The Swingback Myth – Do governments really recover? – politicalbetting.com

System

The Swingback Myth – Do governments really recover? – politicalbetting.com

(This analysis first appeared on PB in December 2007 and has been much quoted both here and in the mainstream media since. It’s even more timely today and I thought it was worth re-running – MS)

Read the full story here

Alphabet_Soup

First for quite a while.

Commenting on twelve-year-old threads could become one of the internet's more obscure hobbies.

turbotubbs

Alphabet_Soup said:

First for quite a while.

Commenting on twelve-year-old threads could become one of the internet's more obscure hobbies.

Second. It’s common for people to vote differently at by-elections and then revert at general ones. By-elections are not choosing a government.

Applicant

turbotubbs said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

First for quite a while.

Commenting on twelve-year-old threads could become one of the internet's more obscure hobbies.

Second. It’s common for people to vote differently at by-elections and then revert at general ones. By-elections are not choosing a government.

Indeed. My understanding of swingback theory was that it referred to by-election performance rather than opinion polls.

Alistair

Today's Redactle is killing me

stodge

From the previous thread...

Evening all

Once again it's all too easy to view the future through the prism of the past and assume what happened then will happen now. The events since the last GE make this a unique Parliament and assuming past polling characteristics will occur in the second half of the Parliament when they didn't in the first seems unwise.

Will Johnson going make the difference some on here hope? Short answer, I don't know - it depends the event to which the anger has been internalised against Johnson himself or whether there is a deeper malaise against the Conservatives in general - arguably understandable after 12 years as the leading party.

Any successor will face the same horrendous economic backdrop and it's hard to see (thought I note some on here have now called for the complete suspension of fuel duty. That was worth 26 billion in 2021/22 and of course with the petrol price running presumably even more as more people are coming back on to the roads.

I don't see any Chancellor voluntarily wanting to give up £26-30 billion in revenue.

Thus the central arguments for Johnson going - is he a loser? Is there anyone who would be a proven winner for the Conservatives? - remain unresolved. Hunt is no Heseltine and Sunak is no Major so the death spiral potentially goes on.

This winter, assuming the conflict in Ukraine drags on, is going to be very difficult for a lot of people even those who have perhaps weathered the storm quite well to date.

williamglenn

Is it just me or does Biden blaming inflation on "Putin's tax on food and gas" make him and the American government sound really weak?

turbotubbs

Applicant said:

turbotubbs said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

First for quite a while.

Commenting on twelve-year-old threads could become one of the internet's more obscure hobbies.

Second. It’s common for people to vote differently at by-elections and then revert at general ones. By-elections are not choosing a government.

Indeed. My understanding of swingback theory was that it referred to by-election performance rather than opinion polls.

And people being asked ‘if there was a general election today, how would you vote?’ is subject to similar, but different challenges.

turbotubbs

williamglenn said:

Is it just me or does Biden blaming inflation on "Putin's tax on food and gas" make him and the American government sound really weak?

I think it’s realistic. A bit like when the Suez Canal got blocked with lots of downstream effects, the world is hugely interconnected now.

geoffw

williamglenn said:

Is it just me or does Biden blaming inflation on "Putin's tax on food and gas" make him and the American government sound really weak?

It's pathetic. Putin may be responsible for an upward shift in the overall price level but Biden's government and the Fed are responsible for the ongoing inflationary process by accommodating it.

turbotubbs said:

williamglenn said:

Is it just me or does Biden blaming inflation on "Putin's tax on food and gas" make him and the American government sound really weak?

I think it’s realistic. A bit like when the Suez Canal got blocked with lots of downstream effects, the world is hugely interconnected now.

But one-off supply-side disturbances only act as successful triggers of inflationary processes if government policy accommodates the inflationary process.

Alphabet_Soup

Presumably the answer to the problem (that swingback works for Tories but not for Labour) is our old friend the Shy Tory Syndrome. People are happy to make a grandiloquent gesture when responding to an opinion poll but at the election will pursue what they take to be their narrow self-interest.

turbotubbs

geoffw said:

williamglenn said:

Is it just me or does Biden blaming inflation on "Putin's tax on food and gas" make him and the American government sound really weak?

It's pathetic. Putin may be responsible for an upward shift in the overall price level but Biden's government and the Fed are responsible for the ongoing inflationary process by accommodating it.

turbotubbs said:

williamglenn said:

Is it just me or does Biden blaming inflation on "Putin's tax on food and gas" make him and the American government sound really weak?

