Howdy, Stranger!

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

LAB is grossly over-priced in the GE majority betting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imageLAB is grossly over-priced in the GE majority betting – politicalbetting.com

This point has been made before but given the way the betting markets currently give Labour a more than 25% chance of securing a majority it is worth restating.

Read the full story here

«13456711

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328
    edited September 12
    Completely agree.

    The power of incumbency, the change of leadership, the tedium of SKS, events etc, there are lots of reasons to be cautious about this.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341
    Virtually no chance that Labour gets a majority.

    Liz Truss may yet reap what Boris sowed on Ukraine.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147
    For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

    Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

    I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,054
    Pre-Truss, all the polls were pointing to a Labour majority. Electoral calculus still has Labour on 333 seats, or a majority of 16. Assuming that any Truss bounce is temporary, I think the price is a fair reflection on that.

    In reality I think everything hinges on what happens with the economy over the next couple of years. If Truss is lucky, and the war ends sooner rather than later, and the cost of living crisis abates, it will be a Labour minority or she may even scrape home in a Major 1992 style narrow victory.

    On the other hand if inflation remains a problem, the cost of living crisis fails to abate, unemployment rises and so on - given the Conservatives will have been in power 14 years there will be a strong "change" vote coupled with a lot of people who usually vote Conservative staying at home - people who can't see themselves voting Labour but who wouldn't really *mind* if Starmer got in.

    The key factor here is the scale of the 2019 defeat was squarely at the hands of an enormous ABC vote - Anyone But Corbyn. I was certainly motivated to turn out and vote in 2019 as an "ABC" voter. That impetus will be gone in 2024.
  • @Roger and his mates, I reckon

    @A_Melikishvili
    🚨Meanwhile in France: Two Ukrainian women from Izyum were physically assaulted by unknown people (presumably Russians) for listening to Ukrainian music. This happened in seaside town of Roquebrune-Cap-Martin in southeastern France. Assailants fled. French police is investigating
    https://twitter.com/A_Melikishvili/status/1569296278256754694
  • ydoethur said:

    For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

    Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

    I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

    Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.
  • Virtually no chance that Labour gets a majority.

    Liz Truss may yet reap what Boris sowed on Ukraine.

    I can't see that what happens in Ukraine will have any effect on British politics whatsoever. Are we saying that if Putin wins that will benefit Sir Keir?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    We are on to the ceremony of the keys... look, is this going to be in the exam?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147

    ydoethur said:

    For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

    Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

    I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

    Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.
    Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.

    Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

    Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

    I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

    Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.
    Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.

    Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.
    The LD vote doesnt have anywhere near the capacity of '97 to become more efficient either, they are already hollowed out in many places
  • kyf_100 said:

    Pre-Truss, all the polls were pointing to a Labour majority. Electoral calculus still has Labour on 333 seats, or a majority of 16. Assuming that any Truss bounce is temporary, I think the price is a fair reflection on that.

    In reality I think everything hinges on what happens with the economy over the next couple of years. If Truss is lucky, and the war ends sooner rather than later, and the cost of living crisis abates, it will be a Labour minority or she may even scrape home in a Major 1992 style narrow victory.

    On the other hand if inflation remains a problem, the cost of living crisis fails to abate, unemployment rises and so on - given the Conservatives will have been in power 14 years there will be a strong "change" vote coupled with a lot of people who usually vote Conservative staying at home - people who can't see themselves voting Labour but who wouldn't really *mind* if Starmer got in.

    The key factor here is the scale of the 2019 defeat was squarely at the hands of an enormous ABC vote - Anyone But Corbyn. I was certainly motivated to turn out and vote in 2019 as an "ABC" voter. That impetus will be gone in 2024.

