more - but would create rival power bases to the centre, which doesn't seem a very Boris thing to do.

    I think it's no secret relations between Surrey County and some of its Borough/District Councils are glacial.

    Various alternative structures were proposed over and above the County's view.

    As an example, combining Guildford, Waverley and Mole Valley would produce a single council serving a population of 355,000 so about the preferred size based on the Government's earlier recommendations.
    Guilmoley?

    Note Texas has a micro-municipality called Dalworthington Gardens: Dal(as,Fort)worth,(Arl)ington
  • kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    I AM NEGATIVE

    The future of British lithic sex toy carving is secured

    You just had a cold. Anyone familiar with your hyperbolic panic about the slightest little thing should have known that from the outset.
    I know you’re a boring, humourless, middle brow dickhead, just as i am a hyperbolic twat with a drama queen complex, and I imagine we probably agree on these diagnoses, but on this point I beg to differ.

    This was not a cold. No sneezing, no runny nose, no sore throat, no temperatures, it attacked my chest FIRST and then left me virtually comatose for 48 hours (I was literally awake for about 90 minutes out of 48 hours). No cold has ever done that. And yet flu - I have had flu - is considerably worse. Intense fevers. Etc

    So what was it? I dunno. I feel like I am almost better after being bedridden 12 hours ago. Very strange

    I wonder if we will encounter many of these strange ailments. We - as a species (especially in the rich world) have just gone thru an unprecedented experiment in quarantine and isolation. There will be peculiar consequences
    And yet you were well enough to post (regularly). Not exactly deaths door.
    Ah fuck off. Seriously. Fuck off and do one


    For 48 hours I felt absolutely terrible. Really really shit. I was fairly convinced I had some kind of Covid - because it was all so strange and new and odd

    And yet every three or six hours I would wake up and feel OK. And then - because I was ill and still in bed and unable to go to the pub 9 miles away, because I AM ENTIRELY ALONE IN A REMOTE COTTAGE - I came on PB and chatted with you guys, because you are funny and smart and clever albeit quite geeky (like me) and there is nearly always someone around to talk to.

    It’s like waking up in a hospital ward full of quirky Cambridge Phds and superb racing tipsters and drunken computer experts happy to chat - it’s great. It is better than any ward.

    I am grateful for that. I am grateful for PB being there. I am grateful to TSE and OGH and RCS and everyone else for providing this forum. It has kept me sane these last three days and I hope, if and when you ever get disquietingly ill - you too will be able to rely on this forum as a way of communicating, and of diluting your loneliness. Because that is what it has done for me. And if you do find yourself in that situation, I will be happy to chat to you, because this is what we do. We chat and we argue and somehow we help each other, as a weird by-product.

    It is a good thing.
    It's just all so emotionally extreme. Going from one panic to another. And some very very unpleasant comments at the expense of @IanB2 and @kinabalu to name but two. You need calling out on this stuff. Happy to dish it out, not so happy when you get it back.
    When I post on here - even when I am dealing with nasty nasty posters - I always try to post with a ❤️
  • Thank you for the interesting replies and nice comments to the thread.
    IanB2 said:

    An interesting lead, but once you get to Philip admitting he’d take the other side of the 5/2 bet, it’s clear he doesn’t believe the case himself and is simply playing Devil’s advocate (as usual!).

    Just to address this specifically, I do believe that this could happen which is very different to saying it will happen.

    When I tipped Sunak for next PM I thought he was still a longshot [at that time] for next PM, but not a 250/1 longshot. Similarly here I think that this is possible, but not value at 5/2.

    If I were to estimate the odds of it happening I'd say 20% which is 4/1, hence why I'd be looking for 5/1 as that provides value.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    F##king anti-vaxxers....

    SUNDAY TIMES: Doctors’ anger as unjabbed fill emergency beds

    90% of those seriously ill needing specialist care are unvaxxed. (Up to July) 20-30% of critical care beds were for COVID, of which 75% are unvaxxed.
    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1467257888351698946?s=20

    Saw this earlier. Why only date up to July FFS? It’s December? A cynic would suggest the latest data is less skewed to the unvaccinated. It could just be the data is not available, but if so, why not. We are drowning in data.
    Saw it but didn't read it evidently. If you did you would see it also gives July to November figures.

    Aren't you the guy who was pompously giving it large yesterday about the distinction between anecdote and data?

    BTW "data" is plural.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    stodge said:


    Surrey and Waverley don't get on very well, partly because of party differences and partly because Surrey wanted to abolish Waverley. Waverley and Godalming get along splendidly, with a massive overlap of members.

    Personally I think, leaving parties aside, that 2 levels is good and 3 is too many. As you say, town/parish councils are not all effective (and in many areas don't exist), and where they do they are understaffed and short of powers and their unpaid councillors knock themselves out to limited effect. County/borough feels about right.

    Having regional mayors would certainly make a difference. Not sure it's a good idea - personalises politics more - but would create rival power bases to the centre, which doesn't seem a very Boris thing to do.

    I think it's no secret relations between Surrey County and some of its Borough/District Councils are glacial.

    Various alternative structures were proposed over and above the County's view.

    As an example, combining Guildford, Waverley and Mole Valley would produce a single council serving a population of 355,000 so about the preferred size based on the Government's earlier recommendations.
    Waverley and Guildford are sharing senior officers, as a way of saving some money and getting economies of scale, without giving up independence. I'd like to see the Government take a broadly neutral stance and let local areas try out different models so we can find out what works well. There's no reason why Surrey and Herefordshire should be governed identically.
  • Is there anything more ridiculous than the Essicks Massiv pronouncing his judgement on democracy?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    edited December 2021
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    I AM NEGATIVE

    The future of British lithic sex toy carving is secured

    You just had a cold. Anyone familiar with your hyperbolic panic about the slightest little thing should have known that from the outset.
    I know you’re a boring, humourless, middle brow dickhead, just as i am a hyperbolic twat with a drama queen complex, and I imagine we probably agree on these diagnoses, but on this point I beg to differ.

    This was not a cold. No sneezing, no runny nose, no sore throat, no temperatures, it attacked my chest FIRST and then left me virtually comatose for 48 hours (I was literally awake for about 90 minutes out of 48 hours). No cold has ever done that. And yet flu - I have had flu - is considerably worse. Intense fevers. Etc

    So what was it? I dunno. I feel like I am almost better after being bedridden 12 hours ago. Very strange

    I wonder if we will encounter many of these strange ailments. We - as a species (especially in the rich world) have just gone thru an unprecedented experiment in quarantine and isolation. There will be peculiar consequences
    And yet you were well enough to post (regularly). Not exactly deaths door.
    Ah fuck off. Seriously. Fuck off and do one


    For 48 hours I felt absolutely terrible. Really really shit. I was fairly convinced I had some kind of Covid - because it was all so strange and new and odd

    And yet every three or six hours I would wake up and feel OK. And then - because I was ill and still in bed and unable to go to the pub 9 miles away, because I AM ENTIRELY ALONE IN A REMOTE COTTAGE - I came on PB and chatted with you guys, because you are funny and smart and clever albeit quite geeky (like me) and there is nearly always someone around to talk to.

    It’s like waking up in a hospital ward full of quirky Cambridge Phds and superb racing tipsters and drunken computer experts happy to chat - it’s great. It is better than any ward.

    I am grateful for that. I am grateful for PB being there. I am grateful to TSE and OGH and RCS and everyone else for providing this forum. It has kept me sane these last three days and I hope, if and when you ever get disquietingly ill - you too will be able to rely on this forum as a way of communicating, and of diluting your loneliness. Because that is what it has done for me. And if you do find yourself in that situation, I will be happy to chat to you, because this is what we do. We chat and we argue and somehow we help each other, as a weird by-product.

    It is a good thing.
    I agree, and I'm glad we could help. I don't think the fact that you tend to extremes of view is that bad - it'd be a bit dull if we all produced the sort of nuanced maybe-possibly stuff that is my stock in trade. Vive la difference, and don't let's take each other too seriously. Perhaps Elon Musk is right and we are all merely stock characters in an alien child's RPG.
  • BigRich said:

    Barry Sheerman (Labour, MP for Huddersfield since 1979 GE) has announced earlier this evening that he will stand down at next GE.
    He is the third Labour MP to announce retirement.
    The other 2 are Margaret Hodge (Barking) and Alex Cunningham (Stockton North).

    Labour NEC has recently agreed the timeframe of reselection trigger ballots (which are expected to finish by June 2022). So expect some more announcements by the end of the year from those not wanting to go through the reselection process.

    I assume by re-selection, that's selection to the new constituency's? or is it reselection to the existing ones, that will then be adjusted when the new ones are confirmed?

    Sorry this is a bit pedantic but asking anyway?
    They dediced to go through trigger ballote on existing CLPs structure and adjust later when necessary.
    https://labourlist.org/2021/11/exclusive-labour-plans-to-hold-mp-trigger-ballots-from-november-to-june/

    The new trigger ballot procedure is
    50%+1 of branches needed for sitting MPs to be automatically reselected without opening the process to new applications.
    A sort of electoral college will be used with ward branches and affiliates branches will weight 50% each in the final tally,

    Corbyn raised the threshold for sitting MPs to 2/3 of ward branches and 2/3 of affiliates. Before it was 50.1% of branches with each wards and affiliates counting as one (so some MPs could affiliate dozen of union branches voting in their favour and out-numbering the ward branches).
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    IshmaelZ said:

    F##king anti-vaxxers....

