I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.
On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.
IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.
Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too
The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.
In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.
The safest Tory seats are less regional but generally rural, Leave voting seats (North Shropshire excepted, on that swing the Tories would have less than 10 MPs left).
On this poll however almost every London seat except those in Havering and Bexley and Orpington, most Tory city and large town seats in the South and London commuter belt and most of the RedWall would be at risk of falling to Starmer Labour or the LDs
North Shropshire is back to safe Con for the general, don't you think?
Even on tonight's poll with an 8% Labour lead nationally and the LDs on 13%, the Tories would regain North Shropshire at the general election yes
Was there ever (and I do mean ever) a poll on which the Tories would lose North Shropshire, prior to the Tories, you know, losing North Shropshire?
By election swings are far bigger than the national polls if the LDs are the challengers, general election swings however are much closer to the national polls
Taking that as a no.
You just have no idea of the tsunami coming your way in 202*, local farmer candidates or not.
In 1993 the LDs won Christchurch in a by election from the Tories on a huge 35.4% swing ie even bigger than the 34.2% swing the LDs won North Shropshire by last week.
However at the 1997 general election the Tories won back Christchurch from the LDs with a 4% majority despite a heavy Conservative defeat nationally.
As Pulpstar states North Shropshire is likely Christchurch 2 even if the LDs hold Chesham and Amersham
@JosiasJessop let me rephrase this in a way you may understand.
If "being in shit" is all you care about then having an unnecessary lockdown destroying livelihoods and damaging lives when it is unnecessary is "being in shit".
So the models showing that lockdowns are unnecessary should be shown, as otherwise you could end up in shit because that shit wasn't warned about.
I do understand it, thanks - it's you who is misunderstanding it.
I think I understand what you both are saying and as is often the case think somewhere in between is better.
I would have more sympathy with JJs position if it were a one off decision that had to be made by an informed decision maker without much outside pressure.
In reality the decision not to lockdown actually has to be made several times each week at the moment with a news cycle that hashes out leaked stats without nuance or even accuracy in a race for media attention, viewers and readers, ratcheting up pressure and fear.
Under those circumstances the public having access to partial models without the right guidance and information leads to an unhelpful bias for the politicians to lockdown.
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure for example) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
I have some sympathy with Labour on this.
What could be a short term win could leave them with long term damage. We have to concede that there are large tracts of the general population who are quite comfortable with the idea of more restrictions, particularly with the view that this will protect the NHS and the vulnerable (personally I think this is viewing things in a vacuum and not really factoring in the negatives of that approach, but let’s just pause that one for now).
Now say Labour vote against restrictions recommended by the government and that the government presents as being put forward by their scientific advisors. The restrictions do not come in. Cases spiral. The NHS creaks and stutters and in the worst case scenario falls over. The press have a field day.
Leaving aside the fact that backbench Tory MPs would have had a part to play in this too, can you imagine the capital that the government could make out of this?
It is far safer to say you did the ‘responsible’ thing.
Note that this isn’t my personal view on lockdown measures, but the politics of the situation.
Yes I understand that. "For the good of the nation..."
But you are still the Opposition and you need to oppose (unless you follow the @Benpointer school of Opposition). So say for the sake of the national interest we will support this bill on the condition that a finance bill is attached which will give [some reasonable number so no one thinks bad old Labour] to hospitality and affected areas.
Every news prog today has included an interview with someone from British hospitality saying they are already fucked and need help and would be super-fucked with more restrictions.
So Lab could tap into 2x populist desires - lockdown and money for those affected.
That would be presented as 'playing politics with people's lives'. Also give the govt a scapegoat for a failure to get it through. No, Starmer is playing the Covid politics spot on. He's trying to shift the apolitical floaters (oh yuck) of Middle England and the Red Wall and everywhere else sufficiently back to Labour to win the next GE. Supporting 'lockdown' (full or lite) may cost a handful of votes from passionate antilockdowners who won't forget or forgive but the net calculus works. He knows what he's doing.
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.
On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.
IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.
Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too
The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.
In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.
The safest Tory seats are less regional but generally rural, Leave voting seats (North Shropshire excepted, on that swing the Tories would have less than 10 MPs left).
On this poll however almost every London seat except those in Havering and Bexley and Orpington, most Tory city and large town seats in the South and London commuter belt and most of the RedWall would be at risk of falling to Starmer Labour or the LDs
North Shropshire is back to safe Con for the general, don't you think?
Even on tonight's poll with an 8% Labour lead nationally and the LDs on 13%, the Tories would regain North Shropshire at the general election yes
It would be normal and reasonale for the NS voters to give Hleen Morgan another spin at the next GE, but after that it will surely revert to type.
Might depend on who the Tories put up. If it's a local candidate one of her key strengths would be neutralised.
The Tories should pick a local farmer if they are sensible, then they would win it back no problem at the general election
The post match analysis certainly suggested that local factors contributed to the result as much as Downing Street parties. So yes, a local farmer sounds like a good idea.
@JosiasJessop let me rephrase this in a way you may understand.
If "being in shit" is all you care about then having an unnecessary lockdown destroying livelihoods and damaging lives when it is unnecessary is "being in shit".
So the models showing that lockdowns are unnecessary should be shown, as otherwise you could end up in shit because that shit wasn't warned about.
I do understand it, thanks - it's you who is misunderstanding it.
There's no misunderstanding. Dodgy data was presented because only that which fits the agenda was shown.
Even using your twisted logic that only "we're in shit" data needs showing, having lockdowns when they aren't required is being in shit. So they still needed showing.
Unless you're so far around the bend you think there's nothing shit in an unnecessary lockdown? Is that your argument?
One very encouraging thing (except for my place in the guess-the-maximum competition) is that we're not yet seeing any slowdown in the jabbing programme as a result of too many of the health workers and volunteers being off sick or isolating as a result of an Omicron surge. Whilst we probably won't make the target the government has set, it is going very well, and we're certainly going to have made a big dent in the proportion of those most, or even somewhat, at risk from a large number Omicron cases.
I think we'll get through this with probably a difficult, but not disastrous, impact on the NHS in the post-Xmas period. Fingers crossed that it's no worse than that.
I think the government needs to ease isolation rules for triple jabbed people from the middle of Jan when everyone has had a reasonable opportunity to have a third dose. Three doses means no isolation on contact with a positive person and a two doses is daily testing and less than that is full isolation.
I doubt if anyone's looking that far ahead, TBH.
Which is why we are where we are. In July no one was looking at the possible worst case scenario and advocating that we get our booster programme completed the week before Xmas. Even if we do another 7m this week that takes us to 35m, that's 10m short and a week too late. At the current rate we could have got it done had our surge stated the day after the JCVI announcement.
There's a criminal lack of forwards planning by the government. I've never seen anything like it.
From about June onwards the vaccination project has had zero momentum.
