Her ideology is late-era Thatcherism: low tax, work not welfare, slash red tape, shrink the public sector, reduce workers’ rights
This isn't what the Red Wall wants
Liz Truss is so committed to freedom and liberty that she believes peaceful protesters should be imprisoned, only those with government-approved ID should be able to vote and that the Home Secretary should have the right to secretly take away someone's British citizenship.
Freedom and liberty are clearly becoming additions to the long list of contested political terms.
Her ideology is late-era Thatcherism: low tax, work not welfare, slash red tape, shrink the public sector, reduce workers’ rights
This isn't what the Red Wall wants
I doubt in the end she would get to the final 2 anyway, libertarians rarely do in Tory leadership contests, even Portillo only managed 3rd in 2001 when he was favourite.
I expect the contest will be the usual centrist v rightwinger to go to the membership.
If I was a betting man if Boris went I would say Sunak and Raab would be the top 2 amongst MPs to go to the membership, with Truss 3rd
Despite your rather different worldviews, Truss is like you - a Tory Flexitarian.
She'll be quite happy to abandon the libertarian label if it means a shot at the top job.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
And the members would probably have had enough of the experts if they hadn't been given the vote.
Thing is, anyone can join the party if you care that deeply who leads them. Alternatively, run against them in the election and win. Simples.
Her ideology is late-era Thatcherism: low tax, work not welfare, slash red tape, shrink the public sector, reduce workers’ rights
This isn't what the Red Wall wants
I doubt in the end she would get to the final 2 anyway, libertarians rarely do in Tory leadership contests, even Portillo only managed 3rd in 2001 when he was favourite.
I expect the contest will be the usual centrist v rightwinger to go to the membership.
If I was a betting man if Boris went I would say Sunak and Raab would be the top 2 amongst MPs to go to the membership, with Truss 3rd
I have just collapsed my head into my hands
You think that waste of space Raab, who is likely to lose his seat, will be in the top two is a fantasy because you really do not like Truss
Raab as leader is the quickest way to a Labour government. Get on with it I say!
If we are looking at outsiders, the one who has impressed me most is Alok Sharma. Thoughtful, eloquent, answers questions, exudes an air of quiet competence. Bugger all chance of getting the gig then.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
If we are looking at outsiders, the one who has impressed me most is Alok Sharma. Thoughtful, eloquent, answers questions, exudes an air of quiet competence. Bugger all chance of getting the gig then.
Can't disagree with you there. He would be a safe pair of hands. The Tories could do a lot worse.
The top 10 areas in the whole country, out of almost 9,000, are all in a narrow area from Brixton through Clapham to Tooting.
In west Brixton (Acre Lane) last week, roughly one in ten people got Covid. https://t.co/A8trn9Wy53
UB40 were ahead of the game:
"I am the one in ten-a number on a list I am the one in ten-even though I don't exist Nobody knows me but I'm always there Statistical reminder of a world that doesn't care.
I am the one in ten-a number on a list I am the one in ten-even though I don't exist Nobody knows me..."
Fascinating the sibling rivalry in that band. Makes the Gallaghers seem positive cordial.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
I can't fault that as if you look at members elected leaders you get Corbyn, IDS, Ed Miliband
Just about the only sane example is SKS and he likely won because the most likely winner left wing candidate lost their seat so was thankfully no longer an MP.
An estimated 1.4 million people in the UK had COVID-19 in the week ending 16 December, according to the Office for National Statistics.
It is the highest number since comparable figures began in autumn 2020.
Around one in 45 people in private households in England had COVID in the week to 16 December, up from one in 60 the previous week.
One in 45 is equivalent to around 1.2 million people and is the highest number recorded since the ONS started estimating infection levels for England in May 2020.
In Wales, around one in 55 people is estimated to have had COVID in the week to 16 December.
This is unchanged from the previous week and below the recent record high of one in 40.
The estimate in Northern Ireland is one in 50 people, a figure that is also unchanged from the previous week and below the record high of one in 40 in August.
In Scotland it is one in 70, up from one in 80 the previous week and below September's peak of one in 45.
1.4 million estimated to have Covid, and 195 in hospital with the Omicron variant. Those are the important numbers I'd have thought.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
An estimated 1.4 million people in the UK had COVID-19 in the week ending 16 December, according to the Office for National Statistics.
It is the highest number since comparable figures began in autumn 2020.
Around one in 45 people in private households in England had COVID in the week to 16 December, up from one in 60 the previous week.
One in 45 is equivalent to around 1.2 million people and is the highest number recorded since the ONS started estimating infection levels for England in May 2020.
In Wales, around one in 55 people is estimated to have had COVID in the week to 16 December.
This is unchanged from the previous week and below the recent record high of one in 40.
The estimate in Northern Ireland is one in 50 people, a figure that is also unchanged from the previous week and below the record high of one in 40 in August.
In Scotland it is one in 70, up from one in 80 the previous week and below September's peak of one in 45.
1.4 million estimated to have Covid, and 195 in hospital with the Omicron variant. Those are the important numbers I'd have thought.
Are there really only 145 in hospital with the variant, or is not every hospital case sequenced?
Her ideology is late-era Thatcherism: low tax, work not welfare, slash red tape, shrink the public sector, reduce workers’ rights
This isn't what the Red Wall wants
I doubt in the end she would get to the final 2 anyway, libertarians rarely do in Tory leadership contests, even Portillo only managed 3rd in 2001 when he was favourite.
I expect the contest will be the usual centrist v rightwinger to go to the membership.
If I was a betting man if Boris went I would say Sunak and Raab would be the top 2 amongst MPs to go to the membership, with Truss 3rd
Despite your rather different worldviews, Truss is like you - a Tory Flexitarian.
She'll be quite happy to abandon the libertarian label if it means a shot at the top job.
