Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Johnson exit date betting gets very tight – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 23 in General
imageThe Johnson exit date betting gets very tight – politicalbetting.com

As we move on from the holiday season the big political betting market is on when Johnson will no longer by PM. This goes up and down depending on the latest developments and all eyes will be on the PM as politics returns to normal after the holiday break.

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,088
    First
  • The second day of England's third Ashes Test against Australia may be delayed.

    England's players have not yet left their hotel for the Melbourne Cricket Ground. They are instead "awaiting results of Covid tests following a positive test in the team's family group".

    https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/1475234951100518406?t=u_YfpvzeUAEiwRpmVEot0A&s=19

    Humorous reply...

    Live scenes in the England hotel: https://t.co/xctMMs5oS7
  • https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1475237263764336640

    Govt mood on Covid increasingly leaning on guidance:

    “The latest research on Omicron supports Boris’ decision to be cautious. I don’t see why he would recall everyone to Westminster when things are starting to look as if we can make our way through it.”

    What hilarious spin lol.

    Anyway, now complacency is going to set in again and we're going to be in real trouble soon. I am so glad the Government learnt their lessons, not
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,088
    edited December 2021

    The second day of England's third Ashes Test against Australia may be delayed.

    England's players have not yet left their hotel for the Melbourne Cricket Ground. They are instead "awaiting results of Covid tests following a positive test in the team's family group".

    https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/1475234951100518406?t=u_YfpvzeUAEiwRpmVEot0A&s=19

    Humorous reply...

    Live scenes in the England hotel: https://t.co/xctMMs5oS7

    "Update: The England team have now been given the all-clear to travel to the MCG."

    https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/1475237001733586951?s=20

    Edit: But yes that was funny!
  • https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1475170149850361857

    Scottish Independence Voting Intention:

    NO: 44% (+1)
    YES: 44% (=)
    Undecideds: 12% (-1)

    Undecideds Excluded:

    NO: 50% (+1)
    YES: 50% (-1)

    Via
    @OpiniumResearch
    , 15-22 December,
    Changes w/ 3-8 September.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited December 2021
    This is revenge for those who have died in the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

    “It is also revenge for those who have been killed, humiliated and discriminated on because of their race.

    “I’m an Indian Sikh, a Sith. My name was Jaswant Singh Chail, my name is Darth Jones.”

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17149695/man-crossbow-threatens-kill-queen/
  • https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1475237263764336640

    Govt mood on Covid increasingly leaning on guidance:

    “The latest research on Omicron supports Boris’ decision to be cautious. I don’t see why he would recall everyone to Westminster when things are starting to look as if we can make our way through it.”

    What hilarious spin lol.

    Anyway, now complacency is going to set in again and we're going to be in real trouble soon. I am so glad the Government learnt their lessons, not

    No lockdown coming in England. No support for a lockdown.

    GN all 👍
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,756
    Today's video from Dr John Campbell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uzrn4e0Wg
  • HYUFD said:

    The Tories I hope are coming to the end of their current time in Government. In opposition they can remove UKIP from themselves and go back to being a moderate, centre-ground party the country can be proud of once again

    If the history of Labour and the Tories in the last few decades tells us anything it is that both go further to the left or right in opposition after losing power. They do not become more moderate
    When they want to win, they go for the centre.

    See: Cameron and Blair
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281
    4 positive tests in the England cricket party.
    2 family members and 2 support staff.
    We can do this! Get mixing! Series abandoned!
    Serve them right after the RL World Cup.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited December 2021
    dixiedean said:

    4 positive tests in the England cricket party.
    2 family members and 2 support staff.
    We can do this! Get mixing! Series abandoned!
    Serve them right after the RL World Cup.

    Given that, it would seem somewhat unlikely that a player hasn't been infected. Australia has Omicron and i doubt the players are triple jabbed.
  • The second day of England's third Ashes Test against Australia may be delayed.

    England's players have not yet left their hotel for the Melbourne Cricket Ground. They are instead "awaiting results of Covid tests following a positive test in the team's family group".

    https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/1475234951100518406?t=u_YfpvzeUAEiwRpmVEot0A&s=19

    Humorous reply...

    Live scenes in the England hotel: https://t.co/xctMMs5oS7

    "Update: The England team have now been given the all-clear to travel to the MCG."

    https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/1475237001733586951?s=20

    Edit: But yes that was funny!
    Well, I wouldn't expect this England team to catch anything ...
    Would be quite an achievement if they can't even catch Omicron....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited December 2021
    When England insisted on only going to Australia if they could ditch the biosecurity bubble and have their families, it was always a significant risk that COVID could become an issue.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,681
    Andy_JS said:

    Today's video from Dr John Campbell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uzrn4e0Wg

    Super viewing - but disturbing about the outdated advice being given to Javid. Either an agenda at work - "or maybe just incompetence..."

    "There's a real credibility issue - something needs to be done."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited December 2021

    Andy_JS said:

    Today's video from Dr John Campbell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uzrn4e0Wg

    Super viewing - but disturbing about the outdated advice being given to Javid. Either an agenda at work - "or maybe just incompetence..."

