Drakeford won one election in Wales, a country that has not voted anything other than Labour in a national election for the last 100 years. Does not mean he would have any appeal whatsover in England.
In fact the Welsh Conservatives also had their best ever performance at a Senedd election last year against Drakeford Labour. Burnham on the other hand won even Tory Trafford in the last Greater Manchester Mayoral election.
While his northern accent may not be universally popular it is more popular in the redwall, the key swing region for Labour to prevent another Tory majority
Although Trafford these days is not really Tory. It's a Labour council and there has been an influx of professional, middle-class types who (a) have found Chorlton and Didsbury too expensive and like the housing stock, particularly in the north of the borough (b) more importantly, it still retains the 11+, which is a big draw and which the Labour Council has smartly kept on - the 11+ used to be the defining issue in Trafford elections.
In fact. The Tory borough in GM is now Bolton. Has the safest Tory MP in GM too. Which is quite a turn around.
Yes, it is quite a shift and is still continuing. As @Gary_Burton said, there is an argument for saying Brady loses at the next election (although my feeling is he will cling on, although I haven't looked at the new boundaries). Perhaps what is more interesting is that what happens to the Brexit vote next time - seats like Wigan, Makerfield, Ashton-U-L, Stalybridge, Worsley and Oldham East have a Brexit vote that is essentially the Labour majority, give or take a couple of hundred votes. It will depend on how the Tory party realigns - and the next leader will be critical here - to its RW voters.
I think boundary changes are quite bad for the Tories in greater Manchester (although Brady's seat is unchanged) as they dilute a lot of the Tory strength in their new seats as well as target seats. I wouldn't be totally confident of Labour gaining Leigh at the next election especially if there's a Tory recovery nationally but I can't see the Tories gaining anything they didn't in 2019 as Labour did very well across the whole of Greater Manchester with the exception of Bolton in last year's council elections. Labour's local election results in Salford in particular were extremely strong, making inroads into Tory middle class areas like Worsley as well.
Yes, I haven't looked at the boundary changes although, and this is maybe simplistic, is that, if the Tories lose Tory areas in some seats, they gain them in others. I would say there is a slight danger in directly read across strength in local councils to MPs. as - for some reason - you don't tend to get the more radical shifts you see in other areas. So the Tories have no chance of capturing Stockport BC but have two of the constituencies. Likewise, In Tameside, ditto on the council but they are within striking distance in two of the (old) seats.
Hazel Grove is very weird in particular, the constituency itself has trended heavily towards the Tories but the Lib Dems have virtually all the seats at the local level. Clearly a lot of voters vote LD at a local level there and Tory in general elections.
On current EMA shares (Con 33 Lab 38 LD 11), according to electoral calculus, the LIbDems get 11 seats on current boundaries (Labour 22 short of an overall majority) and 19 on the new proposed boundaries (Labour 34 short of an overall majority)!
The LibDem gains are all from Tories - which makes the above figures look odd.
Camb S Carshalton Cheadle Cheltenham Esher Guildford Hazel Grove Lewes St Ives Wimbledon Winchester
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
I have severe doubts people like West County accents that much. Associate it with bucolic stupidity maybe. In fairness I'm in the West County and rarely hear it.
Like others I assumed Scottish accents were generally pretty favourably received. I am very surprised Welsh rates so well, but I'd tend to agree.
@MoonRabbit FPT I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂
The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.
But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?
So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?
This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.
To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?
MalcolmG: "It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
I guess quite a few English people would agree with your last sentence as they have never been given a vote on whether they should carry on giving such huge quantities of cash to the Scots.
Usual bollox from you, with 85%+ of the population you can change it any time you wish. However been too afraid to do so as you could not sponge off us. Get a backbone. PS: Go F*** yourself as well, go stalk someone else.
The truth is as you probably really know that it is all a bit more complicated. Scotland gets a quite a bit more money than it should on the basis of its population and quite a bit less than it should if treated as an English region on the basis of its needs. The Barnet formula is designed to move very slowly but inextricably towards the latter and away from the former.
Perhaps but when talking to imbeciles like Foremain you have to keep it simple. Point is we get about 40% of what we contribute and we should be responsible for 100%, the rest is squandered on vanity Westminster projects and Tories bankbooks.
Yes, but we are all so grateful for your ability to use your vast and superior intellect to make these matters understandable in an unbiased and sober manner. I find myself overwhelmed and amazed at your patience, erudition and articulate explanation of all things Scottish. We all thank you for your highly amusing contributions.
Tell me, is not wanting to be ruled from London inherently anti-English racism?
Of course not and I can completely understand and respect your approach to this. However, thugs like MalcolmG do not help your cause. His approach suggests that Scottish independence is to people like him little more more than racist anti-English prejudice. For that he deserves to be mocked at the very least.
You sure? His comments today certainly don't bear that out. Look at his comments earlier, for instance:
"For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight. As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate. It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
"Scottish electorate" ... "in England" ... "in England" .. "tied to England"
Seems to me perfectly OK. He didn't say Scottish people or ENglish people. Note, particularly, the 'Scottish electorate' - i.e. voters in Scotland. Who are of course a mix of Scottish, English and so on. And England is a polity not a race. So Malky is complaining that the Scottish polity is overridden by the English one when it comes to decisions, and so on. That may be independism or regionalism but it's not racism. It also happens to be true rather a lot of the time.
More generally - quite apart from the small matter of there being no legal definition of a Scot - note the SNP's definition of a Scot being anyone who lives in Scotland. ANd I do understand you don't like Mr Salmond, but his thinking certainly reflects the party attitude:
It's very common on PB and elsewhere to use 'Scot' as shorthand for 'resident and voter in a Scottish constituency' and so on for English etc., but this invites misunderstandings, and I try to avoid it myself partly for that reason.
Have to go and do stuff now, but have a nice weekend, or what's left of it.
I have severe doubts people like West County accents that much. Associate it with bucolic stupidity maybe. In fairness I'm in the West County and rarely hear it.
Like others I assumed Scottish accents were generally pretty favourably received. I am very surprised Welsh rates so well, but I'd tend to agree.
I personally think all accents have an appeal, particularly if they are not too "broad". A slight hint of Brummie often adds humour and interest to a person, as can a West Country accent. Too much of either, particularly if combined with poor grammar can be less appealing.
you can leave books in a public place with a message to pass on when read. Rather fun as well .Technically littering I suppose but just think of yourself as a book leaving equivalent of Banksy
We came across an old post box while on a walk in a village 20 miles away. This contained lots of books on the help yourself and please donate idea. We found a homeopathy is better than vaccination book. Took it home, burnt it. Not happy about burning books, but happy to make the exception for this piece of shit.
A little advice required for a first-world problem.
I've got a few hundred books I'm looking at getting rid of: a combination of paperbacks, hardbacks, fiction, non-fiction, old and new. The non-fiction is on a wide range of topics, from shipbuilding and railways to steelmaking and fire codes.
Ideally I want to give them away (I don't want money for them), and I have a hatred of binning books, as though it is sacrilege. And some of them are rather nice. Our road does not get enough foot traffic to leave them out for people to pick up.