We should have been vaccinating Secondary Schools in July and kicking off the boosters on a 4 month rather than 6 month gap.
As you've pointed out multiple times its not a supply issue as we have more than enough vaccines, we just don't have any political foresight or planning and that has to be 100% Boris's fault.
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
Yes good point. It's much better if the Opposition supports the government in every vote it holds. Let them serve out their full term, that'll show them.
Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.
Good grief are you stupid?
Please explain to me how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?
LOL. Yes I must be stupid. I simply can't understand why previous Labour Oppositions have voted against the government.
And as I understand it you applaud Labour voting with the government for the past two years and not, say, attaching a measure to any of the bills before they did so.
Blimey talking about stupid you might have me voting Cons again at the next election for the simple reason that it would be dangerous for the country to have people as moronic as the Labour Party anywhere near power.
To be fair you've been making this (good) point for a long time about how Labour should be voting against the government.
But to be even fairer I note that you only ever make it when the thing that Labour is not voting against is Covid restrictions.
Very true I would have thought 100% voting against in high profile bills would be a requirement for an Opposition.
No googling can you please name me a bill that, since the Pandemic, Lab has voted against.
Finance Bill Health and Social Care Levy Bill Environemt Bill Nationality and Borders Bill ....
Far too many to list
You googled that. Same as @kinabalu is doing right now.
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Well interestingly here in Basingstoke constituency, our household has had direct mail from the Labour Party in recent weeks in the form of a 'personal letter' from Keir Starmer, so I think they are sniffing the possibility at least.
I grew up just down the road from you, hello fellow Hampshire person!
To be honest, I can't see Basingstoke going Labour, and I definitely would bet more than a couple of quid on it. It would need the council estates to get off their backsides and vote.
Old Basing is lovely!
I'd bet on some surprising Lib Dems in the South East next time
Lib Dems in Basingstoke very much confined to more affluent wards in centre, and SE of the town, but not a real force otherwise. Lib Dem down the road in Winchester feels nailed on next GE time - the rural hinterland of that constituency was awash with 'Winning Here' diamonds last time around.
Guildford, Winchester nailed on I reckon.
My theory is look for Lib Dem gain in medium size towns on main/suburban railway lines away from London south, west, and north-ish, but not into Kent/Essex, so 'Remainia' essentially.
The LDs have an outside shot of taking Chelmsford in Essex and Tunbridge Wells in Kent. Otherwise they have few chances of any seats in Kent and Essex, even if lots of LD targets in Surrey, Oxfordshire and Bucks and Berkshire and a few in Sussex (St Albans in Hertfordshire already LD).
They could massacre the Tories in Surrey. I put the latest figures into flavible and Michael Gove's majority collapses to 10% as well.
David Gauke's old seat also looks quite interesting especially if they could get him to defect as the Tories are already below 50%. Hitchin and Harpenden very likely too.
Romsey and Southampton N also looks like a value bet.
Some LD targets in Hampshire as well yes, plus Winchester of course.
"We shall go on to the end. We shall hesitate in France, we shall hesitate on the seas and oceans, we shall hesitate with growing indecision and growing equivocation in the air. We are still trying to work out whether to defend our Island, and awaiting expert advice on what the cost may be. We shall hesitate on the beaches, we shall hesitate on the landing grounds, we shall hesitate in the fields and in the streets, we shall hesitate in the hills; we shall never make a decision!"
Doing nothing is still a decision.
Sometimes both the bravest and the correct decision.
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.
On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.
IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.
Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too
The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.
In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.
The safest Tory seats are less regional but generally rural, Leave voting seats (North Shropshire excepted, on that swing the Tories would have less than 10 MPs left).
On this poll however almost every London seat except those in Havering and Bexley and Orpington, most Tory city and large town seats in the South and London commuter belt and most of the RedWall would be at risk of falling to Starmer Labour or the LDs
North Shropshire is back to safe Con for the general, don't you think?
Even on tonight's poll with an 8% Labour lead nationally and the LDs on 13%, the Tories would regain North Shropshire at the general election yes
It would be normal and reasonale for the NS voters to give Hleen Morgan another spin at the next GE, but after that it will surely revert to type.
Might depend on who the Tories put up. If it's a local candidate one of her key strengths would be neutralised.
The Tories should pick a local farmer if they are sensible, then they would win it back no problem at the general election
The post match analysis certainly suggested that local factors contributed to the result as much as Downing Street parties. So yes, a local farmer sounds like a good idea.
Why didn't they think of that before?
Well, in fairness the candidate they got looked pretty impressive on paper. And I have no doubt he will be found a seat somewhere soon if he still wants it.
But in these circumstances he was a bit of a risky choice, and even though I didn't think it would cost the Tories the seat I did say I thought that was a good opening for the Liberal Democrats and Labour.
Equally, it's not likely that's the reason they lost.
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.
On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.
IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.
Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too
The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.
In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.
The safest Tory seats are less regional but generally rural, Leave voting seats (North Shropshire excepted, on that swing the Tories would have less than 10 MPs left).
On this poll however almost every London seat except those in Havering and Bexley and Orpington, most Tory city and large town seats in the South and London commuter belt and most of the RedWall would be at risk of falling to Starmer Labour or the LDs
North Shropshire is back to safe Con for the general, don't you think?
Even on tonight's poll with an 8% Labour lead nationally and the LDs on 13%, the Tories would regain North Shropshire at the general election yes
Was there ever (and I do mean ever) a poll on which the Tories would lose North Shropshire, prior to the Tories, you know, losing North Shropshire?
By election swings are far bigger than the national polls if the LDs are the challengers, general election swings however are much closer to the national polls
Taking that as a no.
You just have no idea of the tsunami coming your way in 202*, local farmer candidates or not.
In 1993 the LDs won Christchurch in a by election from the Tories on a huge 35.4% swing ie even bigger than the 34.2% swing the LDs won North Shropshire by last week.
However at the 1997 general election the Tories won back Christchurch from the LDs with a 4% majority despite a heavy Conservative defeat nationally.
As Pulpstar states North Shropshire is likely Christchurch 2 even if the LDs hold Chesham and Amersham
"We shall go on to the end. We shall hesitate in France, we shall hesitate on the seas and oceans, we shall hesitate with growing indecision and growing equivocation in the air. We are still trying to work out whether to defend our Island, and awaiting expert advice on what the cost may be. We shall hesitate on the beaches, we shall hesitate on the landing grounds, we shall hesitate in the fields and in the streets, we shall hesitate in the hills; we shall never make a decision!"
Doing nothing is still a decision.
I think wait and see is appropriate, and it is trivial, but a politician saying we shall wait and see but explaining it as he will not hesitate to act is worthy of gentle ribbing. Hesitating is good here, with incomplete information that grows each day, not something to be considered weak.
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
Yes good point. It's much better if the Opposition supports the government in every vote it holds. Let them serve out their full term, that'll show them.
Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.
