Latest general election betting – politicalbetting.com

System

Latest general election betting – politicalbetting.com

The betting chart shows the movements on the general election outcome that have taken place over the last 6-months.

Read the full story here

FrankBooth

First again. It's getting boring now.

Foxy

Second like Bolsonaro

FrankBooth

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Ishmael_Z

Toid loik a toid ting

ThePoliticalParty

5th like the next Blackadder series

rcs1000

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

MoonRabbit

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”

HYUFD

Given the last time 2 times a party was in power for more than 10 years, after an election loss they were out of power for 13 years and now 12 years in counting, for Sunak to become PM it was likely now or never.

He could still be a Major 1992, he does not want to be Hague 1997 or Portillo 2001 or David or Ed Miliband 2010 (unless Labour sees the economy go into further decline)

BartholomewRoberts

.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

 

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cookie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MoonRabbit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

StillWaters said:

Selebian said:

'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...

That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.

He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas

The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.

Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.

Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.

Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.

Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.

After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.

Why? Because:
(a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor
(b) Brexit promised them resources and riches
(c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches
(d) They won't take no for an answer

Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.

(A) is wrong.

Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.

Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.

That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.

(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./

Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.

Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.

There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.

The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.

You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.

I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.

Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.

Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.

And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.

Its housing, stupid.

Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.

I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me.
I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.

Bingo. You've nailed it completely.

Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.

In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.

The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.

There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?

I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.



The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.

There's a pretty good account by Cassie Barton, a statistician at the HoC Library, embedded in a wider study of demographics and voting.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ge2019-how-did-demographics-affect-the-result/

This is a fantastic statistic.

Home ownership and GE2019
As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.

The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).

86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.

Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.

So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.

Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.

Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat

You say that like its a bad thing.

Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.

No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.

London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so

London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.

A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.

London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.

70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region

@HYUFD - you might want to head over to here https://support.google.com/maps/answer/3094088?hl=en

You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.

It isn't, South East voters don't elect the London Mayor or London Assembly do they? When we had MEPs the South East region MEPs were completely separate to London elected MEPs

Voters in Warrington don't elect the Mayor of Greater Manchester. They're still both in the North West though.

London is entirely contained within the South East, that the South East is split into two regions for administrative purposes is no different to the fact that Stoke on Trent has 3 constituencies.

Warrington isn't in Manchester either, London is NOT in the South East, London is its OWN region

Learn to read, I never said Warrington is in Manchester, or that London is in South Downs now, did I?.

Warrington and Manchester are both in the North West. London and Guildford are both in the South East. That's why many people live in suburbs like Guildford or Warrington and commute into nearby cities like Manchester and London, because many people like to live in a suburban town where they can have a house and a garden and still commute into a city.

The fact London is bigger than Manchester doesn't change geography. London being in the South East is a simple matter of geographical fact.

Yes you did, you said the South East is the same region as London, so by definition the South Downs are then part of London.

London is a global city with a population more than the entire North West, Manchester isn't.

The South East has a higher home ownership level than the North West as well as London, London has the lowest home ownership rate in the UK, it is completely different to the rest of the South East

What the actual fudge?

I also said that Chorley is the same region as Manchester, so by definition Chorley then is a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Liverpool is also in the North West, so does that make Liverpool a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Guildford, Woking, South Downs, London and Chelmsford are all in the South East of England, just as Macclesfield, Chorley, Liverpool, Manchester and Preston are all in the North West of England.

The South East does not have a higher home ownership level than the North West, because London is in the South East and is not completely different to the South East that is is completely within, any more than Manchester is completely different to the North West.

No, they aren't but London is a global city as I said with a bigger population than the ENTIRE north west so has to be considered on its OWN terms.

London is NOT in the South East, it is its own region. It is London where the home ownership problem is significant, not in the wider South East

London is a global city yes, which is why its commuter belt extends across the South East to places like Guildford, Woking etc.

The wider South East is a commuter belt for London, and a place for people working in London to live, it is not remotely divorced from London and hasn't ever been.

Alphabet_Soup

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”

Would it be unduly expensive to use tankers as storage and pay to keep a few moored in Milford Haven through the winter?

Dura_Ace

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

HYUFD

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

 

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cookie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MoonRabbit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

StillWaters said:

Selebian said:

'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...

That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.

He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas

The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.

Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.

Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.

Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.

Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.

After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.

Why? Because:
(a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor
(b) Brexit promised them resources and riches
(c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches
(d) They won't take no for an answer

Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.

(A) is wrong.

Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.

Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.

That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.

(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./

Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.

Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.

There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.

The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.

You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.

I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.

Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.

Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.

And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.

Its housing, stupid.

Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.

I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me.
I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.

Bingo. You've nailed it completely.

Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.

In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.

The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.

There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?

I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.



The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.

There's a pretty good account by Cassie Barton, a statistician at the HoC Library, embedded in a wider study of demographics and voting.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ge2019-how-did-demographics-affect-the-result/

This is a fantastic statistic.