I used to take them to charity shops, but all the ones I have tried in nearby towns said they'll now only accept in ones or twos. I am aware of services that allow you to sell books online (e.g. Ziffit) but they seem to be an absolute con - and I'd rather the books go to charity or to someone who will use them well.
So, any advice on where to get rid of a bulk load of books? Would a second-hand bookshop accept them? Cambridge area ideally. Or is there an avenue I haven't mentioned?
TIA.
Have you got a list? :-)
Just what I was thinking, if I didn't already need to downsize ...
Depends what there is - if it is stuff of the depth of "The Secret Horsepower Race" - I would happily go for cost of postage plus packaging plus either a sensible price or donation to charity of choice.
Well, some I've decided to keep (reluctantly, as we need the room) are Admiral Jackie Fisher's 'Memories' and 'Records', which someone gave to someone else (via a written dedication) in July 1920. Poor condition. Two quite remarkable books that I picked up at a jumble sale. They're perhaps the oldest - but I'm keeping them.
Also, a 1961 edition of a wonderful book: 'Calculating engines etc.' by Charles Babbage. It includes chapters on 'Picking locks and deciphering', 'Laplace, Biot and Himboldt' and 'Sketch of the Analytical Engine'. Quite an amazing book in immaculate condition.
The ones I'm giving away are buried under Christmas decorations in the garage. There's a lot of modern trash novels as well.
You got a copy of ‘The ice twins’ in there? Asking for a friend...
I think there are a couple of his books in there, yes. Both read twice.
You couldn’t believe how bad it was first time round?
@MoonRabbit FPT I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂
The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.
But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?
So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?
This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.
To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?
For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight. As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate. It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out.
I agree with all of that, especially the last line that summed the problem up nicely. But if that answers a question, what question is it answering? Is the problem England control, as in to take back control. Or the problem is actually money - because power is wealth, wealth is power. Or the problem English wealth as an agent in Scotland?
If the issue is the third one, foreign capital as agent in Scotland, what on earth is the solution?
In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories, businesses, and all the other industries people work in?
If there is factory in Scotland and one in England and one to close, which one is closed if owners are English? I’m from Yorkshire, my dad from Yorkshire, I live in property he owns in Chelsea whilst locals in ‘landan’ struggle now to buy property in London. Who owns the land in Scotland now, who owns freehold homes and businesses are on after independence?
Personally I would like to see fairness in this world, and to be in a fair place, a free place, is having that financial clout to come and compete. Do you see my points?
I have severe doubts people like West County accents that much. Associate it with bucolic stupidity maybe. In fairness I'm in the West County and rarely hear it.
Like others I assumed Scottish accents were generally pretty favourably received. I am very surprised Welsh rates so well, but I'd tend to agree.
I personally think all accents have an appeal, particularly if they are not too "broad". A slight hint of Brummie often adds humour and interest to a person, as can a West Country accent. Too much of either, particularly if combined with poor grammar can be less appealing.
There's probably something in that. I don't think there is a last 'acceptable prejudice' as is sometimes referred to (we seem to have quite a few), but accept prejudice, certainly on broadness, I do think is a thing. If people might do a double take if their neuro-surgeon started on in your broad accent then it is still a thing.
@MoonRabbit FPT I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂
The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.
But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?
So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?
This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.
To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?
MalcolmG: "It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
I guess quite a few English people would agree with your last sentence as they have never been given a vote on whether they should carry on giving such huge quantities of cash to the Scots.
Usual bollox from you, with 85%+ of the population you can change it any time you wish. However been too afraid to do so as you could not sponge off us. Get a backbone. PS: Go F*** yourself as well, go stalk someone else.
The truth is as you probably really know that it is all a bit more complicated. Scotland gets a quite a bit more money than it should on the basis of its population and quite a bit less than it should if treated as an English region on the basis of its needs. The Barnet formula is designed to move very slowly but inextricably towards the latter and away from the former.
Perhaps but when talking to imbeciles like Foremain you have to keep it simple. Point is we get about 40% of what we contribute and we should be responsible for 100%, the rest is squandered on vanity Westminster projects and Tories bankbooks.
Yes, but we are all so grateful for your ability to use your vast and superior intellect to make these matters understandable in an unbiased and sober manner. I find myself overwhelmed and amazed at your patience, erudition and articulate explanation of all things Scottish. We all thank you for your highly amusing contributions.
Tell me, is not wanting to be ruled from London inherently anti-English racism?
Of course not and I can completely understand and respect your approach to this. However, thugs like MalcolmG do not help your cause. His approach suggests that Scottish independence is to people like him little more more than racist anti-English prejudice. For that he deserves to be mocked at the very least.
You sure? His comments today certainly don't bear that out. Look at his comments earlier, for instance:
"For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight. As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate. It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
"Scottish electorate" ... "in England" ... "in England" .. "tied to England"
Seems to me perfectly OK. He didn't say Scottish people or ENglish people. Note, particularly, the 'Scottish electorate' - i.e. voters in Scotland. Who are of course a mix of Scottish, English and so on. And England is a polity not a race. So Malky is complaining that the Scottish polity is overridden by the English one when it comes to decisions, and so on. That may be independism or regionalism but it's not racism. It also happens to be true rather a lot of the time.
More generally - quite apart from the small matter of there being no legal definition of a Scot - note the SNP's definition of a Scot being anyone who lives in Scotland. ANd I do understand you don't like Mr Salmond, but his thinking certainly reflects the party attitude:
It's very common on PB and elsewhere to use 'Scot' as shorthand for 'resident and voter in a Scottish constituency' and so on for English etc., but this invites misunderstandings, and I try to avoid it myself partly for that reason.
Have to go and do stuff now, but have a nice weekend, or what's left of it.
I imagine his view though is that "the Scottish electorate" is predominantly what he would regard as "Scottish". I think you also have to look at some of his other remarks, that are, shall we say, not exactly inclusive. Perhaps it his style of expressing himself, but he comes across as an unpleasant bigot and little more.
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Is it just me or has Mandy got his shirt unbuttoned quite a bit in that photo?
@MoonRabbit FPT I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂
The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.
But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?
So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?
This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.
To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?
MalcolmG: "It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
I guess quite a few English people would agree with your last sentence as they have never been given a vote on whether they should carry on giving such huge quantities of cash to the Scots.
Usual bollox from you, with 85%+ of the population you can change it any time you wish. However been too afraid to do so as you could not sponge off us. Get a backbone. PS: Go F*** yourself as well, go stalk someone else.
The truth is as you probably really know that it is all a bit more complicated. Scotland gets a quite a bit more money than it should on the basis of its population and quite a bit less than it should if treated as an English region on the basis of its needs. The Barnet formula is designed to move very slowly but inextricably towards the latter and away from the former.
The Barnett formula is designed to move towards an equal allocation of spending per capita, but it needs a hefty dose of inflation and stable relative populations to reach its intended target.
There was a rather good article in the Economist, a while back on the subject of regions, and cross-subsidising them.
