She needs to then translate that into voteshare in No 10 and sustain it. If she did then even if she still lost the Tory majority she could still win most seats
She needs the conservative party to get behind her 100% once elected otherwise the party faces extinction in 2024
Will you come on bord and accept Johnson is over and the party needs to move on
Well I will come 100% behind her if she is elected leader despite voting for Sunak as I have every other Tory leader since I joined the party in 1998. However if she is trailing well behind in the polls this time next year whether the party will do so is another matter.
As for extinction the party is still far better placed than in Spring 2019 when it not only trailed Labour but had been overtaken by the Brexit Party as the main party of the right too
Although not impossible (look what happened to the Liberals) I tend to agree that under FPTP it is extremely unlikely that the Tories will face extinction. At worse they will go into opposition as they did before and come back stronger. As before they may go through a few leaders before reinventing themselves.
True but then of course the main reason the Liberals were overtaken was the fact that all working class male voters over 21 gained the vote by 1918, joined by all working class women by 1928 and those working class voters mostly voted Labour so Labour overtook the Liberals as the Tories main opponents. Whereas in the 19th century the electorate were mostly middle class and voted Tory or Liberal
I've not studied any of this. What you say makes senses, but is it as simple as that?
In large part. It was the widening of the franchise and the growth of trade unions as the economy industrialised and moved to the cities that was pivotal to the growth of Labour and the relative decline of the Liberals.
If the Tories however were overtaken as the main party off the right it would mainly be on ideological grounds, hence Farage's Brexit Party briefly overtook May's Tories in the polls in Spring 2019 after she failed to deliver Brexit
I wish it was only 'relative decline'. I fully accept I am in a minority as a Liberal. Even when we are doing well it is important to note our core vote is still very low indeed (4 - 5%) and much of the rest is due to protest against Tory/Labour.
Indeed although the LD core vote would likely be a bit higher under PR. The LD core vote is economically and socially liberal and anti Brexit now. Davey is more likely to pick up Remain voting Tories at the next general election who dislike Truss than any votes from Labour in my view. Labour voters who liked Corbyn but dislike Starmer are more likely to go Green than LD
Unduly optimistic, young HY - from a Tory point of view, of course. How many seats do you think the Green Party will win next time? And which ones? They do well only when the Liberal Democrats make way for them - as in the case of Swinson's anti-Brexit strategy in 2019, for example.
If it is the case that anti-Tory voters (which even now is most of the country) are spontaneously coalescing behind the best-placed challenger, why do you think people would vote for the losing Green Party candidate instead of Labour? Would they really prefer to continue with the incompetent, crooked Conservatives?
In marginal seats maybe not. In Labour safe seats in inner cities and university towns plenty of Corbyn supporters will cast a protest vote for the Greens next time rather than Starmer Labour
If they are Labour safe seats, not much hope for your Tories there!
We said that about Sedgefield once.
At the last election in 2019, the Green Party vote there was down to 2.3%. Young HY was trying to make the point that Labour voters would be stampeding to the Green Party, thus implicitly allowing the Tories to win. I don't see much sign of that.
The Greens are polling about 5 to 7% in most polls now compared to the 3% they got at the 2019 general election. Even if most of that gain will be in Labour safe seats now Starmer has replaced Corbyn as Labour leader
Though as @MikeSmithson has regularly noted the Labour Party is no longer led by Jeremy Corbyn. That plays into their advantage for a lot of groups like potential swing Tory or Lib Dem voters, but the one group that it might harm them with is those indicating Green as their vote - there's a lot of overlap rather than disgust between those who say Green and those who say Corbyn.
Looking back at the 2015 Parliament most polls at this stage of that Parliament gave the Greens 2-3%, they actually scored 3.8% at the General Election. So there was a swing from Labour to the Greens from the midterm polls in that Parliament, not the other way around.
The circumstances are the same. A significant part of the current Green polling is made up of those who might be inclined to vote Labour but who dislike the current Labour leader. That was also the case prior to the 2017 and 2019 general elections. The leaders are different but the motivation the same. So the outcome should be the same too.
What is different between now and then is that the opportunity for the Conservatives to reclaim votes from UKIP or the Brexit Party is largely gone.
Not really, most Green voters tend to be left of Labour. Hence their numbers have grown since Corbyn left the Labour leadership and was replaced by the more centrist Starmer and they are polling about double where they were at this stage before the 2019 and 2017 elections.
RefUK is polling about the same as in 2019. However do not forget UKIP too increased its vote in 2010 and significantly in 2015 when it got over 10% when the centrist Cameron was Conservative leader
The Green vote may well go up a bit at the next GE, but if it does it will make precisely no difference.
They will hold Brighton Pavilion comfortably, but still have just one MP. They won't significantly damage Labour in any marginals, because the desire to get the Tories out is too great. They may reduce the Labour majority in a few safe Labour, urban seats as pro-Corbyn Greens choose, without risk, not to vote Labour; that's about it.
She needs to then translate that into voteshare in No 10 and sustain it. If she did then even if she still lost the Tory majority she could still win most seats
She needs the conservative party to get behind her 100% once elected otherwise the party faces extinction in 2024
Will you come on bord and accept Johnson is over and the party needs to move on
Well I will come 100% behind her if she is elected leader despite voting for Sunak as I have every other Tory leader since I joined the party in 1998. However if she is trailing well behind in the polls this time next year whether the party will do so is another matter.
As for extinction the party is still far better placed than in Spring 2019 when it not only trailed Labour but had been overtaken by the Brexit Party as the main party of the right too
Although not impossible (look what happened to the Liberals) I tend to agree that under FPTP it is extremely unlikely that the Tories will face extinction. At worse they will go into opposition as they did before and come back stronger. As before they may go through a few leaders before reinventing themselves.
True but then of course the main reason the Liberals were overtaken was the fact that all working class male voters over 21 gained the vote by 1918, joined by all working class women by 1928 and those working class voters mostly voted Labour so Labour overtook the Liberals as the Tories main opponents. Whereas in the 19th century the electorate were mostly middle class and voted Tory or Liberal
I've not studied any of this. What you say makes senses, but is it as simple as that?
In large part. It was the widening of the franchise and the growth of trade unions as the economy industrialised and moved to the cities that was pivotal to the growth of Labour and the relative decline of the Liberals.
If the Tories however were overtaken as the main party off the right it would mainly be on ideological grounds, hence Farage's Brexit Party briefly overtook May's Tories in the polls in Spring 2019 after she failed to deliver Brexit
I wish it was only 'relative decline'. I fully accept I am in a minority as a Liberal. Even when we are doing well it is important to note our core vote is still very low indeed (4 - 5%) and much of the rest is due to protest against Tory/Labour.
Indeed although the LD core vote would likely be a bit higher under PR. The LD core vote is economically and socially liberal and anti Brexit now. Davey is more likely to pick up Remain voting Tories at the next general election who dislike Truss than any votes from Labour in my view. Labour voters who liked Corbyn but dislike Starmer are more likely to go Green than LD
Unduly optimistic, young HY - from a Tory point of view, of course. How many seats do you think the Green Party will win next time? And which ones? They do well only when the Liberal Democrats make way for them - as in the case of Swinson's anti-Brexit strategy in 2019, for example.
If it is the case that anti-Tory voters (which even now is most of the country) are spontaneously coalescing behind the best-placed challenger, why do you think people would vote for the losing Green Party candidate instead of Labour? Would they really prefer to continue with the incompetent, crooked Conservatives?
In marginal seats maybe not. In Labour safe seats in inner cities and university towns plenty of Corbyn supporters will cast a protest vote for the Greens next time rather than Starmer Labour
If they are Labour safe seats, not much hope for your Tories there!
We said that about Sedgefield once.
At the last election in 2019, the Green Party vote there was down to 2.3%. Young HY was trying to make the point that Labour voters would be stampeding to the Green Party, thus implicitly allowing the Tories to win. I don't see much sign of that.
The Greens are polling about 5 to 7% in most polls now compared to the 3% they got at the 2019 general election. Even if most of that gain will be in Labour safe seats now Starmer has replaced Corbyn as Labour leader
Though as @MikeSmithson has regularly noted the Labour Party is no longer led by Jeremy Corbyn. That plays into their advantage for a lot of groups like potential swing Tory or Lib Dem voters, but the one group that it might harm them with is those indicating Green as their vote - there's a lot of overlap rather than disgust between those who say Green and those who say Corbyn.
Looking back at the 2015 Parliament most polls at this stage of that Parliament gave the Greens 2-3%, they actually scored 3.8% at the General Election. So there was a swing from Labour to the Greens from the midterm polls in that Parliament, not the other way around.
The circumstances are the same. A significant part of the current Green polling is made up of those who might be inclined to vote Labour but who dislike the current Labour leader. That was also the case prior to the 2017 and 2019 general elections. The leaders are different but the motivation the same. So the outcome should be the same too.
What is different between now and then is that the opportunity for the Conservatives to reclaim votes from UKIP or the Brexit Party is largely gone.
Not really, most Green voters tend to be left of Labour. Hence their numbers have grown since Corbyn left the Labour leadership and was replaced by the more centrist Starmer and they are polling about double where they were at this stage before the 2019 and 2017 elections.
RefUK is polling about the same as in 2019. However do not forget UKIP too increased its vote in 2010 and significantly in 2015 when it got over 10% when the centrist Cameron was Conservative leader
The Green vote may well go up a bit at the next GE, but if it does it will make precisely no difference.
They will hold Brighton Pavilion comfortably, but still have just one MP. They won't significantly damage Labour in any marginals, because the desire to get the Tories out is too great. They may reduce the Labour majority in a few safe Labour, urban seats as pro-Corbyn Greens choose, without risk, not to vote Labour; that's about it.
A significant number of voters are centrist, and will vote for the more centrist party out of the Conservatives and Labour. Normally that’s the Conservative Party. In 1997 it was the Labour Party. Currently, it’s the Labour Party. The Lib Dems tend to do well when neither of the two major parties are seen as centrist.