    "There's a real credibility issue - something needs to be done."
    It seems to keep happening......

    One of the things that Tim Spector gets very annoyed about if how the symptoms that the powers continue to say are COVID arent in any relation to what his study picks up.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,748
    edited December 2021
    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html
    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
  • At least 2,000 coronavirus cases in Puerto Rico linked to Bad Bunny concert, which happened outdoors and required masks and proof of vaccination - El Nuevo Dia
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281

    Andy_JS said:

    Today's video from Dr John Campbell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uzrn4e0Wg

    Super viewing - but disturbing about the outdated advice being given to Javid. Either an agenda at work - "or maybe just incompetence..."

    "There's a real credibility issue - something needs to be done."
    It seems to keep happening......

    One of the things that Tim Spector gets very annoyed about if how the symptoms that the powers continue to say are COVID arent in any relation to what his study picks up.
    Indeed. Haven't been for a few weeks now.
    The cough has gone. It's the sore throat and headache now.
  • dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Today's video from Dr John Campbell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uzrn4e0Wg

    Super viewing - but disturbing about the outdated advice being given to Javid. Either an agenda at work - "or maybe just incompetence..."

    "There's a real credibility issue - something needs to be done."
    It seems to keep happening......

    One of the things that Tim Spector gets very annoyed about if how the symptoms that the powers continue to say are COVID arent in any relation to what his study picks up.
    Indeed. Haven't been for a few weeks now.
    The cough has gone. It's the sore throat and headache now.
    I don't think they have since winnie the pooh version of covid.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281
    edited December 2021

    dixiedean said:

    4 positive tests in the England cricket party.
    2 family members and 2 support staff.
    We can do this! Get mixing! Series abandoned!
    Serve them right after the RL World Cup.

    Given that, it would seem somewhat unlikely that a player hasn't been infected. Australia has Omicron and i doubt the players are triple jabbed.
    Signs to look out for may be. Lethargy and an inability to concentrate or focus on the task at...wait a minute!
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,253

    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,253

    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
    One other point that will also help Democrats is that, while the redistributing is theoretically independent, in effect it’s been captured by interest groups aligned to the Democrats, particularly driven by Google. There are probably a few R seats that will fall to the Ds in CA due to that.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 2,004
    edited December 2021
    Awful front page of the i for Starmer and Labour.

    Maybe for balance, this professors assessment from the polling, that they are making little progress and no one has a clue what they stand for or actually likes them should be a header?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,552
    MrEd said:

    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    Gerrymandering is wrong.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,552
    MrEd said:

    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
    One other point that will also help Democrats is that, while the redistributing is theoretically independent, in effect it’s been captured by interest groups aligned to the Democrats, particularly driven by Google. There are probably a few R seats that will fall to the Ds in CA due to that.

    In California, presumably? Not captured by Google everywhere.
  • China reports 162 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase in 21 months, as officials work to contain Xian outbreak
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,748
    edited December 2021
    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,756
    edited December 2021

    China reports 162 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase in 21 months, as officials work to contain Xian outbreak

    Maybe Omicron has arrived in China, and if it does I doubt that even the Chinese government with all their Orwellian technology will be able to stop it.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10344169/Scientist-warned-world-Omicron-warns-China-Zero-Covid-policy-WONT-WORK.html

    "Scientist who warned the world of Omicron variant says China's 'Zero Covid' policy won't work against super-transmissible mutant strain as city of 13 million is locked down

    Tulio de Oliveira is director of the Centre for Epidemic Response & Innovation
    Said China's 'Zero Covid' will not work against the super-transmissible variant
    Chinese city of Xi-an's 13 million residents were locked down Thursday
    Not know what variant is spreading through the city but it's likely to be Omicron "
  • AslanAslan Posts: 939
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see
    Gerrymandering is wrong.

    The problem is that it is unreasonable to expect unilateral disarmament. Gerrymandering should be banned, but unless it is banned nationwide, Dems only stopping Gerrymandering in blue states effectively hands the GOP the House.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,756
    edited December 2021
    Gerrymandering is one of the many reasons why attempts to export American democracy to other parts of the world doesn't work too well.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Gerrymandering is one of the many reasons why attempts to export American democracy to other parts of the world doesn't work too well.

    TBF the Americans do know how to make proper constitutions for other countries, it's only their own that's shitty and even that shittiness is in pursuit of some legitimate design goals.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,321

    Andy_JS said:

    Gerrymandering is one of the many reasons why attempts to export American democracy to other parts of the world doesn't work too well.

    TBF the Americans do know how to make proper constitutions for other countries, it's only their own that's shitty and even that shittiness is in pursuit of some legitimate design goals.
    Since it was us that introduced PR into Germany (and Northern Ireland), we can say the same.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,253
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
    One other point that will also help Democrats is that, while the redistributing is theoretically independent, in effect it’s been captured by interest groups aligned to the Democrats, particularly driven by Google. There are probably a few R seats that will fall to the Ds in CA due to that.
    In California, presumably? Not captured by Google everywhere.

    Yes, sorry, I re-read it and it wasn’t clear. Yes, applies to the CA redistricting only.