Home ownership and GE2019
As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.

The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).

86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.

Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.

So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.

Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.

Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat

You say that like its a bad thing.

Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.

No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.

London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so

London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.

A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.

London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.

70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region

@HYUFD - you might want to head over to here https://support.google.com/maps/answer/3094088?hl=en

You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.

It isn't, South East voters don't elect the London Mayor or London Assembly do they? When we had MEPs the South East region MEPs were completely separate to London elected MEPs

Voters in Warrington don't elect the Mayor of Greater Manchester. They're still both in the North West though.

London is entirely contained within the South East, that the South East is split into two regions for administrative purposes is no different to the fact that Stoke on Trent has 3 constituencies.

Warrington isn't in Manchester either, London is NOT in the South East, London is its OWN region

Learn to read, I never said Warrington is in Manchester, or that London is in South Downs now, did I?.

Warrington and Manchester are both in the North West. London and Guildford are both in the South East. That's why many people live in suburbs like Guildford or Warrington and commute into nearby cities like Manchester and London, because many people like to live in a suburban town where they can have a house and a garden and still commute into a city.

The fact London is bigger than Manchester doesn't change geography. London being in the South East is a simple matter of geographical fact.

Yes you did, you said the South East is the same region as London, so by definition the South Downs are then part of London.

London is a global city with a population more than the entire North West, Manchester isn't.

The South East has a higher home ownership level than the North West as well as London, London has the lowest home ownership rate in the UK, it is completely different to the rest of the South East

What the actual fudge?

I also said that Chorley is the same region as Manchester, so by definition Chorley then is a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Liverpool is also in the North West, so does that make Liverpool a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Guildford, Woking, South Downs, London and Chelmsford are all in the South East of England, just as Macclesfield, Chorley, Liverpool, Manchester and Preston are all in the North West of England.

The South East does not have a higher home ownership level than the North West, because London is in the South East and is not completely different to the South East that is is completely within, any more than Manchester is completely different to the North West.

No, they aren't but London is a global city as I said with a bigger population than the ENTIRE north west so has to be considered on its OWN terms.

London is NOT in the South East, it is its own region. It is London where the home ownership problem is significant, not in the wider South East

London is a global city yes, which is why its commuter belt extends across the South East to places like Guildford, Woking etc.

The wider South East is a commuter belt for London, and a place for people working in London to live, it is not remotely divorced from London and hasn't ever been.

Nope, there are 12 regions in the UK, London, SE, East, SW, WM, EM, NE, NW, Yorks and Humber, Scotland, Wales and NI. London and SE are NOT the same region. London is its own classified region with its own Mayor and its own Assembly

https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/eurostat

FrankBooth

What threats or warnings has Iran been given over its involvement in the war in Ukraine? There seems to have been a shrug of the shoulders.

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

Given the last time 2 times a party was in power for more than 10 years, after an election loss they were out of power for 13 years and now 12 years in counting, for Sunak to become PM it was likely now or never.

He could still be a Major 1992, he does not want to be Hague 1997 or Portillo 2001 or David or Ed Miliband 2010 (unless Labour sees the economy go into further decline)

The way you have spoken tonight trashing conservative leaning supporters telling them to vote for Starmer then if anyone listened to your rantings from the far right, the party will be obliterated in 24 but then we know you represent the Corbynite style wing of the party and we know what has happened to them

BartholomewRoberts

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

 

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cookie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MoonRabbit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

StillWaters said:

Selebian said:

'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...

That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.

He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas

The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.

Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.

Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.

Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.

Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.

After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.

Why? Because:
(a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor
(b) Brexit promised them resources and riches
(c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches
(d) They won't take no for an answer

Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.

(A) is wrong.

Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.

Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.

That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.

(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./

Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.

Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.

There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.

The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.

You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.

I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.

Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.

Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.

And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.

Its housing, stupid.

Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.

I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me.
I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.

Bingo. You've nailed it completely.

Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.

In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.

The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.

There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?

I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.



The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.

There's a pretty good account by Cassie Barton, a statistician at the HoC Library, embedded in a wider study of demographics and voting.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ge2019-how-did-demographics-affect-the-result/

This is a fantastic statistic.

Home ownership and GE2019
As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.

The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).

86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.

Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.

So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.

Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.

Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat

You say that like its a bad thing.

Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.

No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.

London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so

London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.

A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.

London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.

70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region

@HYUFD - you might want to head over to here https://support.google.com/maps/answer/3094088?hl=en

You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.

It isn't, South East voters don't elect the London Mayor or London Assembly do they? When we had MEPs the South East region MEPs were completely separate to London elected MEPs

Voters in Warrington don't elect the Mayor of Greater Manchester. They're still both in the North West though.

London is entirely contained within the South East, that the South East is split into two regions for administrative purposes is no different to the fact that Stoke on Trent has 3 constituencies.

Warrington isn't in Manchester either, London is NOT in the South East, London is its OWN region

Learn to read, I never said Warrington is in Manchester, or that London is in South Downs now, did I?.