    I think that is fair but there are so many unknowns

    A week ago the Queen died in an event of enormous magnitude that will continue to next Mondays funeral and then onto the coronation next Spring (probably)

    The war in Ukraine is edging towards a defeat for Putin of some sort and again an end to hostilities would have huge economic repercussions

    Furthermore, April 23 will see the end of NI and corporation tax increases together with the triple lock giving pensioners a 10% plus rise and possibly changes to personal allowances yet to be announced by the COE. Today's poll shows tax cuts and corporation tax cuts are popular with the public

    I do not claim Truss will win in 2024 but Labour do need to accept this is not a foregone conclusion
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,988
    fpt

    Generally protests have strict rules governing them and it is all done under the auspices of the police (separate areas, timings, etc). Once the official protest has finished I can assure you that protesters "mingle" elsewhere. Same with footie fans.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147

    I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
    He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
    Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
    I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

    If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
    Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
    They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

    The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
    No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
    Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

    Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

    Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
    So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
    Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

    Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
    Should and reality are not bedfellows here
    They really are.
    image

    If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

    If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
    Couldn't we compromise and have both of them arrested for wearing really stupid hats?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    Enjoyed reading the conversations between HYUFD and StuartDickson on the previous thread.
  • If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    edited September 12
    Spot on Mike. We are in mid-term after 12 years of either Coalition (Tory led) or Tory government. Labour has o chance in Scotland of anything more than a few seats. To achieve a majority nationally Starmer needs to out-perform the 1997 revolution where even the BBC were celebrating ('corridors strewn with empty champagne bottles...' - Jane Garvey) Frankly I can't see the enthusiasm. Yes a lot of people want the Tories out, but a lot can't get excited about Starmer, man of people, football supporting (from the posh seats) that he is. He is competent and will be rewarded with a competent election result, which should get him into power in a coalition or CaS.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147
    edited September 12
    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

    Let's hope your friend is right on both counts. Putin and Lukashenko both getting their comeuppance would be small compensation for all the terrible things they've done, but it would be compensation.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,988
    BREAKING NEWS: BBC WatO talking about energy bills.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,847
    ydoethur said:

    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

    Let's hope your friend is right on both counts. Putin and Lukashenko both getting their comeuppance would be small compensation for all the terrible things they've done, but it would be compensation.
    At the very least if some people are at the 'someone lied to Putin' stage it means some in Russia are noticing a problem exists, even if they are doing the classic blame the counsellors thing.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    FPT

    F1: backed Perez at 23 and Sainz at 16 (each way, both with boost) for Singapore.

    Both did very well in Monaco, Perez winning and Sainz coming 2nd.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,776
    A brave move.

    18 deputies in Moscow and St Petersburg demand Putin go, or have asked to be defenestrated.

    https://twitter.com/faytuks/status/1569292164949065730?s=21&t=uN6OPFjmGJbQgCdTwtF0jQ
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    Mr. kle4, when I was in China (a couple of decades ago) the line on Mao and the famine etc was that bad things happened but they happened due to Mao's underlings who misled him. If I were a senior Putin underling I'd be very concerned about scapegoating.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328
    kyf_100 said:

    Pre-Truss, all the polls were pointing to a Labour majority. Electoral calculus still has Labour on 333 seats, or a majority of 16. Assuming that any Truss bounce is temporary, I think the price is a fair reflection on that.

    In reality I think everything hinges on what happens with the economy over the next couple of years. If Truss is lucky, and the war ends sooner rather than later, and the cost of living crisis abates, it will be a Labour minority or she may even scrape home in a Major 1992 style narrow victory.

    On the other hand if inflation remains a problem, the cost of living crisis fails to abate, unemployment rises and so on - given the Conservatives will have been in power 14 years there will be a strong "change" vote coupled with a lot of people who usually vote Conservative staying at home - people who can't see themselves voting Labour but who wouldn't really *mind* if Starmer got in.

    The key factor here is the scale of the 2019 defeat was squarely at the hands of an enormous ABC vote - Anyone But Corbyn. I was certainly motivated to turn out and vote in 2019 as an "ABC" voter. That impetus will be gone in 2024.

    But so has the magic Grandpa vote, which should not be underestimated, even in 2019.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378

    I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
    He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
    Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
    I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

    If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
    Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
    They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

    The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
    No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
    Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

    Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

    Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
    So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
    Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

    Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
    Should and reality are not bedfellows here
    They really are.
    image

    If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

    If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
    They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,144
    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I've felt since February that Belarus would be quickest to crack. Luka survived last time because an apparently strong Russia stepped in. The weaker Putin looks the greater the opportunity for Belarusian opposition (who seem to form a significant part of its armed forces).
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,054

    kyf_100 said:

    Pre-Truss, all the polls were pointing to a Labour majority. Electoral calculus still has Labour on 333 seats, or a majority of 16. Assuming that any Truss bounce is temporary, I think the price is a fair reflection on that.