    If you look at the NY Magazine article, it mentions the CA redistricting being favourable to Democrats. That’s not an unbiased outcome. Google has been at the forefront of lobbying efforts when it comes to individual districts
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,253

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,253
    Aslan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see
    Gerrymandering is wrong.
    The problem is that it is unreasonable to expect unilateral disarmament. Gerrymandering should be banned, but unless it is banned nationwide, Dems only stopping Gerrymandering in blue states effectively hands the GOP the House.

    The idea that the Democrats have been reluctantly dragged into this because they are the “good” party and fighting against “evil” is absolutely laughable. The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans.

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,253
    On topic of debate, the “independent” CA redistricting:

    California’s ‘Independent’ Gerrymander - WSJ
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 565
    edited December 2021
    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Gerrymandering is one of the many reasons why attempts to export American democracy to other parts of the world doesn't work too well.

    TBF the Americans do know how to make proper constitutions for other countries, it's only their own that's shitty and even that shittiness is in pursuit of some legitimate design goals.
    Since it was us that introduced PR into Germany (and Northern Ireland), we can say the same.
    Apart from the constructive vote of no confidence (which the FTPA kind of halfway tries to emulate here since an official VONC is the only way of bringing down a government) I'm a big fan of the German federal system and would see it replicated here as the Parliamentary side is based on the UK. I'd have the ability to dissolve regional parliaments via VONCs or confidence issues though.

    It won't be popular on this board but I'd give the current English regions each a Parliament and a First Minister and devolve most powers to them like Scotland, while the federal government in London would do whatever is reserved to it such as foreign affairs, national transport, the NHS, culture and defence.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,253

    Awful front page of the i for Starmer and Labour.

    Maybe for balance, this professors assessment from the polling, that they are making little progress and no one has a clue what they stand for or actually likes them should be a header?

    Have not seen it but here is my tuppence on Starmer.

    Given all the shit heading towards BJ and the Govt over the past few weeks, the fact that Labour cannot break past 40% highlights its problems.

    You can take three views of Labour’s problems when it comes to its woes: it’s down to Corbyn, it’s down to Brexit or it’s down to Labour being seen by many of its former voters are fundamentally hostile to their views and interests.

    Starmer’s approach is to view the problem as mainly down to the first and the second when actually the biggest issue is the third. If you go back to 2005, Labour was seeing already very big swings away even pre-Brexit.

    Starmer cannot cute the third issue because (a) he is part of the problem given his background / views (b) despite his attempts to portray himself as patriotic etc, a lot of voters see through it and (c) even if he tried to a Blair and take on the progressives, most people know he would lose.

    Labour’s current lead is built in quicksand. An apologising BJ proclaiming “mea culpa” and cracking down on the woke issues such as immigration and the cultural wars will recoup a lot of the lost votes very quickly.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,552
    edited December 2021
    MrEd said:

    Aslan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see
    Gerrymandering is wrong.
    The problem is that it is unreasonable to expect unilateral disarmament. Gerrymandering should be banned, but unless it is banned nationwide, Dems only stopping Gerrymandering in blue states effectively hands the GOP the House.
    The idea that the Democrats have been reluctantly dragged into this because they are the “good” party and fighting against “evil” is absolutely laughable. The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans.


    ----

    (Sigh, blockquotes are fucked up somewhere.)

    Democrats invented gerrymandering.

    But America has two choices: either they need to work in a birpartisan way to eliminate gerrymandering or democracy falls further into disrepair.

    And if democracy falls in America, we all lose. People who trade short term political goals against the longer term health of the system are fools, and they stand to lose everything.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,552
    edited December 2021
    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
    One other point that will also help Democrats is that, while the redistributing is theoretically independent, in effect it’s been captured by interest groups aligned to the Democrats, particularly driven by Google. There are probably a few R seats that will fall to the Ds in CA due to that.
    In California, presumably? Not captured by Google everywhere.
    Yes, sorry, I re-read it and it wasn’t clear. Yes, applies to the CA redistricting only.

    If you look at the NY Magazine article, it mentions the CA redistricting being favourable to Democrats. That’s not an unbiased outcome. Google has been at the forefront of lobbying efforts when it comes to individual districts

    ----

    (blockquote fuck up again...)

    There is a wonderful model that was built by a couple of academics that basically says "are the length of the perimeters of the congressional districts so large relative to their area that they are being designed to plan?"

    It's a nice idea: gerrymandered maps tend to have very large perimeter-to-area ratios. By limiting this, you effectively reduce gerrymandering while still allowing local political control over boundary areas.

    It would be nice if politicians on both sides could embrace it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,552
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,074
    edited December 2021
    The way to fix the problem of Gerrymandering, is for all political parties to agree on a non-political organisation, such as we have in the UK, to set the boundaries. Have the civil servants who usually draw maps, do the initial draft version.

    Even most of the ‘bi-partisan’ commissions are full of politicians just trying to make their own seats safer, rather then drawing lines in sensible places.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 8,257
    MrEd said:

    An apologising BJ proclaiming “mea culpa” and cracking down on the woke issues such as immigration and the cultural wars will recoup a lot of the lost votes very quickly.