    SUNDAY TIMES: Doctors’ anger as unjabbed fill emergency beds

    90% of those seriously ill needing specialist care are unvaxxed. (Up to July) 20-30% of critical care beds were for COVID, of which 75% are unvaxxed.
    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1467257888351698946?s=20

    Saw this earlier. Why only date up to July FFS? It’s December? A cynic would suggest the latest data is less skewed to the unvaccinated. It could just be the data is not available, but if so, why not. We are drowning in data.
    Saw it but didn't read it evidently. If you did you would see it also gives July to November figures.

    Aren't you the guy who was pompously giving it large yesterday about the distinction between anecdote and data?

    BTW "data" is plural.
    Fair enough, I only scanned the snippet of the headline. I don’t recall pomposity. I also don’t regard an Internet forum as a place that needs people pointlessly correcting others typos and grammatical errors. Life’s too short.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2021

    F##king anti-vaxxers....

    SUNDAY TIMES: Doctors’ anger as unjabbed fill emergency beds

    90% of those seriously ill needing specialist care are unvaxxed. (Up to July) 20-30% of critical care beds were for COVID, of which 75% are unvaxxed.
    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1467257888351698946?s=20

    Saw this earlier. Why only date up to July FFS? It’s December? A cynic would suggest the latest data is less skewed to the unvaccinated. It could just be the data is not available, but if so, why not. We are drowning in data.
    I think it is actually think it might be a typo (or just sloppy) by the Times, as there is data for this from July onwards, which they reported last week which says basically the same...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/intensive-care-beds-filled-with-unvaccinated-covid-patients-9m0qbx03h
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    BigRich said:

    Barry Sheerman (Labour, MP for Huddersfield since 1979 GE) has announced earlier this evening that he will stand down at next GE.
    He is the third Labour MP to announce retirement.
    The other 2 are Margaret Hodge (Barking) and Alex Cunningham (Stockton North).

    Labour NEC has recently agreed the timeframe of reselection trigger ballots (which are expected to finish by June 2022). So expect some more announcements by the end of the year from those not wanting to go through the reselection process.

    I assume by re-selection, that's selection to the new constituency's? or is it reselection to the existing ones, that will then be adjusted when the new ones are confirmed?

    Sorry this is a bit pedantic but asking anyway?
    They dediced to go through trigger ballote on existing CLPs structure and adjust later when necessary.
    https://labourlist.org/2021/11/exclusive-labour-plans-to-hold-mp-trigger-ballots-from-november-to-june/

    The new trigger ballot procedure is
    50%+1 of branches needed for sitting MPs to be automatically reselected without opening the process to new applications.
    A sort of electoral college will be used with ward branches and affiliates branches will weight 50% each in the final tally,

    Corbyn raised the threshold for sitting MPs to 2/3 of ward branches and 2/3 of affiliates. Before it was 50.1% of branches with each wards and affiliates counting as one (so some MPs could affiliate dozen of union branches voting in their favour and out-numbering the ward branches).
    Good to see you posting again, Andrea. What do you make of the Italian political situation?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    There's no way Labour will win again. Thatcher is too popular and Labour is split between hard-left and centrist. There's no way the Tories will ever form a government. Blair and Brown are too popular. The Right are completely split anyway over Europe. A new anti-EU party will ensure they are never elected. Labour will never win again as the Left are being 'left' behind, meaning Labour are only just ahead in the polls. Nothing can change in the next few years until the next election. Yeah?

    Lib Dems will disappear as it's been over 5 years since they were in government. FIVE YEARS! Can anyone remember where they were even living then?!??

    Starmer not visiting Shropshire is no mistake. A subtle LD-Labour agreement, a la Blair/Ashdown will emerge. I predict a hung parliament with Brown's offer of instant PR imposed, ensuring the Tories will never win again (see above).

    They can go swivel with any instant change to the voting system. AV set the bar a constitutional change like that has to goto a referendum and it will get voted down. The voting system does not belong to parties or to parliament it belongs to us the people and if you want to change it you damn well better ask us if it is ok!
    It was already offered by Brown without a referendum. Precedes AV. Unless the Supreme Court strikes it down (can't see why), a majority in the HoC, especially if it confers with manifestos (currently favoured by Green, LD, SNP and PC - was also favoured by Ukip), is entirely in line with the FPTP style of government. The ultimate in irony.
    Don't care what brown offered, the av referendum sets a precedent. The voting system belongs to us not for parties to change because it gives them an advantage which is exactly what it is. You and your party only want to bring it in without referendum because you know where the electorate will tell you where to shove your preferred voting system,
    I don't have a party. I'm a floating voter. Voted for multiple parties, based on what was best at the time. I'm confident though, a majority in parliament with PR in their manifestos would be unchallengeable, no matter what your preference. I also think PR would win. AV was struck down due to LD allying themselves with the Tories. Not because people liked minority rule.
    If you are confident it will win then no reason not to ask people before changing it if they are ok with it then is there. Clue I am confident it will be shot down by about the same margin as AV
    I doubt anyone will ask me to decide. Clue: I am also confident you are totally wrong. Leaving aside the Don't Knows, there's a clear majority: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-we-change-our-current-british-voting-system
    Which will change the moment campaigning starts and people realise it will mean a lot of labour led governments
    And permanent coalitions.
    Which will almost always include the SNP. Yeah campaign starts pr is dead in the water
    What's wrong with that? SNP MPs are MPs too.
    Didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I was merely noting that there is an antipathy to what many see as a party devoted to regional advantage being too big a part of governing
    You think the Conservative Party isn't devoted to regional advantage? Or the DUP? Both of which have or had rather a large part of governing of late. But only a gentle comment rather than wanting to start an argument. It's Saturday night, so night all.
    It's just most pronounced for the SNP given their numbers, and how they would only ever consider backing one of the two parties. An effective argument for the anti-PR side.
    It isn't just the SNP - the harsh reality is that no other party will work with the Tories. The absolute shafting of the DUP is not something that political opponents forget quickly.
    lol, as if they would have worked with the Tories before that.
    No, the SNP may not. My point is that NO party will work with the Tories, why pull out just the SNP?
    Because of the number of their MPs, as I mentioned before. With PR it is highly likely they will always be in coalition government with Labour.
    Another good anti pr argument is that in 2017 we would have ended up with a coalition headed by corbyn
    Another good anti FPTP argument is that we ended up with Boris leading a stonking majority despite a minority of the votes.
    Boris is abysmal, Corbyn would have been catastrophic....we ended up with the lesser of two evils

    Didn't vote for either. Worst possible choice for me. Both catastrophic IMO.
    There wasn't a single person in the whole of the UK who had a choice between fewer than 3 candidates.
    There's no such thing as "lesser of two evils" when you have three or more choices.
  • Thank you for the interesting replies and nice comments to the thread.

    IanB2 said:

    An interesting lead, but once you get to Philip admitting he’d take the other side of the 5/2 bet, it’s clear he doesn’t believe the case himself and is simply playing Devil’s advocate (as usual!).

    Just to address this specifically, I do believe that this could happen which is very different to saying it will happen.

    When I tipped Sunak for next PM I thought he was still a longshot [at that time] for next PM, but not a 250/1 longshot. Similarly here I think that this is possible, but not value at 5/2.

    If I were to estimate the odds of it happening I'd say 20% which is 4/1, hence why I'd be looking for 5/1 as that provides value.
    Excellent thread Philip TY 👍
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great thread.

    I think you absolutely could be right.

    I think there is only you me and Whispering Oracle gets it on here.

    Majority view seems to be that people like SKS and YC are attractive to voters.

    I think some Centrists are in for a shock

    The issue there is that Labour needs (to win) to BOTH (a) be attractive to 30% of voters (so they actually tun out) and (b) be not alarming to 40% of voters. That gives a decent chance of getting to 40 without the Tories getting even more. Corbyn got (a) but not (b). Starmer has (b) but not (a). It remains possible that he can get to (a) by 2023.
    I am an (a) and i will definitely be turning out


    To vote anyone but Starmer


    And by the way Corbyn got 40% in 2017 nearly all from (a) unfortunately there were plenty of (b)'s within Labour and even the PLP under Corbyn
    Corbyn also got some from Remainers in b in 2017 who wanted to stop a hard Brexit, they went LD in 2019 leaving him with the Labour socialist core of 32%
    Corbyn did not have a "socialist core" of 32%. Many voters who were repulsed by Johnson held their noses and voted Labour despite Corbyn. Had May or Cameron still been Con. leader that 32% would have been more like 23% or lower.
    No. voters who were repulsed by Johnson but despised Corbyn voted LD or SNP in 2019, not Labour.
    Why would I do that? The only way to unseat Alun Cairns was vote Labour.
    If you wanted neither Boris or Corbyn to become PM obviously you would vote neither Tory nor Labour in 2019.

    In 2019 the Labour vote was down 7.9% on 2017, the LD vote was up 4.2% on 2017 and the SNP vote was up 0.8% on 2017.