Good grief are you stupid?
Please explain to me how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?
LOL. Yes I must be stupid. I simply can't understand why previous Labour Oppositions have voted against the government.
And as I understand it you applaud Labour voting with the government for the past two years and not, say, attaching a measure to any of the bills before they did so.
Blimey talking about stupid you might have me voting Cons again at the next election for the simple reason that it would be dangerous for the country to have people as moronic as the Labour Party anywhere near power.
To be fair you've been making this (good) point for a long time about how Labour should be voting against the government.
But to be even fairer I note that you only ever make it when the thing that Labour is not voting against is Covid restrictions.
Very true I would have thought 100% voting against in high profile bills would be a requirement for an Opposition.
No googling can you please name me a bill that, since the Pandemic, Lab has voted against.
?? If the opposition believes in the same measures as the Gov't then no, not really.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
No this is utterly wrong. If you have a whole range of possible scenarios and you only present the ones that result in action then you are taking the responsibility for decision making away from the politicians and giving it to the unelected scientists. By removing the scenarios where nothing needs to be done you are forcing the politicians into a position where they either do something - even if it is probably unnecessary - or they can be accused of ignoring the evidence as it was presented to them. It is absolutely vital that the advisors present all possible scenarios and weigh them for the decision makers.
It is not utterly wrong. It is presenting the scenarios that need stuff doing about them.
"Present all possible scenarios"
And how many different scenarios is that? Ten? a hundred? A thousand?
The scientists are saying: "these are the sh*t scenarios. These are the ones that, if they occur, we will need to take actions on." Presenting scenarios that need no action is pointless - because there are no actions required. It doesn't mean the politicians are being told these will happen, or that these are the only scenarios. They are the ones to worry about.
It's not that they're saying these are the only scenarios that may happen; or the probabilities of them happening; they're the ones the politicians really need to worry about.
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
Yes good point. It's much better if the Opposition supports the government in every vote it holds. Let them serve out their full term, that'll show them.
Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.
Good grief are you stupid?
Please explain to me how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?
LOL. Yes I must be stupid. I simply can't understand why previous Labour Oppositions have voted against the government.
And as I understand it you applaud Labour voting with the government for the past two years and not, say, attaching a measure to any of the bills before they did so.
Blimey talking about stupid you might have me voting Cons again at the next election for the simple reason that it would be dangerous for the country to have people as moronic as the Labour Party anywhere near power.
To be fair you've been making this (good) point for a long time about how Labour should be voting against the government.
But to be even fairer I note that you only ever make it when the thing that Labour is not voting against is Covid restrictions.
Very true I would have thought 100% voting against in high profile bills would be a requirement for an Opposition.
No googling can you please name me a bill that, since the Pandemic, Lab has voted against.
"We shall go on to the end. We shall hesitate in France, we shall hesitate on the seas and oceans, we shall hesitate with growing indecision and growing equivocation in the air. We are still trying to work out whether to defend our Island, and awaiting expert advice on what the cost may be. We shall hesitate on the beaches, we shall hesitate on the landing grounds, we shall hesitate in the fields and in the streets, we shall hesitate in the hills. We shall never make a decision!"
V good.
What did you make of Jason Leitch's interview on WatO.
"We shall go on to the end. We shall hesitate in France, we shall hesitate on the seas and oceans, we shall hesitate with growing indecision and growing equivocation in the air. We are still trying to work out whether to defend our Island, and awaiting expert advice on what the cost may be. We shall hesitate on the beaches, we shall hesitate on the landing grounds, we shall hesitate in the fields and in the streets, we shall hesitate in the hills; we shall never make a decision!"
Doing nothing is still a decision.
Sometimes both the bravest and the correct decision.
It does look as if the cabinet have taken Boris in hand
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.
On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.
IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.
Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too
The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.
In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.
I do appreciate HYUFD's willingness to tell it how it is in terms of impact of specific swings.
eek makes a good point, and this is one area where an informal pact between Starmer and Davey would be really helpful. Nobody is expecting parties actually to stand down, but if they agreed to make it clear to parties in X, Y and Z to play it down and imnstead help out in A, B and C (obviously mirrored by the other party) it would be great. None of this "we were third but we're the favourites anyway" stuff, except in very special situations (of which N Shropshire in a by-election was one).
To minimise the grumbling, this should be restricted to winnable seats. There are a whole bunch of seats that are safely in the hands of one party, and in those there's no need to urge anything on anyone.
"We shall go on to the end. We shall hesitate in France, we shall hesitate on the seas and oceans, we shall hesitate with growing indecision and growing equivocation in the air. We are still trying to work out whether to defend our Island, and awaiting expert advice on what the cost may be. We shall hesitate on the beaches, we shall hesitate on the landing grounds, we shall hesitate in the fields and in the streets, we shall hesitate in the hills; we shall never make a decision!"
Doing nothing is still a decision.
Sometimes both the bravest and the correct decision.
Boris the Brave!
".... packing it up And sneaking away and buggering off And chickening out and pissing off home ..."
@JosiasJessop let me rephrase this in a way you may understand.
If "being in shit" is all you care about then having an unnecessary lockdown destroying livelihoods and damaging lives when it is unnecessary is "being in shit".
So the models showing that lockdowns are unnecessary should be shown, as otherwise you could end up in shit because that shit wasn't warned about.
I do understand it, thanks - it's you who is misunderstanding it.
There's no misunderstanding. Dodgy data was presented because only that which fits the agenda was shown.
Even using your twisted logic that only "we're in shit" data needs showing, having lockdowns when they aren't required is being in shit. So they still needed showing.
Unless you're so far around the bend you think there's nothing shit in an unnecessary lockdown? Is that your argument?
It was not 'dodgy data'.
FFS.
I don't want a lockdown. Lockdowns are evil. So are tens or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths (*).
(*) Fortunately I don't think we'll be heading towards the latter of these.
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
Yes good point. It's much better if the Opposition supports the government in every vote it holds. Let them serve out their full term, that'll show them.
Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.
Good grief are you stupid?
Please explain to me how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?
LOL. Yes I must be stupid. I simply can't understand why previous Labour Oppositions have voted against the government.
And as I understand it you applaud Labour voting with the government for the past two years and not, say, attaching a measure to any of the bills before they did so.
Blimey talking about stupid you might have me voting Cons again at the next election for the simple reason that it would be dangerous for the country to have people as moronic as the Labour Party anywhere near power.
To be fair you've been making this (good) point for a long time about how Labour should be voting against the government.
But to be even fairer I note that you only ever make it when the thing that Labour is not voting against is Covid restrictions.
Very true I would have thought 100% voting against in high profile bills would be a requirement for an Opposition.
No googling can you please name me a bill that, since the Pandemic, Lab has voted against.
Thanks, interesting. How is twitter still the platform where this stuff is most often shared. It seems a horrible format for detailed analysis to be presented both for the poster and reader.