    In reality I think everything hinges on what happens with the economy over the next couple of years. If Truss is lucky, and the war ends sooner rather than later, and the cost of living crisis abates, it will be a Labour minority or she may even scrape home in a Major 1992 style narrow victory.

    On the other hand if inflation remains a problem, the cost of living crisis fails to abate, unemployment rises and so on - given the Conservatives will have been in power 14 years there will be a strong "change" vote coupled with a lot of people who usually vote Conservative staying at home - people who can't see themselves voting Labour but who wouldn't really *mind* if Starmer got in.

    The key factor here is the scale of the 2019 defeat was squarely at the hands of an enormous ABC vote - Anyone But Corbyn. I was certainly motivated to turn out and vote in 2019 as an "ABC" voter. That impetus will be gone in 2024.

    I think that is fair but there are so many unknowns

    A week ago the Queen died in an event of enormous magnitude that will continue to next Mondays funeral and then onto the coronation next Spring (probably)

    The war in Ukraine is edging towards a defeat for Putin of some sort and again an end to hostilities would have huge economic repercussions

    Furthermore, April 23 will see the end of NI and corporation tax increases together with the triple lock giving pensioners a 10% plus rise and possibly changes to personal allowances yet to be announced by the COE. Today's poll shows tax cuts and corporation tax cuts are popular with the public

    I do not claim Truss will win in 2024 but Labour do need to accept this is not a foregone conclusion
    Indeed. If the war ends and the economy bounces as a result, Truss will be a very lucky general and I reckon will score a 1992-like victory.

    On the other hand, sustained inflation and business bankruptcies caused by elevated energy prices remaining a problem in 2023 and 2024, coupled with high interest rates and a corresponding fall in the housing market could easily see a "change" vote for Labour plus a lot of stay-at-home Conservatives.

    Combined with the most recent polling showing a small Labour majority (assuming any Truss bounce is temporary), I don't think a 25% chance of a Labour majority is a particularly wild mis-price. As others have mentioned downthread, tactical voting in England could make a big difference and Labour and the Lib Dems have two years to figure out how to make this work.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,243
    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

    Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
    Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
  • So the headline that Labour is overpriced should be that Labour's price is too short.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,988

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
  • HYUFD said:
    Love The Mail's spin on that: 'Nine in 10 voters BACK her plan to freeze energy bills.' I mean, would anyone sane actually want their bills to go up?
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,243

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    Labour aren't going to 'win'. A majority is probably beyond them.
    The header is wrong (and comments by ydoethur is right). A Blair result would see them home (+145 seats or whatever) and they only need 120 from their 202 (Sinn Fein disclaimer here) but I think its too much for Starmer in one go.

    Largest party in a hung parliament - eminiently doable, a Cameron gain of seats (+93) would do that. Heck 80 seat gain would probably do, but an outright majority is probably not possible.

    Of course, most people on here thought an SNP whitewash in 2015 wasn't happening but it nearly did.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328
    edited September 12
    TOPPING said:

    BREAKING NEWS: BBC WatO talking about energy bills.

    And how fast they are falling?

    Edit, now down just over 50% from peak.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,479
    edited September 12
    Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
    We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
    https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672
  • I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
    He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
    Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
    I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

    If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
    Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
    They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

    The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
    No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
    Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

    Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

    Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
    So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
    Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

    Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
    Should and reality are not bedfellows here
    They really are.
    image

    If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

    If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
    They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
    There is a difference between organised events, and individuals on the street etc

    If two football fans in opposing shirts meet up on the street, the Police won't and shouldn't segregate them. Similarly individual peaceful protestors.

    Yes, when there's crowds, then managing those may be deemed appropriate at events, but that's operationally different to individuals in public. A lone person holding a placard is not a crowd or thousands on a march.
  • Spot on Mike. We are in mid-term after 12 years of either Coalition (Tory led) or Tory government. Labour has o chance in Scotland of anything more than a few seats. To achieve a majority nationally Starmer needs to out-perform the 1997 revolution where even the BBC were celebrating ('corridors strewn with empty champagne bottles...' - Jane Garvey) Frankly I can't see the enthusiasm. Yes a lot of people want the Tories out, but a lot can't get excited about Starmer, man of people, football supporting (from the posh seats) that he is. He is competent and will be rewarded with a competent election result, which should get him into power in a coalition or CaS.