    The Tory vote was up 1.2% in 2019 on 2017, so more 2017 Labour voters went LD than Tory in 2019 because of Corbyn and in Scotland the SNP vote rose while the SCon vote fell on 2017
    Some would have voted Labour in an attempt to reduce Johnson's majority on the basis that a wings-clipped Johnson was optimal compared to what we now have.
    No, such Remain voters voted Labour in 2017 on the assumption Corbyn would at least oppose a hard Brexit effectively or even campaign for Remain in an EUref2.

    In 2019 they did not make that mistake again and most of them voted LD instead.

    2019's Labour vote was the Corbynite Labor hardcore, 2017 saw a Labour vote inflated by votes lent by diehard Remainers who went LD in 2019 and are now mostly back voting Starmer Labour (albeit with some Corbynites from 2019 now voting Geen)
    As I am neither the Corbynite hardcore nor a diehard Remainer my Labour vote must be something of an outlier then.

    You were a Leaver not a Remainer and almost always vote Labour so effectively you count as Corbynite hardcore, neither Tory or centrist LD Remainer.

    As you voted for Corbyn Labour in 2017 and 2019 you are certainly Corbynite hardcore
    You voted REMAIN in 2016. So you are not a real Tory.
    No, plenty of Tories voted Remain, including the leader of the Tory party at the time of the 2016 referendum.

    However like him I also accepted the result
    Given that most Tories voted Leave in 2016, you are still not a proper Tory.
    A proper Tory is someone who votes Tory at every general election.

    A Leaver who voted Labour in 2017 and Labour or Brexit Party in 2019 does not count as a proper Tory however
    I would just say that I am proud I am not a proper tory as it shows I can be persuaded by a good argument and am not just a blind follower

    As I said to my dear lady this morning if I lived in North Staffs I would vote Lib Dem s in protest against Paterson and Boris's unacceptable behaviour and attempts to rig the process
    Yes, well BigG we don't need to rehash my view that you are not a proper Tory, you are more One Nation Tory./LD/New Labour swing voter
    You do know that I actively supported the party and voted for it ever since 1965 and have only voted labour twice under Blair and have never voted lib dems

    However, as I said the other day I am pleased Boris is PM at present as he is the only person standing against the crescendo of lockdown demands from the broadcasters, so called medical experts, and the labour party

    The time will come when he is no longer PM and each day that seems to be getting closer

    He couldn't even remember the North Staffordshire candidates name yesterday for goodness sake
    You are still the closest thing we have to a genuine swing voter on here though BigG.

    Most PBers on here either voted Labour or LD or SNP in 2019 or voted Tory in 2019 as they always do, very few voted for Blair and have voted Tory since including for Boris in 2019 (Philip Thompson maybe the other exception but he is more libertarian than the average voter unlike you)
    I have voted conservative in elections since 1964 including 2019 so your theory is nonsense

    The only two I voted Blair was 1997 and 2001

    Given I doubt there is a single PBer who voted for Wilson, Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Tory since I think we can still safely say you are the closest thing we have to a PB swing voter having voted for Blair but for Boris in 2019
    I voted Labour in 1997, LD in 2001 and 2005, Tory in 2010, Labour in 2015, Tory in 2017 and 2019.
    Close but you only voted for Blair once and did not vote Tory in 2015, so still not quite as big a swing voter as BigG
    You talk utter rubbish

    Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and never Lib Dems
    The UK has been Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and 2005 in the last 40 years so you are still very much a swing voter
    I have been voting conservative since 1964, long before you were born
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great thread.

    I think you absolutely could be right.

    I think there is only you me and Whispering Oracle gets it on here.

    Majority view seems to be that people like SKS and YC are attractive to voters.

    I think some Centrists are in for a shock

    The issue there is that Labour needs (to win) to BOTH (a) be attractive to 30% of voters (so they actually tun out) and (b) be not alarming to 40% of voters. That gives a decent chance of getting to 40 without the Tories getting even more. Corbyn got (a) but not (b). Starmer has (b) but not (a). It remains possible that he can get to (a) by 2023.
    I am an (a) and i will definitely be turning out


    To vote anyone but Starmer


    And by the way Corbyn got 40% in 2017 nearly all from (a) unfortunately there were plenty of (b)'s within Labour and even the PLP under Corbyn
    Corbyn also got some from Remainers in b in 2017 who wanted to stop a hard Brexit, they went LD in 2019 leaving him with the Labour socialist core of 32%
    Corbyn did not have a "socialist core" of 32%. Many voters who were repulsed by Johnson held their noses and voted Labour despite Corbyn. Had May or Cameron still been Con. leader that 32% would have been more like 23% or lower.
    No. voters who were repulsed by Johnson but despised Corbyn voted LD or SNP in 2019, not Labour.
    Why would I do that? The only way to unseat Alun Cairns was vote Labour.
    If you wanted neither Boris or Corbyn to become PM obviously you would vote neither Tory nor Labour in 2019.

    In 2019 the Labour vote was down 7.9% on 2017, the LD vote was up 4.2% on 2017 and the SNP vote was up 0.8% on 2017.

    The Tory vote was up 1.2% in 2019 on 2017, so more 2017 Labour voters went LD than Tory in 2019 because of Corbyn and in Scotland the SNP vote rose while the SCon vote fell on 2017
    Some would have voted Labour in an attempt to reduce Johnson's majority on the basis that a wings-clipped Johnson was optimal compared to what we now have.
    No, such Remain voters voted Labour in 2017 on the assumption Corbyn would at least oppose a hard Brexit effectively or even campaign for Remain in an EUref2.

    In 2019 they did not make that mistake again and most of them voted LD instead.

    2019's Labour vote was the Corbynite Labor hardcore, 2017 saw a Labour vote inflated by votes lent by diehard Remainers who went LD in 2019 and are now mostly back voting Starmer Labour (albeit with some Corbynites from 2019 now voting Geen)
    As I am neither the Corbynite hardcore nor a diehard Remainer my Labour vote must be something of an outlier then.

    You were a Leaver not a Remainer and almost always vote Labour so effectively you count as Corbynite hardcore, neither Tory or centrist LD Remainer.

    As you voted for Corbyn Labour in 2017 and 2019 you are certainly Corbynite hardcore
    You voted REMAIN in 2016. So you are not a real Tory.
    No, plenty of Tories voted Remain, including the leader of the Tory party at the time of the 2016 referendum.

    However like him I also accepted the result
    Given that most Tories voted Leave in 2016, you are still not a proper Tory.
    A proper Tory is someone who votes Tory at every general election.

    A Leaver who voted Labour in 2017 and Labour or Brexit Party in 2019 does not count as a proper Tory however
    I would just say that I am proud I am not a proper tory as it shows I can be persuaded by a good argument and am not just a blind follower

    As I said to my dear lady this morning if I lived in North Staffs I would vote Lib Dem s in protest against Paterson and Boris's unacceptable behaviour and attempts to rig the process
    Yes, well BigG we don't need to rehash my view that you are not a proper Tory, you are more One Nation Tory./LD/New Labour swing voter
    You do know that I actively supported the party and voted for it ever since 1965 and have only voted labour twice under Blair and have never voted lib dems

    However, as I said the other day I am pleased Boris is PM at present as he is the only person standing against the crescendo of lockdown demands from the broadcasters, so called medical experts, and the labour party

    The time will come when he is no longer PM and each day that seems to be getting closer

    He couldn't even remember the North Staffordshire candidates name yesterday for goodness sake
    You are still the closest thing we have to a genuine swing voter on here though BigG.

    Most PBers on here either voted Labour or LD or SNP in 2019 or voted Tory in 2019 as they always do, very few voted for Blair and have voted Tory since including for Boris in 2019 (Philip Thompson maybe the other exception but he is more libertarian than the average voter unlike you)
    I have voted conservative in elections since 1964 including 2019 so your theory is nonsense

    The only two I voted Blair was 1997 and 2001

    Given I doubt there is a single PBer who voted for Wilson, Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Tory since I think we can still safely say you are the closest thing we have to a PB swing voter having voted for Blair but for Boris in 2019
    I voted Labour in 1997, LD in 2001 and 2005, Tory in 2010, Labour in 2015, Tory in 2017 and 2019.
    Close but you only voted for Blair once and did not vote Tory in 2015, so still not quite as big a swing voter as BigG
    You talk utter rubbish

    Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and never Lib Dems
    The UK has been Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and 2005 in the last 40 years so you are still very much a swing voter
    I have been voting conservative since 1964, long before you were born
    You also voted for New Labour twice after I was born
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great thread.

    I think you absolutely could be right.

    I think there is only you me and Whispering Oracle gets it on here.

    Majority view seems to be that people like SKS and YC are attractive to voters.

    I think some Centrists are in for a shock

    The issue there is that Labour needs (to win) to BOTH (a) be attractive to 30% of voters (so they actually tun out) and (b) be not alarming to 40% of voters. That gives a decent chance of getting to 40 without the Tories getting even more. Corbyn got (a) but not (b). Starmer has (b) but not (a). It remains possible that he can get to (a) by 2023.
    I am an (a) and i will definitely be turning out


    To vote anyone but Starmer


    And by the way Corbyn got 40% in 2017 nearly all from (a) unfortunately there were plenty of (b)'s within Labour and even the PLP under Corbyn
    Corbyn also got some from Remainers in b in 2017 who wanted to stop a hard Brexit, they went LD in 2019 leaving him with the Labour socialist core of 32%
    Corbyn did not have a "socialist core" of 32%. Many voters who were repulsed by Johnson held their noses and voted Labour despite Corbyn. Had May or Cameron still been Con. leader that 32% would have been more like 23% or lower.
    No. voters who were repulsed by Johnson but despised Corbyn voted LD or SNP in 2019, not Labour.
    Why would I do that? The only way to unseat Alun Cairns was vote Labour.
    If you wanted neither Boris or Corbyn to become PM obviously you would vote neither Tory nor Labour in 2019.