Truss needs to pick a camp, centrist or right as the final 2 will be from those camps almost certainly.
Sunak has probably locked up the former which means she will have to challenge Raab and Patel and Baker for the latter, in which case expect Truss to be shouting a lot of 'stop the boats' too
An estimated 1.4 million people in the UK had COVID-19 in the week ending 16 December, according to the Office for National Statistics.
It is the highest number since comparable figures began in autumn 2020.
Around one in 45 people in private households in England had COVID in the week to 16 December, up from one in 60 the previous week.
One in 45 is equivalent to around 1.2 million people and is the highest number recorded since the ONS started estimating infection levels for England in May 2020.
In Wales, around one in 55 people is estimated to have had COVID in the week to 16 December.
This is unchanged from the previous week and below the recent record high of one in 40.
The estimate in Northern Ireland is one in 50 people, a figure that is also unchanged from the previous week and below the record high of one in 40 in August.
In Scotland it is one in 70, up from one in 80 the previous week and below September's peak of one in 45.
1.4 million estimated to have Covid, and 195 in hospital with the Omicron variant. Those are the important numbers I'd have thought.
Also, maybe 1 million people who weren't ill self-isolating.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
On topic of the last several threads I would speculate that Boris and the Tories may just be at a nadir at the moment. It is entirely possible if Omicron does not fill the hospitals and the government resists further restrictions in England that things may start to look very different in the New Year.
Our underlying problem is that Omicron and the response to it has caused our economy to stutter once again. But it seems that Omicron is going to blast through its hosts incredibly quickly and it may then fall equally quickly. If that happens the second half of January may well prove something like normal.
The problem for BoZo is that when (if) Covid finally recedes, what will be left in its place is the full horror of Brexit.
He has been "lucky" thus far...
Brexit is fine, you need to turn the page
It isn't fine, it is absolutely shit, but we do need to move on.
To be honest it will evolve over time and hopefully with an improved relationship but @Scott_P seems to vent his anger on a daily even hourly basis without realising that to most brexit has now happened for better or worse
Trouble is, it's not just Scott, is it?
The public view is that Brexit has been a mistake. Comfortable plurality, nearly a majority;
Normally in democratic politics, things that turn out to be thought of as mistakes by the public get reversed. The most obvious UK example is the Poll Tax.
There are very good reasons why Brexit isn't getting reversed now. But that's what's fascinating; how does a nation respond when it's made a mistake but can't / won't reverse it?
A refusal to talk about it (and an urging that others shut up as well) is one possible response, but I'm not sure it's a healthy one.
The demographic is also changing. The young are Remainers and the old are Leavers. In five to ten years we'll be begging to be allowed back in. Schengen Euro the lot. It's crucial Remainers keep banging on about it.
We won't, even the young at most would favour EFTA not the full Federal EU plus Eurozone now.
The fact rejoin cannot even get over 50% now (remember Remain got 48% even in 2016) says everything
39% still in favour and 49% against when we have a Government who are the architects of Leave and Remain have thrown in the towel Extraordinary figures! When Remainers start mobilising and the issue becomes live I'd say on this evidence Return with all bells and whistles will be hot favourite.
Um no. This is fantasy land. The main issue with Brexit right now is that its implementation is connected so thoroughly with Johnson. Once he is gone the whole landscape changes. A less confrontational relationship with the EU, plus its own evolution into something even less attractive to the UK public will ensure there is no majority for rejoin when the time comes. Face it Roger, you are one of the dinosaurs after the comet has struck. You just haven't realised you are already extinct.
Really well said
It will be quite a few years (I'd say 10) before Brussels' gets over the assault to its self-image of a country daring even to consider leaving, never mind actually doing it. .
Honestly, we're a laughing stock. To both the EU and the RoW.
It has been an almost unmitigated disaster. They all know it and so do most of us.
A matter of opinion, depending who's media you read. Meanwhile house prices haven't collapsed, unemployment hasn't gone through the roof, the City hasn't vanished to Paris, Amsterdam and Dublin etc etc.
And for some reason Brussels have still not addressed the fundamental mistakes they made that delayed the EU vaccine rollout by 6-8 weeks, unnecessarily. I wonder why not?
As I said, imo it will take 10 years to judge.
Ardent EU advocates don't seem very confident of their position. This was last night from the Dr Mike Galsworthy feeding his trolls. The picture is a fake - I think from a campaign about staff conditions in Mexico 5 years ago.
I've previously met prominent EU-apologists on social media, who have said they don't give a fig whether their stuff is true or not, but I'd expect better from the founder of @Scientists4EU .
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
Have you seen Salmond's latest polling amongst Scots, it is even lower than Boris'!
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
the City hasn't vanished to Paris, Amsterdam and Dublin etc etc.
One consequence is the growth of the EU’s finance hubs. Paris has become the bloc’s top trading hub, while Frankfurt, Dublin and Amsterdam are also emerging as hives in their own right, for different specialisms.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
Have you seen Salmond's latest polling amongst Scots, it is even lower than Boris'!
Well, the SNP didn't elect him as leader, did they, since 2014? Which is the key point.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
Corbyn won the Labour leadership twice amongst a huge Labour membership.
Primaries do not guarantee selecting a moderate. Remember Trump even won open primaries in 2016 when he won the GOP nomination
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
Have you seen Salmond's latest polling amongst Scots, it is even lower than Boris'!
Well, the SNP didn't elect him as leader, did they, since 2014? Which is the key point.
The point I was making was if Sturgeon does not deliver indyref2 soon or declare UDI if the UK government does not agree one then SNP members would pick a Salmondite when she goes
Her ideology is late-era Thatcherism: low tax, work not welfare, slash red tape, shrink the public sector, reduce workers’ rights
This isn't what the Red Wall wants
I doubt in the end she would get to the final 2 anyway, libertarians rarely do in Tory leadership contests, even Portillo only managed 3rd in 2001 when he was favourite.