    One of the curiosities of FptP is that is does tend to give the Premiership to the right candidate with a majority that reflects the vibe of the country. I'd even include Johnson's enormous mandate from 2019 in that.

    On that basis, If the vibe is "Starmer will do (he'll have to), but we're not sure about the rest of his party" you end up with Labour minority. Only question is where the wisdom of crowds lands us in that particular puddle.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,988

    I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
    He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
    Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
    I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

    If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
    Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
    They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

    The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
    No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
    Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

    Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

    Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
    So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
    Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

    Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
    Should and reality are not bedfellows here
    They really are.
    image

    If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

    If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
    They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
    Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    Mr. Topping, not so sure about Rayner.

    I'd take Starmer over her any day. The 'scum' comments were ugly.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    TOPPING said:

    I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
    He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
    Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
    I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

    If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
    Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
    They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

    The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
    No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
    Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

    Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

    Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
    So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
    Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

    Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
    Should and reality are not bedfellows here
    They really are.
    image

    If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

    If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
    They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
    Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.
    I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328

    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

    Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
    Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
    Anne Applebaum, a doyenne amongst journalists, wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-victory-russia-putin/671405/

    With all modesty it sounds awfully like some of my much less articulate mutterings of late.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,410

    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

    Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
    Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
    It’s got offshore oil. The most critical strategic part.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328

    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

    Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
    Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
    It’s got offshore oil. The most critical strategic part.

    But no fresh water supply without Ukraine. Which is how and why we got here.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044
    Heartfelt thanks to everyone who generously contributed to allow Jolyon to drive his clown car right into the court. The bit where there was a bang, a cloud of smoke, and all the doors fell off was worth every penny of your money.

    https://twitter.com/ExcelPope/status/1569292054857150465
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147

    Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
    We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
    https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

    I long ago arrived at the 'Owen Jones isn't worth listening to' stage.

    It has served me quite well.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,335
    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 844

    Spot on Mike. We are in mid-term after 12 years of either Coalition (Tory led) or Tory government. Labour has o chance in Scotland of anything more than a few seats. To achieve a majority nationally Starmer needs to out-perform the 1997 revolution where even the BBC were celebrating ('corridors strewn with empty champagne bottles...' - Jane Garvey) Frankly I can't see the enthusiasm. Yes a lot of people want the Tories out, but a lot can't get excited about Starmer, man of people, football supporting (from the posh seats) that he is. He is competent and will be rewarded with a competent election result, which should get him into power in a coalition or CaS.

    One of the curiosities of FptP is that is does tend to give the Premiership to the right candidate with a majority that reflects the vibe of the country. I'd even include Johnson's enormous mandate from 2019 in that.

    On that basis, If the vibe is "Starmer will do (he'll have to), but we're not sure about the rest of his party" you end up with Labour minority. Only question is where the wisdom of crowds lands us in that particular puddle.
    It did (in reverse) in 2010.
  • ydoethur said:

    Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
    We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
    https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

    I long ago arrived at the 'Owen Jones isn't worth listening to' stage.

    It has served me quite well.
    Jones is right though.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378

    I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
    He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
    Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
    I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

    If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
    Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
    They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

    The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
    No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
    Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

    Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

    Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
    So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
    Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

    Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
    Should and reality are not bedfellows here
    They really are.
    image

    If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

    If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
    They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
    There is a difference between organised events, and individuals on the street etc

    If two football fans in opposing shirts meet up on the street, the Police won't and shouldn't segregate them. Similarly individual peaceful protestors.

    Yes, when there's crowds, then managing those may be deemed appropriate at events, but that's operationally different to individuals in public. A lone person holding a placard is not a crowd or thousands on a march.
    Nah, i remain utterly unconvinced.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,988
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?
    13,636,684 vs 12,877,918

    was that the point you were making?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    ydoethur said:

    Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
    We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
    https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

    I long ago arrived at the 'Owen Jones isn't worth listening to' stage.