    Johnson has never exhibited any contrition over his many misdeeds ever. He's not going to start now.

    They are too incompetent, cowardly and just plain stupid to control immigration and the culture wars shit can be tricky to calibrate. Hence the headlong retreat over the England football team in the summer.
  • MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Right, that's what the article I linked said. Basically the GOP did a very aggressive gerrymander in the last cycle, and the Dems are now responding by being aggressive where they have partisan control, and also doing local lobbying to shift the bipartisan commissions in their favour even where the commission's goal isn't partisan. The latter is also what happens in the UK, the parties come up with arguments about bus routes and things to try to get their preferred outcomes.

    Like I say I think "counter-gerrymander back to parity" is ethical, you shouldn't have the government mostly controlled by whoever is the least scrupulous. But needing to do it shows the system is bad.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,253
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
    I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)

    1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;

    2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;

    3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers

  • rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
    538 may be out-of-date, but in any case I think MrEd's claim is definitely correct as concerns *changes* to the gerrymander, ie GOP was at 9 and Dem was at 7, and now GOP is still at 9 while Dem is at 8.5. Also since Dem states often have non-partisan commissions and middling states are still GOP due to the previous gerrymander, if you're getting back close to parity that implies some pretty spectacular gerrymanders in states with Dem redistricting control.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,849
    edited December 2021
    RH1992 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Gerrymandering is one of the many reasons why attempts to export American democracy to other parts of the world doesn't work too well.

    TBF the Americans do know how to make proper constitutions for other countries, it's only their own that's shitty and even that shittiness is in pursuit of some legitimate design goals.
    Since it was us that introduced PR into Germany (and Northern Ireland), we can say the same.
    Apart from the constructive vote of no confidence (which the FTPA kind of halfway tries to emulate here since an official VONC is the only way of bringing down a government) I'm a big fan of the German federal system and would see it replicated here as the Parliamentary side is based on the UK. I'd have the ability to dissolve regional parliaments via VONCs or confidence issues though.

    It won't be popular on this board but I'd give the current English regions each a Parliament and a First Minister and devolve most powers to them like Scotland, while the federal government in London would do whatever is reserved to it such as foreign affairs, national transport, the NHS, culture and defence.
    Huh? National transport, the NHS and culture are all devolved to Scotland. Are you therefore proposing that these Scottish institutions be abolished? Or that the new English regional parliaments each have their own NHS, national transport bodies and cultural institutions?

    This is the problem with much guff you read about English devolution. It’s not just half thought-out, it’s not even a tenth thought-out.
  • https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1475170149850361857

    Scottish Independence Voting Intention:

    NO: 44% (+1)
    YES: 44% (=)
    Undecideds: 12% (-1)

    Undecideds Excluded:

    NO: 50% (+1)
    YES: 50% (-1)

    Via
    @OpiniumResearch
    , 15-22 December,
    Changes w/ 3-8 September.

    FUDHY will be along in a minute to explain why this is tremendous news for good old Blighty, because every single one of the Undecideds is a nailed-on BritNat.

    Or some such nonsense.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,330
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories I hope are coming to the end of their current time in Government. In opposition they can remove UKIP from themselves and go back to being a moderate, centre-ground party the country can be proud of once again

    If the history of Labour and the Tories in the last few decades tells us anything it is that both go further to the left or right in opposition after losing power. They do not become more moderate
    When they want to win, they go for the centre.

    See: Cameron and Blair
    Blair was a good PM but Cameron was one of the worst we've had. He allowed the country to become dangerously divided over Brexit during his 6 years in Downing Street: he had his head in the sand over the issue, believing what he wanted to believe.
    This is the best analysis of Cameron I have come across, by John Gray.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/04/david-cameron-and-great-sell-out
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,330

    This is revenge for those who have died in the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

    “It is also revenge for those who have been killed, humiliated and discriminated on because of their race.

    “I’m an Indian Sikh, a Sith. My name was Jaswant Singh Chail, my name is Darth Jones.”

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17149695/man-crossbow-threatens-kill-queen/

    Move on, nothing to see here...
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,253
    Dura_Ace said:

    MrEd said:

    An apologising BJ proclaiming “mea culpa” and cracking down on the woke issues such as immigration and the cultural wars will recoup a lot of the lost votes very quickly.

    Johnson has never exhibited any contrition over his many misdeeds ever. He's not going to start now.

    They are too incompetent, cowardly and just plain stupid to control immigration and the culture wars shit can be tricky to calibrate. Hence the headlong retreat over the England football team in the summer.
    I’m not saying BJ is contrite, I’m saying he has an instinct to say the right thing to get him out of trouble, or at least he did. Hence how he got away with all the other shit re his affairs etc etc

    Re immigration, having Yvette Cooper as shadow HS is a Godsend because she lives immigration and can’t control herself plus there plenty of back material showing her support for refugees.