She needs to then translate that into voteshare in No 10 and sustain it. If she did then even if she still lost the Tory majority she could still win most seats
She needs the conservative party to get behind her 100% once elected otherwise the party faces extinction in 2024
Will you come on bord and accept Johnson is over and the party needs to move on
Well I will come 100% behind her if she is elected leader despite voting for Sunak as I have every other Tory leader since I joined the party in 1998. However if she is trailing well behind in the polls this time next year whether the party will do so is another matter.
As for extinction the party is still far better placed than in Spring 2019 when it not only trailed Labour but had been overtaken by the Brexit Party as the main party of the right too
Although not impossible (look what happened to the Liberals) I tend to agree that under FPTP it is extremely unlikely that the Tories will face extinction. At worse they will go into opposition as they did before and come back stronger. As before they may go through a few leaders before reinventing themselves.
True but then of course the main reason the Liberals were overtaken was the fact that all working class male voters over 21 gained the vote by 1918, joined by all working class women by 1928 and those working class voters mostly voted Labour so Labour overtook the Liberals as the Tories main opponents. Whereas in the 19th century the electorate were mostly middle class and voted Tory or Liberal
I've not studied any of this. What you say makes senses, but is it as simple as that?
In large part. It was the widening of the franchise and the growth of trade unions as the economy industrialised and moved to the cities that was pivotal to the growth of Labour and the relative decline of the Liberals.
If the Tories however were overtaken as the main party off the right it would mainly be on ideological grounds, hence Farage's Brexit Party briefly overtook May's Tories in the polls in Spring 2019 after she failed to deliver Brexit
I wish it was only 'relative decline'. I fully accept I am in a minority as a Liberal. Even when we are doing well it is important to note our core vote is still very low indeed (4 - 5%) and much of the rest is due to protest against Tory/Labour.
Indeed although the LD core vote would likely be a bit higher under PR. The LD core vote is economically and socially liberal and anti Brexit now. Davey is more likely to pick up Remain voting Tories at the next general election who dislike Truss than any votes from Labour in my view. Labour voters who liked Corbyn but dislike Starmer are more likely to go Green than LD
Unduly optimistic, young HY - from a Tory point of view, of course. How many seats do you think the Green Party will win next time? And which ones? They do well only when the Liberal Democrats make way for them - as in the case of Swinson's anti-Brexit strategy in 2019, for example.
If it is the case that anti-Tory voters (which even now is most of the country) are spontaneously coalescing behind the best-placed challenger, why do you think people would vote for the losing Green Party candidate instead of Labour? Would they really prefer to continue with the incompetent, crooked Conservatives?
In marginal seats maybe not. In Labour safe seats in inner cities and university towns plenty of Corbyn supporters will cast a protest vote for the Greens next time rather than Starmer Labour
If they are Labour safe seats, not much hope for your Tories there!
We said that about Sedgefield once.
At the last election in 2019, the Green Party vote there was down to 2.3%. Young HY was trying to make the point that Labour voters would be stampeding to the Green Party, thus implicitly allowing the Tories to win. I don't see much sign of that.
The Greens are polling about 5 to 7% in most polls now compared to the 3% they got at the 2019 general election. Even if most of that gain will be in Labour safe seats now Starmer has replaced Corbyn as Labour leader
Though as @MikeSmithson has regularly noted the Labour Party is no longer led by Jeremy Corbyn. That plays into their advantage for a lot of groups like potential swing Tory or Lib Dem voters, but the one group that it might harm them with is those indicating Green as their vote - there's a lot of overlap rather than disgust between those who say Green and those who say Corbyn.
Looking back at the 2015 Parliament most polls at this stage of that Parliament gave the Greens 2-3%, they actually scored 3.8% at the General Election. So there was a swing from Labour to the Greens from the midterm polls in that Parliament, not the other way around.
The circumstances are the same. A significant part of the current Green polling is made up of those who might be inclined to vote Labour but who dislike the current Labour leader. That was also the case prior to the 2017 and 2019 general elections. The leaders are different but the motivation the same. So the outcome should be the same too.
What is different between now and then is that the opportunity for the Conservatives to reclaim votes from UKIP or the Brexit Party is largely gone.
No, the circumstances are not the same.
The Greens appeal to voters who find the Labour Party too right wing.
Under Jeremy Corbyn he was able to absorb that vote, but slipped votes to the Lib Dems and Tories.
Under Ed Miliband the polling at this stage of the Parliament underestimated the Greens, it didn't overestimate them.
So the Truss epoch is about to commence. I wonder if there are any Tory politicians, fairly recognizable now, about whom will say in four or five years, 'Oh yes, I remember X. I'd completely forgotten about X. I wonder what X is doing now.' My prediction is Penny Mordaunt.
Rishi Sunak.
Not sure about Rishi. After his abject humiliation in the leadership contest he might want to stick around politics and attempt to fashion a 'Wise Old Head' reputation for himself. Just to regain some pride.
No he will go off to America like David Miliband and Clegg most likely. Truss is unlikely to offer him a senior Cabinet post
He might surprise me and hang around on the backbenches, do some useful work on a Parliamentary Committee, but like you I expect he'll be in California before you can say, "ex-Chancellor".
It's one of the things about him that I find instinctively least appealing, the sense that he's not interested in politics as a whole, but only in making it into the top job.
Edit: But, putting those feelings aside, I'd still be delighted if the 250-1 bets placed by some PBers came in.
Ideologically David Miliband, Clegg and Sunak are probably closer to each other than their parties. Members of the global technocratic centrist elite, much like Macron too, rather than genuine ideologues
I would add Starmer in there too, at least since he has abandoned all the promises he made when he was elected Labour leader.
Something else for the new Prime Minister to consider.
Could that be because black and Asian people are more likely to live in crowded cities, where cancer diagnoses times are longer, because services are more stretched?
On Rough gas storage, what is the mechanism by which it saves us money? Wasn’t it run by a private company, which would take the difference between the cheap cost of filling it up, and the high spot prices when it was emptied? Or was just a government program, and the private company was just paid a yearly fee for running it?
Its not the money, its the security. Gas wells can only operate within certain flow limits. In the winter they cannot flow fast enough to provide the gas we need whilst in the summer they produce more gas than can be used. So having storage means you can keep producing at full rate and the excess gas is stored for times when production cannot match demand.
However, as mentioned in Energy News only this morning, there are serious doubts in the industry about the feasibility of brining Rough back online. I know I have banged on about this for a while but just throwing money and good wishes at something doesn't overcome certain fundamental issues. Rough is old and both the reservoir and topsides have suffered from wear and tear to the extent that it may not be feasible to bring it back online for any great length of time. I hope this is not he case and there may be some wizards at Centrica who can overcome these problems but I am not hopeful it is going to make much difference.
Thanks. On security, though, isn’t having a paid-for LNG cargo steaming towards us with a know arrival date also a form of secure storage (unless it sinks)?
Only if you can get it. There are a limited number of LNG vessels in the world and everyone will be crying out for them. Nor are they necessarily a secure supply in extremis. Certainly not as secure as having your own storage for your own gas.
I wonder how long it takes to build new LNG vessels?
A couple of weeks back, when the wholesale/futures prices were lower, someone smart (Javier Blas? Adam Tooze?) said the profit margin on a single cargo shipment from America to Europe was greater than the entire cost of the vessel. With the recent substantial rise in Gas futures stretching to winter 2025, presumably loads more LNG vessels are being built, right now?
I would only be guessing but I would have thought a couple of years at least. And that needs to have the yard space available. The yards in Singapore and Korea have been pretty full with orders the last few years. As always nothing is necessarily impossible but people do seem to be looking for what should be long term solutions to happen in a few weeks in defiance of practical considerations.
Articles found using Google from ~2019 suggested about two-and-a-half years to build an LNG carrier, but that there was also something of a boom underway at that time - though presumably the pandemic would have disrupted that.
What's frustrating is that I have little sense of whether the things that would need to be done to provide a long-term solution were started in February (or even before), or if the last six months have been wasted?
There's so much discussion about it, but seemingly very little information. Getting through a difficult winter would be easier if we knew it wouldn't be so bad the winter after, and resolved by the winter after that.
I have heard absolutely nothing on the UK upstream side of things of anything being done to increase production or look at longer term solutions - at least to the hydrocarbon bridge that we need.
We increased gas production by 26% this year but that was simply pure chance. Three new gas fields have come online since the beginning of the year including one I have been heavily involved with but they have been planned and executed for years and have nothing to do with the current crisis or even planning from the last few years.
Presumably, (and I don't work in the industry so don't know much) with the price as it is now, there is strong incentive to keep only fields active, even if there is only a trickle of gas still coming out of them. at todays prices it might still be worth operating it, at last years price it should not have been. therefore there should be a bigger net increce than anticipated.
That sead we should be doing what we can to incres gas production in the UK, and from what I understand that is best achieved on a large scales by getting out of the way of those who what to frack.
On Rough gas storage, what is the mechanism by which it saves us money? Wasn’t it run by a private company, which would take the difference between the cheap cost of filling it up, and the high spot prices when it was emptied? Or was just a government program, and the private company was just paid a yearly fee for running it?
Its not the money, its the security. Gas wells can only operate within certain flow limits. In the winter they cannot flow fast enough to provide the gas we need whilst in the summer they produce more gas than can be used. So having storage means you can keep producing at full rate and the excess gas is stored for times when production cannot match demand.
However, as mentioned in Energy News only this morning, there are serious doubts in the industry about the feasibility of brining Rough back online. I know I have banged on about this for a while but just throwing money and good wishes at something doesn't overcome certain fundamental issues. Rough is old and both the reservoir and topsides have suffered from wear and tear to the extent that it may not be feasible to bring it back online for any great length of time. I hope this is not he case and there may be some wizards at Centrica who can overcome these problems but I am not hopeful it is going to make much difference.