    It has served me quite well.
    I'm thinking that Owen Jones has developed into a slightly younger lefty Matthew Parris.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147

    ydoethur said:

    Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
    We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
    https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

    I long ago arrived at the 'Owen Jones isn't worth listening to' stage.

    It has served me quite well.
    Jones is right though.
    Really? I thought he was some kind of Socialist.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,152

    TOPPING said:

    I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
    He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
    Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
    I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

    If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
    Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
    They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

    The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
    No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
    Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

    Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

    Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
    So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
    Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

    Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
    Should and reality are not bedfellows here
    They really are.
    image

    If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

    If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
    They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
    Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.
    I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point
    It appears to me that individuals in question were arrested upon the basis of an impending breach of the peace, which is not a criminal offence in England and Wales, but can be a means of diffusing a situation that appears likely to get out of hand. The arrested individual must be released as soon as the risk of breach has passed.

    In Scotland a breach of the peace is seemingly a different and more serious matter, which I assume is why the individual has since been charged..
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829
    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,707
    Got caught by new thread syndrome so repeating.

    I err towards police not interfering with protesters as long as the protestors aren't interfering with other citizens. The Scottish protestor would probably have been arrested automatically up until very recently just walking down the road with that placard (or a similar t shirt) due to the wording being deemed offensive and also likely to provoke disorder rather than the viewpoint expressed.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,776
    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    Reeves might, the others not a chance. Dodds has been especially disappointing
  • Nice of a German state-owned media organisation to give us constitutional advice

    https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-king-charles-iii-just-abdicate/a-63072183
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,707
    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I think the problem is that Putin is a bit like Erdogan; popular with the vast masses of people outside of Moscow and St Petersburg, rather than with the urban 'elites'. His talent was in buying off and co-opting the elites in to his project.

    I wouldn't try and make any predictions about where this goes, but I would be extremely wary of the idea that we are on the cusp of a pro western, liberal revolution in Russia. I think is more likely that we would see the breakdown of Russia itself, with vast unknown consequences.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,977
    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

    Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
    Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
    Anne Applebaum, a doyenne amongst journalists, wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-victory-russia-putin/671405/
    This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,335
    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?
    13,636,684 vs 12,877,918

    was that the point you were making?
    She stayed PM, but lost seats as I recall.

    I don't think gender or other bits of diversity matter much if at all either way when it comes to voting. That is a good thing of course.
  • It will be Labour minority with LD C&S
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,149
    Thank you for the feedback on the previous thread.

    I am now planning to release a cover of the Beachboys classic Surf City:

    "Five Greggs for Every Pret"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147
    edited September 12

    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.
    Truss' plan doesn't bring down energy bills, it just stop them rising as far as they otherwise would.

    For them to fall significantly, we need a solution in Russia - by which I mean rapid political change, an emerging stable government the EU feel they can trust, and therefore the lifting of sanctions so they can trade freely in gas again.

    I have to say that strikes me as a very narrow path. Political change is looking fairly likely, but it will probably either lead to another wing nut taking charge and sanctions continuing, or the emergence of some kind of revolutionary government that's as stable as a blancmange in an earthquake.

    Until we can focus our power generation on renewable electricity, which requires not just the replacement of CCGT with wind but a tenfold increase in overall output and probably a radical overhaul of the grid, higher prices seem likely to be a feature of life.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,242

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

    Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

    I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

    Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.
    Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.

    Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.
    The LD vote doesnt have anywhere near the capacity of '97 to become more efficient either, they are already hollowed out in many places
    But those places are almost entirely where they were never going to win, hence being hollowed out there makes the Labour vote potentially more efficient.

    The key point is that what goes down can go up - and if the LibDem vote rises significantly in the south and south west, it could become significantly more efficient.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?
    I seem to recall they formed a government.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717

    @Roger and his mates, I reckon

    @A_Melikishvili
    🚨Meanwhile in France: Two Ukrainian women from Izyum were physically assaulted by unknown people (presumably Russians) for listening to Ukrainian music. This happened in seaside town of Roquebrune-Cap-Martin in southeastern France. Assailants fled. French police is investigating
    https://twitter.com/A_Melikishvili/status/1569296278256754694

    Hope they aren't Liverpool football fans !
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?
    I seem to recall they formed a government.
    What, together? Or are you suggesting she was up against Philip Hammond?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    edited September 12

    It will be Labour minority with LD C&S

    I mean we've got the high energy prices, the inflation and the strikes, might as well have a Lib-Lab pact too...