I think it’s realistic. A bit like when the Suez Canal got blocked with lots of downstream effects, the world is hugely interconnected now.

But one-off supply-side disturbances only act as successful triggers of inflationary processes if government policy accommodates the inflationary process.

So what do you want government to do? Subsidise fuel back to jan prices?

stodge

turbotubbs said:

So what do you want government to do? Subsidise fuel back to jan prices?

It's the essence of desperation on the centre-right some are actually thinking about this - Sunak isn't going to give up £26 billion of fuel duty revenue.

It does seem the refineries are doing very well and as this Government is such a big plan of windfall taxes perhaps they should be the next target.

Anabobazina

@MaxPB FPT

Many congratulations sir. I hadn’t seen the news. Welcome to fatherhood.

Alphabet_Soup

Anabobazina said:

@MaxPB FPT

Many congratulations sir. I hadn’t seen the news. Welcome to fatherhood.

It isn't a previous thread - it's a thread from the distant future!

Andy_Cooke

To add to the ones mentioned above:

For the 2005-2010 Government, it depends on when “mid-term” is defined. Swing to Tories from 2007. Swing to Government from 2008. Both held and both broke.

For the 2010-15 Government there was indeed a pronounced swingback to both Tories and Government. Both held.

For the 2015-17 Government, both rules broke.

And for the 2017-19 Government, you can’t really measure it anyway because mid-term polling was so far all over the shop that it was out the window, across the road, and in the local park.

Conclusions: There was once a rule about swingback to Governments. It morphed into a rule about swingback to Tories (possibly due to shy Tory syndrome), but this was masked because for 18 years, they were the same thing.

Then the latter rule stuttered and since fell apart. Now: God knows. Could be bloody anything, really. Don’t rely on swingback, swingaway, swing low, sweet chariot.

geoffw

turbotubbs said:

geoffw said:

williamglenn said:

Is it just me or does Biden blaming inflation on "Putin's tax on food and gas" make him and the American government sound really weak?

It's pathetic. Putin may be responsible for an upward shift in the overall price level but Biden's government and the Fed are responsible for the ongoing inflationary process by accommodating it.

turbotubbs said:

williamglenn said:

Is it just me or does Biden blaming inflation on "Putin's tax on food and gas" make him and the American government sound really weak?

I think it’s realistic. A bit like when the Suez Canal got blocked with lots of downstream effects, the world is hugely interconnected now.

But one-off supply-side disturbances only act as successful triggers of inflationary processes if government policy accommodates the inflationary process.

So what do you want government to do? Subsidise fuel back to jan prices?

In the UK the BoE should have started quantitive tightening and raising interest rates earlier. The only effect of petrol subsidies is to redistribute the inevitable short-term pain from one group (e.g. motorists) to another (tax payers). And to the extent that the burden of higher energy prices has bigger effects on poorer people than others, the government could increase benefits to soften the blow. This is explicit and temporary income redistribution. The political difficulty comes with undoing it when the redistribution is no longer justified. A sunset clause is needed to prevent the all too likely ratchet making the benefit hike permanent.

dixiedean

Andy_Cooke said:

To add to the ones mentioned above:

For the 2005-2010 Government, it depends on when “mid-term” is defined. Swing to Tories from 2007. Swing to Government from 2008. Both held and both broke.

For the 2010-15 Government there was indeed a pronounced swingback to both Tories and Government. Both held.

For the 2015-17 Government, both rules broke.

And for the 2017-19 Government, you can’t really measure it anyway because mid-term polling was so far all over the shop that it was out the window, across the road, and in the local park.

Conclusions: There was once a rule about swingback to Governments. It morphed into a rule about swingback to Tories (possibly due to shy Tory syndrome), but this was masked because for 18 years, they were the same thing.

Then the latter rule stuttered and since fell apart. Now: God knows. Could be bloody anything, really. Don’t rely on swingback, swingaway, swing low, sweet chariot.

Lazily relying on swingback is the big danger for this government.
And casual insouciance is a feature.

Stuartinromford

dixiedean said:

Andy_Cooke said:

To add to the ones mentioned above:

For the 2005-2010 Government, it depends on when “mid-term” is defined. Swing to Tories from 2007. Swing to Government from 2008. Both held and both broke.

For the 2010-15 Government there was indeed a pronounced swingback to both Tories and Government. Both held.