I expect the contest will be the usual centrist v rightwinger to go to the membership.
If I was a betting man if Boris went I would say Sunak and Raab would be the top 2 amongst MPs to go to the membership, with Truss 3rd
Despite your rather different worldviews, Truss is like you - a Tory Flexitarian.
She'll be quite happy to abandon the libertarian label if it means a shot at the top job.
Truss needs to pick a camp, centrist or right as the final 2 will be from those camps almost certainly.
Sunak has probably locked up the former which means she will have to challenge Raab and Patel and Baker for the latter, in which case expect Truss to be shouting a lot of 'stop the boats' too
Could have interesting implications for her new EU negotiations responsibility.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
Have you seen Salmond's latest polling amongst Scots, it is even lower than Boris'!
Well, the SNP didn't elect him as leader, did they, since 2014? Which is the key point.
The point I was making was if Sturgeon does not deliver indyref2 soon or declare UDI if the UK government does not agree one then SNP members would pick a Salmondite when she goes
Pro-Indy does not a Salmondite make. You should know that by now.
the City hasn't vanished to Paris, Amsterdam and Dublin etc etc.
One consequence is the growth of the EU’s finance hubs. Paris has become the bloc’s top trading hub, while Frankfurt, Dublin and Amsterdam are also emerging as hives in their own right, for different specialisms.
Kettle: Britain now has a government unable to govern…[the] result of the fact that Johnson is now the hostage of his backbenchers and their cabinet allies, who are in turn emboldened by the voters’ damning verdict in Shropshire.
All failing governments eventually reach a similar point, after which it turns out to be downhill all the way. The question for British politics today is whether Johnson’s government has now reached that point. The evidence suggests it has done so, in its own distinctive way, and that consequently British voters are now open to something new.
It is hard to recover from the reputation-shredding stories – with more to come – that produced North Shropshire. A prime minister being mocked by football and darts fans is not a good sign. Bad election results next year will undoubtedly trigger the leadership speculation that is never far below the surface in the party.
Perhaps Bingham’s law applies today too, just as it did after 2007. The country feels as though it it is in the process of deciding that it will need a new government when the time comes. If that is right, then it may not matter too much who leads the Tory party next time. The crucial question will be whether the country has enough confidence in the Labour alternative.
Kettle argues OK, but there is not a single remarkable argument in his analysis. His conclusion rests on assertion alone.
FWIW I don't think we are close to a point where the country decides 'time for a change of governing party'. All is to play for. Even if Boris is finished (and he may not be) the Tory party is not yet done for.
I would still say about the next GE: Tory/Tory led government 40%, Labour/Lab led government 60% (discounting no viable government, which is not impossible.)
If Boris had a decent couple of months now (ie some luck over omicron etc) it may look different by March.
And the Tories have not started fighting the next election yet.
And BTW, the next election could be a very good one to lose, like the last one.
Also BTW the fact that Lord Bingham said something years ago that proved true doesn't mean that you can say it again and it will be true. He was clever but not as clever as that.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
And on checking she resigned the party after attacks [verbal] from local activists.
So she says. At the 2017 GE, she promised to uphold the result of the referendum, and then spent the next two years campaigning (and voting) against that position. She left while her local party were in the process of trying to have her de-selected.
No, Sturgeon is a social democrat who could easily be a Labour MP in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet if she was English
According to my calculations (which are SOMETIMES correct!), the "Progressive Alliance" easily, er, "won" GE 2019!
"What is you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!
Well, the Progressive Parties won 52.20% of the popular vote, the Right-wing Reactionaries won only 46.83%, and others and independents won 0.97%.
"Show your workings".
OK:
Labour 32.08 LDs 11.55 SNP 3.88 Greens (all UK sections) 2.70 SF 0.57 PC 0.48 APNI 0.42 SDLP 0.37 Yorks 0.09 (yes, they are down as centre-left) TIGs 0.03 PBP 0.02 Northeast 0.01(yes, they are down as centre-left) Mebyon Kernow 0.01
Assuming (currently correctly) that the LDs are in the centre left camp, the left + centre left + social democrats will almost always win on the numbers. At the moment they do so effortlessly. The effort needed is political: to stop opposing each other more effectively than they oppose the Tories.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
And on checking she resigned the party after attacks [verbal] from local activists.
So she says. At the 2017 GE, she promised to uphold the result of the referendum, and then spent the next two years campaigning (and voting) against that position. She left while her local party were in the process of trying to have her de-selected.
IIRC the local activists and party hierarchy hated her guts because they hadn't selected her anyway, yet the primary process gave her near-immunity against them until that admittedly final issue.
An estimated 1.4 million people in the UK had COVID-19 in the week ending 16 December, according to the Office for National Statistics.
It is the highest number since comparable figures began in autumn 2020.
Around one in 45 people in private households in England had COVID in the week to 16 December, up from one in 60 the previous week.
One in 45 is equivalent to around 1.2 million people and is the highest number recorded since the ONS started estimating infection levels for England in May 2020.
In Wales, around one in 55 people is estimated to have had COVID in the week to 16 December.
This is unchanged from the previous week and below the recent record high of one in 40.
The estimate in Northern Ireland is one in 50 people, a figure that is also unchanged from the previous week and below the record high of one in 40 in August.
In Scotland it is one in 70, up from one in 80 the previous week and below September's peak of one in 45.
1.4 million estimated to have Covid, and 195 in hospital with the Omicron variant. Those are the important numbers I'd have thought.
Are there really only 145 in hospital with the variant, or is not every hospital case sequenced?
I'd *imagine* that anyone in hospital with Covid gets sequenced - you want to know which variant(s) are causing most of the hospitalisations (*).