Warrington and Manchester are both in the North West. London and Guildford are both in the South East. That's why many people live in suburbs like Guildford or Warrington and commute into nearby cities like Manchester and London, because many people like to live in a suburban town where they can have a house and a garden and still commute into a city.

The fact London is bigger than Manchester doesn't change geography. London being in the South East is a simple matter of geographical fact.

Yes you did, you said the South East is the same region as London, so by definition the South Downs are then part of London.

London is a global city with a population more than the entire North West, Manchester isn't.

The South East has a higher home ownership level than the North West as well as London, London has the lowest home ownership rate in the UK, it is completely different to the rest of the South East

What the actual fudge?

I also said that Chorley is the same region as Manchester, so by definition Chorley then is a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Liverpool is also in the North West, so does that make Liverpool a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Guildford, Woking, South Downs, London and Chelmsford are all in the South East of England, just as Macclesfield, Chorley, Liverpool, Manchester and Preston are all in the North West of England.

The South East does not have a higher home ownership level than the North West, because London is in the South East and is not completely different to the South East that is is completely within, any more than Manchester is completely different to the North West.

No, they aren't but London is a global city as I said with a bigger population than the ENTIRE north west so has to be considered on its OWN terms.

London is NOT in the South East, it is its own region. It is London where the home ownership problem is significant, not in the wider South East

London is a global city yes, which is why its commuter belt extends across the South East to places like Guildford, Woking etc.

The wider South East is a commuter belt for London, and a place for people working in London to live, it is not remotely divorced from London and hasn't ever been.

Nope, there are 12 regions in the UK, London, SE, East, SW, WM, EM, NE, NW, Yorks and Humber, Scotland, Wales and NI. London and SE are NOT the same region

https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/eurostat

That's purely administrative, just as saying that people on one side of a road can be in Stoke on Trent North while people on the other side of the road can be in Stoke on Trent Central. Both are still in Stoke on Trent, even if their constituencies differ - and London and Guildford are both in the South East, even if their administrative regions differ.

EPG

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

And not just "the previous thread"

Alistair

@rcs1000 re: abortion

Of course, in Pennsylvania the Mastriano campaign is deciding to poke the wasp nest with a stick

https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2022-11-02/pa-governor-delrosso-abortion

She said she had “many women calling my office screaming. They’re emotional voters.” But, she said, “I don’t think they’re gonna vote. … They yell and scream, and they forget to go to the polls.”

HYUFD

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

 

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cookie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MoonRabbit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

StillWaters said:

Selebian said:

'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...

That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.

He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas

The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.

Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.

Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.

Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.

Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.

After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.

Why? Because:
(a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor
(b) Brexit promised them resources and riches
(c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches
(d) They won't take no for an answer

Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.

(A) is wrong.

Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.

Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.

That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.

(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./

Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.

Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.

There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.

The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.

You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.

I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.

Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.

Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.

And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.

Its housing, stupid.

Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.

I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me.
I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.

Bingo. You've nailed it completely.

Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.

In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.

The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.

There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?

I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.



The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.

There's a pretty good account by Cassie Barton, a statistician at the HoC Library, embedded in a wider study of demographics and voting.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ge2019-how-did-demographics-affect-the-result/

This is a fantastic statistic.

Home ownership and GE2019
As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.

The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).

86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.

Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.

So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.

Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.

Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat

You say that like its a bad thing.

Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.

No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.

London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so

London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.

A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.

London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.

70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region

@HYUFD - you might want to head over to here https://support.google.com/maps/answer/3094088?hl=en

You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.

It isn't, South East voters don't elect the London Mayor or London Assembly do they? When we had MEPs the South East region MEPs were completely separate to London elected MEPs

Voters in Warrington don't elect the Mayor of Greater Manchester. They're still both in the North West though.

London is entirely contained within the South East, that the South East is split into two regions for administrative purposes is no different to the fact that Stoke on Trent has 3 constituencies.

Warrington isn't in Manchester either, London is NOT in the South East, London is its OWN region

Learn to read, I never said Warrington is in Manchester, or that London is in South Downs now, did I?.

Warrington and Manchester are both in the North West. London and Guildford are both in the South East. That's why many people live in suburbs like Guildford or Warrington and commute into nearby cities like Manchester and London, because many people like to live in a suburban town where they can have a house and a garden and still commute into a city.

The fact London is bigger than Manchester doesn't change geography. London being in the South East is a simple matter of geographical fact.

Yes you did, you said the South East is the same region as London, so by definition the South Downs are then part of London.

London is a global city with a population more than the entire North West, Manchester isn't.

The South East has a higher home ownership level than the North West as well as London, London has the lowest home ownership rate in the UK, it is completely different to the rest of the South East

What the actual fudge?