"We shall go on to the end. We shall hesitate in France, we shall hesitate on the seas and oceans, we shall hesitate with growing indecision and growing equivocation in the air. We are still trying to work out whether to defend our Island, and awaiting expert advice on what the cost may be. We shall hesitate on the beaches, we shall hesitate on the landing grounds, we shall hesitate in the fields and in the streets, we shall hesitate in the hills; we shall never make a decision!"
Doing nothing is still a decision.
Sometimes both the bravest and the correct decision.
Boris the Brave!
".... packing it up And sneaking away and buggering off And chickening out and pissing off home ..."
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Well interestingly here in Basingstoke constituency, our household has had direct mail from the Labour Party in recent weeks in the form of a 'personal letter' from Keir Starmer, so I think they are sniffing the possibility at least.
I grew up just down the road from you, hello fellow Hampshire person!
To be honest, I can't see Basingstoke going Labour, and I definitely would bet more than a couple of quid on it. It would need the council estates to get off their backsides and vote.
Old Basing is lovely!
I'd bet on some surprising Lib Dems in the South East next time
Lib Dems in Basingstoke very much confined to more affluent wards in centre, and SE of the town, but not a real force otherwise. Lib Dem down the road in Winchester feels nailed on next GE time - the rural hinterland of that constituency was awash with 'Winning Here' diamonds last time around.
Guildford, Winchester nailed on I reckon.
My theory is look for Lib Dem gain in medium size towns on main/suburban railway lines away from London south, west, and north-ish, but not into Kent/Essex, so 'Remainia' essentially.
General election gains for the LDs under Davey will be few. Their main problem is that nobody (especially the LDs )has the foggiest idea about their policies. I genuinely couldn't tell you one.
I agree that gains will be few*, but I don't see what policies have to do with it. People don't vote on policies, they vote on vague feelings of "does this person care about me", "is this person competent", "is this candidate best placed to defeat the person I dislike most" and the like.
* 6-8 gross in England, probably nothing in Wales, and offset by at least one loss in both England and in Scotland. I'd reckon 15-17 is a sensible guess for their total.
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
Yes good point. It's much better if the Opposition supports the government in every vote it holds. Let them serve out their full term, that'll show them.
Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.
Good grief are you stupid?
Please explain to me how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?
LOL. Yes I must be stupid. I simply can't understand why previous Labour Oppositions have voted against the government.
And as I understand it you applaud Labour voting with the government for the past two years and not, say, attaching a measure to any of the bills before they did so.
Blimey talking about stupid you might have me voting Cons again at the next election for the simple reason that it would be dangerous for the country to have people as moronic as the Labour Party anywhere near power.
To be fair you've been making this (good) point for a long time about how Labour should be voting against the government.
But to be even fairer I note that you only ever make it when the thing that Labour is not voting against is Covid restrictions.
Very true I would have thought 100% voting against in high profile bills would be a requirement for an Opposition.
No googling can you please name me a bill that, since the Pandemic, Lab has voted against.
?? If the opposition believes in the same measures as the Gov't then no, not really.
The opposition thinks the government is doing a dreadful job handling Covid and votes for all the government's Covid measures.
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.
On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.
IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.
Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too
The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.
In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.
The safest Tory seats are less regional but generally rural, Leave voting seats (North Shropshire excepted, on that swing the Tories would have less than 10 MPs left).
On this poll however almost every London seat except those in Havering and Bexley and Orpington, most Tory city and large town seats in the South and London commuter belt and most of the RedWall would be at risk of falling to Starmer Labour or the LDs
North Shropshire is back to safe Con for the general, don't you think?
Even on tonight's poll with an 8% Labour lead nationally and the LDs on 13%, the Tories would regain North Shropshire at the general election yes
It would be normal and reasonale for the NS voters to give Hleen Morgan another spin at the next GE, but after that it will surely revert to type.
Might depend on who the Tories put up. If it's a local candidate one of her key strengths would be neutralised.
The Tories should pick a local farmer if they are sensible, then they would win it back no problem at the general election
The post match analysis certainly suggested that local factors contributed to the result as much as Downing Street parties. So yes, a local farmer sounds like a good idea.
Why didn't they think of that before?
Beats me? The Tory candidate was more suited to a wealthy Birmingham suburb like Sutton Coldfield or Solihull than rural North Shropshire
Sunak needs to move fast. The economy is going to be a problem for him over the next two years.
If Sunak's popularity stems from the support given to workers and businesses over the past three waves of Covid, it could easily implode now given the absence of support for the hospitality and retail sectors in the fourth.
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
Yes good point. It's much better if the Opposition supports the government in every vote it holds. Let them serve out their full term, that'll show them.
Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.
Good grief are you stupid?
Please explain to me how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?
LOL. Yes I must be stupid. I simply can't understand why previous Labour Oppositions have voted against the government.
And as I understand it you applaud Labour voting with the government for the past two years and not, say, attaching a measure to any of the bills before they did so.
Blimey talking about stupid you might have me voting Cons again at the next election for the simple reason that it would be dangerous for the country to have people as moronic as the Labour Party anywhere near power.
To be fair you've been making this (good) point for a long time about how Labour should be voting against the government.
But to be even fairer I note that you only ever make it when the thing that Labour is not voting against is Covid restrictions.
Very true I would have thought 100% voting against in high profile bills would be a requirement for an Opposition.
No googling can you please name me a bill that, since the Pandemic, Lab has voted against.
Yes, I'm hopeful that the minimum delay of a week will bring a lot of this data into play and make lockdown less likely as we discover what Omicron means for the UK and our national level of immunity.
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Well interestingly here in Basingstoke constituency, our household has had direct mail from the Labour Party in recent weeks in the form of a 'personal letter' from Keir Starmer, so I think they are sniffing the possibility at least.
I grew up just down the road from you, hello fellow Hampshire person!
To be honest, I can't see Basingstoke going Labour, and I definitely would bet more than a couple of quid on it. It would need the council estates to get off their backsides and vote.
Old Basing is lovely!
I'd bet on some surprising Lib Dems in the South East next time
Lib Dems in Basingstoke very much confined to more affluent wards in centre, and SE of the town, but not a real force otherwise. Lib Dem down the road in Winchester feels nailed on next GE time - the rural hinterland of that constituency was awash with 'Winning Here' diamonds last time around.
Guildford, Winchester nailed on I reckon.
My theory is look for Lib Dem gain in medium size towns on main/suburban railway lines away from London south, west, and north-ish, but not into Kent/Essex, so 'Remainia' essentially.
General election gains for the LDs under Davey will be few. Their main problem is that nobody (especially the LDs )has the foggiest idea about their policies. I genuinely couldn't tell you one.
Of course you could not, Mr Omnium. You go round with your eyes shut and your ears closed. You are a lost cause.