They ran various methodologies for calculating the required cross subsidies, to balance the effect of rich and poor areas being in the same currency blocks.
IIRC the calculations suggested that transfer payments to the poorer, southern countries in the EU would need to be about double what they are.
The Barnet formula money got looked at - apparently it was towards the middle of the estimates produced by the various methods.
@MoonRabbit FPT I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂
The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.
But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?
So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?
This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.
To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?
MalcolmG: "It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
I guess quite a few English people would agree with your last sentence as they have never been given a vote on whether they should carry on giving such huge quantities of cash to the Scots.
Usual bollox from you, with 85%+ of the population you can change it any time you wish. However been too afraid to do so as you could not sponge off us. Get a backbone. PS: Go F*** yourself as well, go stalk someone else.
The truth is as you probably really know that it is all a bit more complicated. Scotland gets a quite a bit more money than it should on the basis of its population and quite a bit less than it should if treated as an English region on the basis of its needs. The Barnet formula is designed to move very slowly but inextricably towards the latter and away from the former.
Perhaps but when talking to imbeciles like Foremain you have to keep it simple. Point is we get about 40% of what we contribute and we should be responsible for 100%, the rest is squandered on vanity Westminster projects and Tories bankbooks.
Yes, but we are all so grateful for your ability to use your vast and superior intellect to make these matters understandable in an unbiased and sober manner. I find myself overwhelmed and amazed at your patience, erudition and articulate explanation of all things Scottish. We all thank you for your highly amusing contributions.
Tell me, is not wanting to be ruled from London inherently anti-English racism?
It's not. But the arguments against being ruled from London are at least equally strong against being ruled from Brussels, and yet the Scottish "independence" movement seems to be strongly in favour of the latter - which can't help but make you wonder.
you can leave books in a public place with a message to pass on when read. Rather fun as well .Technically littering I suppose but just think of yourself as a book leaving equivalent of Banksy
We came across an old post box while on a walk in a village 20 miles away. This contained lots of books on the help yourself and please donate idea. We found a homeopathy is better than vaccination book. Took it home, burnt it. Not happy about burning books, but happy to make the exception for this piece of shit.
I once found a genuinely antisemitic book in a charity shop, and bought it, intending to chuck it on the bonfire. Then I remembered that book-burning was how the Nazis started.
you can leave books in a public place with a message to pass on when read. Rather fun as well .Technically littering I suppose but just think of yourself as a book leaving equivalent of Banksy
We came across an old post box while on a walk in a village 20 miles away. This contained lots of books on the help yourself and please donate idea. We found a homeopathy is better than vaccination book. Took it home, burnt it. Not happy about burning books, but happy to make the exception for this piece of shit.
I once found a genuinely antisemitic book in a charity shop, and bought it, intending to chuck it on the bonfire. Then I remembered that book-burning was how the Nazis started.
Yes, it didn’t sit entirely easy with me, but I went through with it. What did you do with it?
So 54% of Tory members still want Boris to stay on then.
Only 33% want Sunak as Tory leader though to replace him, 25% want Truss, 8% Hunt, 6% Gove, 5% Javid and 4% Patel and 4% Raab.
However 63% of Tory members who voted Remain prefer Sunak to Boris
It seems surprising to me that 54% are still that deluded, but it basically means that on that trajectory he is toast, unless the 54% is his ground zero which I doubt.
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Is it just me or has Mandy got his shirt unbuttoned quite a bit in that photo?
We had friends who went on holiday to Italy who were told it was €30 for a PCR test and €50 if you wanted to decide what the result was. I suspect this is not that uncommon.
@DenisMacShane Seems like Pécresse giving a helping hand to Zemmour to keep in the race. Les Républicains will help him get enough nominations to be a candidate. Utterly cynical as Pécresse needs Zemmour to split far right vote in half and let her through. But that's politics. Macron wants MLP https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/1480226196487122945?s=20
We had friends who went on holiday to Italy who were told it was €30 for a PCR test and €50 if you wanted to decide what the result was. I suspect this is not that uncommon.
and I am sure that Novax's PCR is 100% genuine, but it might suggest why the Australian authorities might require more evidence to be certain.
Starting to look like the increase in deaths (by actual date running average now 140 per day from 110) is genuinely an artefact of massive case numbers leading to other deaths getting called covid, because the number of covid patients in intensive care is even lower than November when we had lower deaths numbers.
1500 people die every day, so if 5% of the population has covid there's scope for 75 deaths a day to be called covid without causing any excess death (obviously before adjusting for ages etc).
Yes I've been thinking that, I don't know how to express it but 'incidental deaths' ?
Yep - there's really no other explanation unless we think people are dropping like flies on general wards before even making intensive care.
5% of the population might have Covid, but the deaths stat is based on within 28 days of a positive test. Someone might have Covid, but if they're in a road traffic accident then even though they've died "with Covid" and have never bothered to test themselves (Or report a test) they won't be included on these figures because they were never tested in the previous 28 days. You need to use the precise case numbers rather than estimated ONS prevalence for this one. Age stratification will lower it too.
I went through the numbers, age stratification takes "coincidental" Covid deaths down to ~ 30ish within 28 days of the 26th English specimen average; or precisely 1 coincidental death to be picked up a fortnight later. Case rates amongst the oldest were really low till very recently. I'll run it again for 4th Jan, the Excel monster ate my 26/12/21 homework.
@DenisMacShane Seems like Pécresse giving a helping hand to Zemmour to keep in the race. Les Républicains will help him get enough nominations to be a candidate. Utterly cynical as Pécresse needs Zemmour to split far right vote in half and let her through. But that's politics. Macron wants MLP https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/1480226196487122945?s=20
I have severe doubts people like West County accents that much. Associate it with bucolic stupidity maybe. In fairness I'm in the West County and rarely hear it.
Like others I assumed Scottish accents were generally pretty favourably received. I am very surprised Welsh rates so well, but I'd tend to agree.
I personally think all accents have an appeal, particularly if they are not too "broad". A slight hint of Brummie often adds humour and interest to a person, as can a West Country accent. Too much of either, particularly if combined with poor grammar can be less appealing.
A slight hint of Brummie suggests the person has at least gone to the effort of trying to better him/herself. Too much suggests they have tried and failed, or - worse still - didn't even try to become a proper person.
That's pretty good for Boris. 61% think he is doing well and 59% think he should remain as leader
Surely the most remarkable finding in that poll is that 39% don't trust Boris with the truth. Where on earth have the other 61% been over the last two years?
@MoonRabbit FPT I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂
The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.
But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?
So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?
This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.
To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?
MalcolmG: "It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
I guess quite a few English people would agree with your last sentence as they have never been given a vote on whether they should carry on giving such huge quantities of cash to the Scots.
Usual bollox from you, with 85%+ of the population you can change it any time you wish. However been too afraid to do so as you could not sponge off us. Get a backbone. PS: Go F*** yourself as well, go stalk someone else.
The truth is as you probably really know that it is all a bit more complicated. Scotland gets a quite a bit more money than it should on the basis of its population and quite a bit less than it should if treated as an English region on the basis of its needs. The Barnet formula is designed to move very slowly but inextricably towards the latter and away from the former.