For the 2015-17 Government, both rules broke.

And for the 2017-19 Government, you can’t really measure it anyway because mid-term polling was so far all over the shop that it was out the window, across the road, and in the local park.

Conclusions: There was once a rule about swingback to Governments. It morphed into a rule about swingback to Tories (possibly due to shy Tory syndrome), but this was masked because for 18 years, they were the same thing.

Then the latter rule stuttered and since fell apart. Now: God knows. Could be bloody anything, really. Don’t rely on swingback, swingaway, swing low, sweet chariot.

Lazily relying on swingback is the big danger for this government.
And casual insouciance is a feature.

And the Thatcher governments, especially, were very good at aligning the fiscal and electoral cycles. Pain early in the Parliament to maximise the feelgood later. What ought to keep Downing Street awake at night is the possibility that the economic and fiscal pain have barely kicked in when the countdown to the countdown to the next election has started. Not entirely their fault, Covid ripped the cycles out of synch. But Johnson's terror of being unpopular hasn't helped.

If HMT can retrench and come out the other side by spring 2024, then the government have a decent chance of winning. But that's a big (though not impossible) if.

dixiedean

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

Andy_Cooke said:

To add to the ones mentioned above:

For the 2005-2010 Government, it depends on when “mid-term” is defined. Swing to Tories from 2007. Swing to Government from 2008. Both held and both broke.

For the 2010-15 Government there was indeed a pronounced swingback to both Tories and Government. Both held.

For the 2015-17 Government, both rules broke.

And for the 2017-19 Government, you can’t really measure it anyway because mid-term polling was so far all over the shop that it was out the window, across the road, and in the local park.

Conclusions: There was once a rule about swingback to Governments. It morphed into a rule about swingback to Tories (possibly due to shy Tory syndrome), but this was masked because for 18 years, they were the same thing.

Then the latter rule stuttered and since fell apart. Now: God knows. Could be bloody anything, really. Don’t rely on swingback, swingaway, swing low, sweet chariot.

Lazily relying on swingback is the big danger for this government.
And casual insouciance is a feature.

And the Thatcher governments, especially, were very good at aligning the fiscal and electoral cycles. Pain early in the Parliament to maximise the feelgood later. What ought to keep Downing Street awake at night is the possibility that the economic and fiscal pain have barely kicked in when the countdown to the countdown to the next election has started. Not entirely their fault, Covid ripped the cycles out of synch. But Johnson's terror of being unpopular hasn't helped.

If HMT can retrench and come out the other side by spring 2024, then the government have a decent chance of winning. But that's a big (though not impossible) if.

This one seems keen to cave to every special interest at every turn.
We are supposed to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels for example.
Yet we are mulling another cut in fuel duty so that folk can keep driving.
Rather than putting out a message to cut unnecessary journeys.

LostPassword

Alistair said:

Today's Redactle is killing me

Isn't it though.

Alistair

LostPassword said:

Alistair said:

Today's Redactle is killing me

Isn't it though.

For me it was totally obscure and had to resort to googling terms I hit to get my next options. Got there in the end with around 160(!) guesses.

dixiedean

This thread appears to have all the traction.of the PM's big speech yesterday.

TheScreamingEagles

Thoughts and prayers for monarchist Tories at this time.

The Prince of Wales has privately described the government’s policy to send migrants to Rwanda as “appalling”, The Times has been told.

Prince Charles is said to be particularly frustrated at Boris Johnson’s asylum policy as he is due to represent the Queen at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, this month.

Migrants who arrive in Britain illegally face being deported to Rwanda, more than 4,000 miles away, under a deal struck by Priti Patel, the home secretary, in April.

Today Patel overcame an initial legal challenge to the policy after a High Court judge ruled that the first flight due to deport migrants on Tuesday could go ahead.

A source had heard Charles, 73, expressing opposition to the policy several times in private and said he was particularly uncomfortable about it amid fears that it would overshadow the summit on June 23.

“He said he was more than disappointed at the policy,” the source said. “He said he thinks the government’s whole approach is appalling. It was clear he was not impressed with the government’s direction of travel.”

Clarence House did not deny that Charles was opposed to the policy

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-charles-flying-migrants-to-rwanda-is-appalling-l6jzklfhm

#TakeBackControlFromOurUnelectedRulers

Luckyguy1983

geoffw said:

williamglenn said:

Is it just me or does Biden blaming inflation on "Putin's tax on food and gas" make him and the American government sound really weak?