This is probably the most unified Labour have been since GE2017 and the least unified the Tories have been since EU Elections 2019
Why did they vote with the government at the very latest opportunity then. What is the point of a unified opposition if they all vote with the government.
Because by doing so they worsened the Tory rift.
And plan B was a reasonable thing to vote for.
Who cares about the Tory rift this is about bringing down the government. How exactly does not making a government vote fail worsen the Tory rift anyway. Those who supported Boris might have thought this guy isn't a winner had he lost the vote.
Time and again the Labour Party have voted for the government when a moment's thought (attach a finance measure) would have allowed them to oppose it honourably.
Defeating Plan B most certainly would not have brought down the government.
There may well have been a VONC but all the Tory rebels would have backed the government.
Pointless gesture, especially if, as seems likely, the Shadow Cabinet felt the plan B proposals were appropriate.
Yes good point. It's much better if the Opposition supports the government in every vote it holds. Let them serve out their full term, that'll show them.
Even Jeremy Corbyn understood what an Opposition was for.
Good grief are you stupid?
Please explain to me how defeating Plan B would have led to the demise of the government?
LOL. Yes I must be stupid. I simply can't understand why previous Labour Oppositions have voted against the government.
And as I understand it you applaud Labour voting with the government for the past two years and not, say, attaching a measure to any of the bills before they did so.
Blimey talking about stupid you might have me voting Cons again at the next election for the simple reason that it would be dangerous for the country to have people as moronic as the Labour Party anywhere near power.
To be fair you've been making this (good) point for a long time about how Labour should be voting against the government.
But to be even fairer I note that you only ever make it when the thing that Labour is not voting against is Covid restrictions.
Very true I would have thought 100% voting against in high profile bills would be a requirement for an Opposition.
No googling can you please name me a bill that, since the Pandemic, Lab has voted against.
Easy - the Nationality & Borders bill. Thank god.
LOL. Took your time but I believe you.
Don't you follow anything apart from Covid?
There's only one game in town and sadly it isn't the Nationality & Borders Bill.
OK. Meant to post this earlier, but the Gaunteng health minsitry has spoken, and 'in hospital' numbers have jumped right back to where they were (3,300 - which is pretty much where they were Thurs-Sat last week).
So, you can take this as either bad news (growth is taking off from Sunday's numbers), or good (Sunday's numbers were an anomaly, and the key thing is that "in hospital" is basically flat right now).
One very encouraging thing (except for my place in the guess-the-maximum competition) is that we're not yet seeing any slowdown in the jabbing programme as a result of too many of the health workers and volunteers being off sick or isolating as a result of an Omicron surge. Whilst we probably won't make the target the government has set, it is going very well, and we're certainly going to have made a big dent in the proportion of those most, or even somewhat, at risk from a large number Omicron cases.
I think we'll get through this with probably a difficult, but not disastrous, impact on the NHS in the post-Xmas period. Fingers crossed that it's no worse than that.
I think the government needs to ease isolation rules for triple jabbed people from the middle of Jan when everyone has had a reasonable opportunity to have a third dose. Three doses means no isolation on contact with a positive person and a two doses is daily testing and less than that is full isolation.
I doubt if anyone's looking that far ahead, TBH.
Which is why we are where we are. In July no one was looking at the possible worst case scenario and advocating that we get our booster programme completed the week before Xmas. Even if we do another 7m this week that takes us to 35m, that's 10m short and a week too late. At the current rate we could have got it done had our surge stated the day after the JCVI announcement.
There's a criminal lack of forwards planning by the government. I've never seen anything like it.
Lol. Hear speaketh the expert again. Your predictions are always so far sighted. If only we had someone with your adding up and ruler skills, all would be well.
Can you now put your ruler on the graph for hospitalisations and tell us what they will be in January? Should be quite easy.
One very encouraging thing (except for my place in the guess-the-maximum competition) is that we're not yet seeing any slowdown in the jabbing programme as a result of too many of the health workers and volunteers being off sick or isolating as a result of an Omicron surge. Whilst we probably won't make the target the government has set, it is going very well, and we're certainly going to have made a big dent in the proportion of those most, or even somewhat, at risk from a large number Omicron cases.
I think we'll get through this with probably a difficult, but not disastrous, impact on the NHS in the post-Xmas period. Fingers crossed that it's no worse than that.
I think the government needs to ease isolation rules for triple jabbed people from the middle of Jan when everyone has had a reasonable opportunity to have a third dose. Three doses means no isolation on contact with a positive person and a two doses is daily testing and less than that is full isolation.
I doubt if anyone's looking that far ahead, TBH.
Which is why we are where we are. In July no one was looking at the possible worst case scenario and advocating that we get our booster programme completed the week before Xmas. Even if we do another 7m this week that takes us to 35m, that's 10m short and a week too late. At the current rate we could have got it done had our surge stated the day after the JCVI announcement.
There's a criminal lack of forwards planning by the government. I've never seen anything like it.
Lol. Hear speaketh the expert again. Your predictions are always so far sighted. If only we had someone with your adding up and ruler skills, all would be well.
Can you now put your ruler on the graph for hospitalisations and tell us what they will be in January? Should be quite easy.
You disagree with his point that it would have been better had boosters started earlier?
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
No this is utterly wrong. If you have a whole range of possible scenarios and you only present the ones that result in action then you are taking the responsibility for decision making away from the politicians and giving it to the unelected scientists. By removing the scenarios where nothing needs to be done you are forcing the politicians into a position where they either do something - even if it is probably unnecessary - or they can be accused of ignoring the evidence as it was presented to them. It is absolutely vital that the advisors present all possible scenarios and weigh them for the decision makers.
It is not utterly wrong. It is presenting the scenarios that need stuff doing about them.
"Present all possible scenarios"
And how many different scenarios is that? Ten? a hundred? A thousand?
The scientists are saying: "these are the sh*t scenarios. These are the ones that, if they occur, we will need to take actions on." Presenting scenarios that need no action is pointless - because there are no actions required. It doesn't mean the politicians are being told these will happen, or that these are the only scenarios. They are the ones to worry about.
It's not that they're saying these are the only scenarios that may happen; or the probabilities of them happening; they're the ones the politicians really need to worry about.
It's simple stuff.
The problem is that right now people think the most optomistic scenario from SAGE is for a peak of 3000 admissions a day, as that is their lowest model. Except other models suggest this is NOT the lowest possible. The narrative is running that if we do nothing, we will definitely see a minimum of 3000 admissions a day. It’s dishonest. I’m not blaming the scientists entirely here, I want to know what instructions they are getting.
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Well interestingly here in Basingstoke constituency, our household has had direct mail from the Labour Party in recent weeks in the form of a 'personal letter' from Keir Starmer, so I think they are sniffing the possibility at least.
I grew up just down the road from you, hello fellow Hampshire person!
To be honest, I can't see Basingstoke going Labour, and I definitely would bet more than a couple of quid on it. It would need the council estates to get off their backsides and vote.