Perhaps but when talking to imbeciles like Foremain you have to keep it simple. Point is we get about 40% of what we contribute and we should be responsible for 100%, the rest is squandered on vanity Westminster projects and Tories bankbooks.
Yes, but we are all so grateful for your ability to use your vast and superior intellect to make these matters understandable in an unbiased and sober manner. I find myself overwhelmed and amazed at your patience, erudition and articulate explanation of all things Scottish. We all thank you for your highly amusing contributions.
Tell me, is not wanting to be ruled from London inherently anti-English racism?
Of course not and I can completely understand and respect your approach to this. However, thugs like MalcolmG do not help your cause. His approach suggests that Scottish independence is to people like him little more more than racist anti-English prejudice. For that he deserves to be mocked at the very least.
You sure? His comments today certainly don't bear that out. Look at his comments earlier, for instance:
"For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight. As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate. It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
"Scottish electorate" ... "in England" ... "in England" .. "tied to England"
Seems to me perfectly OK. He didn't say Scottish people or ENglish people. Note, particularly, the 'Scottish electorate' - i.e. voters in Scotland. Who are of course a mix of Scottish, English and so on. And England is a polity not a race. So Malky is complaining that the Scottish polity is overridden by the English one when it comes to decisions, and so on. That may be independism or regionalism but it's not racism. It also happens to be true rather a lot of the time.
More generally - quite apart from the small matter of there being no legal definition of a Scot - note the SNP's definition of a Scot being anyone who lives in Scotland. ANd I do understand you don't like Mr Salmond, but his thinking certainly reflects the party attitude:
It's very common on PB and elsewhere to use 'Scot' as shorthand for 'resident and voter in a Scottish constituency' and so on for English etc., but this invites misunderstandings, and I try to avoid it myself partly for that reason.
Have to go and do stuff now, but have a nice weekend, or what's left of it.
I imagine his view though is that "the Scottish electorate" is predominantly what he would regard as "Scottish". I think you also have to look at some of his other remarks, that are, shall we say, not exactly inclusive. Perhaps it his style of expressing himself, but he comes across as an unpleasant bigot and little more.
To be fair to the SNP, many of the hardliners such as Malc, Craig Murray, and the Reverend of Bath have gone to Alba now. It's pretty unlikely, but that perhaps might eventually might lead to the SNP wanting to work constructively in constitutionally re-shaping the UK if Labour do want to have a go at it.
We had friends who went on holiday to Italy who were told it was €30 for a PCR test and €50 if you wanted to decide what the result was. I suspect this is not that uncommon.
Just throw in a retrospective social media editing service, and that could be a very marketable product.
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Hence Boris won't impose any more significant restrictions, certainly on the vaccinated, to ensure they don't.
That will fire up enough of the base to avoid the Tory share falling below 30% as it did in the 2019 locals after May failed to get Brexit done
Have you been in one of those rooms like they had (I think) in the Ipcress File, where Tory activists continually play Tory slogans to you until you start repeating them in your sleep?
you can leave books in a public place with a message to pass on when read. Rather fun as well .Technically littering I suppose but just think of yourself as a book leaving equivalent of Banksy
We came across an old post box while on a walk in a village 20 miles away. This contained lots of books on the help yourself and please donate idea. We found a homeopathy is better than vaccination book. Took it home, burnt it. Not happy about burning books, but happy to make the exception for this piece of shit.
I once found a genuinely antisemitic book in a charity shop, and bought it, intending to chuck it on the bonfire. Then I remembered that book-burning was how the Nazis started.
Yes, it didn’t sit entirely easy with me, but I went through with it. What did you do with it?
Tbh I can't remember whether I binned it or still have it. I've not thought about it in years until this thread. Probably I should check the shelves in case the local burglars get the wrong impression.
Eggers creates a fictional but highly familiar world where digital surveillance, in combination with monopoly capitalism, lead to the end of human freedom. It is based on the exploration of a problem that the rise of technology has bought to the fore, that people will willingly cede freedom in favour of security, and speculates on where this might lead. It is the successor to a book published in 2013, the circle, which explores similar themes and which is worth reading first, but this is not necessary to appreciate the Every. Like most works of dystopian fiction it is not perfect and you cannot enjoy it if you keep looking for problems with the technological scenarios he presents.
Choice passage: "We sit in constant judgment of each other, and thus we are a species in decine. nothing great can be created in such a climmate. An authentic human life cannot be lived this way. We become more tame and fearful every year, every day, and every hour brings another thing we cannot do or cannot say, and in all cases the penalty for violators is that they are thrown away - a kind of digital capital punishment. Every generation purports to be more emphatic, and yet every generation is less forgiving. And of course, with every coming year, technology ensures no errors go unrecorded."
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
@DenisMacShane Seems like Pécresse giving a helping hand to Zemmour to keep in the race. Les Républicains will help him get enough nominations to be a candidate. Utterly cynical as Pécresse needs Zemmour to split far right vote in half and let her through. But that's politics. Macron wants MLP https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/1480226196487122945?s=20
Does he need their help?
From Wikipedia
. In order to be admitted as an official candidate, potential candidates must receive signed nominations (known as parrainages, for "sponsors") from more than 500 elected local officials, mostly mayors. These officials must be from at least 30 départements or overseas collectivities, and no more than 10% of them should be from the same département or collectivity.[2] Furthermore, each official may nominate only one candidate.[3] There are exactly 45,543 elected officials, including 33,872 mayors.
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.
The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
@MoonRabbit FPT I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂
The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.
But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?
So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?
This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.
To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?
MalcolmG: "It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
I guess quite a few English people would agree with your last sentence as they have never been given a vote on whether they should carry on giving such huge quantities of cash to the Scots.
Usual bollox from you, with 85%+ of the population you can change it any time you wish. However been too afraid to do so as you could not sponge off us. Get a backbone. PS: Go F*** yourself as well, go stalk someone else.
The truth is as you probably really know that it is all a bit more complicated. Scotland gets a quite a bit more money than it should on the basis of its population and quite a bit less than it should if treated as an English region on the basis of its needs. The Barnet formula is designed to move very slowly but inextricably towards the latter and away from the former.
Perhaps but when talking to imbeciles like Foremain you have to keep it simple. Point is we get about 40% of what we contribute and we should be responsible for 100%, the rest is squandered on vanity Westminster projects and Tories bankbooks.
Yes, but we are all so grateful for your ability to use your vast and superior intellect to make these matters understandable in an unbiased and sober manner. I find myself overwhelmed and amazed at your patience, erudition and articulate explanation of all things Scottish. We all thank you for your highly amusing contributions.
Tell me, is not wanting to be ruled from London inherently anti-English racism?
Of course not and I can completely understand and respect your approach to this. However, thugs like MalcolmG do not help your cause. His approach suggests that Scottish independence is to people like him little more more than racist anti-English prejudice. For that he deserves to be mocked at the very least.