It's pathetic. Putin may be responsible for an upward shift in the overall price level but Biden's government and the Fed are responsible for the ongoing inflationary process by accommodating it.

turbotubbs said:

williamglenn said:

Is it just me or does Biden blaming inflation on "Putin's tax on food and gas" make him and the American government sound really weak?

I think it’s realistic. A bit like when the Suez Canal got blocked with lots of downstream effects, the world is hugely interconnected now.

But one-off supply-side disturbances only act as successful triggers of inflationary processes if government policy accommodates the inflationary process.

It is also obvious to all but the terminally dim that it's not Putin's invasion that is driving up prices, but American sanctions in response to that invasion. Which may be the only morally justifiable response to the invasion, but are still American actions, not Russian ones.

Luckyguy1983

dixiedean said:

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

Andy_Cooke said:

To add to the ones mentioned above:

For the 2005-2010 Government, it depends on when “mid-term” is defined. Swing to Tories from 2007. Swing to Government from 2008. Both held and both broke.

For the 2010-15 Government there was indeed a pronounced swingback to both Tories and Government. Both held.

For the 2015-17 Government, both rules broke.

And for the 2017-19 Government, you can’t really measure it anyway because mid-term polling was so far all over the shop that it was out the window, across the road, and in the local park.

Conclusions: There was once a rule about swingback to Governments. It morphed into a rule about swingback to Tories (possibly due to shy Tory syndrome), but this was masked because for 18 years, they were the same thing.

Then the latter rule stuttered and since fell apart. Now: God knows. Could be bloody anything, really. Don’t rely on swingback, swingaway, swing low, sweet chariot.

Lazily relying on swingback is the big danger for this government.
And casual insouciance is a feature.

And the Thatcher governments, especially, were very good at aligning the fiscal and electoral cycles. Pain early in the Parliament to maximise the feelgood later. What ought to keep Downing Street awake at night is the possibility that the economic and fiscal pain have barely kicked in when the countdown to the countdown to the next election has started. Not entirely their fault, Covid ripped the cycles out of synch. But Johnson's terror of being unpopular hasn't helped.

If HMT can retrench and come out the other side by spring 2024, then the government have a decent chance of winning. But that's a big (though not impossible) if.

This one seems keen to cave to every special interest at every turn.
We are supposed to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels for example.
Yet we are mulling another cut in fuel duty so that folk can keep driving.
Rather than putting out a message to cut unnecessary journeys.

I find the idea of the Government telling me to 'cut unnecessary journeys' to be grotesque, so I am glad they haven't tried.

Dura_Ace

Pro_Rata said:

When @Dura_Ace says something is too reckless........

I've ridden (and nearly died) on the Mountain Course a few times but it's obviously going to have to change into some sort of motorcycle related festival (like Goodwood FoS but without Grant Shapps/Michael Green) rather than a 'race'. It's not a even a race now as it's actually a time trial and not FIM sanctioned.

BartholomewRoberts

FPPT

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Anabobazina said:

Nigelb said:

.

Anabobazina said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

tlg86 said:

Malmesbury said:

MoonRabbit said:

Alistair said:

Huh, Covid admissions are rising.

How about a Covid sitrep PB?

How is it going round the world? Is it really over out there like it is here, if not why not?

When’s the next time us 20 year olds will get vaccine?

Could a bad variant come back to UK meaning some restrictions to save lives and protect the NHS?

Will be publishing some stats in time for your G&T

Jubilee super spreader event?

New variants bouncing around.....

BA.5 seems to be quite a problem in Portugal, which has a higher immunisation rate than us. Half of British covid is now BA.5.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/03/omicron-covid-subvariant-drives-spike-in-cases-and-deaths-in-portgual

It's a new virus still finding its feet....

My children both had a second round if it a couple of weeks back. 24 hours of high temp (just shy of 104F for one of them), and 10 days before a clear LFT.
Daughter was staying with us, but we managed to avoid getting it by being very careful.

The ten days is commonplace even when symptoms have disappeared. These days, it's symptoms that determine isolation, not testing.

Not if you want to avoid catching it.
A positive LFT means you are very likely still infectious, whatever the isolation rules.

Does it?

Yes.