Old Basing is lovely!
I'd bet on some surprising Lib Dems in the South East next time
Lib Dems in Basingstoke very much confined to more affluent wards in centre, and SE of the town, but not a real force otherwise. Lib Dem down the road in Winchester feels nailed on next GE time - the rural hinterland of that constituency was awash with 'Winning Here' diamonds last time around.
Guildford, Winchester nailed on I reckon.
My theory is look for Lib Dem gain in medium size towns on main/suburban railway lines away from London south, west, and north-ish, but not into Kent/Essex, so 'Remainia' essentially.
General election gains for the LDs under Davey will be few. Their main problem is that nobody (especially the LDs )has the foggiest idea about their policies. I genuinely couldn't tell you one.
I agree that gains will be few*, but I don't see what policies have to do with it. People don't vote on policies, they vote on vague feelings of "does this person care about me", "is this person competent", "is this candidate best placed to defeat the person I dislike most" and the like.
* 6-8 gross in England, probably nothing in Wales, and offset by at least one loss in both England and in Scotland. I'd reckon 15-17 is a sensible guess for their total.
If you can lose 50 (almost) in one GE you can gain more than 15 in another. Which isn’t to say they will, of course. But the Tories heading downwards always provides the best opportunity for the Libs, and you can add a few wild surprises on top of whatever estimate some sort of swing throws up.
I wonder if it's worth chucking a few quid on Labour gain of Basingstoke?
Labour gain Uxbridge might be a good bet lol. Doubt Boris will hang around on the back benches like Theresa.
On this poll Boris would indeed be out and Labour would gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip and also seats like Southend West and Colchester and Beckenham, Fulham and Chelsea West, Watford, Shrewsbury, Eltham and Chislehurst, Thanet East, Westminster and Chelsea East and Finchley and Muswell Hill.
IDS would lose Chingford and Woodford Green and Steve Baker would lose High Wycombe and Theresa Villiers would lose High Barnet and Mill Hill. Aaron Bell would be back on PB having lost Newcastle under Lyme and Dominic Raab would lose Esher and Walton to the LDs and Peter Bottomley would lose Worthing and Tobias Ellwood would lose Bournemouth East.
Never mind trying to hold the RedWall which would largely return to Labour, much of the Bluewall would fall too
The problem is that Boris by trying to please some of the people enough of the time to win their seats in 2019 has managed to annoy enough of them since then that Boris is going to lose both the Red Wall seats and a lot of historical safe Southern seats in 2023.
In fact the safest Tory seats are probably not now down south but in the richer parts of the Midlands / North where there is no certainty as to whether the Lib Dems or Labour have a chance of winning.
The safest Tory seats are less regional but generally rural, Leave voting seats (North Shropshire excepted, on that swing the Tories would have less than 10 MPs left).
On this poll however almost every London seat except those in Havering and Bexley and Orpington, most Tory city and large town seats in the South and London commuter belt and most of the RedWall would be at risk of falling to Starmer Labour or the LDs
North Shropshire is back to safe Con for the general, don't you think?
Even on tonight's poll with an 8% Labour lead nationally and the LDs on 13%, the Tories would regain North Shropshire at the general election yes
Was there ever (and I do mean ever) a poll on which the Tories would lose North Shropshire, prior to the Tories, you know, losing North Shropshire?
Given that Labour underpolled against the polling in 1997, and came reasonably quite close then in North Shropshire, and then had a honeymoon period afterwards, you might just find that there was.
I think the ITV exit poll actually had North Shropshire going red in 1997. Look it up - Alistair Stewart was presenting.
He will delay it to Wednesday to really screw up pubs and restaurants instead.
Is there anyone in government with any understanding of the supply chain? Anyone at all??
Daughter has to place her orders for the week by midnight tonight.
She is operating on the assumption that she might just make it to Xmas. And will close thereafter. If she is allowed to open on NY people will just have to drink what is left. She is not buying any fresh stock and risk losing it.
We went through all this nonsense last year and nothing has been learnt. Fullers is closing many of its pubs in London because they simply cannot operate like this.
The government's behaviour is pitiful. The one certainty I have is that our health and the health of our businesses are not even in the Top 10 considerations affecting what the government is doing. It's all about what is good for individual Tory politicians.
I intend paying absolutely no regard to what the government says. Just do what I think right for my family. The government can go fuck itself.
He will delay it to Wednesday to really screw up pubs and restaurants instead.
Is there anyone in government with any understanding of the supply chain? Anyone at all??
Daughter has to place her orders for the week by midnight tonight.
She is operating on the assumption that she might just make it to Xmas. And will close thereafter. If she is allowed to open on NY people will just have to drink what is left. She is not buying any fresh stock and risk losing it.
We went through all this nonsense last year and nothing has been learnt. Fullers is closing many of its pubs in London because they simply cannot operate like this.
The government's behaviour is pitiful. The one certainty I have is that our health and the health of our businesses are not even in the Top 10 considerations affecting what the government is doing. It's all about what is good for individual Tory politicians.
I intend paying absolutely no regard to what the government says. Just do what I think right for my family. The government can go fuck itself.
That's very much my attitude now, Cyclefree.
Throughout the pandemic I've been a good citizen, doing very as the Government bid and cutting it a good deal of slack because of the manifest difficulty of the task it has faced. No more. I've have seen at first hand why a wishy-washy policy gives us the worst of all possible worlds and have decided to simply ignore its instructions.
This is not to say I will behave irresponsibly. I will use my own common sense and judgement and avoid putting others at risk unnecessarily. But I will decide. The Government has lost all credibility with me. It looks increasingly as if it is being driven by political expedience.
Yey. The Malmesbury Monoliths are starting. Must be time to open the port 🙂
Open the Malmsey surely?
I’m probably not the biggest wine expert here, but isn’t that a dessert wine?
I don't think they Clare.
(Now that's a *really* obscure pun.)
Which reminds me. Sun is over the yardarm; now to head downstairs to fridge.
The sun was over the yardarm around 11am.....
It always is somewhere on Earth.
[Ant]Arctic... Actually that's a complete non point
On the plus side it has just struck 8 bells in the noon watch or whatever. Nunc est bibendum.
I was in Edale on Friday. The south side of the valley got no sun at all all day. I assume the sun sets sometime in November and doesn't rise again until February. Edale itself on the north side of the valley was very sunny and pleasant however.
I suspect the worst village in the UK for this is Kinlochleven, which definitely sees no sun at all for a long period in winter. I don't know if there is a large settlement anywhere that is worse?
Kinlochleven receives precious little sun even in the summer!
Mm, that's nice - somewhere one hardly has to worry about sunburn after 30 mins (which I most certainly do have to with my fair complexion and freckles).
@JosiasJessop let me rephrase this in a way you may understand.
If "being in shit" is all you care about then having an unnecessary lockdown destroying livelihoods and damaging lives when it is unnecessary is "being in shit".