    In 2019 the Labour vote was down 7.9% on 2017, the LD vote was up 4.2% on 2017 and the SNP vote was up 0.8% on 2017.

    The Tory vote was up 1.2% in 2019 on 2017, so more 2017 Labour voters went LD than Tory in 2019 because of Corbyn and in Scotland the SNP vote rose while the SCon vote fell on 2017
    Some would have voted Labour in an attempt to reduce Johnson's majority on the basis that a wings-clipped Johnson was optimal compared to what we now have.
    No, such Remain voters voted Labour in 2017 on the assumption Corbyn would at least oppose a hard Brexit effectively or even campaign for Remain in an EUref2.

    In 2019 they did not make that mistake again and most of them voted LD instead.

    2019's Labour vote was the Corbynite Labor hardcore, 2017 saw a Labour vote inflated by votes lent by diehard Remainers who went LD in 2019 and are now mostly back voting Starmer Labour (albeit with some Corbynites from 2019 now voting Geen)
    As I am neither the Corbynite hardcore nor a diehard Remainer my Labour vote must be something of an outlier then.

    You were a Leaver not a Remainer and almost always vote Labour so effectively you count as Corbynite hardcore, neither Tory or centrist LD Remainer.

    As you voted for Corbyn Labour in 2017 and 2019 you are certainly Corbynite hardcore
    You voted REMAIN in 2016. So you are not a real Tory.
    No, plenty of Tories voted Remain, including the leader of the Tory party at the time of the 2016 referendum.

    However like him I also accepted the result
    Given that most Tories voted Leave in 2016, you are still not a proper Tory.
    A proper Tory is someone who votes Tory at every general election.

    A Leaver who voted Labour in 2017 and Labour or Brexit Party in 2019 does not count as a proper Tory however
    I would just say that I am proud I am not a proper tory as it shows I can be persuaded by a good argument and am not just a blind follower

    As I said to my dear lady this morning if I lived in North Staffs I would vote Lib Dem s in protest against Paterson and Boris's unacceptable behaviour and attempts to rig the process
    Yes, well BigG we don't need to rehash my view that you are not a proper Tory, you are more One Nation Tory./LD/New Labour swing voter
    You do know that I actively supported the party and voted for it ever since 1965 and have only voted labour twice under Blair and have never voted lib dems

    However, as I said the other day I am pleased Boris is PM at present as he is the only person standing against the crescendo of lockdown demands from the broadcasters, so called medical experts, and the labour party

    The time will come when he is no longer PM and each day that seems to be getting closer

    He couldn't even remember the North Staffordshire candidates name yesterday for goodness sake
    You are still the closest thing we have to a genuine swing voter on here though BigG.

    Most PBers on here either voted Labour or LD or SNP in 2019 or voted Tory in 2019 as they always do, very few voted for Blair and have voted Tory since including for Boris in 2019 (Philip Thompson maybe the other exception but he is more libertarian than the average voter unlike you)
    I have voted conservative in elections since 1964 including 2019 so your theory is nonsense

    The only two I voted Blair was 1997 and 2001

    Given I doubt there is a single PBer who voted for Wilson, Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Tory since I think we can still safely say you are the closest thing we have to a PB swing voter having voted for Blair but for Boris in 2019
    I voted Labour in 1997, LD in 2001 and 2005, Tory in 2010, Labour in 2015, Tory in 2017 and 2019.
    Close but you only voted for Blair once and did not vote Tory in 2015, so still not quite as big a swing voter as BigG
    You talk utter rubbish

    Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and never Lib Dems
    The UK has been Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and 2005 in the last 40 years so you are still very much a swing voter
    I have been voting conservative since 1964, long before you were born
    You also voted for New Labour twice after I was born
    So what - conversation over
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2021
    CNN fires Chris Cuomo effective immediately

    https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1467258845646962690?s=20
  • CNN fires Chris Cuomo effective immediately

    https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1467258845646962690?s=20

    To think his brother was being tipped by some as a potential Presidential nominee. Not been a good year for the Cuomo brothers.


  • Good to see you posting again, Andrea. What do you make of the Italian political situation?


    Hi Nick.

    Fluid as ever...in January MPs have to elect the new president of the republic. Lots of backdoor deals to be made! On that outcome it will also depend if the current governmetn makes the end of the 2022 or if we will have a GE in late spring/early summer. June 2023 is the natural end of this legislature.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    BigRich said:

    Barry Sheerman (Labour, MP for Huddersfield since 1979 GE) has announced earlier this evening that he will stand down at next GE.
    He is the third Labour MP to announce retirement.
    The other 2 are Margaret Hodge (Barking) and Alex Cunningham (Stockton North).

    Labour NEC has recently agreed the timeframe of reselection trigger ballots (which are expected to finish by June 2022). So expect some more announcements by the end of the year from those not wanting to go through the reselection process.

    I assume by re-selection, that's selection to the new constituency's? or is it reselection to the existing ones, that will then be adjusted when the new ones are confirmed?

    Sorry this is a bit pedantic but asking anyway?
    They dediced to go through trigger ballote on existing CLPs structure and adjust later when necessary.
    https://labourlist.org/2021/11/exclusive-labour-plans-to-hold-mp-trigger-ballots-from-november-to-june/

    The new trigger ballot procedure is
    50%+1 of branches needed for sitting MPs to be automatically reselected without opening the process to new applications.
    A sort of electoral college will be used with ward branches and affiliates branches will weight 50% each in the final tally,

    Corbyn raised the threshold for sitting MPs to 2/3 of ward branches and 2/3 of affiliates. Before it was 50.1% of branches with each wards and affiliates counting as one (so some MPs could affiliate dozen of union branches voting in their favour and out-numbering the ward branches).
    Thanks :)

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2021

    CNN fires Chris Cuomo effective immediately

    https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1467258845646962690?s=20

    To think his brother was being tipped by some as a potential Presidential nominee. Not been a good year for the Cuomo brothers.
    I bet their Christmas family lunch will be bag of laughs.

    I didn't realise that Chris Cuomo also faked his supposed COVID isolation. He made this big thing of being COVID positive and locking himself in the basement, Zoom-ing into CNN to tell them what it was like being locked in down there, and then finally emerging after his quarantine like a hero. Apparently, he was actually caught out and about in public during that time.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    CNN fires Chris Cuomo effective immediately

    https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1467258845646962690?s=20

    what a difference 18 months makes, back then they were being treated as if they could do no wrong.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    "Even if Omicron turns out to be a false alarm and not as deadly as some worry it might be, the episode should give us pause. It is a good thing that our reaction time has been reduced, but that also means we are sinking deeper into a new reality created by the pandemic. A return to normal, to the old world before Covid-19, looks increasingly elusive. There will be new scares and new aggressive responses, each prompting us to be increasingly alert in the future."

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/12/how-the-virus-struck-back
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    CNN fires Chris Cuomo effective immediately

    https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1467258845646962690?s=20

    To think his brother was being tipped by some as a potential Presidential nominee. Not been a good year for the Cuomo brothers.
    I bet their Christmas family lunch will be bag of laughs.

    I didn't realise that Chris Cuomo also faked his supposed COVID isolation. He made this big thing of being COVID positive and locking himself in the basement, Zoom-ing into CNN to tell them what it was like being locked in down there, and then finally emerging after his quarantine like a hero. Apparently, he was actually caught out and about in public during that time.
    I never read about him facing lockdown, what a ..........
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2021
    BigRich said:

    CNN fires Chris Cuomo effective immediately

    https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1467258845646962690?s=20

    what a difference 18 months makes, back then they were being treated as if they could do no wrong.
    Of course not only did he get handsy with staffers, he also wasn't anywhere near as effective at handling COVID as the likes of CNN pumpers made out e.g there is all the issues of care home deaths.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great thread.

    I think you absolutely could be right.

    I think there is only you me and Whispering Oracle gets it on here.

    Majority view seems to be that people like SKS and YC are attractive to voters.

    I think some Centrists are in for a shock

    The issue there is that Labour needs (to win) to BOTH (a) be attractive to 30% of voters (so they actually tun out) and (b) be not alarming to 40% of voters. That gives a decent chance of getting to 40 without the Tories getting even more. Corbyn got (a) but not (b). Starmer has (b) but not (a). It remains possible that he can get to (a) by 2023.
    I am an (a) and i will definitely be turning out


    To vote anyone but Starmer


    And by the way Corbyn got 40% in 2017 nearly all from (a) unfortunately there were plenty of (b)'s within Labour and even the PLP under Corbyn
    Corbyn also got some from Remainers in b in 2017 who wanted to stop a hard Brexit, they went LD in 2019 leaving him with the Labour socialist core of 32%
    Corbyn did not have a "socialist core" of 32%. Many voters who were repulsed by Johnson held their noses and voted Labour despite Corbyn. Had May or Cameron still been Con. leader that 32% would have been more like 23% or lower.
    No. voters who were repulsed by Johnson but despised Corbyn voted LD or SNP in 2019, not Labour.
    Why would I do that? The only way to unseat Alun Cairns was vote Labour.
    If you wanted neither Boris or Corbyn to become PM obviously you would vote neither Tory nor Labour in 2019.