The problems are the lag between infection and hospitalisation, and a lag between sample being taken and being sequenced - especially as few hospitals have the sequencing kit. The samples need to be sent to be sequenced in the vast number of cases.
Having said that, 145 is less than I'd expect atm. It might well be a positive sign.
(*) I'd love to know if this assumption is correct.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
And on checking she resigned the party after attacks [verbal] from local activists.
So she says. At the 2017 GE, she promised to uphold the result of the referendum, and then spent the next two years campaigning (and voting) against that position. She left while her local party were in the process of trying to have her de-selected.
That's the problem with open primaries. If you aren't beholden to the activists and members, you aren't beholden to the activists and members. And that can cut both ways.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
And on checking she resigned the party after attacks [verbal] from local activists.
So she says. At the 2017 GE, she promised to uphold the result of the referendum, and then spent the next two years campaigning (and voting) against that position. She left while her local party were in the process of trying to have her de-selected.
Was she not also originally a Brexiteer who “switched” to remain in the dying days of the campaign?
From a flip-flop perspective, it was undoubtedly impressive. Brexiteer to remainer to referendum upholder to arch Brexit obstructionist.
No, Sturgeon is a social democrat who could easily be a Labour MP in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet if she was English
According to my calculations (which are SOMETIMES correct!), the "Progressive Alliance" easily, er, "won" GE 2019!
"What is you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!
Well, the Progressive Parties won 52.20% of the popular vote, the Right-wing Reactionaries won only 46.83%, and others and independents won 0.97%.
"Show your workings".
OK:
Labour 32.08 LDs 11.55 SNP 3.88 Greens (all UK sections) 2.70 SF 0.57 PC 0.48 APNI 0.42 SDLP 0.37 Yorks 0.09 (yes, they are down as centre-left) TIGs 0.03 PBP 0.02 Northeast 0.01(yes, they are down as centre-left) Mebyon Kernow 0.01
Assuming (currently correctly) that the LDs are in the centre left camp, the left + centre left + social democrats will almost always win on the numbers. At the moment they do so effortlessly. The effort needed is political: to stop opposing each other more effectively than they oppose the Tories.
Don't see a great deal centre left about the LD's. One time in government in the past century wasn't notable for it. Also. Isn't left/right defined by the median? The Lib Dems are the median voter. Therefore Centrist.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
Have you seen Salmond's latest polling amongst Scots, it is even lower than Boris'!
Well, the SNP didn't elect him as leader, did they, since 2014? Which is the key point.
The point I was making was if Sturgeon does not deliver indyref2 soon or declare UDI if the UK government does not agree one then SNP members would pick a Salmondite when she goes
Pro-Indy does not a Salmondite make. You should know that by now.
Pro indyref2 and pro UDI if not agreed with Westminster does and that is what the SNP membership will want if Sturgeon fails to deliver
No, Sturgeon is a social democrat who could easily be a Labour MP in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet if she was English
According to my calculations (which are SOMETIMES correct!), the "Progressive Alliance" easily, er, "won" GE 2019!
"What is you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!
Well, the Progressive Parties won 52.20% of the popular vote, the Right-wing Reactionaries won only 46.83%, and others and independents won 0.97%.
"Show your workings".
OK:
Labour 32.08 LDs 11.55 SNP 3.88 Greens (all UK sections) 2.70 SF 0.57 PC 0.48 APNI 0.42 SDLP 0.37 Yorks 0.09 (yes, they are down as centre-left) TIGs 0.03 PBP 0.02 Northeast 0.01(yes, they are down as centre-left) Mebyon Kernow 0.01
Assuming (currently correctly) that the LDs are in the centre left camp, the left + centre left + social democrats will almost always win on the numbers. At the moment they do so effortlessly. The effort needed is political: to stop opposing each other more effectively than they oppose the Tories.
Don't see a great deal centre left about the LD's. One time in government in the past century wasn't notable for it. Also. Isn't left/right defined by the median? The Lib Dems are the median voter. Therefore Centrist.
wiki describes them as center to center left. I think that's an accurate description.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
And on checking she resigned the party after attacks [verbal] from local activists.
So she says. At the 2017 GE, she promised to uphold the result of the referendum, and then spent the next two years campaigning (and voting) against that position. She left while her local party were in the process of trying to have her de-selected.
That's the problem with open primaries. If you aren't beholden to the activists and members, you aren't beholden to the activists and members. And that can cut both ways.
Sure, but the constituency was majority Leave, and in 2017 she promised to respect the results of the referendum. In the end, she didn't consider herself beholden to the electorate, either.
In truth, it was a shame that the experiment ended the way it did, because it was an interesting idea, and did seem to be working up to that point. The problem was that she was probably a "natural" Lib Dem from the beginning, but living in a safe-ish Tory seat, it made more sense for her to stand for the party likely to win. Which was fine in the 2010 Parliament, but once the coalition ended, it was clear that she in the wrong party.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
Have you seen Salmond's latest polling amongst Scots, it is even lower than Boris'!
Well, the SNP didn't elect him as leader, did they, since 2014? Which is the key point.
The point I was making was if Sturgeon does not deliver indyref2 soon or declare UDI if the UK government does not agree one then SNP members would pick a Salmondite when she goes
Pro-Indy does not a Salmondite make. You should know that by now.
Pro indyref2 and pro UDI if not agreed with Westminster does and that is what the SNP membership will want if Sturgeon fails to deliver
You're missing my point: it is that there are many political positions within the SNP which all share independence as a policy. Mr Salmond's centre-rightism is therefore the only meaningful defintion of a 'Salmondite' whatever you think it might mean. Ms Sturgeon's successor need not share that position.
Not sure if the University of Washington modeling has been covered here so far. If not, here is a link to the NPR story about it.
