Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

The Tories can no longer rely on first past the post – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    That was quite a good ball by Boult.

    That one wasn't bad either.
    And another.
  • Options
    Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,386
    Andy_JS said:

    Heathener said:

    There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.

    Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.

    And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.

    But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.

    The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.

    See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:

    https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491

    It wasn't disappointing as long as you don't want Labour to win a majority at the next election.

    They need a swing of 10.4% on the current boundaries, probably slightly more on the new boundaries. If the most they can get at a by-election is 12.7% it's very unlikely they would get 10.4% at a general election.

    It's going to have to be a progressive alliance / rainbow coalition.
    Do you still believe in uniform swing? What about the tactical voting?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,639
    At the first by-election I can remember, Mid Staffs in 1990, Labour got a 21% swing from the Tories. 12.7% doesn't seem that impressive by comparison.
  • Options
    NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    Scott_xP said:

    He can't show his face in front of journalists or do any sort of public event and I don't think that is going to change.

    He is supposed to be doing high profile press conferences for the next week...
    \a big controlled press conference he can bluster through I suppose. Can you imagine any interviews?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    That was quite a good ball by Boult.

    That one wasn't bad either.
    And another.
    Three of them in half an hour.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,580
    edited June 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    Minister for Trade Penny Mordaunt says on by-election results:

    “I’m disappointed for our candidates and our party, but I’m getting on with my job of serving my constituents and seeking new trade opportunities. They and the country want delivery.”

    Like Sunak, no mention of PM...

    https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1540319107605794816

    Appears what the "country" wants, is not delivery, but rather deliverance from Boris Johnson, his bag & baggage.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,981
    edited June 2022

    Scott_xP said:

    Minister for Trade Penny Mordaunt says on by-election results:

    “I’m disappointed for our candidates and our party, but I’m getting on with my job of serving my constituents and seeking new trade opportunities. They and the country want delivery.”

    Like Sunak, no mention of PM...

    https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1540319107605794816

    Ministers who fancy their chances as next leader are inhibited by the "he who wields the knife" mythology re. Heseltine. The mechanics of forcing him out are interesting. Collective action by cabinet, in private then public if he refuses? Cabinet ministers who know they have no chance putting the knife in (paging Gove)? Change the rules? Enough men in grey coats? I think that although Johnson is obviously arrogant he is a coward in situations of political conflict. I think he might crack. He can't show his face in front of journalists or do any sort of public event and I don't think that is going to change. A little carrot like House of Lords and special emissary to Ukraine might tip the balance? (The Ukrainians deserve better but I think all senior politicians are fairly solid for them in UK. Can't blame 'em for liking Boris as face of UK.
    The issue is that Bozo is an unflushable turd and no hint is going to result in him leaving quickly..

    Equally no matter how well planned the attempt to remove it is, 30 seconds later it will return floating to the top.
  • Options
    NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758

    Andy_JS said:

    Heathener said:

    There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.

    Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.

    And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.

    But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.

    The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.

    See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:

    https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491

    It wasn't disappointing as long as you don't want Labour to win a majority at the next election.

    They need a swing of 10.4% on the current boundaries, probably slightly more on the new boundaries. If the most they can get at a by-election is 12.7% it's very unlikely they would get 10.4% at a general election.

    It's going to have to be a progressive alliance / rainbow coalition.
    Do you still believe in uniform swing? What about the tactical voting?
    I believe that tactical voting is normally much less of an effect at GE rather than by-elections.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    That was quite a good ball by Boult.

    That one wasn't bad either.
    And another.
    Three of them in half an hour.
    This is one of the best spells of bowling I have ever seen. It's up their with McGrath at Lords in 2005.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,580

    Andy_JS said:

    Heathener said:

    There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.

    Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.

    And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.

    But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.

    The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.

    See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:

    https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491

    It wasn't disappointing as long as you don't want Labour to win a majority at the next election.

    They need a swing of 10.4% on the current boundaries, probably slightly more on the new boundaries. If the most they can get at a by-election is 12.7% it's very unlikely they would get 10.4% at a general election.

    It's going to have to be a progressive alliance / rainbow coalition.
    Do you still believe in uniform swing? What about the tactical voting?
    I believe that tactical voting is normally much less of an effect at GE rather than by-elections.
    "Normally" being the operative word here methinks.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,263

    PB occasionally digresses into utterly pointless discussions. One of the most pointless is "will Boris call an early GE?".

    It is a not-happening event, as I believe young people say. No way. Apologies for contributing to the pointlessness.