Thanks. On security, though, isn’t having a paid-for LNG cargo steaming towards us with a know arrival date also a form of secure storage (unless it sinks)?
Only if you can get it. There are a limited number of LNG vessels in the world and everyone will be crying out for them. Nor are they necessarily a secure supply in extremis. Certainly not as secure as having your own storage for your own gas.
I wonder how long it takes to build new LNG vessels?
A couple of weeks back, when the wholesale/futures prices were lower, someone smart (Javier Blas? Adam Tooze?) said the profit margin on a single cargo shipment from America to Europe was greater than the entire cost of the vessel. With the recent substantial rise in Gas futures stretching to winter 2025, presumably loads more LNG vessels are being built, right now?
I would only be guessing but I would have thought a couple of years at least. And that needs to have the yard space available. The yards in Singapore and Korea have been pretty full with orders the last few years. As always nothing is necessarily impossible but people do seem to be looking for what should be long term solutions to happen in a few weeks in defiance of practical considerations.
Articles found using Google from ~2019 suggested about two-and-a-half years to build an LNG carrier, but that there was also something of a boom underway at that time - though presumably the pandemic would have disrupted that.
What's frustrating is that I have little sense of whether the things that would need to be done to provide a long-term solution were started in February (or even before), or if the last six months have been wasted?
There's so much discussion about it, but seemingly very little information. Getting through a difficult winter would be easier if we knew it wouldn't be so bad the winter after, and resolved by the winter after that.
I have heard absolutely nothing on the UK upstream side of things of anything being done to increase production or look at longer term solutions - at least to the hydrocarbon bridge that we need.
We increased gas production by 26% this year but that was simply pure chance. Three new gas fields have come online since the beginning of the year including one I have been heavily involved with but they have been planned and executed for years and have nothing to do with the current crisis or even planning from the last few years.
Presumably, (and I don't work in the industry so don't know much) with the price as it is now, there is strong incentive to keep only fields active, even if there is only a trickle of gas still coming out of them. at todays prices it might still be worth operating it, at last years price it should not have been. therefore there should be a bigger net increce than anticipated.
That sead we should be doing what we can to incres gas production in the UK, and from what I understand that is best achieved on a large scales by getting out of the way of those who what to frack.
Sadly not. We already had this discussion yesterday evening and fracking really isn't the answer to this problem - at least as it stands. Look to Underground Coal Gasification instead.
Something else for the new Prime Minister to consider.
Could that be because black and Asian people are more likely to live in crowded cities, where cancer diagnoses times are longer, because services are more stretched?
But how do facts further the Guardian’s narrative of the Tory NHS being racist?
It’s like the fact that black men are no more likely to be killed by police in the US than white men - if you account for social class and income factors.
She needs to then translate that into voteshare in No 10 and sustain it. If she did then even if she still lost the Tory majority she could still win most seats
She needs the conservative party to get behind her 100% once elected otherwise the party faces extinction in 2024
Will you come on bord and accept Johnson is over and the party needs to move on
Well I will come 100% behind her if she is elected leader despite voting for Sunak as I have every other Tory leader since I joined the party in 1998. However if she is trailing well behind in the polls this time next year whether the party will do so is another matter.
As for extinction the party is still far better placed than in Spring 2019 when it not only trailed Labour but had been overtaken by the Brexit Party as the main party of the right too
Although not impossible (look what happened to the Liberals) I tend to agree that under FPTP it is extremely unlikely that the Tories will face extinction. At worse they will go into opposition as they did before and come back stronger. As before they may go through a few leaders before reinventing themselves.
True but then of course the main reason the Liberals were overtaken was the fact that all working class male voters over 21 gained the vote by 1918, joined by all working class women by 1928 and those working class voters mostly voted Labour so Labour overtook the Liberals as the Tories main opponents. Whereas in the 19th century the electorate were mostly middle class and voted Tory or Liberal
I've not studied any of this. What you say makes senses, but is it as simple as that?
In large part. It was the widening of the franchise and the growth of trade unions as the economy industrialised and moved to the cities that was pivotal to the growth of Labour and the relative decline of the Liberals.
If the Tories however were overtaken as the main party off the right it would mainly be on ideological grounds, hence Farage's Brexit Party briefly overtook May's Tories in the polls in Spring 2019 after she failed to deliver Brexit
I wish it was only 'relative decline'. I fully accept I am in a minority as a Liberal. Even when we are doing well it is important to note our core vote is still very low indeed (4 - 5%) and much of the rest is due to protest against Tory/Labour.
Indeed although the LD core vote would likely be a bit higher under PR. The LD core vote is economically and socially liberal and anti Brexit now. Davey is more likely to pick up Remain voting Tories at the next general election who dislike Truss than any votes from Labour in my view. Labour voters who liked Corbyn but dislike Starmer are more likely to go Green than LD
Unduly optimistic, young HY - from a Tory point of view, of course. How many seats do you think the Green Party will win next time? And which ones? They do well only when the Liberal Democrats make way for them - as in the case of Swinson's anti-Brexit strategy in 2019, for example.
If it is the case that anti-Tory voters (which even now is most of the country) are spontaneously coalescing behind the best-placed challenger, why do you think people would vote for the losing Green Party candidate instead of Labour? Would they really prefer to continue with the incompetent, crooked Conservatives?
In marginal seats maybe not. In Labour safe seats in inner cities and university towns plenty of Corbyn supporters will cast a protest vote for the Greens next time rather than Starmer Labour
If they are Labour safe seats, not much hope for your Tories there!
We said that about Sedgefield once.
At the last election in 2019, the Green Party vote there was down to 2.3%. Young HY was trying to make the point that Labour voters would be stampeding to the Green Party, thus implicitly allowing the Tories to win. I don't see much sign of that.
The Greens are polling about 5 to 7% in most polls now compared to the 3% they got at the 2019 general election. Even if most of that gain will be in Labour safe seats now Starmer has replaced Corbyn as Labour leader
Though as @MikeSmithson has regularly noted the Labour Party is no longer led by Jeremy Corbyn. That plays into their advantage for a lot of groups like potential swing Tory or Lib Dem voters, but the one group that it might harm them with is those indicating Green as their vote - there's a lot of overlap rather than disgust between those who say Green and those who say Corbyn.
Looking back at the 2015 Parliament most polls at this stage of that Parliament gave the Greens 2-3%, they actually scored 3.8% at the General Election. So there was a swing from Labour to the Greens from the midterm polls in that Parliament, not the other way around.
The circumstances are the same. A significant part of the current Green polling is made up of those who might be inclined to vote Labour but who dislike the current Labour leader. That was also the case prior to the 2017 and 2019 general elections. The leaders are different but the motivation the same. So the outcome should be the same too.
What is different between now and then is that the opportunity for the Conservatives to reclaim votes from UKIP or the Brexit Party is largely gone.
No, the circumstances are not the same.
The Greens appeal to voters who find the Labour Party too right wing.
Under Jeremy Corbyn he was able to absorb that vote, but slipped votes to the Lib Dems and Tories.
A concrete fact: the 2019 Labour manifesto promised to create 1 million climate emergency jobs.
That would mean
• an average of 1600 climate emergency workers in each parliamentary constituency; • 7 climate emergency workers for each police officer; • 2 climate emergency workers for each nurse.
Whether that would have cost more or less than the lockdowns that began the following year, I don't know.
Something else for the new Prime Minister to consider.
Could that be because black and Asian people are more likely to live in crowded cities, where cancer diagnoses times are longer, because services are more stretched?
I'm not sure that there is any data to back up that big city providers are more stretched than smaller district general hospitals. In June's provisional data, the best five providers at meeting the 14 day target are Calderdale and Huddersfield (98%), East Kent (97%), Bradford, King's College and Northumbria (all 96%). the bottom five are North Bristol (39%), Lancashire (40%), Whittington (43%), North Midlands (44%) and Lincolnshire (49%). Even the worst performing providers aren't letting patients languish, North Bristol still saw 94% of patients within 28 days.
I suspect but cannot prove that the major cause of variation is on getting that initial appointment with a GP. I've recently moved from a London GP to one outside and my experience of being able to get an appointment has plummeted from almost always getting an appointment the same day to having a struggle to get someone to answer a phone call.
She needs to then translate that into voteshare in No 10 and sustain it. If she did then even if she still lost the Tory majority she could still win most seats
She needs the conservative party to get behind her 100% once elected otherwise the party faces extinction in 2024
Will you come on bord and accept Johnson is over and the party needs to move on
Well I will come 100% behind her if she is elected leader despite voting for Sunak as I have every other Tory leader since I joined the party in 1998. However if she is trailing well behind in the polls this time next year whether the party will do so is another matter.
As for extinction the party is still far better placed than in Spring 2019 when it not only trailed Labour but had been overtaken by the Brexit Party as the main party of the right too
Although not impossible (look what happened to the Liberals) I tend to agree that under FPTP it is extremely unlikely that the Tories will face extinction. At worse they will go into opposition as they did before and come back stronger. As before they may go through a few leaders before reinventing themselves.
True but then of course the main reason the Liberals were overtaken was the fact that all working class male voters over 21 gained the vote by 1918, joined by all working class women by 1928 and those working class voters mostly voted Labour so Labour overtook the Liberals as the Tories main opponents. Whereas in the 19th century the electorate were mostly middle class and voted Tory or Liberal
I've not studied any of this. What you say makes senses, but is it as simple as that?
In large part. It was the widening of the franchise and the growth of trade unions as the economy industrialised and moved to the cities that was pivotal to the growth of Labour and the relative decline of the Liberals.
If the Tories however were overtaken as the main party off the right it would mainly be on ideological grounds, hence Farage's Brexit Party briefly overtook May's Tories in the polls in Spring 2019 after she failed to deliver Brexit
I wish it was only 'relative decline'. I fully accept I am in a minority as a Liberal. Even when we are doing well it is important to note our core vote is still very low indeed (4 - 5%) and much of the rest is due to protest against Tory/Labour.