    Re the culture wars, tricky to calibrate is overegging it as is the football example. The Government rowed back because we were all led to believe there was a wave of hate crime against Rashford et Al when it turned out to be 12 (I think) people who will eventually charged and the mural of the Blessed St Marcus was not actually found to have been defaced with racist graffiti at all.
  • That time of year when we look back at some of the shit BJ has written over many years. Tbf that's really a 365 pursuit.



    Hoping Topping and IshmaelZ can shed some light on the 'semi-sexual relation with the horse' thing.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 608
    Under the radar and slipped out on Christmas Eve the government is temporarily relaxing the rule on overseas care workers .

    The temporarily part is just to pretend that it won’t become permanent !
  • Feck, Starc's a beast!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
    I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)

    1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;

    2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;

    3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers

    Is it those two in particular that skew things because of their vast size? I mean I know there are several Republican states with few or even one Rep (Montana, Wyoming, Alaska) but equally there are some Dem ones as well (Vermont and Delaware spring to mind).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108
    Good morning everyone. Hope that whatever you celebrated over the past few days went off well. Rather mixed, Chez Cole, I'm afraid.

    However, onwards and upwards; it would appear that Grandson 2 is enjoying life at Uni, and seems to be getting something from his lectures, and Granddaughter 3 is recovering from the effects of the Covid-related disruption of her school life.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,330
    MrEd said:

    Awful front page of the i for Starmer and Labour.

    Maybe for balance, this professors assessment from the polling, that they are making little progress and no one has a clue what they stand for or actually likes them should be a header?

    Have not seen it but here is my tuppence on Starmer.

    Given all the shit heading towards BJ and the Govt over the past few weeks, the fact that Labour cannot break past 40% highlights its problems.

    You can take three views of Labour’s problems when it comes to its woes: it’s down to Corbyn, it’s down to Brexit or it’s down to Labour being seen by many of its former voters are fundamentally hostile to their views and interests.

    Starmer’s approach is to view the problem as mainly down to the first and the second when actually the biggest issue is the third. If you go back to 2005, Labour was seeing already very big swings away even pre-Brexit.

    Starmer cannot cute the third issue because (a) he is part of the problem given his background / views (b) despite his attempts to portray himself as patriotic etc, a lot of voters see through it and (c) even if he tried to a Blair and take on the progressives, most people know he would lose.

    Labour’s current lead is built in quicksand. An apologising BJ proclaiming “mea culpa” and cracking down on the woke issues such as immigration and the cultural wars will recoup a lot of the lost votes very quickly.
    People underestimate what an amazing job Starmer is doing. He is the only person on the front bench of either party who has had a serious, top level career ourside of politics. He reads the woke, and his party perfectly. He has enormous patience and drive.
    But even so, the basic problems are existential (loss of the red wall, differences between the metropolitan and regional voters, piling up votes in a few seats) he is merely plastering over the cracks and delaying the likely slow disintegration of the labour party.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Today's video from Dr John Campbell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uzrn4e0Wg

    Super viewing - but disturbing about the outdated advice being given to Javid. Either an agenda at work - "or maybe just incompetence..."

    "There's a real credibility issue - something needs to be done."
    It seems to keep happening......

    One of the things that Tim Spector gets very annoyed about if how the symptoms that the powers continue to say are COVID arent in any relation to what his study picks up.
    Indeed. Haven't been for a few weeks now.
    The cough has gone. It's the sore throat and headache now.
    I don't think they have since winnie the pooh version of covid.
    What’s the Winnie the Pooh reference you keep making?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,334
    edited December 2021
    MrEd said:

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.

    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see
    Or they have decided it’s the only way to have a chance competing with a party which has gone way further down that road ?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Aslan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    OT update on the House gerrymanders,

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

    There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see
    Gerrymandering is wrong.
    The problem is that it is unreasonable to expect unilateral disarmament. Gerrymandering should be banned, but unless it is banned nationwide, Dems only stopping Gerrymandering in blue states effectively hands the GOP the House.
    The idea that the Democrats have been reluctantly dragged into this because they are the “good” party and fighting against “evil” is absolutely laughable. The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans.

    ----

    (Sigh, blockquotes are fucked up somewhere.)

    Democrats invented gerrymandering.

    But America has two choices: either they need to work in a birpartisan way to eliminate gerrymandering or democracy falls further into disrepair.

    And if democracy falls in America, we all lose. People who trade short term political goals against the longer term health of the system are fools, and they stand to lose everything.

    The problem is that they believe they will gain and the next guy will lose everything

    And they may well be right
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    So far, no England batsman has made double figures.

    This is pathetic.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Charles said:

    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Today's video from Dr John Campbell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uzrn4e0Wg

    Super viewing - but disturbing about the outdated advice being given to Javid. Either an agenda at work - "or maybe just incompetence..."

    "There's a real credibility issue - something needs to be done."
    It seems to keep happening......

    One of the things that Tim Spector gets very annoyed about if how the symptoms that the powers continue to say are COVID arent in any relation to what his study picks up.
    Indeed. Haven't been for a few weeks now.
    The cough has gone. It's the sore throat and headache now.
    I don't think they have since winnie the pooh version of covid.
    What’s the Winnie the Pooh reference you keep making?
    Xi, who looks like Winnie the Pooh.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108
    ydoethur said:

    So far, no England batsman has made double figures.