    #BackToThe70s
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,977
    darkage said:

    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I think the problem is that Putin is a bit like Erdogan; popular with the vast masses of people outside of Moscow and St Petersburg, rather than with the urban 'elites'. His talent was in buying off and co-opting the elites in to his project.

    I wouldn't try and make any predictions about where this goes, but I would be extremely wary of the idea that we are on the cusp of a pro western, liberal revolution in Russia. I think is more likely that we would see the breakdown of Russia itself, with vast unknown consequences.
    VVP is incredibly popular on his own terms. Even outside the suppression of dissent and almost total control of the media.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147
    GIN1138 said:

    It will be Labour minority with LD C&S

    I mean we've got the high energy prices, the inflation and the strikes, might as well have a Lib-Lab pact too...

    #BackToThe70s
    Not many Liberals either and their previous leader was a Scot who lost her seat...damn, that doesn't work, the alcoholic replaced Sinclair, not the other way around.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?
    I seem to recall they formed a government.
    What, together? Or are you suggesting she was up against Philip Hammond?
    They as in the now accepted woke version of she. But you knew that, you swine!
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,144
    I am probably just wishcasting but the most likely outcome to be is still a hung parliament with Labour largest party but relying on the Lib Dems and the Green. Of the possible scenarios, we have:

    - Tory landslide (highly unlikely)
    - Small 2015-style Tory majority (possible)
    - 2017-style Tory minority relying on DUP (very unlikely given maths and DUP electoral decline)
    - Labour minority requiring LD, Green, SNP, Plaid etc support (possible, messy)
    - Labour minority only requiring LD / Green support (possible, more stable)
    - Labour majority (still seems unlikely absent an SNP collapse)
    - Labour landslide (highly unlikely)

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328
    Dura_Ace said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

    Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
    Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
    Anne Applebaum, a doyenne amongst journalists, wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-victory-russia-putin/671405/
    This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.
    I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829

    Virtually no chance that Labour gets a majority.

    Liz Truss may yet reap what Boris sowed on Ukraine.

    Another gut- wrencher for Johnson.

    Johnson single-handedly defeats the Bear only for Truss to take the spoils.

    "Sick as a parrot" doesn't come close to how he must be feeling today. Thoughts and prayers.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044
    Under the blazing sun,
    #Hongkongers are waiting long queue (current waiting time is 4 hours long) to sign the book of condolence and lay flowers for Her late Majesty #QueenElizabeth II at the British Consulate-General(@UKinHongKong) in #HongKong


    https://twitter.com/DrKwanEC/status/1569206839488954374
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513

    TOPPING said:

    I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
    He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
    Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
    I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

    If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
    Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
    They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

    The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
    No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
    Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

    Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

    Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
    So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
    Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

    Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
    Should and reality are not bedfellows here
    They really are.
    image

    If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

    If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
    They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
    Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.
    I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point
    We're well past that point when they've charged the woman in Edinburgh with breach of the peace and she now has to go to court to defend herself.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?
    I seem to recall they formed a government.
    What, together? Or are you suggesting she was up against Philip Hammond?
    They as in the now accepted woke version of she. But you knew that, you swine!
    Are you making a moch of me?

    (I wonder how many people will get the sheer awesomeness of that pun.)
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325

    Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
    We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
    https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

    Jedwards Twitter is good for a laugh (or rather the responses to their tweets) at the moment too! 😂
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

    Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

    I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

    Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.
    Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.

    Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.
    The LD vote doesnt have anywhere near the capacity of '97 to become more efficient either, they are already hollowed out in many places
    But those places are almost entirely where they were never going to win, hence being hollowed out there makes the Labour vote potentially more efficient.

    The key point is that what goes down can go up - and if the LibDem vote rises significantly in the south and south west, it could become significantly more efficient.
    Yes, it could, but my point is it does not have the capacity it did in 97 - they have nowhere to lose excess votes nor much capacity to drop in 'dead' areas compensated by increases elsewhere (so if tgey drop vite % like in 97 tgey are highly unlikely to gain much), so for 'efficiency' they require almost exclusive tactical voting where they have a shout. Unless they add a few % nationally, anything beyond, say, 20 seats is utterly reliant on efficiency of vote.
    It may happen but much much harder than 97 is the tl;dr
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147

    Virtually no chance that Labour gets a majority.