So the models showing that lockdowns are unnecessary should be shown, as otherwise you could end up in shit because that shit wasn't warned about.
I do understand it, thanks - it's you who is misunderstanding it.
There's no misunderstanding. Dodgy data was presented because only that which fits the agenda was shown.
Even using your twisted logic that only "we're in shit" data needs showing, having lockdowns when they aren't required is being in shit. So they still needed showing.
Unless you're so far around the bend you think there's nothing shit in an unnecessary lockdown? Is that your argument?
It was not 'dodgy data'.
FFS.
I don't want a lockdown. Lockdowns are evil. So are tens or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths (*).
(*) Fortunately I don't think we'll be heading towards the latter of these.
If you deliberately exclude the accurate data from your models then yes it is dodgy.
@JosiasJessop let me rephrase this in a way you may understand.
If "being in shit" is all you care about then having an unnecessary lockdown destroying livelihoods and damaging lives when it is unnecessary is "being in shit".
So the models showing that lockdowns are unnecessary should be shown, as otherwise you could end up in shit because that shit wasn't warned about.
I do understand it, thanks - it's you who is misunderstanding it.
There's no misunderstanding. Dodgy data was presented because only that which fits the agenda was shown.
Even using your twisted logic that only "we're in shit" data needs showing, having lockdowns when they aren't required is being in shit. So they still needed showing.
Unless you're so far around the bend you think there's nothing shit in an unnecessary lockdown? Is that your argument?
It was not 'dodgy data'.
FFS.
I don't want a lockdown. Lockdowns are evil. So are tens or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths (*).
(*) Fortunately I don't think we'll be heading towards the latter of these.
If you deliberately exclude the accurate data from your models then yes it is dodgy.
No, because you utterly ignore the point of the modelling. Which has been explained many times.
@JosiasJessop let me rephrase this in a way you may understand.
If "being in shit" is all you care about then having an unnecessary lockdown destroying livelihoods and damaging lives when it is unnecessary is "being in shit".
So the models showing that lockdowns are unnecessary should be shown, as otherwise you could end up in shit because that shit wasn't warned about.
I do understand it, thanks - it's you who is misunderstanding it.
There's no misunderstanding. Dodgy data was presented because only that which fits the agenda was shown.
Even using your twisted logic that only "we're in shit" data needs showing, having lockdowns when they aren't required is being in shit. So they still needed showing.
Unless you're so far around the bend you think there's nothing shit in an unnecessary lockdown? Is that your argument?
It was not 'dodgy data'.
FFS.
I don't want a lockdown. Lockdowns are evil. So are tens or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths (*).
(*) Fortunately I don't think we'll be heading towards the latter of these.
If you deliberately exclude the accurate data from your models then yes it is dodgy.
No, because you utterly ignore the point of the modelling. Which has been explained many times.
The point of the modelling is to make an informed decision.
If you exclude the accurate data you can't do that.
Yey. The Malmesbury Monoliths are starting. Must be time to open the port 🙂
Open the Malmsey surely?
I’m probably not the biggest wine expert here, but isn’t that a dessert wine?
I don't think they Clare.
(Now that's a *really* obscure pun.)
Which reminds me. Sun is over the yardarm; now to head downstairs to fridge.
The sun was over the yardarm around 11am.....
It always is somewhere on Earth.
[Ant]Arctic... Actually that's a complete non point
On the plus side it has just struck 8 bells in the noon watch or whatever. Nunc est bibendum.
I was in Edale on Friday. The south side of the valley got no sun at all all day. I assume the sun sets sometime in November and doesn't rise again until February. Edale itself on the north side of the valley was very sunny and pleasant however.
I suspect the worst village in the UK for this is Kinlochleven, which definitely sees no sun at all for a long period in winter. I don't know if there is a large settlement anywhere that is worse?
Kinlochleven receives precious little sun even in the summer!
Mm, that's nice - somewhere one hardly has to worry about sunburn after 30 mins (which I most certainly do have to with my fair complexion and freckles).
I once got heatstroke (or near heatstroke) on the hills above Kinlochleven. In fact, it is the closest I've ever come to a mountaineering incident, despite going out in all weathers during winter.
But in the village itself, no, definitely not a problem.
Interesting article. I am just wondering if the current conservative government will be the last ever 'majority' government. Johnson seemed to have solved the problem of the future of the Conservative party, but now it is looking like it will suffer incursions in to both the former red wall in the north, and the blue wall in the south and shires (see North Shropshire for evidence of that), to the point where it looks more likely than not (at the moment) that he will lose the majority, with no obvious partners in a NOM scenario. And, as bad as he is, no other potential conservative leader looks at the moment like they have the ability to rebuild the afforementioned electoral coalition.
I suppose Labours attitude to PR in a coaltion scenario will be determined by their performance in Scotland and the Northern 'red wall' seats. If they reclaim some of those, then they have a path to being a majority government in the future. If they cannot, then they have everything to gain by accepting PR on a national level.
Interesting article. I am just wondering if the current conservative government will be the last ever 'majority' government. Johnson seemed to have solved the problem of the future of the Conservative party, but now it is looking like it will suffer incursions in to both the former red wall in the north, and the blue wall in the south and shires (see North Shropshire for evidence of that), to the point where it looks more likely than not (at the moment) that he will lose the majority, with no obvious partners in a NOM scenario. And, as bad as he is, no other potential conservative leader looks at the moment like they have the ability to rebuild the afforementioned electoral coalition.
I suppose Labours attitude to PR in a coaltion scenario will be determined by their performance in Scotland and the Northern 'red wall' seats. If they reclaim some of those, then they have a path to being a majority government in the future. If they cannot, then they have everything to gain by accepting PR on a national level.
PR also means no Labour majority government ever again either, hence the trade unions are such staunch supporters of FPTP.
In any case it would also end the 2 main party system, with Corbynites forming their own party and some Tory rightwingers joining RefUK as both would win seats with PR
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
To paraphrase @HYUFD god help me and as regards a specific point I made against him a short while ago, any vote will or will not be passed in parliament. Any decision that cabinet makes will therefore be subject to democratic oversight. If the HoC passes it it passes the democratic oversight standard, if not, not.
The Tory supporting press can want or not want what they want. It is the Cons and Lab (and other) MPs that make the point. Of course he wants Cons backbenchers to support him but each of those Cons backbenchers has been voted in by their constituencies.
I absolutely don't think that governments should rule for their own supporters but I fail to see how locking down or not locking down is a Lab/Con thing. Is Piers Corbyn now the Uxbridge Cons PPC?
Decisions being taken through the prism of a Tory leadership contest are not decisions being taken in the best interests of the country.
Any political decision is taken through the prism of politics of one flavour or another.