    Yes it's one of those on my classic list of things PB always predicts but which never happen. There really are some quite tiresome examples:

    • A 2022 general election
    • The United States splitting
    • A nationwide house price crash
    • The Bakerloo line closing down
    • Hillary Clinton being the 2024 Democratic candidate
    Nobody has predicted Clinton as the 2024 candidate, but now you would have it that the whole of PB does continually?
    It frequently comes up I can assure you – have a search
    The only mentions in 2022 - besides you, now - was one poster reproducing a tweet from the Wall Street Journal (without comment) and another including Clinton in their list of possibles only to put a no next to the name.

    It's nearly July.
  • Options
    Nadine is back Tweeting

    1/3 Last night was a reminder that we must be relentless in cracking on with the job of delivering. Under @BorisJohnson we are massively investing in digital infrastructure which is accelerating growth and employment in our rapidly expanding tech sectors.

    https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1540311828546392068
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197
    Roger said:

    DougSeal said:

    OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.

    OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%.
    Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
    You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.

    In the interests of balance BBC R4 WATO is calling the Wakefield result for Labour "unconvincing" and the Tories "got a drubbing in Honiton and Tiverton".
    If you listened to WATO didn't you think Lisa Nandy was good? I'd never particularly rated her but if SKS is looking for a Shadow Minister for the Red Wall he couldn't do better. Articulate and open and she seemed genuinely enthused
    She was excellent Roger. She wasn't remotely phased by Dymond's quite frankly ridiculous narrative.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,639
    England 21/4.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    Oh crap. Will we avoid the follow-on?
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,580
    Tories MUST be heartened by the abject failure of SNP (also PC & SF) to register any votes in either Wakefield or T&H.

    Which is about as solid a straw to be clutching at, as some of the arguments being made on PB the morning after.

    To quote a Great American - "HA! HA! HA!"
  • Options
    jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 645
    Andy_JS said:

    Heathener said:

    There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.

    Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.

    And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.

    But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.

    The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.

    See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:

    https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491

    It wasn't disappointing as long as you don't want Labour to win a majority at the next election.

    They need a swing of 10.4% on the current boundaries, probably slightly more on the new boundaries. If the most they can get at a by-election is 12.7% it's very unlikely they would get 10.4% at a general election.

    It's going to have to be a progressive alliance / rainbow coalition.
    In Wakefield, there was very little room to squeeze third parties (LibDems, Greens, etc.) because the vast majority of the vote was already locked into Con/Lab. T&H shows what can be achieved when there is a lot more to be squeezed by the anti-Tory challenger. While I don't think Labour are as good at that messaging as the LibDems, I think they can do it, and the electorate have shown that they are receptive.

    If Tories want to be complacent about last night, please carry on.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197
    edited June 2022
    Andy_JS said:

    At the first by-election I can remember, Mid Staffs in 1990, Labour got a 21% swing from the Tories. 12.7% doesn't seem that impressive by comparison.

    ...and then they lost the subsequent GE. So what does that prove? Absolutely zip!
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Blackford is fucking toast. What a fucking bufoon.
  • Options
    TresTres Posts: 2,227
    edited June 2022

    Andy_JS said:

    At the first by-election I can remember, Mid Staffs in 1990, Labour got a 21% swing from the Tories. 12.7% doesn't seem that impressive by comparison.

    ...and then they lost the next GE. So what does that prove? Absolutely zip!
    Lost the next GE after the Cons changed their leader tbf
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,548
    MattW said:

    Tres said:

    pigeon said:

    Tres said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    micktrain said:

    micktrain said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @MaxPB is your ultimate parent British ?

    East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
    You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
    Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
    It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,

    And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
    I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.

    Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
    Yes.
    Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit?
    Why do so many hate what they do?
    They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
    I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.

    A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
    well quite - but then you look at the under 40s who can't buy a house unless they have wealthy parents/grandparents, crap dc pension if at all, wage restraint, constantly looking for the next employer and the prospect of looking at working well into their 70s......
    To borrow a PB trope - not really. There has been (not sure where we are at present) around.

    The average age of a First Time Buyer currently ranges between about 30 (some provincial regions) and 33 (London), which means that around half are younger than that.
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/22/average-uk-first-time-buyer-is-now-older-than-30-says-halifax

    And there have been more or less continuous aiui schemes available to make saving a 5% deposit tax free, and providing a loan for another 20% (40% in London) at no interest for 5 years.

    The underlying issue is demand / supply balance, and (ironically) demand side subsidy of house price inflation, which needs to be unwound.
    Correction (bugger).

    2nd sentence left in by mistake.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,580

    Nadine is back Tweeting

    1/3 Last night was a reminder that we must be relentless in cracking on with the job of delivering. Under @BorisJohnson we are massively investing in digital infrastructure which is accelerating growth and employment in our rapidly expanding tech sectors.

    https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1540311828546392068

    Interesting repetition of "delivery" in two ministerial tweets.