Basically, their model predicts tons of new infections in the US, but fewer hospitalizations. The online reaction has been - yes, that is possible, but based on what hard evidence?
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
And on checking she resigned the party after attacks [verbal] from local activists.
So she says. At the 2017 GE, she promised to uphold the result of the referendum, and then spent the next two years campaigning (and voting) against that position. She left while her local party were in the process of trying to have her de-selected.
Was she not also originally a Brexiteer who “switched” to remain in the dying days of the campaign?
From a flip-flop perspective, it was undoubtedly impressive. Brexiteer to remainer to referendum upholder to arch Brexit obstructionist.
The conspiracy theory at the time was that she was never Leave, and always intended to "switch sides" during the campaign, in an attempt to curry favour with party leadership by inflicting damage on the Leave side. Unlikely, but there aren't many plausible explanations for her conversion.
Burnham tells BBC Breakfast that the government is right not to put restrictions on at this stage.
Worried about mental health at this stage of pandemic if we do lockdowns again.
Top man!!!
Removing restrictions did little to help the population’s mental health, so it’s unclear that re-imposing them would necessarily threaten mental health. We do need to be aware of the mental health toll of the pandemic, but it appears to be more complicated than this simplistic idea that lockdowns are what cause mental health problems. See https://osf.io/d6cmv/
Novara, Owen and Aaron seem to have given up trying to get Labour elected and now just seem to want the Tories, HYUFD should invite them round for tea, along with @bigjohnowls
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
And on checking she resigned the party after attacks [verbal] from local activists.
So she says. At the 2017 GE, she promised to uphold the result of the referendum, and then spent the next two years campaigning (and voting) against that position. She left while her local party were in the process of trying to have her de-selected.
Was she not also originally a Brexiteer who “switched” to remain in the dying days of the campaign?
From a flip-flop perspective, it was undoubtedly impressive. Brexiteer to remainer to referendum upholder to arch Brexit obstructionist.
The conspiracy theory at the time was that she was never Leave, and always intended to "switch sides" during the campaign, in an attempt to curry favour with party leadership by inflicting damage on the Leave side. Unlikely, but there aren't many plausible explanations for her conversion.
The most annoying thing about her defection from Leave to Remain is that it proved my dad right. He kept saying that someone would switch sides and I kept saying that it seemed incredibly unlikely to happen.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
Have you seen Salmond's latest polling amongst Scots, it is even lower than Boris'!
Well, the SNP didn't elect him as leader, did they, since 2014? Which is the key point.
The point I was making was if Sturgeon does not deliver indyref2 soon or declare UDI if the UK government does not agree one then SNP members would pick a Salmondite when she goes
They won't. What the actual do you know about any of it?
South African # in hospital down today, about a week after national cases started falling. If that was the peak it's confirmed at their smallest and shortest wave to date.
No, Sturgeon is a social democrat who could easily be a Labour MP in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet if she was English
According to my calculations (which are SOMETIMES correct!), the "Progressive Alliance" easily, er, "won" GE 2019!
"What is you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!
Well, the Progressive Parties won 52.20% of the popular vote, the Right-wing Reactionaries won only 46.83%, and others and independents won 0.97%.
"Show your workings".
OK:
Labour 32.08 LDs 11.55 SNP 3.88 Greens (all UK sections) 2.70 SF 0.57 PC 0.48 APNI 0.42 SDLP 0.37 Yorks 0.09 (yes, they are down as centre-left) TIGs 0.03 PBP 0.02 Northeast 0.01(yes, they are down as centre-left) Mebyon Kernow 0.01
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
Have you seen Salmond's latest polling amongst Scots, it is even lower than Boris'!
Well, the SNP didn't elect him as leader, did they, since 2014? Which is the key point.
The point I was making was if Sturgeon does not deliver indyref2 soon or declare UDI if the UK government does not agree one then SNP members would pick a Salmondite when she goes
Pro-Indy does not a Salmondite make. You should know that by now.
Pro indyref2 and pro UDI if not agreed with Westminster does and that is what the SNP membership will want if Sturgeon fails to deliver
As you have demonstrated repeatedly and laughably that you know literally nothing about Scotland, can I ask what makes you think you have the ability to make any statements about what SNP members want?
Burnham tells BBC Breakfast that the government is right not to put restrictions on at this stage.
Worried about mental health at this stage of pandemic if we do lockdowns again.
Top man!!!
Removing restrictions did little to help the population’s mental health, so it’s unclear that re-imposing them would necessarily threaten mental health. We do need to be aware of the mental health toll of the pandemic, but it appears to be more complicated than this simplistic idea that lockdowns are what cause mental health problems. See https://osf.io/d6cmv/
By the end of the last lockdown I was near a psychotic break. I can assure you right now, from personal experience, that lockdowns cause mental health problems. Because I'm still dealing with mine.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
Ooh, that is interesting. I guess a bigger (albeit not huge) membership is less likely to self-select to something odd. A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
The open primary notion got the Tories an excellent MP till they dumped her. A medic, somewhere in Devon. I forget the details now.
And on checking she resigned the party after attacks [verbal] from local activists.
She had also run for election as candidate and MP on a pro-Leave ticket, as noted in that piece.
Rather like Grieve, not nearly as clever as she thought she was. In her own mind, 50 IQ points above the hoi polloi and could could play all the tricks she liked without the rabble noticing.
Not sure if the University of Washington modeling has been covered here so far. If not, here is a link to the NPR story about it.
Basically, their model predicts tons of new infections in the US, but fewer hospitalizations. The online reaction has been - yes, that is possible, but based on what hard evidence?
And thanks to @Foxy for the Scots paper - had missed it.