As this immunologist points out.
https://mobile.twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1533669140967350272

There's some correlation between the speed of the test reaction (and red line thickness) and the amount of active virus present, though hard to quantify exactly, but a positive LFT necessarily means the presence of active virus.
(Unlike PCR.)

Important to me in this case, as I had RSC tickets...

Why's it important to you? You have tickets, use the tickets.

You ever been to the theatre when you had flu ?

No, because I've never had the flu when I had theatre tickets.

I would go. Or if I had Covid, why miss it, unless you're too sick to go?

Because in a theatre I would be surrounded by tens of people in very close proximity to me for several hours. I wouldn't go if I had influenza (or even a heavy cold) either.

Come to mention it, if I had syphilis (easily treated with antibiotics), I wouldn't go around having unprotected sex with people*.

* Yes, yes, I know this relies on the unlikely scenario of lots of people wanting to have sex with me.

Airborne viruses spread, it's what they do. So what if there's people in close proximity?

Anyone who is immunocompromised and doesn't want to catch a virus would be wise to avoid any crowd. As far as I'm aware for healthy people catching viruses intermittently is good for the immune system and being overprotective is not. Any crowded event will inevitably have people there with airborne viruses.

Having sex with someone when you have an STI is a very different thing to breathing.

"Airborne viruses spread, it's what they do. So what if there's people in close proximity?"

Ummm: all the evidence is that the likelihood of transmission is a function of proximity, time and ventilation.

It's a matter of common courtesy to take basic precautions not to make other people sick.

Common courtesy extends to washing your hands etc, not imprisoning yourself in your home every time you're under the weather.

If you were going on holiday and had a virus, would you refuse to go to the airport, voiding your holiday?

I'm not talking about imprisoning oneself - I am talking about the specifics of going to a theatre and sitting in the same proximity of tens or hundreds of people for several hours.

I simply wouldn't do it, because I don't think it's fair to other people. You must make your own decision, of course, but it seems that you are attaching an awful lot of value to your happiness (you saw the play), and not a lot to those whom you infected.

Of course I am. Airborne viruses are a natural part of life, anyone who is going into a crowded theatre knows they may catch a virus from someone in the crowd, its not like I'd be walking into an immunocompromised person's sealed off bubble room. Anyone I might infect should be vaccinated anyway.

We've wasted enough time to Covid already, and we've all been repeatedly jabbed. If we potentially get infected twice a year from now on, then that's potentially four weeks of isolation for the rest of time if that's the madness you want to go down.

Absolutely not, screw that. If I catch Covid, then I won't know its Covid since I won't be taking a test (last time, I've had worse manflu's before). If I felt I needed it, I'd take some paracetamol, or Lemsip, or Strepsils - and live life normally.

You said about taking "common courtesy to take basic precautions" and I completely agree. The basic precaution is wash your hands, cover your mouth if you need to cough, and cover your nose if you need to sneeze. That's it, that's all I'll be doing if I have Covid or any other airborne virus. If I knew I had Covid I'd quite happily go shopping, or go to the cinema, or theatre, or a restaurant, or the airport as per normal.

If you want to hide behind doors for the rest of time, or behind a mask, then you can. I'll keep my vaccines up to date as required and put my faith in my own and everybody else's vaccine to do its job.

londonpubman

I have found the new thread 👍

dixiedean

Luckyguy1983 said:

dixiedean said:

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

Andy_Cooke said:

To add to the ones mentioned above:

For the 2005-2010 Government, it depends on when “mid-term” is defined. Swing to Tories from 2007. Swing to Government from 2008. Both held and both broke.

For the 2010-15 Government there was indeed a pronounced swingback to both Tories and Government. Both held.

For the 2015-17 Government, both rules broke.

And for the 2017-19 Government, you can’t really measure it anyway because mid-term polling was so far all over the shop that it was out the window, across the road, and in the local park.

Conclusions: There was once a rule about swingback to Governments. It morphed into a rule about swingback to Tories (possibly due to shy Tory syndrome), but this was masked because for 18 years, they were the same thing.

Then the latter rule stuttered and since fell apart. Now: God knows. Could be bloody anything, really. Don’t rely on swingback, swingaway, swing low, sweet chariot.

Lazily relying on swingback is the big danger for this government.
And casual insouciance is a feature.