    In that (as I repeat) what Great British Public wants, is deliverance from the likes of BoJo and Mad Nad.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,140
    edited June 2022

    Nadine is back Tweeting

    1/3 Last night was a reminder that we must be relentless in cracking on with the job of delivering. Under @BorisJohnson we are massively investing in digital infrastructure which is accelerating growth and employment in our rapidly expanding tech sectors.

    https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1540311828546392068

    Interesting repetition of "delivery" in two ministerial tweets.

    In that (as I repeat) what Great British Public wants, is deliverance from the likes of BoJo and Mad Nad.
    Horrible "duelling banjos" image entered my head, so I had to share.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197
    edited June 2022
    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    At the first by-election I can remember, Mid Staffs in 1990, Labour got a 21% swing from the Tories. 12.7% doesn't seem that impressive by comparison.

    ...and then they lost the next GE. So what does that prove? Absolutely zip!
    Lost the next GE after the Cons changed their leader tbf
    deleted
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    Alistair said:

    Blackford is fucking toast. What a fucking bufoon.

    What's he done now?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Nice of NZ to clear out our top 4 so THE GINGER MACHINES can tonk it all over Headingley :D
  • Options
    PJHPJH Posts: 485
    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    At the first by-election I can remember, Mid Staffs in 1990, Labour got a 21% swing from the Tories. 12.7% doesn't seem that impressive by comparison.

    ...and then they lost the next GE. So what does that prove? Absolutely zip!
    Lost the next GE after the Cons changed their leader tbf
    Look at the 3 Labour gains between 1992-97 (they were the only Con defences v Lab in that parliament and the Tories lost all 3).

    Dudley W - 29%
    SE Staffs - 22%
    Wirral S - 17%

    That's the sort of swing they need to show to win. They are starting from further behind than in 1992, before anyone says "but, 1997 was a landslide, they don't need to win by as much as that". Nowhere near enough yet.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,750

    PB occasionally digresses into utterly pointless discussions. One of the most pointless is "will Boris call an early GE?".

    It is a not-happening event, as I believe young people say. No way. Apologies for contributing to the pointlessness.

    Yes it's one of those on my classic list of things PB always predicts but which never happen. There really are some quite tiresome examples:

    • A 2022 general election
    • The United States splitting
    • A nationwide house price crash
    • The Bakerloo line closing down
    • Hillary Clinton being the 2024 Democratic candidate
    Is complaining about it being tiresome not on the tireless list?
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    tlg86 said:

    Alistair said:

    Blackford is fucking toast. What a fucking bufoon.

    What's he done now?
    His position and actions on Patrick Grady grow more and more untenable. It is impossible to attack the Conservatives for sleaze in this situation.

    The Westminster MPs operate at a step removed from Holyrood so Sturgeon can't just directly boot him but it is clear he has lost her confidence. If he had any gumption he would walk now before he is very messily pushed.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    Pulpstar said:

    Nice of NZ to clear out our top 4 so THE GINGER MACHINES can tonk it all over Headingley :D

    Well now they know about that 120-year-old fastest Century record!
  • Options
    TresTres Posts: 2,227
    edited June 2022
    PJH said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    At the first by-election I can remember, Mid Staffs in 1990, Labour got a 21% swing from the Tories. 12.7% doesn't seem that impressive by comparison.

    ...and then they lost the next GE. So what does that prove? Absolutely zip!
    Lost the next GE after the Cons changed their leader tbf
    Look at the 3 Labour gains between 1992-97 (they were the only Con defences v Lab in that parliament and the Tories lost all 3).

    Dudley W - 29%
    SE Staffs - 22%
    Wirral S - 17%

    That's the sort of swing they need to show to win. They are starting from further behind than in 1992, before anyone says "but, 1997 was a landslide, they don't need to win by as much as that". Nowhere near enough yet.
    a coalition supply and confidence deal of chaos under starmer would suit me nicely
  • Options
    PJHPJH Posts: 485
    Tres said:

    PJH said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    At the first by-election I can remember, Mid Staffs in 1990, Labour got a 21% swing from the Tories. 12.7% doesn't seem that impressive by comparison.

    ...and then they lost the next GE. So what does that prove? Absolutely zip!
    Lost the next GE after the Cons changed their leader tbf
    Look at the 3 Labour gains between 1992-97 (they were the only Con defences v Lab in that parliament and the Tories lost all 3).

    Dudley W - 29%
    SE Staffs - 22%
    Wirral S - 17%

    That's the sort of swing they need to show to win. They are starting from further behind than in 1992, before anyone says "but, 1997 was a landslide, they don't need to win by as much as that". Nowhere near enough yet.
    a coalition supply and confidence deal of chaos under starmer would suit be nicely
    Me too but I don't think Labour are quite polling strongly enough even for that.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,953
    BREAKING

    Patricia Scotland narrowly WINS. 27/24.