"Findings The first case of Omicron confirmed by viral sequencing was recorded in Scotland on November 23, 2021, By December 19, 2021, there were 23,840 S gene negative cases. These S gene negative cases were predominantly in the age group 20-39 (11,732; 49.2%). The proportion of S gene negative cases that were possible reinfections was more than 10 times that of S gene positive (7.6% versus 0.7%). There were 15 hospital admissions in those S gene negative giving an adjusted observed/expected ratio of 0.32 (95% CI 0.19, 0.52). The third/booster vaccine dose was associated with a 57% (95% CI 55, 60) reduction in the risk of symptomatic S gene negative symptomatic infection relative to ≥25 weeks post second dose. Interpretation These early national data suggest that Omicron is associated with a two-thirds reduction in the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation when compared to Delta. Whilst offering the greatest protection against Delta, the third/booster dose of vaccination offers substantial additional protection against the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 for Omicron when compared to ≥25 weeks post second vaccine dose"
If I read this correctly, the o/e ratio of 0.32 - whence presumably the 'two thirds' (0.67) reduction - has quite wide error limits as one would expect from a small n of infected. 95% confidence intervals give a range from 0.19 to 0.52 for the true o/e. '2/3' reduction is actually not a bad approximation - those figures imply 4/5 to 1/2 reduction.
Burnham tells BBC Breakfast that the government is right not to put restrictions on at this stage.
Worried about mental health at this stage of pandemic if we do lockdowns again.
Top man!!!
Removing restrictions did little to help the population’s mental health, so it’s unclear that re-imposing them would necessarily threaten mental health. We do need to be aware of the mental health toll of the pandemic, but it appears to be more complicated than this simplistic idea that lockdowns are what cause mental health problems. See https://osf.io/d6cmv/
By the end of the last lockdown I was near a psychotic break. I can assure you right now, from personal experience, that lockdowns cause mental health problems. Because I'm still dealing with mine.
If the child psychologists and psychaitrists I know are anything to go by, *someone* is booking them out solid. No appointments available.
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
Have you seen Salmond's latest polling amongst Scots, it is even lower than Boris'!
Well, the SNP didn't elect him as leader, did they, since 2014? Which is the key point.
The point I was making was if Sturgeon does not deliver indyref2 soon or declare UDI if the UK government does not agree one then SNP members would pick a Salmondite when she goes
Pro-Indy does not a Salmondite make. You should know that by now.
Pro indyref2 and pro UDI if not agreed with Westminster does and that is what the SNP membership will want if Sturgeon fails to deliver
As you have demonstrated repeatedly and laughably that you know literally nothing about Scotland, can I ask what makes you think you have the ability to make any statements about what SNP members want?
What they want is independence and Sturgeon has zero chance of delivering it as she has ruled out attempting UDI unless there is a PM Starmer reliant on her party's confidence and supply after the next general election who gives her indyref2 (and even then it would only be 50% at best)
What a total cluster if either Raab or Patel gets put to the members and wins!
That is the risk if Boris goes, MPs try to get Sunak, the members pick Raab or Steve Baker or even Patel in the runoff!
Dear William Hague
You invented a dud system.
Yours, the British people.
Dear Tory members in 2005
Don't think you can wriggle off responsibility. You kept it when Howard tried to persuade you to drop it, knowing it was shit. On the two of the three occasions you've voted, you've picked total numpties.
Yours, still the British people.
Problem is - if you remove the Tory membership's ability to pick a leader, you are leaving it to Experts who know the candidates to pick the best option for leader.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Hypothesis: Letting members choose party leaders slows the electoral pendulum in a bad way. When a party loses, the membership's natural reaction is to retreat to their comfort zone and pick someone highly unattractive to the general public (see IDS, Corbyn). The degree of despair necessary to pick someone who the voter-at-large might like (see Blair, Cameron) is much greater for party members than for MPs. So a newly-elected government gets a free ride for a cycle or two.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
Interestingly, the SNP seems least prone to that defect - about 120K members within (mostly, one assumes) Scotland compared to 200K CUP members and 430K [edit] for Labour across the UK (plus expats etc) - you'd need to multiply the SNP figure by 12 to compare per head of population.
If Sturgeon fails to deliver indyref2 though you could easily see the SNP membership picking a hardline Salmond sympathiser when she goes
Still, vastly more representative of the body politic than the Conservative Party, by a factor of about 4.5x.
Have you seen Salmond's latest polling amongst Scots, it is even lower than Boris'!
Well, the SNP didn't elect him as leader, did they, since 2014? Which is the key point.
The point I was making was if Sturgeon does not deliver indyref2 soon or declare UDI if the UK government does not agree one then SNP members would pick a Salmondite when she goes
Pro-Indy does not a Salmondite make. You should know that by now.
Pro indyref2 and pro UDI if not agreed with Westminster does and that is what the SNP membership will want if Sturgeon fails to deliver
As you have demonstrated repeatedly and laughably that you know literally nothing about Scotland, can I ask what makes you think you have the ability to make any statements about what SNP members want?
What they want is independence and Sturgeon has zero chance of delivering it unless there is a PM Starmer reliant on her party's confidence and supply after the next general election who gives her indyref2 (and even then it would only be 50% at best)
Burnham tells BBC Breakfast that the government is right not to put restrictions on at this stage.
Worried about mental health at this stage of pandemic if we do lockdowns again.
Top man!!!
Removing restrictions did little to help the population’s mental health, so it’s unclear that re-imposing them would necessarily threaten mental health. We do need to be aware of the mental health toll of the pandemic, but it appears to be more complicated than this simplistic idea that lockdowns are what cause mental health problems. See https://osf.io/d6cmv/
It's self-evident that lockdowns must be bad for mental health in general.
The Premier League is becoming a farce. Should have made teams forfeit from the start. A 3-0 loss would have focused minds on getting players vaccinated. And proper infection control.