    This is pathetic.

    They couldn't, could they, lose by an innings? No, not 'only' that far behind, surely......,.,
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,334
    ydoethur said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
    I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)

    1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;

    2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;

    3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers

    Is it those two in particular that skew things because of their vast size? I mean I know there are several Republican states with few or even one Rep (Montana, Wyoming, Alaska) but equally there are some Dem ones as well (Vermont and Delaware spring to mind).
    Well if you’re looking it from that POV, you also have to consider the far larger under/over representation in the Senate..
    The US electoral system is fncked up in more ways than one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
    I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)

    1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;

    2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;

    3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers

    Is it those two in particular that skew things because of their vast size? I mean I know there are several Republican states with few or even one Rep (Montana, Wyoming, Alaska) but equally there are some Dem ones as well (Vermont and Delaware spring to mind).
    Well if you’re looking it from that POV, you also have to consider the far larger under/over representation in the Senate..
    The US electoral system is fncked up in more ways than one.
    Well, I was just thinking if those two are the only reason at all the Dems are still scoring well in the gerrymandering stakes, that implies some extraordinary footwork by the Republicans elsewhere to stay ahead...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108
    edited December 2021
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
    I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)

    1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;

    2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;

    3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers

    Is it those two in particular that skew things because of their vast size? I mean I know there are several Republican states with few or even one Rep (Montana, Wyoming, Alaska) but equally there are some Dem ones as well (Vermont and Delaware spring to mind).
    Well if you’re looking it from that POV, you also have to consider the far larger under/over representation in the Senate..
    The US electoral system is fncked up in more ways than one.
    The Senate system is logical, though. The problem is that disparity in State size. I can see the point of Alaska and Hawaii, of course, but what is the point of, and reason for, two Dakotas. for example.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985

    ydoethur said:

    So far, no England batsman has made double figures.

    This is pathetic.

    They couldn't, could they, lose by an innings? No, not 'only' that far behind, surely......,.,
    Four down for just 24, even if one of them is the nightwatchman.

    I wouldn't bet against right now...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,334
    Dura_Ace said:

    MrEd said:

    An apologising BJ proclaiming “mea culpa” and cracking down on the woke issues such as immigration and the cultural wars will recoup a lot of the lost votes very quickly.

    Johnson has never exhibited any contrition over his many misdeeds ever. He's not going to start now.

    They are too incompetent, cowardly and just plain stupid to control immigration and the culture wars shit can be tricky to calibrate. Hence the headlong retreat over the England football team in the summer.
    He’ll say anything if he thinks it benefits him, apologies included.
    What’s changed is the sharp drop in the number of people who’ll fall for it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,334
    Charles said:

    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Today's video from Dr John Campbell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uzrn4e0Wg

    Super viewing - but disturbing about the outdated advice being given to Javid. Either an agenda at work - "or maybe just incompetence..."

    "There's a real credibility issue - something needs to be done."
    It seems to keep happening......

    One of the things that Tim Spector gets very annoyed about if how the symptoms that the powers continue to say are COVID arent in any relation to what his study picks up.
    Indeed. Haven't been for a few weeks now.
    The cough has gone. It's the sore throat and headache now.
    I don't think they have since winnie the pooh version of covid.
    What’s the Winnie the Pooh reference you keep making?
    Xi, I assume.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,074
    If you’re going to send out a nightwatchman, having him stay there for more than two balls might be a good idea!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,334

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
    I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)

    1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;

    2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;

    3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers

    Is it those two in particular that skew things because of their vast size? I mean I know there are several Republican states with few or even one Rep (Montana, Wyoming, Alaska) but equally there are some Dem ones as well (Vermont and Delaware spring to mind).
    Well if you’re looking it from that POV, you also have to consider the far larger under/over representation in the Senate..
    The US electoral system is fncked up in more ways than one.
    The Senate system is logical, though. The problem is that disparity in State size. I can see the point of Alaska and Hawaii, of course, but what is the point of, and reason for, two Dakotas. for example.
    Logical in terms of the settlement a couple of centuries back between a far smaller number of states, whose size disparity was considerably less. But now an undemocratic nonsense which makes the HoL look defensible in comparison.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108
    There's an article on todays Guardian website by Susie Dent, on words we no longer use, which might give some of us food for thought. Included in the very enjoyable piece is the following
    'And insults abound – anyone looking to criticise covertly may well enjoy “ultracrepidarian” or “cacafuego” (one who loves to pass comment on subjects they know nothing about and a blustering braggart – literally a “fire-shitter” – respectively)'

    An article which I shall save, and perhaps play a part in the rejuvenation of some of the words quotes. I end with her last thoughts; 'Respair' is fresh hope; a recovery from despair. May 2022 finally be its moment.'
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,869
    darkage said:

    MrEd said:

    Awful front page of the i for Starmer and Labour.

    Maybe for balance, this professors assessment from the polling, that they are making little progress and no one has a clue what they stand for or actually likes them should be a header?