    Johnson's bid to oust her as Commonwealth SG fails.

    https://twitter.com/latikambourke/status/1540332589294166017
  • Options
    IcarusIcarus Posts: 898

    Scott_xP said:

    Minister for Trade Penny Mordaunt says on by-election results:

    “I’m disappointed for our candidates and our party, but I’m getting on with my job of serving my constituents and seeking new trade opportunities. They and the country want delivery.”

    Like Sunak, no mention of PM...

    https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1540319107605794816

    Ministers who fancy their chances as next leader are inhibited by the "he who wields the knife" mythology re. Heseltine. The mechanics of forcing him out are interesting. Collective action by cabinet, in private then public if he refuses? Cabinet ministers who know they have no chance putting the knife in (paging Gove)? Change the rules? Enough men in grey coats? I think that although Johnson is obviously arrogant he is a coward in situations of political conflict. I think he might crack. He can't show his face in front of journalists or do any sort of public event and I don't think that is going to change. A little carrot like House of Lords and special emissary to Ukraine might tip the balance? (The Ukrainians deserve better but I think all senior politicians are fairly solid for them in UK. Can't blame 'em for liking Boris as face of UK.


    How to remove Boris Johnson from leadership of the Conservative Party:

    The Conservative Party Constitution
    Schedule 3 Para 12

    Upon a petition signed by not less than sixty-five Association Chairmen (or Constituency Officers in the
    case of Federations or multi-constituency Associations) to the Secretary of the National Convention, the
    Chairman of the National Convention shall call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the National
    Convention.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,953
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    edited June 2022
    Nice try Ben Stokes - but this is day two of five, and we’re still some way from avoiding the follow-on.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416

    Onbviously last night's council elections are rather overshadowed by the, er, seismic results elsewhere, but for what it's worth here are the Good Week/Bad Week Index figures for the council results:

    GWBWI

    LDm +156
    Lab +94
    Grn +35
    Con -52

    Adjusted Seat Values:

    LDm +2.6
    Lab +1.6
    Grn +0.6
    Con -0.9

    Thanks James for this useful post.
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Sandpit said:

    Grandiose said:

    Sandpit said:

    Great catch Jonny!

    330 to win. Finely balanced I'd say.
    Not quite, we’re only a quarter of the way through this match.
    I meant, par for first innings!

    At the time the odds gave England a slight advantage over both the draw and NZ.

    Also I have just realised this is my old account!
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,953
    The attempt to topple former Labour cabinet minister Baroness Scotland as Commonwealth Secretary General has failed, narrowly. Another unfortunate result for Boris Johnson today who wanted her replaced. https://twitter.com/latikambourke/status/1540332589294166017
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    Grandiose said:

    Sandpit said:

    Grandiose said:

    Sandpit said:

    Great catch Jonny!

    330 to win. Finely balanced I'd say.
    Not quite, we’re only a quarter of the way through this match.
    I meant, par for first innings!

    At the time the odds gave England a slight advantage over both the draw and NZ.

    Also I have just realised this is my old account!
    Well England are 55/6 in reply!
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,225
    IanB2 said:

    micktrain said:

    pigeon said:

    Tres said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    micktrain said:

    micktrain said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @MaxPB is your ultimate parent British ?

    East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
    You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
    Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
    It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,

    And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
    I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.

    Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
    Yes.
    Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit?
    Why do so many hate what they do?
    They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
    I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.

    A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
    One life hack is to move to a cheap part of the country and get a small place in a reasonable area You can then work a relatively menial job provided you don't have kids Income by itself is a pathetic measure of wellbeing 50 grand a year in SE plus big mortgage and kids =misery
    25 grand a year in North no mortgage or kids=happiness
    Which of course explains a lot about the way both the economy and politics is working out right now. Economic activity sucks young (which nowadays means of working age) people toward the cities - and away from areas like Wakefield, as the old cash in on their property gains in the cities and move back to the less urban areas of their youth.
    Yep, the urge to go back to your roots in later life can be strong. Not for me though. I seem to be immune from that.