Indeed although the LD core vote would likely be a bit higher under PR. The LD core vote is economically and socially liberal and anti Brexit now. Davey is more likely to pick up Remain voting Tories at the next general election who dislike Truss than any votes from Labour in my view. Labour voters who liked Corbyn but dislike Starmer are more likely to go Green than LD
Unduly optimistic, young HY - from a Tory point of view, of course. How many seats do you think the Green Party will win next time? And which ones? They do well only when the Liberal Democrats make way for them - as in the case of Swinson's anti-Brexit strategy in 2019, for example.
If it is the case that anti-Tory voters (which even now is most of the country) are spontaneously coalescing behind the best-placed challenger, why do you think people would vote for the losing Green Party candidate instead of Labour? Would they really prefer to continue with the incompetent, crooked Conservatives?
In marginal seats maybe not. In Labour safe seats in inner cities and university towns plenty of Corbyn supporters will cast a protest vote for the Greens next time rather than Starmer Labour
If they are Labour safe seats, not much hope for your Tories there!
We said that about Sedgefield once.
At the last election in 2019, the Green Party vote there was down to 2.3%. Young HY was trying to make the point that Labour voters would be stampeding to the Green Party, thus implicitly allowing the Tories to win. I don't see much sign of that.
The Greens are polling about 5 to 7% in most polls now compared to the 3% they got at the 2019 general election. Even if most of that gain will be in Labour safe seats now Starmer has replaced Corbyn as Labour leader
Though as @MikeSmithson has regularly noted the Labour Party is no longer led by Jeremy Corbyn. That plays into their advantage for a lot of groups like potential swing Tory or Lib Dem voters, but the one group that it might harm them with is those indicating Green as their vote - there's a lot of overlap rather than disgust between those who say Green and those who say Corbyn.
Looking back at the 2015 Parliament most polls at this stage of that Parliament gave the Greens 2-3%, they actually scored 3.8% at the General Election. So there was a swing from Labour to the Greens from the midterm polls in that Parliament, not the other way around.
The circumstances are the same. A significant part of the current Green polling is made up of those who might be inclined to vote Labour but who dislike the current Labour leader. That was also the case prior to the 2017 and 2019 general elections. The leaders are different but the motivation the same. So the outcome should be the same too.
What is different between now and then is that the opportunity for the Conservatives to reclaim votes from UKIP or the Brexit Party is largely gone.
No, the circumstances are not the same.
The Greens appeal to voters who find the Labour Party too right wing.
Under Jeremy Corbyn he was able to absorb that vote, but slipped votes to the Lib Dems and Tories.
Under Ed Miliband the polling at this stage of the Parliament underestimated the Greens, it didn't overestimate them.
Something else for the new Prime Minister to consider.
Could that be because black and Asian people are more likely to live in crowded cities, where cancer diagnoses times are longer, because services are more stretched?
That was my first thought. The (new) Health Secretary should urgently check that, and if so, add capacity where needed. Whether capacity can be added at the drop of a hat probably depends on what precisely is needed and whether it is people or equipment.
There might be class factors hidden by race, or it could be cultural. Does it matter if you say to your GP on the first visit, "I've got this lump" or "I've got this lump; could it be cancer?". Or might it even be a paradoxical effect of Black and Asian people going to the doctor earlier, when symptoms are less developed?
The possibilities are endless but the effect is real and, literally, vital, and might even present some low hanging fruit for the incoming Health Secretary and Prime Minister.
Churchill had inside information. He did, of course, know that after El Alamein, "the end of the beginning", the fighting would move from North Africa to Europe, with the next stage would be the invasion of Europe via Sicily and up through Italy, "the soft underbelly of the axis".
On Rough gas storage, what is the mechanism by which it saves us money? Wasn’t it run by a private company, which would take the difference between the cheap cost of filling it up, and the high spot prices when it was emptied? Or was just a government program, and the private company was just paid a yearly fee for running it?
Its not the money, its the security. Gas wells can only operate within certain flow limits. In the winter they cannot flow fast enough to provide the gas we need whilst in the summer they produce more gas than can be used. So having storage means you can keep producing at full rate and the excess gas is stored for times when production cannot match demand.
However, as mentioned in Energy News only this morning, there are serious doubts in the industry about the feasibility of brining Rough back online. I know I have banged on about this for a while but just throwing money and good wishes at something doesn't overcome certain fundamental issues. Rough is old and both the reservoir and topsides have suffered from wear and tear to the extent that it may not be feasible to bring it back online for any great length of time. I hope this is not he case and there may be some wizards at Centrica who can overcome these problems but I am not hopeful it is going to make much difference.
Thanks. On security, though, isn’t having a paid-for LNG cargo steaming towards us with a know arrival date also a form of secure storage (unless it sinks)?
Only if you can get it. There are a limited number of LNG vessels in the world and everyone will be crying out for them. Nor are they necessarily a secure supply in extremis. Certainly not as secure as having your own storage for your own gas.
I wonder how long it takes to build new LNG vessels?
A couple of weeks back, when the wholesale/futures prices were lower, someone smart (Javier Blas? Adam Tooze?) said the profit margin on a single cargo shipment from America to Europe was greater than the entire cost of the vessel. With the recent substantial rise in Gas futures stretching to winter 2025, presumably loads more LNG vessels are being built, right now?
I would only be guessing but I would have thought a couple of years at least. And that needs to have the yard space available. The yards in Singapore and Korea have been pretty full with orders the last few years. As always nothing is necessarily impossible but people do seem to be looking for what should be long term solutions to happen in a few weeks in defiance of practical considerations.
Articles found using Google from ~2019 suggested about two-and-a-half years to build an LNG carrier, but that there was also something of a boom underway at that time - though presumably the pandemic would have disrupted that.
What's frustrating is that I have little sense of whether the things that would need to be done to provide a long-term solution were started in February (or even before), or if the last six months have been wasted?
There's so much discussion about it, but seemingly very little information. Getting through a difficult winter would be easier if we knew it wouldn't be so bad the winter after, and resolved by the winter after that.
I have heard absolutely nothing on the UK upstream side of things of anything being done to increase production or look at longer term solutions - at least to the hydrocarbon bridge that we need.
We increased gas production by 26% this year but that was simply pure chance. Three new gas fields have come online since the beginning of the year including one I have been heavily involved with but they have been planned and executed for years and have nothing to do with the current crisis or even planning from the last few years.
Presumably, (and I don't work in the industry so don't know much) with the price as it is now, there is strong incentive to keep only fields active, even if there is only a trickle of gas still coming out of them. at todays prices it might still be worth operating it, at last years price it should not have been. therefore there should be a bigger net increce than anticipated.
That sead we should be doing what we can to incres gas production in the UK, and from what I understand that is best achieved on a large scales by getting out of the way of those who what to frack.
Sadly not. We already had this discussion yesterday evening and fracking really isn't the answer to this problem - at least as it stands. Look to Underground Coal Gasification instead.
Starting an underground coal fire? Nothing could possibly go wrong….
Talk this morning about reforming the EU energy market. Everyone assumes that this is all about Russia. However Russia provides less than half of Europe's gas. Given the inevitable economising that will take place and alternatives sought do the current prices make sense or is there something fundamentally wrong with the energy market?
As I said last week I think that the current prices are being driven much more by speculators than by people forward buying gas that they actually need. Government intervention by those with stocks might well have a really significant impact on the futures price at this point.
So what degree of the price is speculation do you think ? How does the price of speculation be removed or reduced ?
Total guess but I would suggest at least 50% of the gas price is speculation at the moment. When you look at the surplus there was before the war and the amount taken out of circulation by the Ukraine invasion the reaction in the price is extremely disproportionate.
The problem is what can be done about it. What it needs is a weight of selling in the market that causes the price to collapse which causes those on margins to panic and sell some more to close out their positions etc. Who could do that? Governments with substantial stocks could but lots of producers with deep pockets have a strong vested interest in keeping the price high becuase they are coining it in. Stopping a counter intervention by them would be the tricky part.
I remember many years ago now I was involved in a case where a farmer had lost £1m or £2m by playing the potato futures market. The expert explained that less than 5% of the contracts on that market actually involved a physical delivery of potatoes. The rest was speculators seeking to make a buck. It would not surprise me if the current market for gas was similar. Today the future price is up 7.62%. In a single day. What has changed in the supply and the demand to justify that? Nothing of note. But those who bought futures last week are doing very well.
Anyone actually know about the gas futures market ? @rcs1000 ?
As far as I know (which is not that much) prices are being determined by purchases of physical gas cargoes in the scrabble to get sufficient supplies for this winter. The supply into Europe has from Russia been tightly restricted (and much of that gas can’t physically be shipped elsewhere), and the market represents the price of diverting LNG cargoes which in more normal times would be heading to Asia, by outbidding what’s being paid there.
Of course it could turn quite sharply. For example…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62710522 …Germany - the largest importer of Russian gas in 2020 - has been racing to bolster its gas reserves before winter despite Russia cutting deliveries. Its aim is to fill its gas capacity to 85% by October. It has implemented energy-saving measures to do so. Economy Minister Robert Habeck said such measures - along with buying gas from alternative suppliers - had enabled Germany to fulfil its goal sooner than anticipated. He estimated that the 85% target could be reached by the start of September…
This circles back to the conversation I was having with @Richard_Tyndall
The UK has played a very significant role in ensuring that Germany's gas storage is full heading into the winter. If that helps ensure continuity of supply in the winter, when we need the imports, then that will be a very appropriate and wise decision.
We don't need an EU bureaucracy to co-ordinate the gas market. What we can use however is sensible governments co-operating on an international scale between allies to ensure that Putin's 'weapon' of gas supply is dented and that the West can all get through this winter without turning on each other with escalating autarky.