I also said that Chorley is the same region as Manchester, so by definition Chorley then is a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Liverpool is also in the North West, so does that make Liverpool a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Guildford, Woking, South Downs, London and Chelmsford are all in the South East of England, just as Macclesfield, Chorley, Liverpool, Manchester and Preston are all in the North West of England.

The South East does not have a higher home ownership level than the North West, because London is in the South East and is not completely different to the South East that is is completely within, any more than Manchester is completely different to the North West.

No, they aren't but London is a global city as I said with a bigger population than the ENTIRE north west so has to be considered on its OWN terms.

London is NOT in the South East, it is its own region. It is London where the home ownership problem is significant, not in the wider South East

London is a global city yes, which is why its commuter belt extends across the South East to places like Guildford, Woking etc.

The wider South East is a commuter belt for London, and a place for people working in London to live, it is not remotely divorced from London and hasn't ever been.

Nope, there are 12 regions in the UK, London, SE, East, SW, WM, EM, NE, NW, Yorks and Humber, Scotland, Wales and NI. London and SE are NOT the same region

https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/eurostat

That's purely administrative, just as saying that people on one side of a road can be in Stoke on Trent North while people on the other side of the road can be in Stoke on Trent Central. Both are still in Stoke on Trent, even if their constituencies differ - and London and Guildford are both in the South East, even if their administrative regions differ.

Yes and it is administrative definitions which have the final definition of what is a region or not

MoonRabbit

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Dura_Ace

FrankBooth said:

What threats or warnings has Iran been given over its involvement in the war in Ukraine? There seems to have been a shrug of the shoulders.

What do you want to happen? A fresh war in the Middle East because the last two or three went so terrifically well?

HYUFD

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

MoonRabbit

Alphabet_Soup said:

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”

Would it be unduly expensive to use tankers as storage and pay to keep a few moored in Milford Haven through the winter?

It’s a good question. The answer as you sugggest, with these tankers worth their weight in gold right now, it could be too expensive to moor one down like that.

MoonRabbit

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

I see, Oxford to the west of London, is with South East on the other side of London.

BartholomewRoberts

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

 

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cookie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MoonRabbit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

StillWaters said:

Selebian said:

'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...

That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.

He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas

The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.

Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.

Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.

Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.

Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.

After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.

Why? Because:
(a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor
(b) Brexit promised them resources and riches
(c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches
(d) They won't take no for an answer

Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.

(A) is wrong.

Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.

Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.

That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.

(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./

Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.

Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.

There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.

The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.

You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.

I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.

Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.

Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.

And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.

Its housing, stupid.

Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.

I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me.
I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.

Bingo. You've nailed it completely.

Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.

In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.

The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.

There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?

I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.



The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.

There's a pretty good account by Cassie Barton, a statistician at the HoC Library, embedded in a wider study of demographics and voting.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ge2019-how-did-demographics-affect-the-result/

This is a fantastic statistic.

Home ownership and GE2019
As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.

The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).

86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.

Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.

So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.

Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.

Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat

You say that like its a bad thing.

Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.

No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.

London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so

London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.

A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.

London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.

70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region

@HYUFD - you might want to head over to here https://support.google.com/maps/answer/3094088?hl=en

You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.

It isn't, South East voters don't elect the London Mayor or London Assembly do they? When we had MEPs the South East region MEPs were completely separate to London elected MEPs

Voters in Warrington don't elect the Mayor of Greater Manchester. They're still both in the North West though.

London is entirely contained within the South East, that the South East is split into two regions for administrative purposes is no different to the fact that Stoke on Trent has 3 constituencies.

Warrington isn't in Manchester either, London is NOT in the South East, London is its OWN region

Learn to read, I never said Warrington is in Manchester, or that London is in South Downs now, did I?.

Warrington and Manchester are both in the North West. London and Guildford are both in the South East. That's why many people live in suburbs like Guildford or Warrington and commute into nearby cities like Manchester and London, because many people like to live in a suburban town where they can have a house and a garden and still commute into a city.

The fact London is bigger than Manchester doesn't change geography. London being in the South East is a simple matter of geographical fact.

Yes you did, you said the South East is the same region as London, so by definition the South Downs are then part of London.

London is a global city with a population more than the entire North West, Manchester isn't.

The South East has a higher home ownership level than the North West as well as London, London has the lowest home ownership rate in the UK, it is completely different to the rest of the South East

What the actual fudge?

I also said that Chorley is the same region as Manchester, so by definition Chorley then is a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Liverpool is also in the North West, so does that make Liverpool a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Guildford, Woking, South Downs, London and Chelmsford are all in the South East of England, just as Macclesfield, Chorley, Liverpool, Manchester and Preston are all in the North West of England.

The South East does not have a higher home ownership level than the North West, because London is in the South East and is not completely different to the South East that is is completely within, any more than Manchester is completely different to the North West.

No, they aren't but London is a global city as I said with a bigger population than the ENTIRE north west so has to be considered on its OWN terms.

London is NOT in the South East, it is its own region. It is London where the home ownership problem is significant, not in the wider South East

London is a global city yes, which is why its commuter belt extends across the South East to places like Guildford, Woking etc.