    I'm from Thurnscoe.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nice of NZ to clear out our top 4 so THE GINGER MACHINES can tonk it all over Headingley :D

    Well now they know about that 120-year-old fastest Century record!
    This is complete Muppetry, not test cricket. They are going to lose this match inside 3 days but look how "brave" they were (stupid being a better word).
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    Scott_xP said:

    The attempt to topple former Labour cabinet minister Baroness Scotland as Commonwealth Secretary General has failed, narrowly. Another unfortunate result for Boris Johnson today who wanted her replaced. https://twitter.com/latikambourke/status/1540332589294166017

    So that's where she ended up. I guess it should give hope to Johnson that brazen charlatans can have success after politics.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nice of NZ to clear out our top 4 so THE GINGER MACHINES can tonk it all over Headingley :D

    Well now they know about that 120-year-old fastest Century record!
    This is complete Muppetry, not test cricket. They are going to lose this match inside 3 days but look how "brave" they were (stupid being a better word).
    Yes, they’re being influenced too much by the flamboyant short forms of the game, and bringing it to the Test arena at the worst possible moment. At 50/4, you want them to bat the day out, not be back in the pavilion after half an hour.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nice of NZ to clear out our top 4 so THE GINGER MACHINES can tonk it all over Headingley :D

    Well now they know about that 120-year-old fastest Century record!
    This is complete Muppetry, not test cricket. They are going to lose this match inside 3 days but look how "brave" they were (stupid being a better word).
    The counter attack was good. But instead of banking the win of the change of bowling and field, Stokes kept going and the result was inevitable.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,225
    Andy_JS said:

    Heathener said:

    There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.

    Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.

    And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.

    But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.

    The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.

    See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:

    https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491

    It wasn't disappointing as long as you don't want Labour to win a majority at the next election.

    They need a swing of 10.4% on the current boundaries, probably slightly more on the new boundaries. If the most they can get at a by-election is 12.7% it's very unlikely they would get 10.4% at a general election.

    It's going to have to be a progressive alliance / rainbow coalition.
    To which I say ok fine, Gary Barlow and the boys.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,444
    Won't this England team think about hard working class Northerners who have been looking forward to the day 4 tickets they have.

    The only international cricket I've got tickets for this summer.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416
    Heathener said:

    There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.

    Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.

    And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.

    But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.

    The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.

    See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:

    https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491

    Gibberish.

    As Woolie pointed out, Lib Dems lost deposit in Wakefield last time too, so tactical voting played what part there this time, unless you calling it anti labour tactical vote last time. Tactical votes submerged in Devon too under mountain of Con To lib movement. Thresher called that wrong too, I can only presume it was sleep depravation, or else he’s the disgruntled Tory I think he is.

    Thresher is not as good as I am now, at instantly spotting the story.

    You and Anabob got to stop putting words in other people mouth in order to trash talk them. If Labour got 50-55% as I wanted them to, I would have been happy, something you can’t seem to get your head round. They didn’t smash it out the park as you try to spin it, I am more than happy to fight you on this with the psoudological facts and show you up.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,953
    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,200
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nice of NZ to clear out our top 4 so THE GINGER MACHINES can tonk it all over Headingley :D

    Well now they know about that 120-year-old fastest Century record!
    This is complete Muppetry, not test cricket. They are going to lose this match inside 3 days but look how "brave" they were (stupid being a better word).
    There’s a balance to be struck. Last test we applauded, today not so much.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,225

    Heathener said:

    There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.

    Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.

    And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.

    But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.

    The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.

    See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:

    https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491

    The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
    Moon does that a lot, they bring a lot of banter to this place
    Yes, lot of the time we're being kidded by a moon rabbit, moon rabbit moon rabbit ...
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,138

    Won't this England team think about hard working class Northerners who have been looking forward to the day 4 tickets they have.

    The only international cricket I've got tickets for this summer.

    Thoughts and prayers
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,132
    edited June 2022
    Breaking: US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade

    EDIT: I'm pretty sure I read earlier today that they'd also taken the opportunity to make it even easier to obtain and carry guns. "Pro-life" my arse.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nice of NZ to clear out our top 4 so THE GINGER MACHINES can tonk it all over Headingley :D

    Well now they know about that 120-year-old fastest Century record!
    This is complete Muppetry, not test cricket. They are going to lose this match inside 3 days but look how "brave" they were (stupid being a better word).
    There’s a balance to be struck. Last test we applauded, today not so much.
    Last Test, when we applauded, was after tea on Day 5. This is after lunch on Day 2.
  • Options
    MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Scott_xP said:

    Delivering on cost of living? fantasy. Seriously

    Inflation is running way ahead of savings and investment returns and pay increments. Those pay increments that are coming are getting scalped by soaring taxes.

    The voters of Britain are getting poorer by the month. The future? even higher energy bills and a possible recession.

    Delivery FFS delusional.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,215
    FETUSES REJOICE
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,225
    Sandpit said:

    Nice try Ben Stokes - but this is day two of five, and we’re still some way from avoiding the follow-on.