And the Thatcher governments, especially, were very good at aligning the fiscal and electoral cycles. Pain early in the Parliament to maximise the feelgood later. What ought to keep Downing Street awake at night is the possibility that the economic and fiscal pain have barely kicked in when the countdown to the countdown to the next election has started. Not entirely their fault, Covid ripped the cycles out of synch. But Johnson's terror of being unpopular hasn't helped.

If HMT can retrench and come out the other side by spring 2024, then the government have a decent chance of winning. But that's a big (though not impossible) if.

This one seems keen to cave to every special interest at every turn.
We are supposed to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels for example.
Yet we are mulling another cut in fuel duty so that folk can keep driving.
Rather than putting out a message to cut unnecessary journeys.

I find the idea of the Government telling me to 'cut unnecessary journeys' to be grotesque, so I am glad they haven't tried.

They are willing to tell other folk to cut back in other areas though. We hear about Sky subscriptions, takeaways, smoking, ready meals. You can cook 30p meals instead of wasting your money.
What's unique and special about driving?
And grotesque is quite unnecessary. War, slavery and famine are grotesque.
That's merely a thing you don't like.

BartholomewRoberts

dixiedean said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

dixiedean said:

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

Andy_Cooke said:

To add to the ones mentioned above:

For the 2005-2010 Government, it depends on when “mid-term” is defined. Swing to Tories from 2007. Swing to Government from 2008. Both held and both broke.

For the 2010-15 Government there was indeed a pronounced swingback to both Tories and Government. Both held.

For the 2015-17 Government, both rules broke.

And for the 2017-19 Government, you can’t really measure it anyway because mid-term polling was so far all over the shop that it was out the window, across the road, and in the local park.

Conclusions: There was once a rule about swingback to Governments. It morphed into a rule about swingback to Tories (possibly due to shy Tory syndrome), but this was masked because for 18 years, they were the same thing.

Then the latter rule stuttered and since fell apart. Now: God knows. Could be bloody anything, really. Don’t rely on swingback, swingaway, swing low, sweet chariot.

Lazily relying on swingback is the big danger for this government.
And casual insouciance is a feature.

And the Thatcher governments, especially, were very good at aligning the fiscal and electoral cycles. Pain early in the Parliament to maximise the feelgood later. What ought to keep Downing Street awake at night is the possibility that the economic and fiscal pain have barely kicked in when the countdown to the countdown to the next election has started. Not entirely their fault, Covid ripped the cycles out of synch. But Johnson's terror of being unpopular hasn't helped.

If HMT can retrench and come out the other side by spring 2024, then the government have a decent chance of winning. But that's a big (though not impossible) if.

This one seems keen to cave to every special interest at every turn.
We are supposed to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels for example.
Yet we are mulling another cut in fuel duty so that folk can keep driving.
Rather than putting out a message to cut unnecessary journeys.

I find the idea of the Government telling me to 'cut unnecessary journeys' to be grotesque, so I am glad they haven't tried.

They are willing to tell other folk to cut back in other areas though. We hear about Sky subscriptions, takeaways, smoking, ready meals. You can cook 30p meals instead of wasting your money.
What's unique and special about driving?
And grotesque is quite unnecessary. War, slavery and famine are grotesque.
That's merely a thing you don't like.

Yes but that's Putinguy1983 who thinks that the main thing that is wrong with the world right now, is that we have put sanctions on Russia.

Luckyguy1983

BartholomewRoberts said:

dixiedean said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

dixiedean said:

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

Andy_Cooke said:

To add to the ones mentioned above:

For the 2005-2010 Government, it depends on when “mid-term” is defined. Swing to Tories from 2007. Swing to Government from 2008. Both held and both broke.

For the 2010-15 Government there was indeed a pronounced swingback to both Tories and Government. Both held.

For the 2015-17 Government, both rules broke.

And for the 2017-19 Government, you can’t really measure it anyway because mid-term polling was so far all over the shop that it was out the window, across the road, and in the local park.

Conclusions: There was once a rule about swingback to Governments. It morphed into a rule about swingback to Tories (possibly due to shy Tory syndrome), but this was masked because for 18 years, they were the same thing.

Then the latter rule stuttered and since fell apart. Now: God knows. Could be bloody anything, really. Don’t rely on swingback, swingaway, swing low, sweet chariot.

Lazily relying on swingback is the big danger for this government.
And casual insouciance is a feature.