    Have not seen it but here is my tuppence on Starmer.

    Given all the shit heading towards BJ and the Govt over the past few weeks, the fact that Labour cannot break past 40% highlights its problems.

    You can take three views of Labour’s problems when it comes to its woes: it’s down to Corbyn, it’s down to Brexit or it’s down to Labour being seen by many of its former voters are fundamentally hostile to their views and interests.

    Starmer’s approach is to view the problem as mainly down to the first and the second when actually the biggest issue is the third. If you go back to 2005, Labour was seeing already very big swings away even pre-Brexit.

    Starmer cannot cute the third issue because (a) he is part of the problem given his background / views (b) despite his attempts to portray himself as patriotic etc, a lot of voters see through it and (c) even if he tried to a Blair and take on the progressives, most people know he would lose.

    Labour’s current lead is built in quicksand. An apologising BJ proclaiming “mea culpa” and cracking down on the woke issues such as immigration and the cultural wars will recoup a lot of the lost votes very quickly.
    People underestimate what an amazing job Starmer is doing. He is the only person on the front bench of either party who has had a serious, top level career ourside of politics. He reads the woke, and his party perfectly. He has enormous patience and drive.
    But even so, the basic problems are existential (loss of the red wall, differences between the metropolitan and regional voters, piling up votes in a few seats) he is merely plastering over the cracks and delaying the likely slow disintegration of the labour party.

    Didn't the MRP on Christmas Day show massive Labour gains, particularly in Red Wall towns, leading to a Labour majority?

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1474808797138931715?t=14MOCvpnFxT7fZhEHg9Pbw&s=19
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,334
    ydoethur said:

    So far, no England batsman has made double figures.

    This is pathetic.

    @Cyclefree ’s argument that this ought to be a cricket free zone is beginning to seem quite attractive.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    So far, no England batsman has made double figures.

    This is pathetic.

    @Cyclefree ’s argument that this ought to be a cricket free zone is beginning to seem quite attractive.
    The England cricket team obviously took it to heart.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Apologies for off-topic-ing NigelB, it was fat finger syndrome.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
    I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)

    1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;

    2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;

    3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers

    Is it those two in particular that skew things because of their vast size? I mean I know there are several Republican states with few or even one Rep (Montana, Wyoming, Alaska) but equally there are some Dem ones as well (Vermont and Delaware spring to mind).
    Well if you’re looking it from that POV, you also have to consider the far larger under/over representation in the Senate..
    The US electoral system is fncked up in more ways than one.
    The Senate system is logical, though. The problem is that disparity in State size. I can see the point of Alaska and Hawaii, of course, but what is the point of, and reason for, two Dakotas. for example.
    Logical in terms of the settlement a couple of centuries back between a far smaller number of states, whose size disparity was considerably less. But now an undemocratic nonsense which makes the HoL look defensible in comparison.
    Indeed; since, with example of the two I quoted.... and Alaska doesn't have all natural boundaries ......, perhaps once a state gets being a certain population it should divide itself, rather like an amoeba! Most of the 'internal' boundaries are artificial, IIRC. Rather like the Sykes-Picot line, or the Punjabi boundary between India and Pakistan!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,334
    rcs1000 said:



    There is a wonderful model that was built by a couple of academics that basically says "are the length of the perimeters of the congressional districts so large relative to their area that they are being designed to plan?"

    It's a nice idea: gerrymandered maps tend to have very large perimeter-to-area ratios. By limiting this, you effectively reduce gerrymandering while still allowing local political control over boundary areas.

    It would be nice if politicians on both sides could embrace it.

    Neat idea.
    And would go some way at least in addressing the problem of computer modelled redistributing, an arms race which has got completely out of hand.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,334

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
    I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)

    1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;

    2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;

    3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers

    Is it those two in particular that skew things because of their vast size? I mean I know there are several Republican states with few or even one Rep (Montana, Wyoming, Alaska) but equally there are some Dem ones as well (Vermont and Delaware spring to mind).
    Well if you’re looking it from that POV, you also have to consider the far larger under/over representation in the Senate..
    The US electoral system is fncked up in more ways than one.
    The Senate system is logical, though. The problem is that disparity in State size. I can see the point of Alaska and Hawaii, of course, but what is the point of, and reason for, two Dakotas. for example.
    Logical in terms of the settlement a couple of centuries back between a far smaller number of states, whose size disparity was considerably less. But now an undemocratic nonsense which makes the HoL look defensible in comparison.
    Indeed; since, with example of the two I quoted.... and Alaska doesn't have all natural boundaries ......, perhaps once a state gets being a certain population it should divide itself, rather like an amoeba! Most of the 'internal' boundaries are artificial, IIRC. Rather like the Sykes-Picot line, or the Punjabi boundary between India and Pakistan!
    The admissions clause allows Congress to admit new states in that manner (subject to the approval of the state(s) in question), but it’s hard to see how such a system as you propose could be set up in a non partisan manner.
    Another electoral arms race might well be the result.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:


    Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see

    I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
    I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.

    However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
    Hang on?

    Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.