    Bat very very deep though these days.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,200
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nice of NZ to clear out our top 4 so THE GINGER MACHINES can tonk it all over Headingley :D

    Well now they know about that 120-year-old fastest Century record!
    This is complete Muppetry, not test cricket. They are going to lose this match inside 3 days but look how "brave" they were (stupid being a better word).
    There’s a balance to be struck. Last test we applauded, today not so much.
    Last Test, when we applauded, was after tea on Day 5. This is after lunch on Day 2.
    True, but last year the test team refused to try to win against NZ. Different mind set. I’m not saying it’s right, just thins is the ying to the Trent bridge yang.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,444
    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Same sex marriage and birth control will be next.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Cat among pigeons in US politics, but RvW was always a very poor decision.

    Note that this doesn’t ban abortion in the USA, but rather allows the States to legislate on the matter as they see fit.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416
    edited June 2022
    kinabalu said:

    Heathener said:

    There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.

    Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.

    And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.

    But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.

    The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.

    See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:

    https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491

    The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
    Moon does that a lot, they bring a lot of banter to this place
    Yes, lot of the time we're being kidded by a moon rabbit, moon rabbit moon rabbit ...
    I have been posting more than half a year and have started to enjoy being a psephologist.

    psephology Is fun thing and suits me as you go into the spin room and pop all their balloons with your spiky stick of truth.

    I think people getting to know me better now though as not fluffy but hard and full of myself. It’s how I roll. 🤷‍♀️

    If someone wants to post the 11% lead is the accurate one and Labour smashed it out the park last night, I am more than happy to slap their fantasy with the cold hard psephologic reality where it’s going to be far harder and nervy than that.

    I only wish the change of government was in the bag this evening, is honest truth from me. That’s what I want. But it’s not is the truth.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,668
    edited June 2022

    PB occasionally digresses into utterly pointless discussions. One of the most pointless is "will Boris call an early GE?".

    It is a not-happening event, as I believe young people say. No way. Apologies for contributing to the pointlessness.

    Yes it's one of those on my classic list of things PB always predicts but which never happen. There really are some quite tiresome examples:

    • A 2022 general election
    • The United States splitting
    • A nationwide house price crash
    • The Bakerloo line closing down
    • Hillary Clinton being the 2024 Democratic candidate
    Seems like a good point to remind everyone of my awesome 2022 predictions from 1 January:

    PB Predictions 2022:

    1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022.
    2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls.
    3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. Oops!
    4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November.
    5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence.
    6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world.
    7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end.
    8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. Ah, bugger.
    9. Bitcoin to collapse.
    10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.

    I have every chance of achieving a clean sweep by the end of the year.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,215
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Cat among pigeons in US politics, but RvW was always a very poor decision.

    Note that this doesn’t ban abortion in the USA, but rather allows the States to legislate on the matter as they see fit.
    America should just get on and HAVE THAT CIVIL WAR
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,225
    pigeon said:

    Breaking: US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade

    EDIT: I'm pretty sure I read earlier today that they'd also taken the opportunity to make it even easier to obtain and carry guns. "Pro-life" my arse.

    An abominable act. This would actually get me on the streets if I lived over there.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,215
    kinabalu said:

    pigeon said:

    Breaking: US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade

    EDIT: I'm pretty sure I read earlier today that they'd also taken the opportunity to make it even easier to obtain and carry guns. "Pro-life" my arse.

    An abominable act. This would actually get me on the streets if I lived over there.
    There will be major riots now. Just watch
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,263
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nice of NZ to clear out our top 4 so THE GINGER MACHINES can tonk it all over Headingley :D

    Well now they know about that 120-year-old fastest Century record!
    This is complete Muppetry, not test cricket. They are going to lose this match inside 3 days but look how "brave" they were (stupid being a better word).
    We don't get amazing victories like that at Trent Bridge without running the risk of an abject failure like the innings so far today.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,981
    pigeon said:

    Breaking: US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade

    EDIT: I'm pretty sure I read earlier today that they'd also taken the opportunity to make it even easier to obtain and carry guns. "Pro-life" my arse.

    Yep that was yesterday - concealed weapons can be carried in New York...
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    pigeon said:

    Breaking: US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade

    EDIT: I'm pretty sure I read earlier today that they'd also taken the opportunity to make it even easier to obtain and carry guns. "Pro-life" my arse.

    An abominable act. This would actually get me on the streets if I lived over there.
    There will be major riots now. Just watch
    It’s “mostly peaceful protests” when it’s the Left rioting.
  • Options
    MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    kinabalu said:

    pigeon said:

    Breaking: US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade

    EDIT: I'm pretty sure I read earlier today that they'd also taken the opportunity to make it even easier to obtain and carry guns. "Pro-life" my arse.

    An abominable act. This would actually get me on the streets if I lived over there.
    Its only really returning power to the individual states to decide. Those that ban abortion will have to face their electorates.

    Democracy, innit.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Cat among pigeons in US politics, but RvW was always a very poor decision.
    I see this repeated a lot but people can never explain why.