The wider South East is a commuter belt for London, and a place for people working in London to live, it is not remotely divorced from London and hasn't ever been.

Nope, there are 12 regions in the UK, London, SE, East, SW, WM, EM, NE, NW, Yorks and Humber, Scotland, Wales and NI. London and SE are NOT the same region

https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/eurostat

That's purely administrative, just as saying that people on one side of a road can be in Stoke on Trent North while people on the other side of the road can be in Stoke on Trent Central. Both are still in Stoke on Trent, even if their constituencies differ - and London and Guildford are both in the South East, even if their administrative regions differ.

Yes and it is administrative definitions which have the final definition of what is a region or not

Even Sir Humphrey Appleby wouldn't be so administrative and ridiculous.

HYUFD

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

I see, Oxford to the west of London, is with South East on the other side of London.

South East region is Kent, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Sussex, Surrey, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire only

MoonRabbit

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

 

BartholomewRoberts said:

geoffw said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cookie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MoonRabbit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

StillWaters said:

Selebian said:

'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...

That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.

He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas

The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.

Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.

Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.

Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.

Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.

After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.

Why? Because:
(a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor
(b) Brexit promised them resources and riches
(c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches
(d) They won't take no for an answer

Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.

(A) is wrong.

Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.

Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.

That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.

(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./

Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.

Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.

There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.

The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.

You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.

I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.

Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.

Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.

And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.

Its housing, stupid.

Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.

I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me.
I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.

Bingo. You've nailed it completely.

Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.

In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.

The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.

There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?

I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.



The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.

There's a pretty good account by Cassie Barton, a statistician at the HoC Library, embedded in a wider study of demographics and voting.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ge2019-how-did-demographics-affect-the-result/

This is a fantastic statistic.

Home ownership and GE2019
As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.

The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).

86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.

Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.

So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.

Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.

Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat

You say that like its a bad thing.

Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.

No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.

London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so

London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.

A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.

London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.

70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region

@HYUFD - you might want to head over to here https://support.google.com/maps/answer/3094088?hl=en

You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.

It isn't, South East voters don't elect the London Mayor or London Assembly do they? When we had MEPs the South East region MEPs were completely separate to London elected MEPs

Voters in Warrington don't elect the Mayor of Greater Manchester. They're still both in the North West though.

London is entirely contained within the South East, that the South East is split into two regions for administrative purposes is no different to the fact that Stoke on Trent has 3 constituencies.

Warrington isn't in Manchester either, London is NOT in the South East, London is its OWN region

Learn to read, I never said Warrington is in Manchester, or that London is in South Downs now, did I?.

Warrington and Manchester are both in the North West. London and Guildford are both in the South East. That's why many people live in suburbs like Guildford or Warrington and commute into nearby cities like Manchester and London, because many people like to live in a suburban town where they can have a house and a garden and still commute into a city.

The fact London is bigger than Manchester doesn't change geography. London being in the South East is a simple matter of geographical fact.

Yes you did, you said the South East is the same region as London, so by definition the South Downs are then part of London.

London is a global city with a population more than the entire North West, Manchester isn't.

The South East has a higher home ownership level than the North West as well as London, London has the lowest home ownership rate in the UK, it is completely different to the rest of the South East

What the actual fudge?

I also said that Chorley is the same region as Manchester, so by definition Chorley then is a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Liverpool is also in the North West, so does that make Liverpool a part of Manchester in your eyes?

Guildford, Woking, South Downs, London and Chelmsford are all in the South East of England, just as Macclesfield, Chorley, Liverpool, Manchester and Preston are all in the North West of England.

The South East does not have a higher home ownership level than the North West, because London is in the South East and is not completely different to the South East that is is completely within, any more than Manchester is completely different to the North West.

No, they aren't but London is a global city as I said with a bigger population than the ENTIRE north west so has to be considered on its OWN terms.

London is NOT in the South East, it is its own region. It is London where the home ownership problem is significant, not in the wider South East

London is a global city yes, which is why its commuter belt extends across the South East to places like Guildford, Woking etc.

The wider South East is a commuter belt for London, and a place for people working in London to live, it is not remotely divorced from London and hasn't ever been.

Nope, there are 12 regions in the UK, London, SE, East, SW, WM, EM, NE, NW, Yorks and Humber, Scotland, Wales and NI. London and SE are NOT the same region

https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/eurostat

That's purely administrative, just as saying that people on one side of a road can be in Stoke on Trent North while people on the other side of the road can be in Stoke on Trent Central. Both are still in Stoke on Trent, even if their constituencies differ - and London and Guildford are both in the South East, even if their administrative regions differ.

Yes and it is administrative definitions which have the final definition of what is a region or not

Even Sir Humphrey Appleby wouldn't be so administrative and ridiculous.

But isn’t it nice to know there are people out there taking these things seriously?