With respect, that doesn’t really mean anything. Either the market operates - with the results we’re seeing - or governments take steps to cooperate and intervene directly.
Calling that ‘bureaucracy’ or something else doesn’t change what that is.
In general the market works, with the right incentives. The price going up so less valued (economically) demand falls out is the market working as it's supposed to.
If you want the market circumvented, eg you want demand to be met as it's strategically or politically important, then that's when the government need to get involved.
Though if governments are getting involved the elected governments of the countries concerned can cooperate rather, via their own bureaucracies and diplomats, rather than an additional supranational bureaucracy on top.
European government have been rushing to fill gas storage ahead of the winter, and that has led to higher prices for both nartural gas and electricity than one might expect. You've also seen instructions for Germany's lignite mine/power plants to prioritise having piles of coal on hand, over burning to earn profits off current high energy prices. The Germans are also - it would seem - deferring further nuclear shut downs.
The French have been rushing to complete nuclear maintenance work over the summer, to try and minimise downtime in the winter too. (Which has also led to more gas demand than would normally be the case... but if it results in better nuclear uptime in the winter, it will have been worth it. Although the word 'if' is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting there.)
All in all, German gas storage is now 85% full, and most other European countries are in the 70-80% range, which is reasonable, but not amazing. It's above where we normally are at this time of year, but given that Russian gas supplies to Europe are heading towards zero, it's necessary.
Freeport LNG - a 15MPTA facility in Texas - has been down since the beginning of June, due to an incident. This has meant that LNG vessels have had to bring gas to Europe from much further afield, effectively cutting supplies meaningfully. This is due to come back on stream at the beginning of November. Delays there have been a major negative for the European gas price.
This winter depends a lot on the weather.
If it is windy, wet and warm, then Europe is likely to make it through with discomfort and a mild recession. On the other hand, if it is cold, dry and the wind isn't blowing, then it could well be very difficult.
But don't forget, it isn't just Europe that is being affected by this. Any country that is dependent on importing gas and coal for their energy needs is being fucked right now. Europe is outbidding Pakistan and Bangladesh and the like for Australian and South African coal cargoes. They don't have the money to outbid the West. And that's why you are seeing a wave of protests across the developing world.
@yarotrof The most prominent collaborator assassinated since the Russian invasion : Aleksey Kovalyov, a Ukrainian lawmaker from Zelensky’s party who switched sides to become deputy head of the Russian administration in Kherson, overseeing grain theft, has been gunned down in his home.
On Rough gas storage, what is the mechanism by which it saves us money? Wasn’t it run by a private company, which would take the difference between the cheap cost of filling it up, and the high spot prices when it was emptied? Or was just a government program, and the private company was just paid a yearly fee for running it?
Its not the money, its the security. Gas wells can only operate within certain flow limits. In the winter they cannot flow fast enough to provide the gas we need whilst in the summer they produce more gas than can be used. So having storage means you can keep producing at full rate and the excess gas is stored for times when production cannot match demand.
However, as mentioned in Energy News only this morning, there are serious doubts in the industry about the feasibility of brining Rough back online. I know I have banged on about this for a while but just throwing money and good wishes at something doesn't overcome certain fundamental issues. Rough is old and both the reservoir and topsides have suffered from wear and tear to the extent that it may not be feasible to bring it back online for any great length of time. I hope this is not he case and there may be some wizards at Centrica who can overcome these problems but I am not hopeful it is going to make much difference.
Thanks. On security, though, isn’t having a paid-for LNG cargo steaming towards us with a know arrival date also a form of secure storage (unless it sinks)?
Only if you can get it. There are a limited number of LNG vessels in the world and everyone will be crying out for them. Nor are they necessarily a secure supply in extremis. Certainly not as secure as having your own storage for your own gas.
I am not in the business of giving financial advice, but I would note that there is a French company called Gaztransport & Technigaz, which produces the membrane containment systems used in LNG vessels. I think the medium term outlook for the size of the world LNG fleet is extremely rosy, and GTT is a near monopoly provider.
I bought a few shares back in March and have just bought a few more.
There was a breach of the Green Zone last week by Sadr. My confusion was the Baghdad airlift seemed only to be going on in the minds of anti- Biden activists.
Rory Stewart in the Groaniad: “I think there’s a 40-50% chance of a ten year recession in Europe”
😶
I would be happy to offer him good odds on that.
To be fair what he probably means is the likelihood of output being lower in 10 years than it is now is 40-50%. Not that output will keep falling for 10 years. Still strikes me as very unlikely though.
Rory Stewart in the Groaniad: “I think there’s a 40-50% chance of a ten year recession in Europe”
😶
I would be happy to offer him good odds on that.
Yes, he needs to define what he means
If he means "ten years when western economies will barely grow, if at all", then I'd say he's quite possibly right. Maybe a bit pessimistic, but it's not outrageously gloomy. Unfortunately
If he means ten years of relentless back to back quarters of negative growth, then this is vanishingly unlikely, simply because of the way stats work
My guess is that he means the former. He's a bright bloke. I give him a lot of respect simply because he's an avowed Remainer who nonetheless saw the dangerous immorality of a 2nd vote, and rejected it
'The Rest Is Politics recently hosted Starmer. “I was disappointed,” says Stewart. “There’s so much that I admired from a distance about him. I like the idea of him. What disappointed me was that he didn’t seem radical enough. I didn’t get what the big picture was. I got the impression of a likable, thoughtful, moderate guy, but I didn’t feel the radical ambition.” In general, he thinks that politicians, even former politicians, are too guarded to be interesting interviewees.'
We really need Xi Jinping to get all Prester John on Putin
A massive, extended global recession is just what the doctor did not order for China, nor for the man who aspires to lead it for a third term. The one way to guarantee it is for this awful war to continue, or even worsen
She'll be hiding in fridges by GE 2025, if she makes it past next summer.
To be fair she has a rather lot on at present
Prioritising the 5 point plan for Liz next week. 1. Throw a big party. 2. Change the wallpaper. 3. Stay at Chequers 4. Visit Ukraine 5. Cut corporation tax, NI and VAT.
We really need Xi Jinping to get all Prester John on Putin
A massive, extended global recession is just what the doctor did not order for China, nor for the man who aspires to lead it for a third term. The one way to guarantee it is for this awful war to continue, or even worsen
Come on China, whack the Vlad
He could decide that it's time to reverse Russia's 19th century land grab. It might be an easier win than trying to take Taiwan.
She needs to then translate that into voteshare in No 10 and sustain it. If she did then even if she still lost the Tory majority she could still win most seats
She needs the conservative party to get behind her 100% once elected otherwise the party faces extinction in 2024
Will you come on bord and accept Johnson is over and the party needs to move on
Well I will come 100% behind her if she is elected leader despite voting for Sunak as I have every other Tory leader since I joined the party in 1998. However if she is trailing well behind in the polls this time next year whether the party will do so is another matter.
As for extinction the party is still far better placed than in Spring 2019 when it not only trailed Labour but had been overtaken by the Brexit Party as the main party of the right too
Although not impossible (look what happened to the Liberals) I tend to agree that under FPTP it is extremely unlikely that the Tories will face extinction. At worse they will go into opposition as they did before and come back stronger. As before they may go through a few leaders before reinventing themselves.
True but then of course the main reason the Liberals were overtaken was the fact that all working class male voters over 21 gained the vote by 1918, joined by all working class women by 1928 and those working class voters mostly voted Labour so Labour overtook the Liberals as the Tories main opponents. Whereas in the 19th century the electorate were mostly middle class and voted Tory or Liberal
I've not studied any of this. What you say makes senses, but is it as simple as that?
In large part. It was the widening of the franchise and the growth of trade unions as the economy industrialised and moved to the cities that was pivotal to the growth of Labour and the relative decline of the Liberals.
If the Tories however were overtaken as the main party off the right it would mainly be on ideological grounds, hence Farage's Brexit Party briefly overtook May's Tories in the polls in Spring 2019 after she failed to deliver Brexit
I wish it was only 'relative decline'. I fully accept I am in a minority as a Liberal. Even when we are doing well it is important to note our core vote is still very low indeed (4 - 5%) and much of the rest is due to protest against Tory/Labour.
Indeed although the LD core vote would likely be a bit higher under PR. The LD core vote is economically and socially liberal and anti Brexit now. Davey is more likely to pick up Remain voting Tories at the next general election who dislike Truss than any votes from Labour in my view. Labour voters who liked Corbyn but dislike Starmer are more likely to go Green than LD
Unduly optimistic, young HY - from a Tory point of view, of course. How many seats do you think the Green Party will win next time? And which ones? They do well only when the Liberal Democrats make way for them - as in the case of Swinson's anti-Brexit strategy in 2019, for example.
If it is the case that anti-Tory voters (which even now is most of the country) are spontaneously coalescing behind the best-placed challenger, why do you think people would vote for the losing Green Party candidate instead of Labour? Would they really prefer to continue with the incompetent, crooked Conservatives?
In marginal seats maybe not. In Labour safe seats in inner cities and university towns plenty of Corbyn supporters will cast a protest vote for the Greens next time rather than Starmer Labour
If they are Labour safe seats, not much hope for your Tories there!
We said that about Sedgefield once.
At the last election in 2019, the Green Party vote there was down to 2.3%. Young HY was trying to make the point that Labour voters would be stampeding to the Green Party, thus implicitly allowing the Tories to win. I don't see much sign of that.
The Greens are polling about 5 to 7% in most polls now compared to the 3% they got at the 2019 general election. Even if most of that gain will be in Labour safe seats now Starmer has replaced Corbyn as Labour leader
Though as @MikeSmithson has regularly noted the Labour Party is no longer led by Jeremy Corbyn. That plays into their advantage for a lot of groups like potential swing Tory or Lib Dem voters, but the one group that it might harm them with is those indicating Green as their vote - there's a lot of overlap rather than disgust between those who say Green and those who say Corbyn.