    In 2019 the Labour vote was down 7.9% on 2017, the LD vote was up 4.2% on 2017 and the SNP vote was up 0.8% on 2017.

    The Tory vote was up 1.2% in 2019 on 2017, so more 2017 Labour voters went LD than Tory in 2019 because of Corbyn and in Scotland the SNP vote rose while the SCon vote fell on 2017
    Some would have voted Labour in an attempt to reduce Johnson's majority on the basis that a wings-clipped Johnson was optimal compared to what we now have.
    No, such Remain voters voted Labour in 2017 on the assumption Corbyn would at least oppose a hard Brexit effectively or even campaign for Remain in an EUref2.

    In 2019 they did not make that mistake again and most of them voted LD instead.

    2019's Labour vote was the Corbynite Labor hardcore, 2017 saw a Labour vote inflated by votes lent by diehard Remainers who went LD in 2019 and are now mostly back voting Starmer Labour (albeit with some Corbynites from 2019 now voting Geen)
    As I am neither the Corbynite hardcore nor a diehard Remainer my Labour vote must be something of an outlier then.

    You were a Leaver not a Remainer and almost always vote Labour so effectively you count as Corbynite hardcore, neither Tory or centrist LD Remainer.

    As you voted for Corbyn Labour in 2017 and 2019 you are certainly Corbynite hardcore
    You voted REMAIN in 2016. So you are not a real Tory.
    No, plenty of Tories voted Remain, including the leader of the Tory party at the time of the 2016 referendum.

    However like him I also accepted the result
    Given that most Tories voted Leave in 2016, you are still not a proper Tory.
    A proper Tory is someone who votes Tory at every general election.

    A Leaver who voted Labour in 2017 and Labour or Brexit Party in 2019 does not count as a proper Tory however
    I would just say that I am proud I am not a proper tory as it shows I can be persuaded by a good argument and am not just a blind follower

    As I said to my dear lady this morning if I lived in North Staffs I would vote Lib Dem s in protest against Paterson and Boris's unacceptable behaviour and attempts to rig the process
    Yes, well BigG we don't need to rehash my view that you are not a proper Tory, you are more One Nation Tory./LD/New Labour swing voter
    You do know that I actively supported the party and voted for it ever since 1965 and have only voted labour twice under Blair and have never voted lib dems

    However, as I said the other day I am pleased Boris is PM at present as he is the only person standing against the crescendo of lockdown demands from the broadcasters, so called medical experts, and the labour party

    The time will come when he is no longer PM and each day that seems to be getting closer

    He couldn't even remember the North Staffordshire candidates name yesterday for goodness sake
    You are still the closest thing we have to a genuine swing voter on here though BigG.

    Most PBers on here either voted Labour or LD or SNP in 2019 or voted Tory in 2019 as they always do, very few voted for Blair and have voted Tory since including for Boris in 2019 (Philip Thompson maybe the other exception but he is more libertarian than the average voter unlike you)
    I have voted conservative in elections since 1964 including 2019 so your theory is nonsense

    The only two I voted Blair was 1997 and 2001

    Given I doubt there is a single PBer who voted for Wilson, Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Tory since I think we can still safely say you are the closest thing we have to a PB swing voter having voted for Blair but for Boris in 2019
    I voted Labour in 1997, LD in 2001 and 2005, Tory in 2010, Labour in 2015, Tory in 2017 and 2019.
    Close but you only voted for Blair once and did not vote Tory in 2015, so still not quite as big a swing voter as BigG
    You talk utter rubbish

    Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and never Lib Dems
    The UK has been Conservative every election but 1997 and 2001 and 2005 in the last 40 years so you are still very much a swing voter
    I have been voting conservative since 1964, long before you were born
    You also voted for New Labour twice after I was born
    I voted LAB in 1992 1997 and 2001. Always good to consider the options.

  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Farooq said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    There's no way Labour will win again. Thatcher is too popular and Labour is split between hard-left and centrist. There's no way the Tories will ever form a government. Blair and Brown are too popular. The Right are completely split anyway over Europe. A new anti-EU party will ensure they are never elected. Labour will never win again as the Left are being 'left' behind, meaning Labour are only just ahead in the polls. Nothing can change in the next few years until the next election. Yeah?

    Lib Dems will disappear as it's been over 5 years since they were in government. FIVE YEARS! Can anyone remember where they were even living then?!??

    Starmer not visiting Shropshire is no mistake. A subtle LD-Labour agreement, a la Blair/Ashdown will emerge. I predict a hung parliament with Brown's offer of instant PR imposed, ensuring the Tories will never win again (see above).

    They can go swivel with any instant change to the voting system. AV set the bar a constitutional change like that has to goto a referendum and it will get voted down. The voting system does not belong to parties or to parliament it belongs to us the people and if you want to change it you damn well better ask us if it is ok!
    It was already offered by Brown without a referendum. Precedes AV. Unless the Supreme Court strikes it down (can't see why), a majority in the HoC, especially if it confers with manifestos (currently favoured by Green, LD, SNP and PC - was also favoured by Ukip), is entirely in line with the FPTP style of government. The ultimate in irony.
    Don't care what brown offered, the av referendum sets a precedent. The voting system belongs to us not for parties to change because it gives them an advantage which is exactly what it is. You and your party only want to bring it in without referendum because you know where the electorate will tell you where to shove your preferred voting system,
    I don't have a party. I'm a floating voter. Voted for multiple parties, based on what was best at the time. I'm confident though, a majority in parliament with PR in their manifestos would be unchallengeable, no matter what your preference. I also think PR would win. AV was struck down due to LD allying themselves with the Tories. Not because people liked minority rule.
    If you are confident it will win then no reason not to ask people before changing it if they are ok with it then is there. Clue I am confident it will be shot down by about the same margin as AV
    I doubt anyone will ask me to decide. Clue: I am also confident you are totally wrong. Leaving aside the Don't Knows, there's a clear majority: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-we-change-our-current-british-voting-system
    Which will change the moment campaigning starts and people realise it will mean a lot of labour led governments
    And permanent coalitions.
    Which will almost always include the SNP. Yeah campaign starts pr is dead in the water
    What's wrong with that? SNP MPs are MPs too.
    Didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I was merely noting that there is an antipathy to what many see as a party devoted to regional advantage being too big a part of governing
    You think the Conservative Party isn't devoted to regional advantage? Or the DUP? Both of which have or had rather a large part of governing of late. But only a gentle comment rather than wanting to start an argument. It's Saturday night, so night all.
    It's just most pronounced for the SNP given their numbers, and how they would only ever consider backing one of the two parties. An effective argument for the anti-PR side.
    It isn't just the SNP - the harsh reality is that no other party will work with the Tories. The absolute shafting of the DUP is not something that political opponents forget quickly.
    lol, as if they would have worked with the Tories before that.
    No, the SNP may not. My point is that NO party will work with the Tories, why pull out just the SNP?
    Because of the number of their MPs, as I mentioned before. With PR it is highly likely they will always be in coalition government with Labour.
    Another good anti pr argument is that in 2017 we would have ended up with a coalition headed by corbyn
    Another good anti FPTP argument is that we ended up with Boris leading a stonking majority despite a minority of the votes.
    Boris is abysmal, Corbyn would have been catastrophic....we ended up with the lesser of two evils

    Didn't vote for either. Worst possible choice for me. Both catastrophic IMO.
    There wasn't a single person in the whole of the UK who had a choice between fewer than 3 candidates.
    There's no such thing as "lesser of two evils" when you have three or more choices.
    I only had three and if it had been a choice between lib dem and corbyn only I would vote corybn

  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    Andy_JS said:

    "Even if Omicron turns out to be a false alarm and not as deadly as some worry it might be, the episode should give us pause. It is a good thing that our reaction time has been reduced, but that also means we are sinking deeper into a new reality created by the pandemic. A return to normal, to the old world before Covid-19, looks increasingly elusive. There will be new scares and new aggressive responses, each prompting us to be increasingly alert in the future."

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/12/how-the-virus-struck-back

    Or we just grow up, put a bit more resources in to healthcare, and medical research. and then get on with our lives,
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    RobD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Starry said:

    There's no way Labour will win again. Thatcher is too popular and Labour is split between hard-left and centrist. There's no way the Tories will ever form a government. Blair and Brown are too popular. The Right are completely split anyway over Europe. A new anti-EU party will ensure they are never elected. Labour will never win again as the Left are being 'left' behind, meaning Labour are only just ahead in the polls. Nothing can change in the next few years until the next election. Yeah?

    Lib Dems will disappear as it's been over 5 years since they were in government. FIVE YEARS! Can anyone remember where they were even living then?!??

    Starmer not visiting Shropshire is no mistake. A subtle LD-Labour agreement, a la Blair/Ashdown will emerge. I predict a hung parliament with Brown's offer of instant PR imposed, ensuring the Tories will never win again (see above).