And the Thatcher governments, especially, were very good at aligning the fiscal and electoral cycles. Pain early in the Parliament to maximise the feelgood later. What ought to keep Downing Street awake at night is the possibility that the economic and fiscal pain have barely kicked in when the countdown to the countdown to the next election has started. Not entirely their fault, Covid ripped the cycles out of synch. But Johnson's terror of being unpopular hasn't helped.

If HMT can retrench and come out the other side by spring 2024, then the government have a decent chance of winning. But that's a big (though not impossible) if.

This one seems keen to cave to every special interest at every turn.
We are supposed to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels for example.
Yet we are mulling another cut in fuel duty so that folk can keep driving.
Rather than putting out a message to cut unnecessary journeys.

I find the idea of the Government telling me to 'cut unnecessary journeys' to be grotesque, so I am glad they haven't tried.

They are willing to tell other folk to cut back in other areas though. We hear about Sky subscriptions, takeaways, smoking, ready meals. You can cook 30p meals instead of wasting your money.
What's unique and special about driving?
And grotesque is quite unnecessary. War, slavery and famine are grotesque.
That's merely a thing you don't like.

Yes but that's Putinguy1983 who thinks that the main thing that is wrong with the world right now, is that we have put sanctions on Russia.

I don't think anything of the kind, but I do favour keeping things vaguely factual. Whatever else it may have done, Russia has not sanctioned its own oil and gas.

BartholomewRoberts

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

dixiedean said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

dixiedean said:

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

Andy_Cooke said:

To add to the ones mentioned above:

For the 2005-2010 Government, it depends on when “mid-term” is defined. Swing to Tories from 2007. Swing to Government from 2008. Both held and both broke.

For the 2010-15 Government there was indeed a pronounced swingback to both Tories and Government. Both held.

For the 2015-17 Government, both rules broke.

And for the 2017-19 Government, you can’t really measure it anyway because mid-term polling was so far all over the shop that it was out the window, across the road, and in the local park.

Conclusions: There was once a rule about swingback to Governments. It morphed into a rule about swingback to Tories (possibly due to shy Tory syndrome), but this was masked because for 18 years, they were the same thing.

Then the latter rule stuttered and since fell apart. Now: God knows. Could be bloody anything, really. Don’t rely on swingback, swingaway, swing low, sweet chariot.

Lazily relying on swingback is the big danger for this government.
And casual insouciance is a feature.

And the Thatcher governments, especially, were very good at aligning the fiscal and electoral cycles. Pain early in the Parliament to maximise the feelgood later. What ought to keep Downing Street awake at night is the possibility that the economic and fiscal pain have barely kicked in when the countdown to the countdown to the next election has started. Not entirely their fault, Covid ripped the cycles out of synch. But Johnson's terror of being unpopular hasn't helped.

If HMT can retrench and come out the other side by spring 2024, then the government have a decent chance of winning. But that's a big (though not impossible) if.

This one seems keen to cave to every special interest at every turn.
We are supposed to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels for example.
Yet we are mulling another cut in fuel duty so that folk can keep driving.
Rather than putting out a message to cut unnecessary journeys.

I find the idea of the Government telling me to 'cut unnecessary journeys' to be grotesque, so I am glad they haven't tried.

They are willing to tell other folk to cut back in other areas though. We hear about Sky subscriptions, takeaways, smoking, ready meals. You can cook 30p meals instead of wasting your money.
What's unique and special about driving?
And grotesque is quite unnecessary. War, slavery and famine are grotesque.
That's merely a thing you don't like.

Yes but that's Putinguy1983 who thinks that the main thing that is wrong with the world right now, is that we have put sanctions on Russia.

I don't think anything of the kind, but I do favour keeping things vaguely factual. Whatever else it may have done, Russia has not sanctioned its own oil and gas.

In a way they have. They knew that sanctions would have to be put in place if they invaded another nation, and they did it anyway. They chose this course of action knowingly.

If you walked into a Police Station tomorrow, and in front of other Police officers and on CCTV you were to stab a Police officer, and you were arrested and sent to jail, would it be your fault that you're in jail, or the court/arresting officers fault that you were?

Luckyguy1983

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

dixiedean said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

dixiedean said:

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

Andy_Cooke said:

To add to the ones mentioned above:

For the 2005-2010 Government, it depends on when “mid-term” is defined. Swing to Tories from 2007. Swing to Government from 2008. Both held and both broke.

For the 2010-15 Government there was indeed a pronounced swingback to both Tories and Government. Both held.

For the 2015-17 Government, both rules broke.