You sure? His comments today certainly don't bear that out. Look at his comments earlier, for instance:
"For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight. As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate. It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
"Scottish electorate" ... "in England" ... "in England" .. "tied to England"
Seems to me perfectly OK. He didn't say Scottish people or ENglish people. Note, particularly, the 'Scottish electorate' - i.e. voters in Scotland. Who are of course a mix of Scottish, English and so on. And England is a polity not a race. So Malky is complaining that the Scottish polity is overridden by the English one when it comes to decisions, and so on. That may be independism or regionalism but it's not racism. It also happens to be true rather a lot of the time.
More generally - quite apart from the small matter of there being no legal definition of a Scot - note the SNP's definition of a Scot being anyone who lives in Scotland. ANd I do understand you don't like Mr Salmond, but his thinking certainly reflects the party attitude:
It's very common on PB and elsewhere to use 'Scot' as shorthand for 'resident and voter in a Scottish constituency' and so on for English etc., but this invites misunderstandings, and I try to avoid it myself partly for that reason.
Have to go and do stuff now, but have a nice weekend, or what's left of it.
I imagine his view though is that "the Scottish electorate" is predominantly what he would regard as "Scottish". I think you also have to look at some of his other remarks, that are, shall we say, not exactly inclusive. Perhaps it his style of expressing himself, but he comes across as an unpleasant bigot and little more.
To be fair to the SNP, many of the hardliners such as Malc, Craig Murray, and the Reverend of Bath have gone to Alba now. It's pretty unlikely, but that perhaps might eventually might lead to the SNP wanting to work constructively in constitutionally re-shaping the UK if Labour do want to have a go at it.
Given that Alba is calling for a 'constitutional convention' it would be quite funny to see Labour call for one if there's a hung parliament with the different Scottish Parties if they win the next election. That could further the divsions within the SNP and between the SNP and Alba.
It's interesting how tetchy the SNP has got at the mention of devo max. I thought they wanted extra powers but they have failed to even set up their own benefits agency.
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
Yes. I think the danger is if it becomes a referendum on the PM. It is in his interests to make it about anything and everything else. But will he be able to resist campaigning? He enjoys it and is good at it too.
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.
The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
So a generation is 13 years is it? So Indyref 2027?
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.
The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
That sounds a little defeatist. You need to think of what is most likely to prevent that. Why do you think Starmer desperately wants Johnson to stay in place? If you really are a genuine Conservative you need to be doing what you can to get rid of the albatross that is Johnson and in this case the best way to that end is to ensure the Tories get a kicking in May. I am not expecting you to admit it on here but you really should vote for another party.
Starting to look like the increase in deaths (by actual date running average now 140 per day from 110) is genuinely an artefact of massive case numbers leading to other deaths getting called covid, because the number of covid patients in intensive care is even lower than November when we had lower deaths numbers.
1500 people die every day, so if 5% of the population has covid there's scope for 75 deaths a day to be called covid without causing any excess death (obviously before adjusting for ages etc).
Yes I've been thinking that, I don't know how to express it but 'incidental deaths' ?
There are also going to be a ton of "contributory COVID", by which I mean people who were going to die soon anyway, where a nasty viral infection was the final straw.
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.
The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
So a generation is 13 years is it? So Indyref 2027?
you can leave books in a public place with a message to pass on when read. Rather fun as well .Technically littering I suppose but just think of yourself as a book leaving equivalent of Banksy
We came across an old post box while on a walk in a village 20 miles away. This contained lots of books on the help yourself and please donate idea. We found a homeopathy is better than vaccination book. Took it home, burnt it. Not happy about burning books, but happy to make the exception for this piece of shit.
I once found a genuinely antisemitic book in a charity shop, and bought it, intending to chuck it on the bonfire. Then I remembered that book-burning was how the Nazis started.
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
Yes. I think the danger is if it becomes a referendum on the PM. It is in his interests to make it about anything and everything else. But will he be able to resist campaigning? He enjoys it and is good at it too.
Perhaps he WAS good at it. His brand is pretty much as tarnished as Blairs. Once popular now loathed. I suspect the more he pops up on telly the more people will be reminded that by some bizarre twist of fate we have a clown as PM.
Starting to look like the increase in deaths (by actual date running average now 140 per day from 110) is genuinely an artefact of massive case numbers leading to other deaths getting called covid, because the number of covid patients in intensive care is even lower than November when we had lower deaths numbers.
1500 people die every day, so if 5% of the population has covid there's scope for 75 deaths a day to be called covid without causing any excess death (obviously before adjusting for ages etc).
Yes I've been thinking that, I don't know how to express it but 'incidental deaths' ?
There are also going to be a ton of "contributory COVID", by which I mean people who were going to die soon anyway, where a nasty viral infection was the final straw.
Let's face it, all these old codgers were going to die pretty soon anyway.
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
Jezza's principal objection to Epstein would not have been his paedophilia
Drakeford won one election in Wales, a country that has not voted anything other than Labour in a national election for the last 100 years. Does not mean he would have any appeal whatsover in England.
In fact the Welsh Conservatives also had their best ever performance at a Senedd election last year against Drakeford Labour. Burnham on the other hand won even Tory Trafford in the last Greater Manchester Mayoral election.
While his northern accent may not be universally popular it is more popular in the redwall, the key swing region for Labour to prevent another Tory majority
Although Trafford these days is not really Tory. It's a Labour council and there has been an influx of professional, middle-class types who (a) have found Chorlton and Didsbury too expensive and like the housing stock, particularly in the north of the borough (b) more importantly, it still retains the 11+, which is a big draw and which the Labour Council has smartly kept on - the 11+ used to be the defining issue in Trafford elections.
In fact. The Tory borough in GM is now Bolton. Has the safest Tory MP in GM too. Which is quite a turn around.
Yes, it is quite a shift and is still continuing. As @Gary_Burton said, there is an argument for saying Brady loses at the next election (although my feeling is he will cling on, although I haven't looked at the new boundaries). Perhaps what is more interesting is that what happens to the Brexit vote next time - seats like Wigan, Makerfield, Ashton-U-L, Stalybridge, Worsley and Oldham East have a Brexit vote that is essentially the Labour majority, give or take a couple of hundred votes. It will depend on how the Tory party realigns - and the next leader will be critical here - to its RW voters.
I think boundary changes are quite bad for the Tories in greater Manchester (although Brady's seat is unchanged) as they dilute a lot of the Tory strength in their new seats as well as target seats. I wouldn't be totally confident of Labour gaining Leigh at the next election especially if there's a Tory recovery nationally but I can't see the Tories gaining anything they didn't in 2019 as Labour did very well across the whole of Greater Manchester with the exception of Bolton in last year's council elections. Labour's local election results in Salford in particular were extremely strong, making inroads into Tory middle class areas like Worsley as well.
Yes, I haven't looked at the boundary changes although, and this is maybe simplistic, is that, if the Tories lose Tory areas in some seats, they gain them in others. I would say there is a slight danger in directly read across strength in local councils to MPs. as - for some reason - you don't tend to get the more radical shifts you see in other areas. So the Tories have no chance of capturing Stockport BC but have two of the constituencies. Likewise, In Tameside, ditto on the council but they are within striking distance in two of the (old) seats.