    RvW basically ruled that the state can't prevent you getting a medical procedure. That seems fairly straight forward to me.
  • Options
    ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Cat among pigeons in US politics, but RvW was always a very poor decision.

    Note that this doesn’t ban abortion in the USA, but rather allows the States to legislate on the matter as they see fit.
    Roe v Wade was a classic example of the Supreme Court starting from its conclusions and trying to find a bit of the constitution to justify them. It's much more surprising that it took so long to be overturned than that it has been now.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Same sex marriage and birth control will be next.
    They've explicitly said they are coming for Griswold so it will not be a surprise except to every American centrist pundit who has spent the last decade going "Republicans will never actually do X" up to and past the point where Republicans have done exactly that.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,668

    Won't this England team think about hard working class Northerners who have been looking forward to the day 4 tickets they have.

    The only international cricket I've got tickets for this summer.

    "hard working class"?

    Does that mean you're working class and beat people up in your spare time?
  • Options
    ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Cat among pigeons in US politics, but RvW was always a very poor decision.
    I see this repeated a lot but people can never explain why.

    RvW basically ruled that the state can't prevent you getting a medical procedure. That seems fairly straight forward to me.
    They justified it under the right to privacy - which has nothing to do with it.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,442
    Scott_xP said:
    [physics joke]
    'laser-like focus'? well, we could certainly do with some more coherence in government
    [/physics joke]
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nice of NZ to clear out our top 4 so THE GINGER MACHINES can tonk it all over Headingley :D

    Well now they know about that 120-year-old fastest Century record!
    This is complete Muppetry, not test cricket. They are going to lose this match inside 3 days but look how "brave" they were (stupid being a better word).
    We don't get amazing victories like that at Trent Bridge without running the risk of an abject failure like the innings so far today.
    Nonsense. You play the situation. They have not.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,215
    Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America

    I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Applicant said:

    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Cat among pigeons in US politics, but RvW was always a very poor decision.
    I see this repeated a lot but people can never explain why.

    RvW basically ruled that the state can't prevent you getting a medical procedure. That seems fairly straight forward to me.
    They justified it under the right to privacy - which has nothing to do with it.
    Under what right do you believe that government should be banned from preventing you getting a medical procedure?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    NEW THREAD
  • Options
    UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 782
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Cat among pigeons in US politics, but RvW was always a very poor decision.

    Note that this doesn’t ban abortion in the USA, but rather allows the States to legislate on the matter as they see fit.
    It puts a lot of the other penumbra rights at risk, and we're into the territory that the constitution guarantees only the rights that are enumerated within, rather than others.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,226

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Same sex marriage and birth control will be next.
    Why stop there.


  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197
    eek said:

    pigeon said:

    Breaking: US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade

    EDIT: I'm pretty sure I read earlier today that they'd also taken the opportunity to make it even easier to obtain and carry guns. "Pro-life" my arse.

    Yep that was yesterday - concealed weapons can be carried in New York...
    What could possibly go wrong?

    Trump's perfectly legitimate hijacking of SCOTUS will have ramifications for decades. His single term will go down in history as one of the most significant Presidential terms, but for all the wrong reasons.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,395
    New thread.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197

    PB occasionally digresses into utterly pointless discussions. One of the most pointless is "will Boris call an early GE?".

    It is a not-happening event, as I believe young people say. No way. Apologies for contributing to the pointlessness.

    Yes it's one of those on my classic list of things PB always predicts but which never happen. There really are some quite tiresome examples:

    • A 2022 general election
    • The United States splitting
    • A nationwide house price crash
    • The Bakerloo line closing down
    • Hillary Clinton being the 2024 Democratic candidate
    Seems like a good point to remind everyone of my awesome 2022 predictions from 1 January:

    PB Predictions 2022:

    1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022.
    2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls.
    3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. Oops!
    4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November.
    5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence.
    6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world.
    7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end.
    8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. Ah, bugger.
    9. Bitcoin to collapse.
    10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.

    I have every chance of achieving a clean sweep by the end of the year.
    I will bet you my entire portfolio of NFTs that number 9 could well be correct.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,226
    Pence: "Today. Life won."



  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,613
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Cat among pigeons in US politics, but RvW was always a very poor decision....
    Incisive legal analysis there.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,613

    Pence: "Today. Life won."

    Today the religious right and misogynists won.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,750

    Nadine is back Tweeting

    1/3 Last night was a reminder that we must be relentless in cracking on with the job of delivering. Under @BorisJohnson we are massively investing in digital infrastructure which is accelerating growth and employment in our rapidly expanding tech sectors.

    https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1540311828546392068

    Interesting repetition of "delivery" in two ministerial tweets.