    Liz Truss may yet reap what Boris sowed on Ukraine.

    Another gut- wrencher for Johnson.

    Johnson single-handedly defeats the Bear only for Truss to take the spoils.

    "Sick as a parrot" doesn't come close to how he must be feeling today. Thoughts and prayers.
    You're very magnanimous.

    For me, I'm just enjoying the thought.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,988
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?
    13,636,684 vs 12,877,918

    was that the point you were making?
    She stayed PM, but lost seats as I recall.

    I don't think gender or other bits of diversity matter much if at all either way when it comes to voting. That is a good thing of course.
    She got more votes than the old white bloke.

    As for does it matter? The benefit for Truss is that she will be seen as the face of the new era. She literally saw out the old and saw in the new and people will remember that. It feeds into the idea of a new era of Charles' reign, a new beginning, the Cons having had a hugely diverse leadership contest and ended up not with an old white bloke but a woman.

    While Lab is stuck with an old white bloke.

    Yes, I think it might matter.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,410
    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

    Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
    Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
    It’s got offshore oil. The most critical strategic part.

    But no fresh water supply without Ukraine. Which is how and why we got here.
    Which is why it should be part of southern Ukraine - and why Putin doesn’t want an energy competitor who can supply Europe
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328

    Under the blazing sun,
    #Hongkongers are waiting long queue (current waiting time is 4 hours long) to sign the book of condolence and lay flowers for Her late Majesty #QueenElizabeth II at the British Consulate-General(@UKinHongKong) in #HongKong


    https://twitter.com/DrKwanEC/status/1569206839488954374

    And a cheeky passport application since they are there?
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 417
    TimS said:

    Of the possible scenarios, we have:

    - Tory landslide (highly unlikely)
    - Small 2015-style Tory majority (possible)
    - 2017-style Tory minority relying on DUP (very unlikely given maths and DUP electoral decline)
    - Labour minority requiring LD, Green, SNP, Plaid etc support (possible, messy)
    - Labour minority only requiring LD / Green support (possible, more stable)
    - Labour majority (still seems unlikely absent an SNP collapse)
    - Labour landslide (highly unlikely)

    Aren't you missing the fairly plausible "labour minority, needing only SNP support"?



  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,988
    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

    Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
    Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
    Anne Applebaum, a doyenne amongst journalists, wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-victory-russia-putin/671405/
    This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.
    I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?
    Is she saying but not saying that a complete Ukrainian victory along the lines of the one she outlines will come at a price of a potentially failed state in Russia and do we really want that? She comes very close to asking.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,404
    @MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.

    This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.

    Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.

    I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+

  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited September 12
    Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/republican-britain-why-are-people-getting-arrested
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

    It seems something big is brewing over the border.

    More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

    Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.


    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

    Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
    Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
    Anne Applebaum, a doyenne amongst journalists, wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-victory-russia-putin/671405/
    This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.
    I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?
    Is she saying but not saying that a complete Ukrainian victory along the lines of the one she outlines will come at a price of a potentially failed state in Russia and do we really want that? She comes very close to asking.
    Yes, she is. As I have asked myself. Getting rid of Putin is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. What comes next is much more up for grabs, especially if unstable dictatorships start spinning off with the idea that all Ukraine got wrong was giving up their nuclear weapons.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378

    TOPPING said:

    I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
    He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
    Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
    I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

    If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
    Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
    They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

    The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
    No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
    Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

    Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

    Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
    So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
    Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

    Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
    Should and reality are not bedfellows here
    They really are.
    image

    If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

    If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
    They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
    Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.
    I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point
    We're well past that point when they've charged the woman in Edinburgh with breach of the peace and she now has to go to court to defend herself.
    Right and ive said i don't support people being arrested for holding a placard, but that moving them on can be ok
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829
    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.
    Truss' plan doesn't bring down energy bills, it just stop them rising as far as they otherwise would.