Hazel Grove is very weird in particular, the constituency itself has trended heavily towards the Tories but the Lib Dems have virtually all the seats at the local level. Clearly a lot of voters vote LD at a local level there and Tory in general elections.
On current EMA shares (Con 33 Lab 38 LD 11), according to electoral calculus, the LIbDems get 11 seats on current boundaries (Labour 22 short of an overall majority) and 19 on the new proposed boundaries (Labour 34 short of an overall majority)!
The LibDem gains are all from Tories - which makes the above figures look odd.
Camb S Carshalton Cheadle Cheltenham Esher Guildford Hazel Grove Lewes St Ives Wimbledon Winchester
I don't think the libdems will win carshalton: it's a classic "once the MP has gone, the constituency returns to type" seat
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
Yes. I think the danger is if it becomes a referendum on the PM. It is in his interests to make it about anything and everything else. But will he be able to resist campaigning? He enjoys it and is good at it too.
Perhaps he WAS good at it. His brand is pretty much as tarnished as Blairs. Once popular now loathed. I suspect the more he pops up on telly the more people will be reminded that by some bizarre twist of fate we have a clown as PM.
Yes. That is entirely possible too. Like some faded rock star who can't resist one more tour. Course. No one likes his latest album. So expect a Greatest Hits collection. Probably. Article 16. Some culture stuff. Lots of references to Jeremy Corbyn. Vague bollocks about the opportunities of Brexit. Him and his followers in a nostalgic comfort zone. Lighters aloft all together for the encore, "Vacciiiiine!"
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
Unexcited not Unexciting
I got too excited
Indeed you have; you have responded to your own post! As I think someone once said; If you talk to yourself at least you know someone is listening.
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
Jezza's principal objection to Epstein would not have been his paedophilia
I think you have answered my question perfectly there thank you.
Centrist or Royalty, shrug
Socialist, hangings too good for them
You are in good company not giving a stuff about the behaviour of establishment types mind.
Starting to look like the increase in deaths (by actual date running average now 140 per day from 110) is genuinely an artefact of massive case numbers leading to other deaths getting called covid, because the number of covid patients in intensive care is even lower than November when we had lower deaths numbers.
1500 people die every day, so if 5% of the population has covid there's scope for 75 deaths a day to be called covid without causing any excess death (obviously before adjusting for ages etc).
Yes I've been thinking that, I don't know how to express it but 'incidental deaths' ?
There are also going to be a ton of "contributory COVID", by which I mean people who were going to die soon anyway, where a nasty viral infection was the final straw.
Let's face it, all these old codgers were going to die pretty soon anyway.
They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash.
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
Jezza's principal objection to Epstein would not have been his paedophilia
I think you have answered my question perfectly there thank you.
Centrist or Royalty, shrug
Socialist, hangings too good for them
You are in good company not giving a stuff about the behaviour of establishment types mind.
Is that what it sounds like when Corbyn's last remaining apologist desperately grabs at a straw?
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.
The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.
I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
I thought we couldn't trust people to use common sense these days? Too confusing.
Morrisons will remove “use-by” dates from milk packaging at the end of the month in an attempt to save millions of pints from being thrown away unnecessarily every year. The British supermarket is asking customers to use a simple and time-honoured test to work out if cow’s milk is usable: sniff it.
Quite right too, it routinely lasts a good 5 weeks beyond its expiry
As long as I can remember I have used the sniff test. But I was around at a friends in the summer for a party and they were pouring gallons of the stuff down the sink and instructing their kids to go to the local Tesco's to get more because it had passed the date. And I did ask but does it smell and they said but the date says used by....
It goes the other way as well, never assume milk is fresh just because it is within date.
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
Jezza's principal objection to Epstein would not have been his paedophilia
I think you have answered my question perfectly there thank you.
Centrist or Royalty, shrug
Socialist, hangings too good for them
You are in good company not giving a stuff about the behaviour of establishment types mind.
Not shrug, I yield to no one in my contempt for Andrew. Mandelson is a smarmy creep but his interests do not relevantly overlap with Epstein's afaik. But I am afraid that, yes, I rank condoners of political murder, and racists, well below paedophiles operating in the age group Epstein was operating in.
Starting to look like the increase in deaths (by actual date running average now 140 per day from 110) is genuinely an artefact of massive case numbers leading to other deaths getting called covid, because the number of covid patients in intensive care is even lower than November when we had lower deaths numbers.
1500 people die every day, so if 5% of the population has covid there's scope for 75 deaths a day to be called covid without causing any excess death (obviously before adjusting for ages etc).
Yes I've been thinking that, I don't know how to express it but 'incidental deaths' ?
There are also going to be a ton of "contributory COVID", by which I mean people who were going to die soon anyway, where a nasty viral infection was the final straw.
Let's face it, all these old codgers were going to die pretty soon anyway.
They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash.
In fact there's a pretty strong fiscal case for getting schoolchildren to go round and breathe on the old codgers on a weekly basis.
Ah, I see "no losing Dem candidate has accepted the Electoral college result in the last X years" is a lie being promulgated on Twitter as fact by the American right wing to act as a shield for Trump stagong a coup. Of course, of course.
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
Jezza's principal objection to Epstein would not have been his paedophilia
I think you have answered my question perfectly there thank you.
Centrist or Royalty, shrug
Socialist, hangings too good for them
You are in good company not giving a stuff about the behaviour of establishment types mind.
Is that what it sounds like when Corbyn's last remaining apologist desperately grabs at a straw?
Sounds like your an apologist for the bloke in the Sun article to me
That's pretty good for Boris. 61% think he is doing well and 59% think he should remain as leader
Nonsense. That's dire for a poll of Conservative MEMBERS.
Really? There's always been a sizeable minority of members who have never warmed to Boris.
I think there's actually two minorities: those who outright dislike him, and those who saw him as a necessary evil, because there was no-one else who could satisfactorily resolve the Brexit deadlock. He had a fair amount of goodwill from the latter group, but he is burning through it pretty darn quickly.
~60% still in favour is higher than I would have thought, currently, so I would say a reasonable poll result for him.
I thought we couldn't trust people to use common sense these days? Too confusing.
Morrisons will remove “use-by” dates from milk packaging at the end of the month in an attempt to save millions of pints from being thrown away unnecessarily every year. The British supermarket is asking customers to use a simple and time-honoured test to work out if cow’s milk is usable: sniff it.
Quite right too, it routinely lasts a good 5 weeks beyond its expiry
As long as I can remember I have used the sniff test. But I was around at a friends in the summer for a party and they were pouring gallons of the stuff down the sink and instructing their kids to go to the local Tesco's to get more because it had passed the date. And I did ask but does it smell and they said but the date says used by....
It goes the other way as well, never assume milk is fresh just because it is within date.
Does best Kay Burley impression...so you are saying it can be in date and off, but out of date but ok, this is all too confusing, what if I buy my milk and take it on holiday to South Africa but I freeze it before take off and then defrost it next to a really smelly elephant...how will i know....