Looking back at the 2015 Parliament most polls at this stage of that Parliament gave the Greens 2-3%, they actually scored 3.8% at the General Election. So there was a swing from Labour to the Greens from the midterm polls in that Parliament, not the other way around.
The circumstances are the same. A significant part of the current Green polling is made up of those who might be inclined to vote Labour but who dislike the current Labour leader. That was also the case prior to the 2017 and 2019 general elections. The leaders are different but the motivation the same. So the outcome should be the same too.
What is different between now and then is that the opportunity for the Conservatives to reclaim votes from UKIP or the Brexit Party is largely gone.
No, the circumstances are not the same.
The Greens appeal to voters who find the Labour Party too right wing.
Under Jeremy Corbyn he was able to absorb that vote, but slipped votes to the Lib Dems and Tories.
Under Ed Miliband the polling at this stage of the Parliament underestimated the Greens, it didn't overestimate them.
Is Starmer closer to Corbyn, or to Miliband?
See my response to HYUFD. It applies to you too.
You mean the comment about never admitting to be anything less than 100% right in things? No it doesn't apply to me. I regularly put my hands up and acknowledge when I'm wrong. Far better to do that than die on a hill when you're wrong.
So are you willing to do the same? I made a rather simple factual remark, at this stage or the last Parliament where Labour weren't run by Corbyn, the Greens were polling LESS than what they ultimately scored, not more than it.
Suggesting a "rule" that the midterm Green voters always return to Labour from a sample of one (when led by Corbyn) is really not a detailed analysis. Especially when the exact opposite happened last time Labour weren't led by Corbyn.
It's certainly possible that Starmer could appeal to Green voters, as Corbyn did. Or it's certainly possible that Starmer could lose left wing voters to the Greens, as Ed Miliband did. Either is possible. I for one am not hubristic enough to say either is 100% going to happen.
Rory Stewart in the Groaniad: “I think there’s a 40-50% chance of a ten year recession in Europe”
😶
I would be happy to offer him good odds on that.
Yes, he needs to define what he means
If he means "ten years when western economies will barely grow, if at all", then I'd say he's quite possibly right. Maybe a bit pessimistic, but it's not outrageously gloomy. Unfortunately
If he means ten years of relentless back to back quarters of negative growth, then this is vanishingly unlikely, simply because of the way stats work
My guess is that he means the former. He's a bright bloke. I give him a lot of respect simply because he's an avowed Remainer who nonetheless saw the dangerous immorality of a 2nd vote, and rejected it
'The Rest Is Politics recently hosted Starmer. “I was disappointed,” says Stewart. “There’s so much that I admired from a distance about him. I like the idea of him. What disappointed me was that he didn’t seem radical enough. I didn’t get what the big picture was. I got the impression of a likable, thoughtful, moderate guy, but I didn’t feel the radical ambition.” In general, he thinks that politicians, even former politicians, are too guarded to be interesting interviewees.'
Italy has hardly had any economic growth for about 15 years. But when you visit the country life seems to be carrying on as normal.
She'll be hiding in fridges by GE 2025, if she makes it past next summer.
To be fair she has a rather lot on at present
To be fair she agreed to do the interview and has now decided not to. Not a promising start for Truss if you're looking for a new PM who keeps their word.
Rory Stewart in the Groaniad: “I think there’s a 40-50% chance of a ten year recession in Europe”
😶
I would be happy to offer him good odds on that.
Yes, he needs to define what he means
If he means "ten years when western economies will barely grow, if at all", then I'd say he's quite possibly right. Maybe a bit pessimistic, but it's not outrageously gloomy. Unfortunately
If he means ten years of relentless back to back quarters of negative growth, then this is vanishingly unlikely, simply because of the way stats work
My guess is that he means the former. He's a bright bloke. I give him a lot of respect simply because he's an avowed Remainer who nonetheless saw the dangerous immorality of a 2nd vote, and rejected it
'The Rest Is Politics recently hosted Starmer. “I was disappointed,” says Stewart. “There’s so much that I admired from a distance about him. I like the idea of him. What disappointed me was that he didn’t seem radical enough. I didn’t get what the big picture was. I got the impression of a likable, thoughtful, moderate guy, but I didn’t feel the radical ambition.” In general, he thinks that politicians, even former politicians, are too guarded to be interesting interviewees.'
Italy has hardly had any economic growth for about 15 years. But when you visit the country life seems to be carrying on as normal.
She'll be hiding in fridges by GE 2025, if she makes it past next summer.
To be fair she has a rather lot on at present
Prioritising the 5 point plan for Liz next week. 1. Throw a big party. 2. Change the wallpaper. 3. Stay at Chequers 4. Visit Ukraine 5. Cut corporation tax, NI and VAT.
In at number 213 on the chart: sort out the CPI/energy 👿
@yarotrof The most prominent collaborator assassinated since the Russian invasion : Aleksey Kovalyov, a Ukrainian lawmaker from Zelensky’s party who switched sides to become deputy head of the Russian administration in Kherson, overseeing grain theft, has been gunned down in his home.
Rory Stewart in the Groaniad: “I think there’s a 40-50% chance of a ten year recession in Europe”
😶
I would be happy to offer him good odds on that.
Yes, he needs to define what he means
If he means "ten years when western economies will barely grow, if at all", then I'd say he's quite possibly right. Maybe a bit pessimistic, but it's not outrageously gloomy. Unfortunately
If he means ten years of relentless back to back quarters of negative growth, then this is vanishingly unlikely, simply because of the way stats work
My guess is that he means the former. He's a bright bloke. I give him a lot of respect simply because he's an avowed Remainer who nonetheless saw the dangerous immorality of a 2nd vote, and rejected it
'The Rest Is Politics recently hosted Starmer. “I was disappointed,” says Stewart. “There’s so much that I admired from a distance about him. I like the idea of him. What disappointed me was that he didn’t seem radical enough. I didn’t get what the big picture was. I got the impression of a likable, thoughtful, moderate guy, but I didn’t feel the radical ambition.” In general, he thinks that politicians, even former politicians, are too guarded to be interesting interviewees.'
Italy has hardly had any economic growth for about 15 years. But when you visit the country life seems to be carrying on as normal.
On my recent trip to Florence and Rome I decided Italy is, in parts, looking decidedly ragged. You can see there has been zero growth for yonks. And this is in the political capital, and the cultural capital. Not Calabria
She'll be hiding in fridges by GE 2025, if she makes it past next summer.
To be fair she has a rather lot on at present
To be fair she agreed to do the interview and has now decided not to. Not a promising start for Truss if you're looking for a new PM who keeps their word.
Circumstances change as do priorities and to be honest she is condemned by so many even before she becomes PM which is simply politics
It is interesting she is only 2% behind Starmer in tonight's poll as best PM
I really do not know Truss and am reserving judgement until she (her COE) has announced the emergency budget in the HOC
We really need Xi Jinping to get all Prester John on Putin
A massive, extended global recession is just what the doctor did not order for China, nor for the man who aspires to lead it for a third term. The one way to guarantee it is for this awful war to continue, or even worsen
Come on China, whack the Vlad
The problem is that Xi Jinping is a bit shit.
He got Covid all wrong. He didn't see the dangers in the Chinese housing boom.
Worse, he hasn't learned from his mistakes. He should look around the world and realise - you know what - the rest of the world has managed to live with Covid, and we need to too.
He's also managed to mess up with Taiwan. Under previous Chinese leaderships, Taiwan was being brought into the Chinese orbit. Direct flights had started. Opinion polls in Taiwan pointed increasingly towards reconciliation and eventual reunification. It was entirely possible to imagine - at the end of his rule - that Taiwan entered into an economic partnership that meant the two countries were embarking on ever closer union.
Instead, Taiwanese support for independence is now at an all time high, they have spent a fortune on Western arms, and the country is building a fleet of nuclear powered submarines that would make a seaborne invasion close to impossible.
Rory Stewart in the Groaniad: “I think there’s a 40-50% chance of a ten year recession in Europe”
😶
I would be happy to offer him good odds on that.
Yes, he needs to define what he means
If he means "ten years when western economies will barely grow, if at all", then I'd say he's quite possibly right. Maybe a bit pessimistic, but it's not outrageously gloomy. Unfortunately
If he means ten years of relentless back to back quarters of negative growth, then this is vanishingly unlikely, simply because of the way stats work
My guess is that he means the former. He's a bright bloke. I give him a lot of respect simply because he's an avowed Remainer who nonetheless saw the dangerous immorality of a 2nd vote, and rejected it
'The Rest Is Politics recently hosted Starmer. “I was disappointed,” says Stewart. “There’s so much that I admired from a distance about him. I like the idea of him. What disappointed me was that he didn’t seem radical enough. I didn’t get what the big picture was. I got the impression of a likable, thoughtful, moderate guy, but I didn’t feel the radical ambition.” In general, he thinks that politicians, even former politicians, are too guarded to be interesting interviewees.'
Italy has hardly had any economic growth for about 15 years. But when you visit the country life seems to be carrying on as normal.
Ditto Japan.
I do wonder what a post-growth economy looks like and if it has to be bad. I like the idea of economies being able to find a steady state, where you can have a high-quality of life but without the need for constant economic growth. Of course, such steady states would be temporary in the long run as new technologies develop, or companies innovate and growth is driven, to be followed later by managed periods of steady-state (or stagnation, I guess).
As can be seen from the above, I'm not an economist, but there is something in the idea that tugs at my brain. As in low/no growth economies but without the downsides of stagnation.
Unfortunately, having a quick Google about this, all I can find is hippie shit about putting the needs of people above profit etc, which is not what I'm after. What I want is a bunch of hard headed ideas about how an economy can be managed successfully through long periods of economic low growth without the low growth being a problem. Maybe it doesn't exist, maybe that's why I keep finding nonsense?