    For them to fall significantly, we need a solution in Russia - by which I mean rapid political change, an emerging stable government the EU feel they can trust, and therefore the lifting of sanctions so they can trade freely in gas again.

    I have to say that strikes me as a very narrow path. Political change is looking fairly likely, but it will probably either lead to another wing nut taking charge and sanctions continuing, or the emergence of some kind of revolutionary government that's as stable as a blancmange in an earthquake.

    Until we can focus our power generation on renewable electricity, which requires not just the replacement of CCGT with wind but a tenfold increase in overall output and probably a radical overhaul of the grid, higher prices seem likely to be a feature of life.
    That is undoubtedly true.

    There is some straw clutching going on in PBTory circles, like @TOPPING expecting a Conservative win because of diversity. I was responding simply. I don't for one moment think the Truss Government have the wherewithal to achieve what I have suggested.

    Alternatively, as @MarqueeMark has outlined, a magnificent victory for the Conservatives in Ukraine could see Truss over the line.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,180
    Heathener said:

    @MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.

    This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.

    Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.

    I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+

    I guess you know that the market rather disagrees with you? Have you bet made a bet?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044
    Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:

    UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is
    due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.


    https://twitter.com/darshnasoni/status/1569297507427155968

    First, they came for the Lesbians….
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 6,599
    Omnium said:

    Heathener said:

    @MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.

    This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.

    Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.

    I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+

    I guess you know that the market rather disagrees with you? Have you bet made a bet?
    There is a reason that Bookies have all the money and punters lose their shirts.... ;)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829
    Heathener said:

    @MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.

    This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.

    Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.

    I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+

    Divide by 10 and you are bob-on!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,988
    edited September 12

    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

    'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

    The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

    Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

    And I believe it will matter.
    It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.
    Truss' plan doesn't bring down energy bills, it just stop them rising as far as they otherwise would.

    For them to fall significantly, we need a solution in Russia - by which I mean rapid political change, an emerging stable government the EU feel they can trust, and therefore the lifting of sanctions so they can trade freely in gas again.

    I have to say that strikes me as a very narrow path. Political change is looking fairly likely, but it will probably either lead to another wing nut taking charge and sanctions continuing, or the emergence of some kind of revolutionary government that's as stable as a blancmange in an earthquake.

    Until we can focus our power generation on renewable electricity, which requires not just the replacement of CCGT with wind but a tenfold increase in overall output and probably a radical overhaul of the grid, higher prices seem likely to be a feature of life.
    That is undoubtedly true.

    There is some straw clutching going on in PBTory circles, like @TOPPING expecting a Conservative win because of diversity. I was responding simply. I don't for one moment think the Truss Government have the wherewithal to achieve what I have suggested.

    Alternatively, as @MarqueeMark has outlined, a magnificent victory for the Conservatives in Ukraine could see Truss over the line.
    While I appreciate that PB Tory is a generic term I am not in fact a PB Tory and therefore am even more well placed than usual (which is pretty well placed) to deliver a devastating, impartial and coruscatingly accurate take on things.

    Edit: and that take was that I think it will help her while SKS might well be a deadweight around Lab's neck.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083

    Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:

    UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is
    due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.


    https://twitter.com/darshnasoni/status/1569297507427155968

    First, they came for the Lesbians….

    Thought for a moment they'd perhaps nicked Charles III himself, but he's only 73 :disappointed:
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,707

    TOPPING said:

    I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
    He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
    Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
    I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

    If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
    Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
    They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

    The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
    No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
    Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

    Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

    Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
    So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
    Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

    Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
    Should and reality are not bedfellows here
    They really are.
    image

    If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

    If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
    They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
    Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.
    I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point
    We're well past that point when they've charged the woman in Edinburgh with breach of the peace and she now has to go to court to defend herself.
    Right and ive said i don't support people being arrested for holding a placard, but that moving them on can be ok
    If someone were to walk down the street with a T shirt proclaiming a message including F**k are they likely to be arrested? They would have been a couple of decades ago without doubt. I suspect that they might still be.
  • Nice of a German state-owned media organisation to give us constitutional advice

    https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-king-charles-iii-just-abdicate/a-63072183

    Teeny repayment of the MASSIVE amount of advice you and your ilk have been giving them I guess.
This discussion has been closed.