And for the 2017-19 Government, you can’t really measure it anyway because mid-term polling was so far all over the shop that it was out the window, across the road, and in the local park.

Conclusions: There was once a rule about swingback to Governments. It morphed into a rule about swingback to Tories (possibly due to shy Tory syndrome), but this was masked because for 18 years, they were the same thing.

Then the latter rule stuttered and since fell apart. Now: God knows. Could be bloody anything, really. Don’t rely on swingback, swingaway, swing low, sweet chariot.

Lazily relying on swingback is the big danger for this government.
And casual insouciance is a feature.

And the Thatcher governments, especially, were very good at aligning the fiscal and electoral cycles. Pain early in the Parliament to maximise the feelgood later. What ought to keep Downing Street awake at night is the possibility that the economic and fiscal pain have barely kicked in when the countdown to the countdown to the next election has started. Not entirely their fault, Covid ripped the cycles out of synch. But Johnson's terror of being unpopular hasn't helped.

If HMT can retrench and come out the other side by spring 2024, then the government have a decent chance of winning. But that's a big (though not impossible) if.

This one seems keen to cave to every special interest at every turn.
We are supposed to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels for example.
Yet we are mulling another cut in fuel duty so that folk can keep driving.
Rather than putting out a message to cut unnecessary journeys.

I find the idea of the Government telling me to 'cut unnecessary journeys' to be grotesque, so I am glad they haven't tried.

They are willing to tell other folk to cut back in other areas though. We hear about Sky subscriptions, takeaways, smoking, ready meals. You can cook 30p meals instead of wasting your money.
What's unique and special about driving?
And grotesque is quite unnecessary. War, slavery and famine are grotesque.
That's merely a thing you don't like.

Yes but that's Putinguy1983 who thinks that the main thing that is wrong with the world right now, is that we have put sanctions on Russia.

I don't think anything of the kind, but I do favour keeping things vaguely factual. Whatever else it may have done, Russia has not sanctioned its own oil and gas.

In a way they have. They knew that sanctions would have to be put in place if they invaded another nation, and they did it anyway. They chose this course of action knowingly.

If you walked into a Police Station tomorrow, and in front of other Police officers and on CCTV you were to stab a Police officer, and you were arrested and sent to jail, would it be your fault that you're in jail, or the court/arresting officers fault that you were?

No, 'in a way' they haven't. Sanctions are not being applied to Russian oil and gas in China, India, Turkey, and indeed most of the world. You may think those countries have made the wrong choice, but it is a choice nonetheless, and our elected Governments need to own that choice, and if necessarily explain it to people who are struggling to heat their homes or fuel their vehicles.

CorrectHorseBattery

The next election really is Labour's to lose

CorrectHorseBattery

Also, out in London and nicely drunk whoop whoop

CorrectHorseBattery

I wonder if I've ever see the same pigeon twice

DecrepiterJohnL

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if I've ever see the same pigeon twice

Have you ever seen the same thread twice?

Leon

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if I've ever see the same pigeon twice

“I wonder if I’ve ever seen the same pigeon twice”


This is absolute genius

Possibly the greatest PB comment ever

*SALUTES*

Nigelb

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if I've ever see the same pigeon twice

That’s only because you weren’t paying attention. Some are individually distinctive.

But you have got me wondering about bumble bees.

Nigelb

Ukraine claims to have taken out a Wagner Group base with 300 mercenaries.
https://twitter.com/serhey_hayday/status/1535180674654691328

turbotubbs

So which fecking thread are we doing now?
On pigeons - yes of course you have seen the same one twice.
On couples arguing, I’ve been married 17 years and we rarely argue. It’s partly because we are not that argumentative. My wife’s sister is much more likely to blow her top, rage for a few minutes, then it’s all over. My wife tends to bottle it up inside.
Everyone’s different. Mostly works for us.
On swingback, every election is different. Some might hear similarities to others, as now could be either 1992 or 1997, but that’s just similarities, and it’s hard to say which of those two will be closest. It could be 2010 too.
And the sun is shining, her maj made it to and past the jubilee and I have cricket later. A good day.

ydoethur

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I wonder if I've ever see the same pigeon twice

Your problems begin if you start wondering if you've ever shagged the same pigeon twice.

Well,I say 'begin,' they probably started a bit earlier TBF.

But I've never personally heard of anyone who said that.

@Leon do you have any examples from your wider experience of these matters?