BartholomewRoberts

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Perhaps you could draw a straight line between Oxford and Canterbury and tell me what city is in-between those two that they are within commuting distance from?

But apparently Oxford and Canterbury are in the same region as each other, but not that city?

HYUFD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Given the last time 2 times a party was in power for more than 10 years, after an election loss they were out of power for 13 years and now 12 years in counting, for Sunak to become PM it was likely now or never.

He could still be a Major 1992, he does not want to be Hague 1997 or Portillo 2001 or David or Ed Miliband 2010 (unless Labour sees the economy go into further decline)

The way you have spoken tonight trashing conservative leaning supporters telling them to vote for Starmer then if anyone listened to your rantings from the far right, the party will be obliterated in 24 but then we know you represent the Corbynite style wing of the party and we know what has happened to them

If they listened to you wanting to confiscate all the inheritences and properties of the Tory core vote they would be annihilated that is for sure

HYUFD

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Perhaps you could draw a straight line between Oxford and Canterbury and tell me what city is in-between those two that they are within commuting distance from?

But apparently Oxford and Canterbury are in the same region as each other, but not that city?

You can go from Oxford to Canterbury without going into London, London has South East to its West and South, Eastern region to its North and East ie including Essex and Hertfordshire

kjh

The last hour has been a scream. My University logic lecturer was as mad as a box of frogs. If it wasn't for the age difference I might suspect he got that way attempting to teach hyufd.

Yokes

Ukraine

So Russia had a short tantrum over grain shipments. On Monday I posted that Russia couldnt directly take on a fuck off & carry on response and that someone should look closely at much tonnage the Turkish navy had in the area.

And so it was. Erdogan just told Russia dare and try to stop the ships sailing. Russia backs down. Thats how it works with Putin, he can sneak about and make things difficult but he depends on those who have the ability to outmuscle him not using their strength.

Never eases to amaze how little people get that.

rcs1000

Alphabet_Soup said:

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”

Would it be unduly expensive to use tankers as storage and pay to keep a few moored in Milford Haven through the winter?

It would be both expensive (insanely expensive), and dumb. We want the maximum amount of gas in Europe, and that means we want the tankers to be constantly ferrying gas from the US, Qatar etc. A ship tied up, is a ship not moving gas.

BartholomewRoberts

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Perhaps you could draw a straight line between Oxford and Canterbury and tell me what city is in-between those two that they are within commuting distance from?

But apparently Oxford and Canterbury are in the same region as each other, but not that city?

You can go from Oxford to Canterbury without going into London, London has South East to its West and South, Eastern region to its North ie including Essex and Hertfordshire

You could get from Chorley to Macclesfield without going into Manchester either.

Both are in the same region as Manchester, just as Oxford and Canterbury are in the same region as London. In practice, as lived by people, even if administrative bureaucracy puts records in different files, that is purely clerical and not meant to be a lived experience.

DJ41

If Rishi Sunak wanted to behave with dignity, he could say that he is always pleased to hear from Albanian PM Edi Rama but if Mr Rama wishes to send him a message he should do it through official channels and not post it on Sh*tter.

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Given the last time 2 times a party was in power for more than 10 years, after an election loss they were out of power for 13 years and now 12 years in counting, for Sunak to become PM it was likely now or never.

He could still be a Major 1992, he does not want to be Hague 1997 or Portillo 2001 or David or Ed Miliband 2010 (unless Labour sees the economy go into further decline)

The way you have spoken tonight trashing conservative leaning supporters telling them to vote for Starmer then if anyone listened to your rantings from the far right, the party will be obliterated in 24 but then we know you represent the Corbynite style wing of the party and we know what has happened to them

If they listened to you wanting to confiscate all the inheritences and properties of the Tory core vote they would be annihilated that is for sure

Since when did I say confiscate all inheritance

I consider one million IHT relief is too high in this climate and a return to the previous max of 650,000 would be sensible

You twist and turn whenever you are found out, and frankly need reminding the conservative party is a broad church which at present has to put up with the far right group of which you are one but that will change

kinabalu

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

And the best thing is now they're up and running with it that's it for as long as the internet exists. I've racked my brains to think of how it can stop and there's literally no way.

HYUFD

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Perhaps you could draw a straight line between Oxford and Canterbury and tell me what city is in-between those two that they are within commuting distance from?

But apparently Oxford and Canterbury are in the same region as each other, but not that city?

You can go from Oxford to Canterbury without going into London, London has South East to its West and South, Eastern region to its North ie including Essex and Hertfordshire

You could get from Chorley to Macclesfield without going into Manchester either.

Both are in the same region as Manchester, just as Oxford and Canterbury are in the same region as London. In practice, as lived by people, even if administrative bureaucracy puts records in different files, that is purely clerical and not meant to be a lived experience.

No they are not.

The entire NW region elected MEPs for example as the entire London and SE regions all elected MEPs,

London, the NW and SE are also defined as administratively separate regions.