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
Unexcited not Unexciting
I got too excited
Indeed you have; you have responded to your own post! As I think someone once said; If you talk to yourself at least you know someone is listening.
I am responding to my 2nd one of yours in 60 seconds.
Hopefully it proves I am listening intently to you and thinking what a valid point you are making.
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
Jezza's principal objection to Epstein would not have been his paedophilia
I think you have answered my question perfectly there thank you.
Centrist or Royalty, shrug
Socialist, hangings too good for them
You are in good company not giving a stuff about the behaviour of establishment types mind.
Is that what it sounds like when Corbyn's last remaining apologist desperately grabs at a straw?
Sounds like your an apologist for the bloke in the Sun article to me
If you are referring to Epstein, and in desperate absence of the ability to debate you are suggesting I am an apologist for him, then I can clearly see you have the very limited intellect of the buffoon that you so clearly idolise.
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.
The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.
I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.
Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.
You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.
It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
Jezza's principal objection to Epstein would not have been his paedophilia
I think you have answered my question perfectly there thank you.
Centrist or Royalty, shrug
Socialist, hangings too good for them
You are in good company not giving a stuff about the behaviour of establishment types mind.
Is that what it sounds like when Corbyn's last remaining apologist desperately grabs at a straw?
Sounds like your an apologist for the bloke in the Sun article to me
If you are referring to Epstein, and in desperate absence of the ability to debate you are suggesting I am an apologist for him, then I can clearly see you have the very limited intellect of the buffoon that you so clearly idolise.
Name callers are noted for their intellect and ability to debate of course.
The article is about Mandelson have you even read it or just ploughed in regardless?
We had friends who went on holiday to Italy who were told it was €30 for a PCR test and €50 if you wanted to decide what the result was. I suspect this is not that uncommon.
and I am sure that Novax's PCR is 100% genuine, but it might suggest why the Australian authorities might require more evidence to be certain.
This is bad of the BBC not to report the facts of those who previously had covid vs Omicron and also what we know of previous infection vs previous infection + vaccination. Its hanging there as if the antivaxxer doctor has a legitimate point
Starting to look like the increase in deaths (by actual date running average now 140 per day from 110) is genuinely an artefact of massive case numbers leading to other deaths getting called covid, because the number of covid patients in intensive care is even lower than November when we had lower deaths numbers.
1500 people die every day, so if 5% of the population has covid there's scope for 75 deaths a day to be called covid without causing any excess death (obviously before adjusting for ages etc).
Yes I've been thinking that, I don't know how to express it but 'incidental deaths' ?
There are also going to be a ton of "contributory COVID", by which I mean people who were going to die soon anyway, where a nasty viral infection was the final straw.
Let's face it, all these old codgers were going to die pretty soon anyway.
Drakeford won one election in Wales, a country that has not voted anything other than Labour in a national election for the last 100 years. Does not mean he would have any appeal whatsover in England.
In fact the Welsh Conservatives also had their best ever performance at a Senedd election last year against Drakeford Labour. Burnham on the other hand won even Tory Trafford in the last Greater Manchester Mayoral election.
While his northern accent may not be universally popular it is more popular in the redwall, the key swing region for Labour to prevent another Tory majority
Although Trafford these days is not really Tory. It's a Labour council and there has been an influx of professional, middle-class types who (a) have found Chorlton and Didsbury too expensive and like the housing stock, particularly in the north of the borough (b) more importantly, it still retains the 11+, which is a big draw and which the Labour Council has smartly kept on - the 11+ used to be the defining issue in Trafford elections.
In fact. The Tory borough in GM is now Bolton. Has the safest Tory MP in GM too. Which is quite a turn around.
Yes, it is quite a shift and is still continuing. As @Gary_Burton said, there is an argument for saying Brady loses at the next election (although my feeling is he will cling on, although I haven't looked at the new boundaries). Perhaps what is more interesting is that what happens to the Brexit vote next time - seats like Wigan, Makerfield, Ashton-U-L, Stalybridge, Worsley and Oldham East have a Brexit vote that is essentially the Labour majority, give or take a couple of hundred votes. It will depend on how the Tory party realigns - and the next leader will be critical here - to its RW voters.
I think boundary changes are quite bad for the Tories in greater Manchester (although Brady's seat is unchanged) as they dilute a lot of the Tory strength in their new seats as well as target seats. I wouldn't be totally confident of Labour gaining Leigh at the next election especially if there's a Tory recovery nationally but I can't see the Tories gaining anything they didn't in 2019 as Labour did very well across the whole of Greater Manchester with the exception of Bolton in last year's council elections. Labour's local election results in Salford in particular were extremely strong, making inroads into Tory middle class areas like Worsley as well.
Yes, I haven't looked at the boundary changes although, and this is maybe simplistic, is that, if the Tories lose Tory areas in some seats, they gain them in others. I would say there is a slight danger in directly read across strength in local councils to MPs. as - for some reason - you don't tend to get the more radical shifts you see in other areas. So the Tories have no chance of capturing Stockport BC but have two of the constituencies. Likewise, In Tameside, ditto on the council but they are within striking distance in two of the (old) seats.
Hazel Grove is very weird in particular, the constituency itself has trended heavily towards the Tories but the Lib Dems have virtually all the seats at the local level. Clearly a lot of voters vote LD at a local level there and Tory in general elections.
On current EMA shares (Con 33 Lab 38 LD 11), according to electoral calculus, the LIbDems get 11 seats on current boundaries (Labour 22 short of an overall majority) and 19 on the new proposed boundaries (Labour 34 short of an overall majority)!
The LibDem gains are all from Tories - which makes the above figures look odd.
Camb S Carshalton Cheadle Cheltenham Esher Guildford Hazel Grove Lewes St Ives Wimbledon Winchester
I don't think the libdems will win carshalton: it's a classic "once the MP has gone, the constituency returns to type" seat
This is bad of the BBC not to report the facts of those who previously had covid vs Omicron and also what we know of previous infection vs previous infection + vaccination. Its hanging there as if the antivaxxer doctor has a legitimate point
It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.
This is bad of the BBC not to report the facts of those who previously had covid vs Omicron and also what we know of previous infection vs previous infection + vaccination. Its hanging there as if the antivaxxer doctor has a legitimate point
It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.
Or may be seen to be supporting the Government....
It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.
I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
On accents , personally like the accents more or less in the opposite order of the survey - A Brummie or Scouse accent tends to be endearing and soulful. Never really warmed to the southern irish accent for some reason.
It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.
I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
All we get is that "Anti-vaxers don't want the vaccinations. No, we can't actually say what the anti-vax arguments are."
That's pretty good for Boris. 61% think he is doing well and 59% think he should remain as leader
Nonsense. That's dire for a poll of Conservative MEMBERS.
Really? There's always been a sizeable minority of members who have never warmed to Boris.
A lot of mainstream members in all parties judge "doing well" by "ahead in the polls". If the Tory rating recovered members would rediscover their affection. those who have already left, perhaps less so.
It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet
It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.
The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.
I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.
Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.
You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.
It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.
Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
Comments
The LibDem gains are all from Tories - which makes the above figures look odd.