    That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
    I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)

    1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;

    2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;

    3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers

    Is it those two in particular that skew things because of their vast size? I mean I know there are several Republican states with few or even one Rep (Montana, Wyoming, Alaska) but equally there are some Dem ones as well (Vermont and Delaware spring to mind).
    Well if you’re looking it from that POV, you also have to consider the far larger under/over representation in the Senate..
    The US electoral system is fncked up in more ways than one.
    The Senate system is logical, though. The problem is that disparity in State size. I can see the point of Alaska and Hawaii, of course, but what is the point of, and reason for, two Dakotas. for example.
    Logical in terms of the settlement a couple of centuries back between a far smaller number of states, whose size disparity was considerably less. But now an undemocratic nonsense which makes the HoL look defensible in comparison.
    Indeed; since, with example of the two I quoted.... and Alaska doesn't have all natural boundaries ......, perhaps once a state gets being a certain population it should divide itself, rather like an amoeba! Most of the 'internal' boundaries are artificial, IIRC. Rather like the Sykes-Picot line, or the Punjabi boundary between India and Pakistan!
    The admissions clause allows Congress to admit new states in that manner (subject to the approval of the state(s) in question), but it’s hard to see how such a system as you propose could be set up in a non partisan manner.
    Another electoral arms race might well be the result.
    I'm not worried about the practical issues! They, after all, are not my problem!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108
    Looking at the 2005 Johnson quote, no-one surely, would be so unkind as to send it to Carrie?

    Or perhaps he included it in his reconversion confession!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,607
    FFS

    EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weddings-and-funerals-spared-from-covid-curbs-7nzcdmtlv
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Scott_xP said:

    FFS

    EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weddings-and-funerals-spared-from-covid-curbs-7nzcdmtlv

    Well, bluntly, as there is no likelihood of restrictions in schools and without them all other restrictions are as much use as Dominic Cummings, why shouldn't they be?

    If there are further restrictions it's going to be all about tokenism.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,607
    New research on behalf of @38degrees now projects 111 Conservative Seat Losses. What's driving the changes? Investigating using MRP: https://mailchi.mp/survation/new-survation-research-projects-111-conservative-seat-losses https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1475274985786724354/photo/1
  • IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Gerrymandering is one of the many reasons why attempts to export American democracy to other parts of the world doesn't work too well.

    TBF the Americans do know how to make proper constitutions for other countries, it's only their own that's shitty and even that shittiness is in pursuit of some legitimate design goals.
    Since it was us that introduced PR into Germany (and Northern Ireland), we can say the same.
    When did we introduce PR into Germany?

    The National Socialist party was elected under PR.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284
    edited December 2021
    Liz Truss leads Rishi Sunak by 3% in new Conservative Home next Tory leader survey 23% to 20%.

    Steve Baker and Penny Mordaunt are tied 3rd on 8% each

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/12/our-next-tory-leader-survey-truss-leads-sunak-by-18-votes.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 36,074
    Scott_xP said:

    FFS

    EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weddings-and-funerals-spared-from-covid-curbs-7nzcdmtlv

    Good news. Some of the worst stories not involving death of the whole pandemic, have been from people forced to cancel weddings and unable to attend funerals.
  • Westminster Voting Intention (MRP):

    LAB: 41% (+8) // 309 (+107)
    CON: 35% (-10) // 255 (-111)
    LDM: 9% (-3) // 9 (-2)
    GRN: 5% (+2) // 1 (=)
    SNP: 5% (+1) // 54 (+6)
    PLC: 0.8% (+0.3) // 4 (=)

    Via
    @Survation
    , 22 Dec.
    Changes w/ GE2019.

    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1475274452652986376

    It is time for Starmer to resign!
  • https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/70-percent-of-jlm-members-say-labour-now-safe-for-jews/

    70 percent of Jewish Labour Movement members polled say Labour now ‘a safe space’ for Jews
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 17,673
    Taking my girlfriend to her first Toon game today. I hope she’s looking forward to us getting pumped.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    What do people think the odds are of further Covid restrictions in England? I would say 6-4 against.

    In Wales, Drakeford's technocratic and statist mentality means he'll take any excuse to control things. In Scotland, Sturgeon will always do something different from England just to show she can, and try to cause further divergence along the route to her ultimate goal of independence. Northern Ireland, the situation is more difficult and complex anyway.

    But in England, we have a Prime Minister whose career is at an end, a large and restless group on the Tory backbenches who will oppose further restrictions on principle even if they are needed, and a Cabinet that is obviously divided on the issue.

    It is slightly disturbing to reflect that at no point in that post have I felt the need to discuss epidemiology in considering whether more restrictions are likely...
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 709
    Scott_xP said:

    FFS

    EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weddings-and-funerals-spared-from-covid-curbs-7nzcdmtlv

    You don't seriously disagree with that? I know there's been a passionate debate about restrictions on here, but hadn't realised quite how far apart we were!

    Funerals?!?!
  • https://mailchi.mp/survation/new-survation-research-projects-111-conservative-seat-losses

    I think it's quite possible the Tory brand is so damaged in the Red Wall it is now impossible to recover.
This discussion has been closed.