It is a lived experience, I live in Essex not London

rcs1000

Alistair said:

@rcs1000 re: abortion

Of course, in Pennsylvania the Mastriano campaign is deciding to poke the wasp nest with a stick

https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2022-11-02/pa-governor-delrosso-abortion

She said she had “many women calling my office screaming. They’re emotional voters.” But, she said, “I don’t think they’re gonna vote. … They yell and scream, and they forget to go to the polls.”

Mastriano is why I think Fetterman wins.

Benpointer

Yokes said:

Ukraine

So Russia had a short tantrum over grain shipments. On Monday I posted that Russia couldnt directly take on a fuck off & carry on response and that someone should look closely at much tonnage the Turkish navy had in the area.

And so it was. Erdogan just told Russia dare and try to stop the ships sailing. Russia backs down. Thats how it works with Putin, he can sneak about and make things difficult but he depends on those who have the ability to outmuscle him not using their strength.

Never ceases to amaze how little people get that.

Little people can be very perceptive.

BartholomewRoberts

kinabalu said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

And the best thing is now they're up and running with it that's it for as long as the internet exists. I've racked my brains to think of how it can stop and there's literally no way.

I'm bored of the conversation, there's little point arguing further with someone who can't understand that all dogs are animals doesn't mean all animals are dogs.

I'm off to play Factorio. Much more productive use of my evening. Have fun everyone.

HYUFD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Given the last time 2 times a party was in power for more than 10 years, after an election loss they were out of power for 13 years and now 12 years in counting, for Sunak to become PM it was likely now or never.

He could still be a Major 1992, he does not want to be Hague 1997 or Portillo 2001 or David or Ed Miliband 2010 (unless Labour sees the economy go into further decline)

The way you have spoken tonight trashing conservative leaning supporters telling them to vote for Starmer then if anyone listened to your rantings from the far right, the party will be obliterated in 24 but then we know you represent the Corbynite style wing of the party and we know what has happened to them

If they listened to you wanting to confiscate all the inheritences and properties of the Tory core vote they would be annihilated that is for sure

Since when did I say confiscate all inheritance

I consider one million IHT relief is too high in this climate and a return to the previous max of 650,000 would be sensible

You twist and turn whenever you are found out, and frankly need reminding the conservative party is a broad church which at present has to put up with the far right group of which you are one but that will change

The most popular policy of this century by the Tory party was to raise the IHT threshold to 1 million for married couples, which also got the biggest poll bounce. Now apparently supporting that policy still makes one 'far right' ie basically any policy not approved by the Shadow Cabinet is now apparently 'far right'

rcs1000

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”

This isn't selling stocks and shares, where everything moves electronically at the touch of a button.

This is physical molecules of CH4, and they have to be pumped around and stored and burnt. And there are physical limits like compressor stations.

kjh

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

Benpointer

I've been busy all day, missed PMQs. What was the consensus?

HYUFD

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

Anabobazina

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

I see, Oxford to the west of London, is with South East on the other side of London.

South East region is Kent, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Sussex, Surrey, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire only

Isle of Wight?

kjh

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

And the best thing is now they're up and running with it that's it for as long as the internet exists. I've racked my brains to think of how it can stop and there's literally no way.

I'm bored of the conversation, there's little point arguing further with someone who can't understand that all dogs are animals doesn't mean all animals are dogs.

I'm off to play Factorio. Much more productive use of my evening. Have fun everyone.

Spoil sport.

rcs1000

MoonRabbit said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”

Would it be unduly expensive to use tankers as storage and pay to keep a few moored in Milford Haven through the winter?

It’s a good question. The answer as you sugggest, with these tankers worth their weight in gold right now, it could be too expensive to moor one down like that.

It is also worth nothing that LNG starts to warm up in those ships. And when liquefied natural gas warms up... Well it ceases to be liquid. And that can be - what's the word? - bad.

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Given the last time 2 times a party was in power for more than 10 years, after an election loss they were out of power for 13 years and now 12 years in counting, for Sunak to become PM it was likely now or never.

He could still be a Major 1992, he does not want to be Hague 1997 or Portillo 2001 or David or Ed Miliband 2010 (unless Labour sees the economy go into further decline)

The way you have spoken tonight trashing conservative leaning supporters telling them to vote for Starmer then if anyone listened to your rantings from the far right, the party will be obliterated in 24 but then we know you represent the Corbynite style wing of the party and we know what has happened to them

If they listened to you wanting to confiscate all the inheritences and properties of the Tory core vote they would be annihilated that is for sure

Since when did I say confiscate all inheritance

I consider one million IHT relief is too high in this climate and a return to the previous max of 650,000 would be sensible

You twist and turn whenever you are found out, and frankly need reminding the conservative party is a broad church which at present has to put up with the far right group of which you are one but that will change

The most popular policy of this century by the Tory party was to raise the IHT threshold to 1 million for married couples, which also got the biggest poll bounce. Now apparently supporting that policy still makes one 'far right' ie basically any policy not approved by the Shadow Cabinet is now apparently 'far right'

It is not your self seeking support for the IHT threshold that makes you far right, it is in most of your posting in plain sight with your approval of the likes of Farage, Trump, Meloni, Le Pen and Bolsonaro

Roger

Looking at the last thread header it'll be interesting to see when 'Kwarteng' enters the dictionary. It's bound to happen but it's not obvious yet what it'll define. The obvious one 'Someone who brings down a government by being off the scale incompetent' seems like a waste. How often would you be able to use it? Someone who destroys a brand has been claimed by Gerald Ratner.