    In that (as I repeat) what Great British Public wants, is deliverance from the likes of BoJo and Mad Nad.
    Interesting is that they implicitly accept they are not delivering.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨🚨 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE ABORTION-RIGHTS RULING

    Same sex marriage and birth control will be next.
    There will be a series of 6-3 decisions turning back the clock and removing rights. On the upside women in particular might want to think a bit more seriously about who they vote for at state level.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,812

    kinabalu said:

    Heathener said:

    There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.

    Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.

    And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.

    But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.

    The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.

    See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:

    https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491

    The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
    Moon does that a lot, they bring a lot of banter to this place
    Yes, lot of the time we're being kidded by a moon rabbit, moon rabbit moon rabbit ...
    I have been posting more than half a year and have started to enjoy being a psephologist.

    psephology Is fun thing and suits me as you go into the spin room and pop all their balloons with your spiky stick of truth.

    I think people getting to know me better now though as not fluffy but hard and full of myself. It’s how I roll. 🤷‍♀️

    If someone wants to post the 11% lead is the accurate one and Labour smashed it out the park last night, I am more than happy to slap their fantasy with the cold hard psephologic reality where it’s going to be far harder and nervy than that.

    I only wish the change of government was in the bag this evening, is honest truth from me. That’s what I want. But it’s not is the truth.
    I'm content with the 12.7% swing but, as you say, it's not remotely in the bag - Lab start from 13% back, so that swing represents a reversal of that lead mid-term, and is ahead of the polls. It was clear from the large local election swing that the Wakefield electorate was already quite tuned in to the upcoming by-election and again the 17% win almost exactly mirrored those locals.

    Labour has never really done by-elections like the Lib Dems, at least not since WWII. Sky kept showing a largest Labour by-election gain swings, the top 10 were from 12% (a few clustered here) up to just over 20% in the 90s. My quick impression was most, but not all, were clustered in final terms of Tory rule. Tories have had 4 post war spells in office averaging 3 terms each, so if mid term advantage were meaningless only 1/3 of these swings would result in power turnover at the subsequent GE. It didn't seem like that, despite the presence of exceptions like Corby 2011.

    So agree it's not in the bag as it was under Blair, but I don't especially think Labour need to be doing better on this specific metric.

    I also think the small MoE variations in polling are broadly ignorable. A popular reading is that polls change on a relatively small number of key events and are steady much of the rest of the time. Since partygate cut through late last year and jolted the polls to a new level things have been pretty steady, oscillating a bit when it went quiet or flared up again. If you ascribe to that, then scan the horizon for nascent key events and set your psephological stall by those.

  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,416
    Pro_Rata said:

    kinabalu said:

    Heathener said:

    There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.

    Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.

    And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.

    But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.

    The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.

    See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:

    https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491

    The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
    Moon does that a lot, they bring a lot of banter to this place
    Yes, lot of the time we're being kidded by a moon rabbit, moon rabbit moon rabbit ...
    I have been posting more than half a year and have started to enjoy being a psephologist.

    psephology Is fun thing and suits me as you go into the spin room and pop all their balloons with your spiky stick of truth.

    I think people getting to know me better now though as not fluffy but hard and full of myself. It’s how I roll. 🤷‍♀️

    If someone wants to post the 11% lead is the accurate one and Labour smashed it out the park last night, I am more than happy to slap their fantasy with the cold hard psephologic reality where it’s going to be far harder and nervy than that.

    I only wish the change of government was in the bag this evening, is honest truth from me. That’s what I want. But it’s not is the truth.
    I'm content with the 12.7% swing but, as you say, it's not remotely in the bag - Lab start from 13% back, so that swing represents a reversal of that lead mid-term, and is ahead of the polls. It was clear from the large local election swing that the Wakefield electorate was already quite tuned in to the upcoming by-election and again the 17% win almost exactly mirrored those locals.

    Labour has never really done by-elections like the Lib Dems, at least not since WWII. Sky kept showing a largest Labour by-election gain swings, the top 10 were from 12% (a few clustered here) up to just over 20% in the 90s. My quick impression was most, but not all, were clustered in final terms of Tory rule. Tories have had 4 post war spells in office averaging 3 terms each, so if mid term advantage were meaningless only 1/3 of these swings would result in power turnover at the subsequent GE. It didn't seem like that, despite the presence of exceptions like Corby 2011.

    So agree it's not in the bag as it was under Blair, but I don't especially think Labour need to be doing better on this specific metric.

    I also think the small MoE variations in polling are broadly ignorable. A popular reading is that polls change on a relatively small number of key events and are steady much of the rest of the time. Since partygate cut through late last year and jolted the polls to a new level things have been pretty steady, oscillating a bit when it went quiet or flared up again. If you ascribe to that, then scan the horizon for nascent key events and set your psephological stall by those.

    I thank you for this very good post.
This discussion has been closed.