    They can go swivel with any instant change to the voting system. AV set the bar a constitutional change like that has to goto a referendum and it will get voted down. The voting system does not belong to parties or to parliament it belongs to us the people and if you want to change it you damn well better ask us if it is ok!
    It was already offered by Brown without a referendum. Precedes AV. Unless the Supreme Court strikes it down (can't see why), a majority in the HoC, especially if it confers with manifestos (currently favoured by Green, LD, SNP and PC - was also favoured by Ukip), is entirely in line with the FPTP style of government. The ultimate in irony.
    Don't care what brown offered, the av referendum sets a precedent. The voting system belongs to us not for parties to change because it gives them an advantage which is exactly what it is. You and your party only want to bring it in without referendum because you know where the electorate will tell you where to shove your preferred voting system,
    I don't have a party. I'm a floating voter. Voted for multiple parties, based on what was best at the time. I'm confident though, a majority in parliament with PR in their manifestos would be unchallengeable, no matter what your preference. I also think PR would win. AV was struck down due to LD allying themselves with the Tories. Not because people liked minority rule.
    If you are confident it will win then no reason not to ask people before changing it if they are ok with it then is there. Clue I am confident it will be shot down by about the same margin as AV
    I doubt anyone will ask me to decide. Clue: I am also confident you are totally wrong. Leaving aside the Don't Knows, there's a clear majority: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-we-change-our-current-british-voting-system
    Which will change the moment campaigning starts and people realise it will mean a lot of labour led governments
    And permanent coalitions.
    Which will almost always include the SNP. Yeah campaign starts pr is dead in the water
    What's wrong with that? SNP MPs are MPs too.
    Didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I was merely noting that there is an antipathy to what many see as a party devoted to regional advantage being too big a part of governing
    You think the Conservative Party isn't devoted to regional advantage? Or the DUP? Both of which have or had rather a large part of governing of late. But only a gentle comment rather than wanting to start an argument. It's Saturday night, so night all.
    It's just most pronounced for the SNP given their numbers, and how they would only ever consider backing one of the two parties. An effective argument for the anti-PR side.
    It isn't just the SNP - the harsh reality is that no other party will work with the Tories. The absolute shafting of the DUP is not something that political opponents forget quickly.
    lol, as if they would have worked with the Tories before that.
    No, the SNP may not. My point is that NO party will work with the Tories, why pull out just the SNP?
    Because of the number of their MPs, as I mentioned before. With PR it is highly likely they will always be in coalition government with Labour.
    Another good anti pr argument is that in 2017 we would have ended up with a coalition headed by corbyn
    Another good anti FPTP argument is that we ended up with Boris leading a stonking majority despite a minority of the votes.
    Boris is abysmal, Corbyn would have been catastrophic....we ended up with the lesser of two evils

    Didn't vote for either. Worst possible choice for me. Both catastrophic IMO.
    There wasn't a single person in the whole of the UK who had a choice between fewer than 3 candidates.
    There's no such thing as "lesser of two evils" when you have three or more choices.
    I only had three and if it had been a choice between lib dem and corbyn only I would vote corybn

    That's fair enough, I'm just trying to remind people that it's not just two parties on the ballot. I voted for a no-hoper party in my constituency and I feel very satisfied that I supported neither Corbyn nor Boris. Everyone else had at least that choice. Whether the third/fourth/twelfth party on your ballot is any better, that's another question.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    BigRich said:

    CNN fires Chris Cuomo effective immediately

    https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1467258845646962690?s=20

    what a difference 18 months makes, back then they were being treated as if they could do no wrong.
    Of course not only did he get handsy with staffers, he also wasn't anywhere near as effective at handling COVID as the likes of CNN pumpers made out e.g there is all the issues of care home deaths.
    This is seriously impressive from CNN.

    It is very difficult for organizations to do this.

    Remember, the BBC took decades to admit Bashir had been a wrong un.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719



    Good to see you posting again, Andrea. What do you make of the Italian political situation?


    Hi Nick.

    Fluid as ever...in January MPs have to elect the new president of the republic. Lots of backdoor deals to be made! On that outcome it will also depend if the current governmetn makes the end of the 2022 or if we will have a GE in late spring/early summer. June 2023 is the natural end of this legislature.
    Brothers of Italy ahead in the latest Italian poll, just ahead of PD with Lega third
    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1467270491639586821?s=20
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2021

    BigRich said:

    CNN fires Chris Cuomo effective immediately

    https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1467258845646962690?s=20

    what a difference 18 months makes, back then they were being treated as if they could do no wrong.
    Of course not only did he get handsy with staffers, he also wasn't anywhere near as effective at handling COVID as the likes of CNN pumpers made out e.g there is all the issues of care home deaths.
    This is seriously impressive from CNN.

    It is very difficult for organizations to do this.

    Remember, the BBC took decades to admit Bashir had been a wrong un.
    Is it? He has been caught red handed, with the "receipts" having been made public. Although, they didn't sack wanky man, he is back on air for them, and Dom Lemon isn't suspended despite the sexual assault claims against him.

    Although their ratings have been tanking since Orange Man Bad has gone away, so perhaps its also a convenient opportunity to replace the airhead Cuomo with somebody better.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    Andy_JS said:

    Barry Sheerman (Labour, MP for Huddersfield since 1979 GE) has announced earlier this evening that he will stand down at next GE.
    He is the third Labour MP to announce retirement.
    The other 2 are Margaret Hodge (Barking) and Alex Cunningham (Stockton North).

    Labour NEC has recently agreed the timeframe of reselection trigger ballots (which are expected to finish by June 2022). So expect some more announcements by the end of the year from those not wanting to go through the reselection process.

    2 of those 3 are in so-called Red Wall areas.
    How Red Wall is Barking?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    BigRich said:

    CNN fires Chris Cuomo effective immediately

    https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1467258845646962690?s=20

    what a difference 18 months makes, back then they were being treated as if they could do no wrong.
    Of course not only did he get handsy with staffers, he also wasn't anywhere near as effective at handling COVID as the likes of CNN pumpers made out e.g there is all the issues of care home deaths.
    he was rubish at the COVID thing,

    New York is still the 6th sort state in the nation for deaths per million.

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    in the very early days, he was repeatedly saying COVID is under control still come to New York, act as normal, its just racist propaganda. which led to a much more dramatic early serge than there would otherwise have been in New York.

    Then when he went in to proper panic mode, his insistence that people who where still ill with COVID go back to care homes, crated the big outbreaks in them that that created a lot of deaths. and he would not change cores on this policy, because he did not what to look week even as it killed many.

    Then he got cariad away by the press conferences, and writing his book,

    then when he could have started opening up he did not leading to bigger winter waves,

    I could go on, I'm glad he is gone but it should have been for his miss Manament as well as the other stuff.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited December 2021

    BigRich said:

    CNN fires Chris Cuomo effective immediately

    https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1467258845646962690?s=20

    what a difference 18 months makes, back then they were being treated as if they could do no wrong.
    Of course not only did he get handsy with staffers, he also wasn't anywhere near as effective at handling COVID as the likes of CNN pumpers made out e.g there is all the issues of care home deaths.
    This is seriously impressive from CNN.

    It is very difficult for organizations to do this.

    Remember, the BBC took decades to admit Bashir had been a wrong un.
    Is it? He has been caught red handed, with the "receipts" have been made public.
    So?

    It is much more common for an organisation to stick with their own and say:

    "Chris has made mistakes. He understands what he did was wrong. He was under a lot of stress because of the situation with his brother. Chris is feeling really bad he has let everyone down .... Blah, blah, blah ... Blah, blah, blah. After a short break, Chris will be returning to us to lead his world-beating show ... Blah, blah, blah"

    This is preferably accompanied by a tear-stained Chris giving a live broadcast and publicly apologising for letting myself down, letting the team down, letting CNN down, letting everyone down.

    Then it is back to normal (for details, see any British scandal over the last 20 years).
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 755
    Wait....are we all pretending that he wasn't strung out on Class A's during the Peppa Pig monologue?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great thread.

    I think you absolutely could be right.

    I think there is only you me and Whispering Oracle gets it on here.

    Majority view seems to be that people like SKS and YC are attractive to voters.

    I think some Centrists are in for a shock

    The issue there is that Labour needs (to win) to BOTH (a) be attractive to 30% of voters (so they actually tun out) and (b) be not alarming to 40% of voters. That gives a decent chance of getting to 40 without the Tories getting even more. Corbyn got (a) but not (b). Starmer has (b) but not (a). It remains possible that he can get to (a) by 2023.
    I am an (a) and i will definitely be turning out


    To vote anyone but Starmer


    And by the way Corbyn got 40% in 2017 nearly all from (a) unfortunately there were plenty of (b)'s within Labour and even the PLP under Corbyn
    Corbyn also got some from Remainers in b in 2017 who wanted to stop a hard Brexit, they went LD in 2019 leaving him with the Labour socialist core of 32%
    Corbyn did not have a "socialist core" of 32%. Many voters who were repulsed by Johnson held their noses and voted Labour despite Corbyn. Had May or Cameron still been Con. leader that 32% would have been more like 23% or lower.
    No. voters who were repulsed by Johnson but despised Corbyn voted LD or SNP in 2019, not Labour.
    Why would I do that? The only way to unseat Alun Cairns was vote Labour.
    If you wanted neither Boris or Corbyn to become PM obviously you would vote neither Tory nor Labour in 2019.