Camb S
Carshalton
Cheadle
Cheltenham
Esher
Guildford
Hazel Grove
Lewes
St Ives
Wimbledon
Winchester
But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fundraisers which the duke attended."
Like others I assumed Scottish accents were generally pretty favourably received. I am very surprised Welsh rates so well, but I'd tend to agree.
"For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight.
As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."
"Scottish electorate" ... "in England" ... "in England" .. "tied to England"
Seems to me perfectly OK. He didn't say Scottish people or ENglish people. Note, particularly, the 'Scottish electorate' - i.e. voters in Scotland. Who are of course a mix of Scottish, English and so on. And England is a polity not a race. So Malky is complaining that the Scottish polity is overridden by the English one when it comes to decisions, and so on. That may be independism or regionalism but it's not racism. It also happens to be true rather a lot of the time.
More generally - quite apart from the small matter of there being no legal definition of a Scot - note the SNP's definition of a Scot being anyone who lives in Scotland. ANd I do understand you don't like Mr Salmond, but his thinking certainly reflects the party attitude:
https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/856
It's very common on PB and elsewhere to use 'Scot' as shorthand for 'resident and voter in a Scottish constituency' and so on for English etc., but this invites misunderstandings, and I try to avoid it myself partly for that reason.
Have to go and do stuff now, but have a nice weekend, or what's left of it.
Not happy about burning books, but happy to make the exception for this piece of shit.
New @skynews YouGov poll of Tory membership
* 34% of members say Boris Johnson should stand down, compared to 9% in July 2020
* 46% of members think Rishi Sunak would make a better leader, 39% think Liz Truss
* 39% don’t trust him with truth
Full coverage on @skynews now
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1480224976422715392
As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out.
I agree with all of that, especially the last line that summed the problem up nicely. But if that answers a question, what question is it answering? Is the problem England control, as in to take back control. Or the problem is actually money - because power is wealth, wealth is power. Or the problem English wealth as an agent in Scotland?
If the issue is the third one, foreign capital as agent in Scotland, what on earth is the solution?
In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories, businesses, and all the other industries people work in?
If there is factory in Scotland and one in England and one to close, which one is closed if owners are English? I’m from Yorkshire, my dad from Yorkshire, I live in property he owns in Chelsea whilst locals in ‘landan’ struggle now to buy property in London. Who owns the land in Scotland now, who owns freehold homes and businesses are on after independence?
Personally I would like to see fairness in this world, and to be in a fair place, a free place, is having that financial clout to come and compete. Do you see my points?
http://news.sky.com/story/nearly-half-of-conservative-members-think-rishi-sunak-would-make-better-party-leader-than-boris-johnson-poll-12512455
They ran various methodologies for calculating the required cross subsidies, to balance the effect of rich and poor areas being in the same currency blocks.
IIRC the calculations suggested that transfer payments to the poorer, southern countries in the EU would need to be about double what they are.
The Barnet formula money got looked at - apparently it was towards the middle of the estimates produced by the various methods.
Only 33% want Sunak as Tory leader though to replace him, 25% want Truss, 8% Hunt, 6% Gove, 5% Javid and 4% Patel and 4% Raab.
However 63% of Tory members who voted Remain prefer Sunak to Boris
What did you do with it?
If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
Seems like Pécresse giving a helping hand to Zemmour to keep in the race. Les Républicains will help him get enough nominations to be a candidate. Utterly cynical as Pécresse needs Zemmour to split far right vote in half and let her through. But that's politics. Macron wants MLP
https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/1480226196487122945?s=20
That will fire up enough of the base to avoid the Tory share falling below 30% as it did in the 2019 locals after May failed to get Brexit done
There's a non trivial possibility than in the overall calculation Omicron's emergence actually saves lives.
Eggers creates a fictional but highly familiar world where digital surveillance, in combination with monopoly capitalism, lead to the end of human freedom.
It is based on the exploration of a problem that the rise of technology has bought to the fore, that people will willingly cede freedom in favour of security,
and speculates on where this might lead.
It is the successor to a book published in 2013, the circle, which explores similar themes and which is worth reading first, but this is not necessary to appreciate the Every.
Like most works of dystopian fiction it is not perfect and you cannot enjoy it if you keep looking for problems with the technological scenarios he presents.
Choice passage:
"We sit in constant judgment of each other, and thus we are a species in decine. nothing great can be created
in such a climmate. An authentic human life cannot be lived this way. We become more tame and fearful every year, every day, and every hour brings another thing we cannot do or cannot say,
and in all cases the penalty for violators is that they are thrown away - a kind of digital capital punishment. Every generation purports to be more emphatic, and yet every generation is
less forgiving. And of course, with every coming year, technology ensures no errors go unrecorded."
. In order to be admitted as an official candidate, potential candidates must receive signed nominations (known as parrainages, for "sponsors") from more than 500 elected local officials, mostly mayors. These officials must be from at least 30 départements or overseas collectivities, and no more than 10% of them should be from the same département or collectivity.[2] Furthermore, each official may nominate only one candidate.[3] There are exactly 45,543 elected officials, including 33,872 mayors.
The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
It's interesting how tetchy the SNP has got at the mention of devo max. I thought they wanted extra powers but they have failed to even set up their own benefits agency.
It is in his interests to make it about anything and everything else.
But will he be able to resist campaigning? He enjoys it and is good at it too.
"We fight on! We fight to win!"
I got too excited
Yorkshire Handmade Pies currently has a 20% discount code for pies handmade in Yorkshire.
Best pies I have come across so far.
Like some faded rock star who can't resist one more tour.
Course. No one likes his latest album. So expect a Greatest Hits collection.
Probably. Article 16. Some culture stuff. Lots of references to Jeremy Corbyn. Vague bollocks about the opportunities of Brexit.
Him and his followers in a nostalgic comfort zone.
Lighters aloft all together for the encore,
"Vacciiiiine!"
Centrist or Royalty, shrug
Socialist, hangings too good for them
You are in good company not giving a stuff about the behaviour of establishment types mind.
I recommend the steak mix for carnivorous
I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
https://twitter.com/prchovanec/status/1480199672526422018?t=1-831EI1e7A3JpQbAhQ0Kw&s=19
~60% still in favour is higher than I would have thought, currently, so I would say a reasonable poll result for him.
Hopefully it proves I am listening intently to you and thinking what a valid point you are making.
Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.
You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.
It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
The article is about Mandelson have you even read it or just ploughed in regardless?
https://youtu.be/igILhbNWvlk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59927306
This is bad of the BBC not to report the facts of those who previously had covid vs Omicron and also what we know of previous infection vs previous infection + vaccination. Its hanging there as if the antivaxxer doctor has a legitimate point
It's not actually planned.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Andy_Burnham
https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/carshalton_and_wallington_constituency
Or even Sutton:
https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/sutton_and_cheam_constituency
All we get is that "Anti-vaxers don't want the vaccinations. No, we can't actually say what the anti-vax arguments are."
Due to him being popular and SKS 3rd worst with only Blair and Corbyn behind
Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.