Given Omnicron is so weak and infectious a better policy would be to ignore it and let players play with it (ditto the rest of society)
No, Sturgeon is a social democrat who could easily be a Labour MP in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet if she was English
According to my calculations (which are SOMETIMES correct!), the "Progressive Alliance" easily, er, "won" GE 2019!
"What is you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!
Well, the Progressive Parties won 52.20% of the popular vote, the Right-wing Reactionaries won only 46.83%, and others and independents won 0.97%.
"Show your workings".
OK:
Labour 32.08 LDs 11.55 SNP 3.88 Greens (all UK sections) 2.70 SF 0.57 PC 0.48 APNI 0.42 SDLP 0.37 Yorks 0.09 (yes, they are down as centre-left) TIGs 0.03 PBP 0.02 Northeast 0.01(yes, they are down as centre-left) Mebyon Kernow 0.01
Assuming (currently correctly) that the LDs are in the centre left camp, the left + centre left + social democrats will almost always win on the numbers. At the moment they do so effortlessly. The effort needed is political: to stop opposing each other more effectively than they oppose the Tories.
Don't see a great deal centre left about the LD's. One time in government in the past century wasn't notable for it. Also. Isn't left/right defined by the median? The Lib Dems are the median voter. Therefore Centrist.
wiki describes them as center to center left. I think that's an accurate description.
A genuine centrist voter ie bang on the median, would since 1997 have probably voted Blair, Blair, Blair, Clegg, Clegg or Cameron, May, Swinson and would likely vote for Davey in 2023/24 if they voted purely on ideology not tactically. So yes more often than not the LDs can be described as the centrist party
Burnham tells BBC Breakfast that the government is right not to put restrictions on at this stage.
Worried about mental health at this stage of pandemic if we do lockdowns again.
Top man!!!
Removing restrictions did little to help the population’s mental health, so it’s unclear that re-imposing them would necessarily threaten mental health. We do need to be aware of the mental health toll of the pandemic, but it appears to be more complicated than this simplistic idea that lockdowns are what cause mental health problems. See https://osf.io/d6cmv/
It's self-evident that lockdowns must be bad for mental health in general.
One would think so, but to prove it and trace the actual phenomena you have to compare it, not with a time without covid, but with a covid epidemic without lockdowns. Not easy.
Her ideology is late-era Thatcherism: low tax, work not welfare, slash red tape, shrink the public sector, reduce workers’ rights
This isn't what the Red Wall wants
See my post upthread.
I’m not sure there’s any ideological difference between Truss and Rishi.
There seems to be no viable red wall friendly candidate, although Javid could come through the middle of a leadership contest on the back of red wall MP votes.
I quite like Javid. Problem is that he bears a striking resemblance to Dr. Evil from Austin Powers
Personally I think he’s a bit of a lightweight. But I think Truss is an even lighterweight and Rishi is far too slick, so 🤷♂️
Britain cries out for a great person, with destiny and history on their side, to lead us out of the abyss.
However, as we don't have one of them right now, let's look at the Saj.
100% from me. At some point Rishi will have to stand next to the other candidates and his lack of status will hinder him. Raab unsafe seat and useless, and Truss needs to prove herself.
Sajid is probably the candidate most likely to go back to Cameronite policies.
But as a Remainer, will the membership accept him?
David Cameron was a disaster. He called a EU referendum and refused to run a positive campaign. It was totally negative, which was probably why Remain lost.
Sajid is probably the candidate most likely to go back to Cameronite policies.
But as a Remainer, will the membership accept him?
David Cameron was a disaster. He called a EU referendum and refused to run a positive campaign. It was totally negative, which was probably why Remain lost.
He did a terrible job but was a much better PM than Johnson will ever be.
No, Sturgeon is a social democrat who could easily be a Labour MP in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet if she was English
According to my calculations (which are SOMETIMES correct!), the "Progressive Alliance" easily, er, "won" GE 2019!
"What is you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!
Well, the Progressive Parties won 52.20% of the popular vote, the Right-wing Reactionaries won only 46.83%, and others and independents won 0.97%.
"Show your workings".
OK:
Labour 32.08 LDs 11.55 SNP 3.88 Greens (all UK sections) 2.70 SF 0.57 PC 0.48 APNI 0.42 SDLP 0.37 Yorks 0.09 (yes, they are down as centre-left) TIGs 0.03 PBP 0.02 Northeast 0.01(yes, they are down as centre-left) Mebyon Kernow 0.01
Burnham tells BBC Breakfast that the government is right not to put restrictions on at this stage.
Worried about mental health at this stage of pandemic if we do lockdowns again.
Top man!!!
Removing restrictions did little to help the population’s mental health, so it’s unclear that re-imposing them would necessarily threaten mental health. We do need to be aware of the mental health toll of the pandemic, but it appears to be more complicated than this simplistic idea that lockdowns are what cause mental health problems. See https://osf.io/d6cmv/
When you say simplistic you mean simple, self evident and true. "In England, psychological distress was elevated, and wellbeing lower,during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to population norms" from your link seems about right.
Comments
She'll be quite happy to abandon the libertarian label if it means a shot at the top job.
And the Tory party has had enough of Experts...
Thing is, anyone can join the party if you care that deeply who leads them. Alternatively, run against them in the election and win. Simples.
Get on with it I say!
Thoughtful, eloquent, answers questions, exudes an air of quiet competence.
Bugger all chance of getting the gig then.
This isn't good for democracy at large, but prising that power from the hands of the tiny numbers of people who are party members (for any party) is going to be tricky...
VAT is now an entirely domestic tax, however, and we can do with it what we like.
Cleopatra the kitten popped up during licensing session"
https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/legal-verdict cat-did-not-distract-councillor
Just about the only sane example is SKS and he likely won because the most likely winner left wing candidate lost their seat so was thankfully no longer an MP.