    In 2019 the Labour vote was down 7.9% on 2017, the LD vote was up 4.2% on 2017 and the SNP vote was up 0.8% on 2017.

    The Tory vote was up 1.2% in 2019 on 2017, so more 2017 Labour voters went LD than Tory in 2019 because of Corbyn and in Scotland the SNP vote rose while the SCon vote fell on 2017
    Some would have voted Labour in an attempt to reduce Johnson's majority on the basis that a wings-clipped Johnson was optimal compared to what we now have.
    No, such Remain voters voted Labour in 2017 on the assumption Corbyn would at least oppose a hard Brexit effectively or even campaign for Remain in an EUref2.

    In 2019 they did not make that mistake again and most of them voted LD instead.

    2019's Labour vote was the Corbynite Labor hardcore, 2017 saw a Labour vote inflated by votes lent by diehard Remainers who went LD in 2019 and are now mostly back voting Starmer Labour (albeit with some Corbynites from 2019 now voting Geen)
    As I am neither the Corbynite hardcore nor a diehard Remainer my Labour vote must be something of an outlier then.

    You were a Leaver not a Remainer and almost always vote Labour so effectively you count as Corbynite hardcore, neither Tory or centrist LD Remainer.

    As you voted for Corbyn Labour in 2017 and 2019 you are certainly Corbynite hardcore
    You voted REMAIN in 2016. So you are not a real Tory.
    No, plenty of Tories voted Remain, including the leader of the Tory party at the time of the 2016 referendum.

    However like him I also accepted the result
    Given that most Tories voted Leave in 2016, you are still not a proper Tory.
    A proper Tory is someone who votes Tory at every general election.

    A Leaver who voted Labour in 2017 and Labour or Brexit Party in 2019 does not count as a proper Tory however
    I would just say that I am proud I am not a proper tory as it shows I can be persuaded by a good argument and am not just a blind follower

    As I said to my dear lady this morning if I lived in North Staffs I would vote Lib Dem s in protest against Paterson and Boris's unacceptable behaviour and attempts to rig the process
    Yes, well BigG we don't need to rehash my view that you are not a proper Tory, you are more One Nation Tory./LD/New Labour swing voter
    You do know that I actively supported the party and voted for it ever since 1965 and have only voted labour twice under Blair and have never voted lib dems

    However, as I said the other day I am pleased Boris is PM at present as he is the only person standing against the crescendo of lockdown demands from the broadcasters, so called medical experts, and the labour party

    The time will come when he is no longer PM and each day that seems to be getting closer

    He couldn't even remember the North Staffordshire candidates name yesterday for goodness sake
    You are still the closest thing we have to a genuine swing voter on here though BigG.

    Most PBers on here either voted Labour or LD or SNP in 2019 or voted Tory in 2019 as they always do, very few voted for Blair and have voted Tory since including for Boris in 2019 (Philip Thompson maybe the other exception but he is more libertarian than the average voter unlike you)
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16941848/boris-johnson-drugs-crackdown-war/

    This is the sort of authoritarian nonsense that would get me voting Labour
    Most of the working class Redwall Tory 2019 voters however would support a hardline on drug dealers
    I like it when I agree with one of your posts.

    Lock the feckers up would be the prevailing view.
    Yebbut, who makes drug dealership a viable business?

    Seriously, I only do mushrooms these days where the entire supply chain is Mother Nature -> me. It is utterly irrational to demand life sentences with added torture for dealers, but regard consumers as slightly naughty but basically ultra cool fun lovers.
    I'd lock up the users too.

    Especially the likes of Toby Young who boast about it.

    The users are responsible for all of the death and mayhem in the supply chain. They need to face up to the consequences of their choices.
    Isn’t all/much of that a consequence of its prohibition? If you hate the consequences so much you should perhaps consider the cause.
  • So the poll showing Labour ahead once again and Starmer now leading on approval ratings + best PM means he must resign right?
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,397
    The number of government levels appropriate in a democracy is an interesting theoretical problem -- to which I have no definitive answer. (Those interested in such theoretical questions might want to look at Robert Dahl's work, especially his "Size and Democracy" (with Tufte)).

    But I have an example, which some might find amusing, and perhaps even instructive.

    When I lived in Illinois many years ago, the state had a provision that any government unit, no matter how large or small, could establish prohibition, could vote itself "dry" (or wet). And so, occasionally, a precinct would do just that. One precinct in Chicago was a single luxury building, and the tenants there were unhappy with their landlord.

    So they voted the precinct dry -- which was a serious handicap for the profitable restaurant owned by the landlord in the bottom floor of the building.

    And, about the same time, some black leaders on the poor south side of the city were tired of some sleazy taverns, and so they voted the precinct where they were located, dry.

    (You can find some more examples, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_precinct.)

    And I might add that, in some places in the US, home owners associations (HOAs) act very much like small, local governments.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    today’s been good. My other half now mixing cocktails and we are going to stay in and watch a film now. 🙋‍♀️

    Whilst I had to bin off tonight's beer and parmo with friends and instead come home, it has still been a good day in the circumstance. I had a bit of an adventure with my Outlander in a blizzard, and got to cuddle my little girl and tell her why me being home for her is more important than anything else.
    That’s a sweet thing to say 🙂
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    today’s been good. My other half now mixing cocktails and we are going to stay in and watch a film now. 🙋‍♀️

    Whilst I had to bin off tonight's beer and parmo with friends and instead come home, it has still been a good day in the circumstance. I had a bit of an adventure with my Outlander in a blizzard, and got to cuddle my little girl and tell her why me being home for her is more important than anything else.
    That’s a sweet thing to say 🙂
    btw the film friends lent us was rubbish, LIMBO an unfunny pastiche of immigrants in Scotland. I didn’t make it to the end, I feel fast asleep. I needed action.

    Nite. 🌜
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    edited December 2021
    Pro_Rata said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Barry Sheerman (Labour, MP for Huddersfield since 1979 GE) has announced earlier this evening that he will stand down at next GE.
    He is the third Labour MP to announce retirement.
    The other 2 are Margaret Hodge (Barking) and Alex Cunningham (Stockton North).

    Labour NEC has recently agreed the timeframe of reselection trigger ballots (which are expected to finish by June 2022). So expect some more announcements by the end of the year from those not wanting to go through the reselection process.

    2 of those 3 are in so-called Red Wall areas.
    How Red Wall is Barking?
    Not much, it's more like an inner-city London seat these days.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited December 2021
    Nigelb said:

    On the topic of minority government, the US faces a more intractable crisis than do we.

    https://fallows.substack.com/p/fools-drunks-and-the-united-states
    … Thus we have Democratic candidates for president winning the national vote in seven of the eight past elections—but appointing only three of the nine current members of the Supreme Court. Thus we have Senators representing less than one-third of the population blocking proposals supported by most of the public. Thus we have even worse failure-of-democracy structures in many state governments, for instance as laid out by political scientist David Pepper here. Thus we have the voting-restrictions and gerrymandering plans I needn’t detail but that we read about every day.

    “Majority rule” should not inherently be a partisan issue, though the Republican party obviously now benefits from this imbalance—and may coldly believe that minority rule is the party’s main hope. For the country, it’s a question of governing viability. Democracies depend in the long term on democratic processes. The U.S. system is now structurally so anti-democratic that it survives only with something like public-spiritedness of all parties.

    Which we can’t rely on…


    At least we have a constitution that can be amended. The evidence is that’s now impossible in the US.

    I think there's a limit to how far the tilt can go in that even the very partisan states do seem to do Supreme Court elections and ballot propositions, so if an individual state is wildly unrepresentative of its voters through gerrymandering, the voters can fix it by either making a ballot proposition that prevents the gerrymander or electing a Supreme Court that will throw out dodgy maps. Where this isn't happening and the GOP is hanging on to state through gerrymandering, it's because there isn't really a durable Dem majority in those states yet.

    What could easily happen in the US is that the power of states gets cemented and the presidential election norm gets thrown out, ie legislatures might start counting their electoral votes for their own party regardless of what the voters do in the presidential election. If the original constitutional design was "voters elect statehouses, statehouses choose congressmen and presidents, voters directly elect their senator", I think this would obviously look like a reasonably normal democracy. It'll be considered undemocratic if and when it happens because it's not what people *think* the system is, although what people think the system is isn't really the constitutional design either.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    Nigelb said:

    On the topic of minority government, the US faces a more intractable crisis than do we.

    https://fallows.substack.com/p/fools-drunks-and-the-united-states
    … Thus we have Democratic candidates for president winning the national vote in seven of the eight past elections—but appointing only three of the nine current members of the Supreme Court. Thus we have Senators representing less than one-third of the population blocking proposals supported by most of the public. Thus we have even worse failure-of-democracy structures in many state governments, for instance as laid out by political scientist David Pepper here. Thus we have the voting-restrictions and gerrymandering plans I needn’t detail but that we read about every day.

    “Majority rule” should not inherently be a partisan issue, though the Republican party obviously now benefits from this imbalance—and may coldly believe that minority rule is the party’s main hope. For the country, it’s a question of governing viability. Democracies depend in the long term on democratic processes. The U.S. system is now structurally so anti-democratic that it survives only with something like public-spiritedness of all parties.