@yarotrof The most prominent collaborator assassinated since the Russian invasion : Aleksey Kovalyov, a Ukrainian lawmaker from Zelensky’s party who switched sides to become deputy head of the Russian administration in Kherson, overseeing grain theft, has been gunned down in his home.
Not sad to here that, but I don't know exactly how legal theses assassinations are.
That's a really interesting question. I doubt many people would argue that Reinhard Heydrich was not worthy of assassination (leaving aside Germany's hideous reprisals), but are quislings making themselves parties to the war, and therefore combatants? That's a really thorny issue IMO, especially when the definition of 'quisling' is expanded.
We really need Xi Jinping to get all Prester John on Putin
A massive, extended global recession is just what the doctor did not order for China, nor for the man who aspires to lead it for a third term. The one way to guarantee it is for this awful war to continue, or even worsen
Come on China, whack the Vlad
The problem is that Xi Jinping is a bit shit.
He got Covid all wrong. He didn't see the dangers in the Chinese housing boom.
Worse, he hasn't learned from his mistakes. He should look around the world and realise - you know what - the rest of the world has managed to live with Covid, and we need to too.
He's also managed to mess up with Taiwan. Under previous Chinese leaderships, Taiwan was being brought into the Chinese orbit. Direct flights had started. Opinion polls in Taiwan pointed increasingly towards reconciliation and eventual reunification. It was entirely possible to imagine - at the end of his rule - that Taiwan entered into an economic partnership that meant the two countries were embarking on ever closer union.
Instead, Taiwanese support for independence is now at an all time high, they have spent a fortune on Western arms, and the country is building a fleet of nuclear powered submarines that would make a seaborne invasion close to impossible.
Yeah, he's quite good at the despotism, but quite shit at the running-the-country stuff. As is often the case with despots
She'll be hiding in fridges by GE 2025, if she makes it past next summer.
To be fair she has a rather lot on at present
If she's smart she'd be spending any time available cloistered away with someone she trusts to be CoE and to keep quiet and they'd be planning the emergency budget.
Rory Stewart in the Groaniad: “I think there’s a 40-50% chance of a ten year recession in Europe”
😶
I would be happy to offer him good odds on that.
Yes, he needs to define what he means
If he means "ten years when western economies will barely grow, if at all", then I'd say he's quite possibly right. Maybe a bit pessimistic, but it's not outrageously gloomy. Unfortunately
If he means ten years of relentless back to back quarters of negative growth, then this is vanishingly unlikely, simply because of the way stats work
My guess is that he means the former. He's a bright bloke. I give him a lot of respect simply because he's an avowed Remainer who nonetheless saw the dangerous immorality of a 2nd vote, and rejected it
'The Rest Is Politics recently hosted Starmer. “I was disappointed,” says Stewart. “There’s so much that I admired from a distance about him. I like the idea of him. What disappointed me was that he didn’t seem radical enough. I didn’t get what the big picture was. I got the impression of a likable, thoughtful, moderate guy, but I didn’t feel the radical ambition.” In general, he thinks that politicians, even former politicians, are too guarded to be interesting interviewees.'
Italy has hardly had any economic growth for about 15 years. But when you visit the country life seems to be carrying on as normal.
Ditto Japan.
I do wonder what a post-growth economy looks like and if it has to be bad. I like the idea of economies being able to find a steady state, where you can have a high-quality of life but without the need for constant economic growth. Of course, such steady states would be temporary in the long run as new technologies develop, or companies innovate and growth is driven, to be followed later by managed periods of steady-state (or stagnation, I guess).
As can be seen from the above, I'm not an economist, but there is something in the idea that tugs at my brain. As in low/no growth economies but without the downsides of stagnation.
Unfortunately, having a quick Google about this, all I can find is hippie shit about putting the needs of people above profit etc, which is not what I'm after. What I want is a bunch of hard headed ideas about how an economy can be managed successfully through long periods of economic low growth without the low growth being a problem. Maybe it doesn't exist, maybe that's why I keep finding nonsense?
If the population is stable or declining and everyone has a decent standard of living to begin with, that's when it would work.
She'll be hiding in fridges by GE 2025, if she makes it past next summer.
To be fair she has a rather lot on at present
If she's smart she'd be spending any time available cloistered away with someone she trusts to be CoE and to keep quiet and they'd be planning the emergency budget.
Rory Stewart in the Groaniad: “I think there’s a 40-50% chance of a ten year recession in Europe”
😶
I would be happy to offer him good odds on that.
Yes, he needs to define what he means
If he means "ten years when western economies will barely grow, if at all", then I'd say he's quite possibly right. Maybe a bit pessimistic, but it's not outrageously gloomy. Unfortunately
If he means ten years of relentless back to back quarters of negative growth, then this is vanishingly unlikely, simply because of the way stats work
My guess is that he means the former. He's a bright bloke. I give him a lot of respect simply because he's an avowed Remainer who nonetheless saw the dangerous immorality of a 2nd vote, and rejected it
'The Rest Is Politics recently hosted Starmer. “I was disappointed,” says Stewart. “There’s so much that I admired from a distance about him. I like the idea of him. What disappointed me was that he didn’t seem radical enough. I didn’t get what the big picture was. I got the impression of a likable, thoughtful, moderate guy, but I didn’t feel the radical ambition.” In general, he thinks that politicians, even former politicians, are too guarded to be interesting interviewees.'
Italy has hardly had any economic growth for about 15 years. But when you visit the country life seems to be carrying on as normal.
On my recent trip to Florence and Rome I decided Italy is, in parts, looking decidedly ragged. You can see there has been zero growth for yonks. And this is in the political capital, and the cultural capital. Not Calabria
importing 500 doctors from bloody Cuba because all the hospitals are controlled by Ndrangheta for the usual fraud and extortion purposes, and Italian docs won't go near them.
Rory Stewart in the Groaniad: “I think there’s a 40-50% chance of a ten year recession in Europe”
😶
I would be happy to offer him good odds on that.
Yes, he needs to define what he means
If he means "ten years when western economies will barely grow, if at all", then I'd say he's quite possibly right. Maybe a bit pessimistic, but it's not outrageously gloomy. Unfortunately
If he means ten years of relentless back to back quarters of negative growth, then this is vanishingly unlikely, simply because of the way stats work
My guess is that he means the former. He's a bright bloke. I give him a lot of respect simply because he's an avowed Remainer who nonetheless saw the dangerous immorality of a 2nd vote, and rejected it
'The Rest Is Politics recently hosted Starmer. “I was disappointed,” says Stewart. “There’s so much that I admired from a distance about him. I like the idea of him. What disappointed me was that he didn’t seem radical enough. I didn’t get what the big picture was. I got the impression of a likable, thoughtful, moderate guy, but I didn’t feel the radical ambition.” In general, he thinks that politicians, even former politicians, are too guarded to be interesting interviewees.'
Italy has hardly had any economic growth for about 15 years. But when you visit the country life seems to be carrying on as normal.
On my recent trip to Florence and Rome I decided Italy is, in parts, looking decidedly ragged. You can see there has been zero growth for yonks. And this is in the political capital, and the cultural capital. Not Calabria
importing 500 doctors from bloody Cuba because all the hospitals are controlled by Ndrangheta for the usual fraud and extortion purposes, and Italian docs won't go near them.
Rory Stewart in the Groaniad: “I think there’s a 40-50% chance of a ten year recession in Europe”
😶
I would be happy to offer him good odds on that.
Yes, he needs to define what he means
If he means "ten years when western economies will barely grow, if at all", then I'd say he's quite possibly right. Maybe a bit pessimistic, but it's not outrageously gloomy. Unfortunately
If he means ten years of relentless back to back quarters of negative growth, then this is vanishingly unlikely, simply because of the way stats work
My guess is that he means the former. He's a bright bloke. I give him a lot of respect simply because he's an avowed Remainer who nonetheless saw the dangerous immorality of a 2nd vote, and rejected it
'The Rest Is Politics recently hosted Starmer. “I was disappointed,” says Stewart. “There’s so much that I admired from a distance about him. I like the idea of him. What disappointed me was that he didn’t seem radical enough. I didn’t get what the big picture was. I got the impression of a likable, thoughtful, moderate guy, but I didn’t feel the radical ambition.” In general, he thinks that politicians, even former politicians, are too guarded to be interesting interviewees.'
Italy has hardly had any economic growth for about 15 years. But when you visit the country life seems to be carrying on as normal.
On my recent trip to Florence and Rome I decided Italy is, in parts, looking decidedly ragged. You can see there has been zero growth for yonks. And this is in the political capital, and the cultural capital. Not Calabria
importing 500 doctors from bloody Cuba because all the hospitals are controlled by Ndrangheta for the usual fraud and extortion purposes, and Italian docs won't go near them.
@yarotrof The most prominent collaborator assassinated since the Russian invasion : Aleksey Kovalyov, a Ukrainian lawmaker from Zelensky’s party who switched sides to become deputy head of the Russian administration in Kherson, overseeing grain theft, has been gunned down in his home.
Not sad to here that, but I don't know exactly how legal theses assassinations are.
That's a really interesting question. I doubt many people would argue that Reinhard Heydrich was not worthy of assassination (leaving aside Germany's hideous reprisals), but are quislings making themselves parties to the war, and therefore combatants? That's a really thorny issue IMO, especially when the definition of 'quisling' is expanded.
None of this is really of use in considering the current situation, though. The Russian invasion is illegal; as occupiers, they have not followed the international laws (such as they are) covering the conduct of occupying armies. And I think there are very few, if any cases of members if resistances being prosecuted after their countries have been liberated. Should the Russians capture them in the meantime, it is almost certain that the conventions regarding the trial and punishment of civilian resistors will not be followed.
Comments
They will hold Brighton Pavilion comfortably, but still have just one MP. They won't significantly damage Labour in any marginals, because the desire to get the Tories out is too great. They may reduce the Labour majority in a few safe Labour, urban seats as pro-Corbyn Greens choose, without risk, not to vote Labour; that's about it.