Sunak has probably locked up the former which means she will have to challenge Raab and Patel and Baker for the latter, in which case expect Truss to be shouting a lot of 'stop the boats' too
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/how-a-year-of-brexit-thumped-britain-s-economy-and-businesses
And for some reason Brussels have still not addressed the fundamental mistakes they made that delayed the EU vaccine rollout by 6-8 weeks, unnecessarily. I wonder why not?
As I said, imo it will take 10 years to judge.
Ardent EU advocates don't seem very confident of their position. This was last night from the Dr Mike Galsworthy feeding his trolls. The picture is a fake - I think from a campaign about staff conditions in Mexico 5 years ago.
I've previously met prominent EU-apologists on social media, who have said they don't give a fig whether their stuff is true or not, but I'd expect better from the founder of @Scientists4EU .
A bit like the Conservative experiment with open primaries for vacant constituencies. Good PR, but from memory the relevant local members weren't as keen.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-21/jpmorgan-s-paris-traders-are-only-part-of-the-threat-to-the-city-of-london
Primaries do not guarantee selecting a moderate. Remember Trump even won open primaries in 2016 when he won the GOP nomination
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/aug/04/totnes-tories-open-primary
And on checking she resigned the party after attacks [verbal] from local activists.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/london-banking-job-exodus-eu-slows-despite-brexit-2021-12-20/
FWIW I don't think we are close to a point where the country decides 'time for a change of governing party'. All is to play for. Even if Boris is finished (and he may not be) the Tory party is not yet done for.
I would still say about the next GE: Tory/Tory led government 40%, Labour/Lab led government 60% (discounting no viable government, which is not impossible.)
If Boris had a decent couple of months now (ie some luck over omicron etc) it may look different by March.
And the Tories have not started fighting the next election yet.
And BTW, the next election could be a very good one to lose, like the last one.
Also BTW the fact that Lord Bingham said something years ago that proved true doesn't mean that you can say it again and it will be true. He was clever but not as clever as that.
The problems are the lag between infection and hospitalisation, and a lag between sample being taken and being sequenced - especially as few hospitals have the sequencing kit. The samples need to be sent to be sequenced in the vast number of cases.
Having said that, 145 is less than I'd expect atm. It might well be a positive sign.
(*) I'd love to know if this assumption is correct.
If you aren't beholden to the activists and members, you aren't beholden to the activists and members.
And that can cut both ways.
From a flip-flop perspective, it was undoubtedly impressive. Brexiteer to remainer to referendum upholder to arch Brexit obstructionist.
One time in government in the past century wasn't notable for it.
Also. Isn't left/right defined by the median?
The Lib Dems are the median voter. Therefore Centrist.
In truth, it was a shame that the experiment ended the way it did, because it was an interesting idea, and did seem to be working up to that point. The problem was that she was probably a "natural" Lib Dem from the beginning, but living in a safe-ish Tory seat, it made more sense for her to stand for the party likely to win. Which was fine in the 2010 Parliament, but once the coalition ended, it was clear that she in the wrong party.
My fear with replacing Johnson is that the nutters are still there and they won an 80 seat majority so they have influence.
For Labour, the nutters lost in a landslide and are thus irrelevant
🏴 695,273
🏴 73,701
🏴 46,640
NI 24,424
Peak booster come and gone?
Basically, their model predicts tons of new infections in the US, but fewer hospitalizations. The online reaction has been - yes, that is possible, but based on what hard evidence?
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/22/1066649196/omicron-will-cause-more-infections-but-lower-hospital-rates-analysis-shows
He actually wants to win elections, so that's a start
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-congresswoman-defund-police-carjacked-in-crime-surging-philadelphia
{kicks the cage of flying lawyers in an offhand manner}
And thanks to @Foxy for the Scots paper - had missed it.
"Findings The first case of Omicron confirmed by viral sequencing was recorded in Scotland on
November 23, 2021, By December 19, 2021, there were 23,840 S gene negative cases. These S gene
negative cases were predominantly in the age group 20-39 (11,732; 49.2%). The proportion of S gene
negative cases that were possible reinfections was more than 10 times that of S gene positive (7.6%
versus 0.7%). There were 15 hospital admissions in those S gene negative giving an adjusted
observed/expected ratio of 0.32 (95% CI 0.19, 0.52). The third/booster vaccine dose was associated
with a 57% (95% CI 55, 60) reduction in the risk of symptomatic S gene negative symptomatic infection
relative to ≥25 weeks post second dose.
Interpretation These early national data suggest that Omicron is associated with a two-thirds reduction
in the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation when compared to Delta. Whilst offering the greatest protection
against Delta, the third/booster dose of vaccination offers substantial additional protection against the
risk of symptomatic COVID-19 for Omicron when compared to ≥25 weeks post second vaccine dose"
If I read this correctly, the o/e ratio of 0.32 - whence presumably the 'two thirds' (0.67) reduction - has quite wide error limits as one would expect from a small n of infected. 95% confidence intervals give a range from 0.19 to 0.52 for the true o/e. '2/3' reduction is actually not a bad approximation - those figures imply 4/5 to 1/2 reduction.
As for your nutters comment.
I wont lower myself to your level
And see this albeit for suicide spewcifically
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00087-9/fulltext
Excellent column by @DavidGauke on the limits of Johnson monomania. https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2021/12/the-problem-isnt-simply-boris-johnson-its-tory-mps
But as a Remainer, will the membership accept him?
Best step up the war on Socialists!!
Leave told a bunch of lies
More than 300 - the SNP won't be able to do much. Less than 280, though, and you have more of a problem.
Labour's success is really very much on the shoulders of the Lib Dems
Instead I will replace it with morons.