    Which we can’t rely on…


    At least we have a constitution that can be amended. The evidence is that’s now impossible in the US.

    I think there's a limit to how far the tilt can go in that even the very partisan states do seem to do Supreme Court elections and ballot propositions, so if an individual state is wildly unrepresentative of its voters through gerrymandering, the voters can fix it by either making a ballot proposition that prevents the gerrymander or electing a Supreme Court that will throw out dodgy maps. Where this isn't happening and the GOP is hanging on to state through gerrymandering, it's because there isn't really a durable Dem majority in those states yet.

    What could easily happen in the US is that the power of states gets cemented and the presidential election norm gets thrown out, ie legislatures might start counting their electoral votes for their own party regardless of what the voters do in the presidential election. If the original constitutional design was "voters elect statehouses, statehouses choose congressmen and presidents, voters directly elect their senator", I think this would obviously look like a reasonably normal democracy. It'll be considered undemocratic if and when it happens because it's not what people *think* the system is, although what people think the system is isn't really the constitutional design either.
    But the statehouses are all gerrymandered. So not democratic at all.
  • Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the topic of minority government, the US faces a more intractable crisis than do we.

    https://fallows.substack.com/p/fools-drunks-and-the-united-states
    … Thus we have Democratic candidates for president winning the national vote in seven of the eight past elections—but appointing only three of the nine current members of the Supreme Court. Thus we have Senators representing less than one-third of the population blocking proposals supported by most of the public. Thus we have even worse failure-of-democracy structures in many state governments, for instance as laid out by political scientist David Pepper here. Thus we have the voting-restrictions and gerrymandering plans I needn’t detail but that we read about every day.

    “Majority rule” should not inherently be a partisan issue, though the Republican party obviously now benefits from this imbalance—and may coldly believe that minority rule is the party’s main hope. For the country, it’s a question of governing viability. Democracies depend in the long term on democratic processes. The U.S. system is now structurally so anti-democratic that it survives only with something like public-spiritedness of all parties.

    Which we can’t rely on…


    At least we have a constitution that can be amended. The evidence is that’s now impossible in the US.

    I think there's a limit to how far the tilt can go in that even the very partisan states do seem to do Supreme Court elections and ballot propositions, so if an individual state is wildly unrepresentative of its voters through gerrymandering, the voters can fix it by either making a ballot proposition that prevents the gerrymander or electing a Supreme Court that will throw out dodgy maps. Where this isn't happening and the GOP is hanging on to state through gerrymandering, it's because there isn't really a durable Dem majority in those states yet.

    What could easily happen in the US is that the power of states gets cemented and the presidential election norm gets thrown out, ie legislatures might start counting their electoral votes for their own party regardless of what the voters do in the presidential election. If the original constitutional design was "voters elect statehouses, statehouses choose congressmen and presidents, voters directly elect their senator", I think this would obviously look like a reasonably normal democracy. It'll be considered undemocratic if and when it happens because it's not what people *think* the system is, although what people think the system is isn't really the constitutional design either.
    But the statehouses are all gerrymandered. So not democratic at all.
    They're gerrymandered but there's a viable method to fix that in each individual state.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited December 2021
    To be clear, I'm not saying all the anti-majoritarian shenanigans are good, clearly they're outrageous. Just that they're not the end of US democracy, even if they're all successful.

    If you don't have a proportional voting system you have a shitty democracy distorted by various stupid random things, and often distorted on purpose. But it's still a democracy, and although it might not be totally representative, the voters will be able to fix it if it gets *too* unrepresentative.
  • Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    On the topic of minority government, the US faces a more intractable crisis than do we.

    https://fallows.substack.com/p/fools-drunks-and-the-united-states
    … Thus we have Democratic candidates for president winning the national vote in seven of the eight past elections—but appointing only three of the nine current members of the Supreme Court. Thus we have Senators representing less than one-third of the population blocking proposals supported by most of the public. Thus we have even worse failure-of-democracy structures in many state governments, for instance as laid out by political scientist David Pepper here. Thus we have the voting-restrictions and gerrymandering plans I needn’t detail but that we read about every day.

    “Majority rule” should not inherently be a partisan issue, though the Republican party obviously now benefits from this imbalance—and may coldly believe that minority rule is the party’s main hope. For the country, it’s a question of governing viability. Democracies depend in the long term on democratic processes. The U.S. system is now structurally so anti-democratic that it survives only with something like public-spiritedness of all parties.

    Which we can’t rely on…


    At least we have a constitution that can be amended. The evidence is that’s now impossible in the US.

    I think there's a limit to how far the tilt can go in that even the very partisan states do seem to do Supreme Court elections and ballot propositions, so if an individual state is wildly unrepresentative of its voters through gerrymandering, the voters can fix it by either making a ballot proposition that prevents the gerrymander or electing a Supreme Court that will throw out dodgy maps. Where this isn't happening and the GOP is hanging on to state through gerrymandering, it's because there isn't really a durable Dem majority in those states yet.

    What could easily happen in the US is that the power of states gets cemented and the presidential election norm gets thrown out, ie legislatures might start counting their electoral votes for their own party regardless of what the voters do in the presidential election. If the original constitutional design was "voters elect statehouses, statehouses choose congressmen and presidents, voters directly elect their senator", I think this would obviously look like a reasonably normal democracy. It'll be considered undemocratic if and when it happens because it's not what people *think* the system is, although what people think the system is isn't really the constitutional design either.
    But the statehouses are all gerrymandered. So not democratic at all.
    Re: redistricting, close to half the states now use some form of commission to redraw congressional and/or legislative boundaries. With some degree - often quite substantial - independence from state governors and legislators, and a tendency to encourage if not downright require consensus.

    So the notion that the process is totally gerrymandered in every state is NOT correct.

    Also rather typical of sweeping, categorical statements about the operation of federalism in the USA There are literally 50 (at least) ways of doing things such as redistricting. Ditto liquor laws, state taxes and ages of consent, to name several other areas of especial & personal interest to many PBers.

    Federalism has its strengths as well as its weaknesses. One is the ability for states to take different takes on similar issues and problems. If one state or a group of states looks to be getting good results, then others will start moving and changing in the same or similar directions.

    One famous example was Wisconsin in the 1890s and early 1900s under leadership of "Fighting Bob" Lafollette, which pioneered the voter initiative and referendum in the US, and instituted voter primaries to select party nominees as replacement for boss-dominated party conventions.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286

    To be clear, I'm not saying all the anti-majoritarian shenanigans are good, clearly they're outrageous. Just that they're not the end of US democracy, even if they're all successful.

    If you don't have a proportional voting system you have a shitty democracy distorted by various stupid random things, and often distorted on purpose. But it's still a democracy, and although it might not be totally representative, the voters will be able to fix it if it gets *too* unrepresentative.

    We're fortunate that here in the UK there's only been one occasion in the last 50 years when the party winning the popular vote hasn't won the most seats, and that only lasted for a few months in 1974.
  • Andy_JS said:

    To be clear, I'm not saying all the anti-majoritarian shenanigans are good, clearly they're outrageous. Just that they're not the end of US democracy, even if they're all successful.

    If you don't have a proportional voting system you have a shitty democracy distorted by various stupid random things, and often distorted on purpose. But it's still a democracy, and although it might not be totally representative, the voters will be able to fix it if it gets *too* unrepresentative.

    We're fortunate that here in the UK there's only been one occasion in the last 50 years when the party winning the popular vote hasn't won the most seats, and that only lasted for a few months in 1974.
    In terms of the two parties yes, but in terms of majority power going to a majority it's wrong nearly every time.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,397
    The United States Constitution was designed to, among other things, prevent majorities from oppressing minorities. (Federalist #10 by Madison explains the theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10.)

    In other words, the US Constitution has anti-democratic elements in order to protect the freedoms of minorities. Scholars are still arguing over whether the design works well in achieving that object, or even whether it should try to do so.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    Andy_JS said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Barry Sheerman (Labour, MP for Huddersfield since 1979 GE) has announced earlier this evening that he will stand down at next GE.
    He is the third Labour MP to announce retirement.
    The other 2 are Margaret Hodge (Barking) and Alex Cunningham (Stockton North).

    Labour NEC has recently agreed the timeframe of reselection trigger ballots (which are expected to finish by June 2022). So expect some more announcements by the end of the year from those not wanting to go through the reselection process.

    2 of those 3 are in so-called Red Wall areas.
    How Red Wall is Barking?
    Not much, it's more like an inner-city London seat these days.
    In which case, 'In the North' is not sufficient to equate to Red Wall either. Huddersfield is too fully mapped as urban, too diverse, somewhat studenty, not leavy enough (bang on the national 48.1 to 51.9 according to the main, was it Rawlings did that?, study). no long term trending to Tory. And proposed boundary changes get rid of one village, Kirkheaton which is a mix of red wall / trad Tory, and gain a quite Asian solidly Labour area of the town from Colne Valley.

    Near 12% Labour majority, will be a plum.land for whoever the Labour candidate is.

    On the other hand, Dewsbury, which would lose a lot of its rural hinterland and gains bona fide red wall areas from both Huddersfield and Batley and Spen - could switch back Labour, but will go from a traditional marginal seat with substantial well off rural areas to a very red wall looking seat.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    New Thread by the way :)
This discussion has been closed.