The Greens appeal to voters who find the Labour Party too right wing.
Under Jeremy Corbyn he was able to absorb that vote, but slipped votes to the Lib Dems and Tories.
Under Ed Miliband the polling at this stage of the Parliament underestimated the Greens, it didn't overestimate them.
Is Starmer closer to Corbyn, or to Miliband?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/29/ukraine-launches-counter-offensive-retake-kherson-russia/
I hope so.
Slava Ukraina.
That sead we should be doing what we can to incres gas production in the UK, and from what I understand that is best achieved on a large scales by getting out of the way of those who what to frack.
just watched this video, it could be good day for the Ukrainians, or we might be getting cared away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxSpIDnIpwU
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/29/man-killed-trying-steal-cub-african-zoo/
Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸
@JackPosobiec
BREAKING: Images show US Embassy officials evacuating from the roof via helo in Baghdad
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1564250359635537920
It’s like the fact that black men are no more likely to be killed by police in the US than white men - if you account for social class and income factors.
That would mean
• an average of 1600 climate emergency workers in each parliamentary constituency;
• 7 climate emergency workers for each police officer;
• 2 climate emergency workers for each nurse.
Whether that would have cost more or less than the lockdowns that began the following year, I don't know.
I trust to my luck.
And don't you dare call it "proper" "gardening", you exclusive bastards
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/aug/28/james-wong-on-gardening-is-it-time-we-ditched-the-word-gardening-
Really, does anyone not do gardening because of its name?
@RoyalIntel_
·
54s
#Breaking #Urgent #Baghdad
- BREAKING: Iraq declares nationwide curfew starting in 90 minutes
Heavy gunfire can be heard throughout Baghdad as clashes between Sadr supporters and law enforcement continues.
https://twitter.com/RoyalIntel_/status/1564267740281569282
I suspect but cannot prove that the major cause of variation is on getting that initial appointment with a GP. I've recently moved from a London GP to one outside and my experience of being able to get an appointment has plummeted from almost always getting an appointment the same day to having a struggle to get someone to answer a phone call.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraqi-cleric-sadr-announces-full-withdrawal-political-life-twitter-2022-08-29/
There might be class factors hidden by race, or it could be cultural. Does it matter if you say to your GP on the first visit, "I've got this lump" or "I've got this lump; could it be cancer?". Or might it even be a paradoxical effect of Black and Asian people going to the doctor earlier, when symptoms are less developed?
The possibilities are endless but the effect is real and, literally, vital, and might even present some low hanging fruit for the incoming Health Secretary and Prime Minister.
I presume that is the root of Mr Wong's concerns.
😶
Hmmm...
It might be a lost decade with zero, negative or very low growth, but it will bump about a bit.
For reference, 2007-08 was 5 quarters. COVID only 2.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
Labour leads by 9%.
Westminster Voting Intention (28 August):
Labour 42% (–)
Conservative 33% (–)
Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
Green 4% (-1)
Scottish National Party 3% (-1)
Reform UK 4% (+2)
Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 24 August
Nor much in it between Starmer and Truss
Keir Starmer (37%, +2) leads Liz Truss (35%, +1) by 2 points on who would be the better Prime Minister at this moment.
The French have been rushing to complete nuclear maintenance work over the summer, to try and minimise downtime in the winter too. (Which has also led to more gas demand than would normally be the case... but if it results in better nuclear uptime in the winter, it will have been worth it. Although the word 'if' is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting there.)
All in all, German gas storage is now 85% full, and most other European countries are in the 70-80% range, which is reasonable, but not amazing. It's above where we normally are at this time of year, but given that Russian gas supplies to Europe are heading towards zero, it's necessary.
Freeport LNG - a 15MPTA facility in Texas - has been down since the beginning of June, due to an incident. This has meant that LNG vessels have had to bring gas to Europe from much further afield, effectively cutting supplies meaningfully. This is due to come back on stream at the beginning of November. Delays there have been a major negative for the European gas price.
This winter depends a lot on the weather.
If it is windy, wet and warm, then Europe is likely to make it through with discomfort and a mild recession. On the other hand, if it is cold, dry and the wind isn't blowing, then it could well be very difficult.
But don't forget, it isn't just Europe that is being affected by this. Any country that is dependent on importing gas and coal for their energy needs is being fucked right now. Europe is outbidding Pakistan and Bangladesh and the like for Australian and South African coal cargoes. They don't have the money to outbid the West. And that's why you are seeing a wave of protests across the developing world.
@yarotrof
The most prominent collaborator assassinated since the Russian invasion : Aleksey Kovalyov, a Ukrainian lawmaker from Zelensky’s party who switched sides to become deputy head of the Russian administration in Kherson, overseeing grain theft, has been gunned down in his home.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1564261285243432960
I bought a few shares back in March and have just bought a few more.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62715983
1.01 landed.
She'll be hiding in fridges by GE 2025, if she makes it past next summer.
@nprpolitics
Biden's goal to end hunger by 2030 and his new food conference, explained
https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1564225363445960704
If he means "ten years when western economies will barely grow, if at all", then I'd say he's quite possibly right. Maybe a bit pessimistic, but it's not outrageously gloomy. Unfortunately
If he means ten years of relentless back to back quarters of negative growth, then this is vanishingly unlikely, simply because of the way stats work
My guess is that he means the former. He's a bright bloke. I give him a lot of respect simply because he's an avowed Remainer who nonetheless saw the dangerous immorality of a 2nd vote, and rejected it
The interview is here
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/aug/29/rory-stewart-politics-privilege-podcast-stardom
Note his skeptical views on Starmer:
'The Rest Is Politics recently hosted Starmer. “I was disappointed,” says Stewart. “There’s so much that I admired from a distance about him. I like the idea of him. What disappointed me was that he didn’t seem radical enough. I didn’t get what the big picture was. I got the impression of a likable, thoughtful, moderate guy, but I didn’t feel the radical ambition.” In general, he thinks that politicians, even former politicians, are too guarded to be interesting interviewees.'
A massive, extended global recession is just what the doctor did not order for China, nor for the man who aspires to lead it for a third term. The one way to guarantee it is for this awful war to continue, or even worsen
Come on China, whack the Vlad
1. Throw a big party.
2. Change the wallpaper.
3. Stay at Chequers
4. Visit Ukraine
5. Cut corporation tax, NI and VAT.
So are you willing to do the same? I made a rather simple factual remark, at this stage or the last Parliament where Labour weren't run by Corbyn, the Greens were polling LESS than what they ultimately scored, not more than it.
Suggesting a "rule" that the midterm Green voters always return to Labour from a sample of one (when led by Corbyn) is really not a detailed analysis. Especially when the exact opposite happened last time Labour weren't led by Corbyn.
It's certainly possible that Starmer could appeal to Green voters, as Corbyn did. Or it's certainly possible that Starmer could lose left wing voters to the Greens, as Ed Miliband did. Either is possible. I for one am not hubristic enough to say either is 100% going to happen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/opinion/trump-documents-jan-6-prosecute.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tVzdUczMT0
https://billytownsend.substack.com/p/the-night-the-gop-ate-itself-in-polk
The state will be competitive this November, I think.
It is interesting she is only 2% behind Starmer in tonight's poll as best PM
I really do not know Truss and am reserving judgement until she (her COE) has announced the emergency budget in the HOC
The NASA FIRMS data on the fires in the area https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#d:2022-08-28..2022-08-29,2022-08-28;@32.9,47.1,9z… overlaid on the frontline's map (yesterday's data) https://deepstatemap.live/en#9.25/47.0200/32.8092… suggests three major sectors of action (northeast, center, southwest) on the Russian-occupied part of the Dnipro's right bank.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1564277251050455040
He got Covid all wrong. He didn't see the dangers in the Chinese housing boom.
Worse, he hasn't learned from his mistakes. He should look around the world and realise - you know what - the rest of the world has managed to live with Covid, and we need to too.
He's also managed to mess up with Taiwan. Under previous Chinese leaderships, Taiwan was being brought into the Chinese orbit. Direct flights had started. Opinion polls in Taiwan pointed increasingly towards reconciliation and eventual reunification. It was entirely possible to imagine - at the end of his rule - that Taiwan entered into an economic partnership that meant the two countries were embarking on ever closer union.
Instead, Taiwanese support for independence is now at an all time high, they have spent a fortune on Western arms, and the country is building a fleet of nuclear powered submarines that would make a seaborne invasion close to impossible.
As can be seen from the above, I'm not an economist, but there is something in the idea that tugs at my brain. As in low/no growth economies but without the downsides of stagnation.
Unfortunately, having a quick Google about this, all I can find is hippie shit about putting the needs of people above profit etc, which is not what I'm after. What I want is a bunch of hard headed ideas about how an economy can be managed successfully through long periods of economic low growth without the low growth being a problem. Maybe it doesn't exist, maybe that's why I keep finding nonsense?
https://www.breakinglatest.news/business/cuban-doctors-in-the-hub-of-the-mafia-the-times-infuriates-calabria/
importing 500 doctors from bloody Cuba because all the hospitals are controlled by Ndrangheta for the usual fraud and extortion purposes, and Italian docs won't go near them.
failed to secure an LNG cargo.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
And some more, here:
http://opiniojuris.org/2015/11/09/guest-post-is-the-execution-of-collaborators-a-war-crime-under-the-rome-statute-part-i/
This is also relevant:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule6
None of this is really of use in considering the current situation, though.
The Russian invasion is illegal; as occupiers, they have not followed the international laws (such as they are) covering the conduct of occupying armies.
And I think there are very few, if any cases of members if resistances being prosecuted after their countries have been liberated.
Should the Russians capture them in the meantime, it is almost certain that the conventions regarding the trial and punishment of civilian resistors will not be followed.