Whatever Boris says, for example, Lab will oppose (although bizarrely not vote against). As is their duty. But to take masks as an example, look at the difference between the Lab Party conference (no masks) and sitting on the Opposition benches (masks). What does Lab think of mask wearing? We don't know as their actions are taken through the prism of furthering Labour's political position.
Whatever decision Boris takes is subject to a vote in the HoC. 100 MPs defied him last time which means that over 200 supported him. Which is the more "popular" option for him then leadership-wise?
I think we do know what labour think of masks. What they do in private (conference) is true while what they do in public (Westminster) is political calculation
@JosiasJessop let me rephrase this in a way you may understand.
If "being in shit" is all you care about then having an unnecessary lockdown destroying livelihoods and damaging lives when it is unnecessary is "being in shit".
So the models showing that lockdowns are unnecessary should be shown, as otherwise you could end up in shit because that shit wasn't warned about.
I do understand it, thanks - it's you who is misunderstanding it.
There's no misunderstanding. Dodgy data was presented because only that which fits the agenda was shown.
Even using your twisted logic that only "we're in shit" data needs showing, having lockdowns when they aren't required is being in shit. So they still needed showing.
Unless you're so far around the bend you think there's nothing shit in an unnecessary lockdown? Is that your argument?
It was not 'dodgy data'.
FFS.
I don't want a lockdown. Lockdowns are evil. So are tens or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths (*).
(*) Fortunately I don't think we'll be heading towards the latter of these.
If you deliberately exclude the accurate data from your models then yes it is dodgy.
No, because you utterly ignore the point of the modelling. Which has been explained many times.
The point of the modelling is to make an informed decision.
If you exclude the accurate data you can't do that.
You are thinking about the wrong decision.
The decision is not about whether to do something. The decision is what would need doing. Only when you know what would need doing, can you make a proper decision on whether to do it.
But since you are a "never-never-never" person, they needn't do any of this ...
Comments
However at the 1997 general election the Tories won back Christchurch from the LDs with a 4% majority despite a heavy Conservative defeat nationally.
As Pulpstar states North Shropshire is likely Christchurch 2 even if the LDs hold Chesham and Amersham
I would have more sympathy with JJs position if it were a one off decision that had to be made by an informed decision maker without much outside pressure.
In reality the decision not to lockdown actually has to be made several times each week at the moment with a news cycle that hashes out leaked stats without nuance or even accuracy in a race for media attention, viewers and readers, ratcheting up pressure and fear.
Under those circumstances the public having access to partial models without the right guidance and information leads to an unhelpful bias for the politicians to lockdown.
Why didn't they think of that before?
Even using your twisted logic that only "we're in shit" data needs showing, having lockdowns when they aren't required is being in shit. So they still needed showing.
Unless you're so far around the bend you think there's nothing shit in an unnecessary lockdown? Is that your argument?
We should have been vaccinating Secondary Schools in July and kicking off the boosters on a 4 month rather than 6 month gap.
As you've pointed out multiple times its not a supply issue as we have more than enough vaccines, we just don't have any political foresight or planning and that has to be 100% Boris's fault.
But in these circumstances he was a bit of a risky choice, and even though I didn't think it would cost the Tories the seat I did say I thought that was a good opening for the Liberal Democrats and Labour.
Equally, it's not likely that's the reason they lost.
https://twitter.com/JamesWard73/status/1472991150936109062
Fair enough.
"Present all possible scenarios"
And how many different scenarios is that? Ten? a hundred? A thousand?
The scientists are saying: "these are the sh*t scenarios. These are the ones that, if they occur, we will need to take actions on." Presenting scenarios that need no action is pointless - because there are no actions required. It doesn't mean the politicians are being told these will happen, or that these are the only scenarios. They are the ones to worry about.
It's not that they're saying these are the only scenarios that may happen; or the probabilities of them happening; they're the ones the politicians really need to worry about.
It's simple stuff.
What did you make of Jason Leitch's interview on WatO.
eek makes a good point, and this is one area where an informal pact between Starmer and Davey would be really helpful. Nobody is expecting parties actually to stand down, but if they agreed to make it clear to parties in X, Y and Z to play it down and imnstead help out in A, B and C (obviously mirrored by the other party) it would be great. None of this "we were third but we're the favourites anyway" stuff, except in very special situations (of which N Shropshire in a by-election was one).
To minimise the grumbling, this should be restricted to winnable seats. There are a whole bunch of seats that are safely in the hands of one party, and in those there's no need to urge anything on anyone.
".... packing it up And sneaking away and buggering off And chickening out and pissing off home ..."
FFS.
I don't want a lockdown. Lockdowns are evil. So are tens or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths (*).
(*) Fortunately I don't think we'll be heading towards the latter of these.
* 6-8 gross in England, probably nothing in Wales, and offset by at least one loss in both England and in Scotland. I'd reckon 15-17 is a sensible guess for their total.
So, you can take this as either bad news (growth is taking off from Sunday's numbers), or good (Sunday's numbers were an anomaly, and the key thing is that "in hospital" is basically flat right now).
Can you now put your ruler on the graph for hospitalisations and tell us what they will be in January? Should be quite easy.
I’m not blaming the scientists entirely here, I want to know what instructions they are getting.
Daughter has to place her orders for the week by midnight tonight.
She is operating on the assumption that she might just make it to Xmas. And will close thereafter. If she is allowed to open on NY people will just have to drink what is left. She is not buying any fresh stock and risk losing it.
We went through all this nonsense last year and nothing has been learnt. Fullers is closing many of its pubs in London because they simply cannot operate like this.
The government's behaviour is pitiful. The one certainty I have is that our health and the health of our businesses are not even in the Top 10 considerations affecting what the government is doing. It's all about what is good for individual Tory politicians.
I intend paying absolutely no regard to what the government says. Just do what I think right for my family. The government can go fuck itself.
Throughout the pandemic I've been a good citizen, doing very as the Government bid and cutting it a good deal of slack because of the manifest difficulty of the task it has faced. No more. I've have seen at first hand why a wishy-washy policy gives us the worst of all possible worlds and have decided to simply ignore its instructions.
This is not to say I will behave irresponsibly. I will use my own common sense and judgement and avoid putting others at risk unnecessarily. But I will decide. The Government has lost all credibility with me. It looks increasingly as if it is being driven by political expedience.
If you exclude the accurate data you can't do that.
But in the village itself, no, definitely not a problem.
I suppose Labours attitude to PR in a coaltion scenario will be determined by their performance in Scotland and the Northern 'red wall' seats. If they reclaim some of those, then they have a path to being a majority government in the future. If they cannot, then they have everything to gain by accepting PR on a national level.
In any case it would also end the 2 main party system, with Corbynites forming their own party and some Tory rightwingers joining RefUK as both would win seats with PR
The decision is not about whether to do something.
The decision is what would need doing.
Only when you know what would need doing, can you make a proper decision on whether to do it.
But since you are a "never-never-never" person, they needn't do any of this ...