It's bound to happen. There's a word to describe the creation of such a word which I've just forgotten.....

bondegezou

rcs1000 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”

Would it be unduly expensive to use tankers as storage and pay to keep a few moored in Milford Haven through the winter?

It’s a good question. The answer as you sugggest, with these tankers worth their weight in gold right now, it could be too expensive to moor one down like that.

It is also worth nothing that LNG starts to warm up in those ships. And when liquefied natural gas warms up... Well it ceases to be liquid. And that can be - what's the word? - bad.

Does it become GNG, "gas natural gas"?

Pro_Rata

kinabalu said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

And the best thing is now they're up and running with it that's it for as long as the internet exists. I've racked my brains to think of how it can stop and there's literally no way.

At what point do WE ask Putin to deploy his nukes to bring it to an end?

MarqueeMark

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

Big_G_NorthWales

Benpointer said:

I've been busy all day, missed PMQs. What was the consensus?

Starmer 6-0 to be fair

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

What an utterly boring subject

MarqueeMark

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

I've been busy all day, missed PMQs. What was the consensus?

Starmer 6-0 to be fair

But everyone was busy, so nobody saw.....

TimS

rcs1000 said:

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”

This isn't selling stocks and shares, where everything moves electronically at the touch of a button.

This is physical molecules of CH4, and they have to be pumped around and stored and burnt. And there are physical limits like compressor stations.

Weather staying mild for a week or so at least and wind generation continues at record levels across swathes of Northern Europe so hopefully the continent will top up and spot prices fall again.

It does look increasingly like getting colder than average by end November and early December though, and already sub zero in S Europe next week. First real test for Europe this winter.

TimS

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

What an utterly boring subject

Where does North Wales end and Central Wales begin?

Benpointer

Benpointer said:

I've been busy all day, missed PMQs. What was the consensus?

Lol! Was that off-topic awarded because I didn't mention London and/or the South East?

Roger

The Albanian Ptime Minister is brilliant. He's doing more damage to Suella Braverman than Starmer was able to do. He's more articulate as well. Poor old Rachel MaClean being sent out on the save Braverman Red Eye

HYUFD

TimS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

What an utterly boring subject

Where does North Wales end and Central Wales begin?

Llandrindod Wells

Dura_Ace

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

What an utterly boring subject

Bart couldn't ruffle the HYUFD and chucked the towel in. TKO to the Chigwell Crusher.

kjh

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

You know when various people gave you the logic analogies of dogs/animals and fruit/oranges did you understand them cos you have done it again (I think, but not sure as I'm trying to get my head around what you have said as it is so odd) with your first sentence?

Also the river Thames was irrelevant to the quote. Wikapedia said London was in the South East of England. That was all that mattered. So I just want to know whether you think Wikapedia is wrong? Would just be useful next time you quote Wikapedia as one of your 'proofs'.

dixiedean

The Barty/ HYUFD/numerous others of differing opinions is symptomatic of why the Tories are doomed as a government.
Absolutely no scintilla of an agreement on even the very basics of how the country ought to be run.

FrankBooth

Dura_Ace said:

FrankBooth said:

What threats or warnings has Iran been given over its involvement in the war in Ukraine? There seems to have been a shrug of the shoulders.

What do you want to happen? A fresh war in the Middle East because the last two or three went so terrifically well?

There are plenty of options available without a full blown war. Time and again all you do is oppose the use of western military force in response to the aggressions of others. I'm sure you regard it as 'realism.' I'm inclined to wonder which side you support.

Luckyguy1983

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”

Well, at least the Government are exploring ways of increasing domestic production like fr..

Oh.

MoonRabbit

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

MoonRabbit said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?

Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.

Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”

Would it be unduly expensive to use tankers as storage and pay to keep a few moored in Milford Haven through the winter?

It’s a good question. The answer as you sugggest, with these tankers worth their weight in gold right now, it could be too expensive to moor one down like that.

It is also worth nothing that LNG starts to warm up in those ships. And when liquefied natural gas warms up... Well it ceases to be liquid. And that can be - what's the word? - bad.

Does it become GNG, "gas natural gas"?

This is all a bit technical - I was off school when they done physics and chemistry.

HYUFD

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

No, Banbury is also South East.

West Midlands is Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and West Midlands metropolitan county (including Birmingham and Coventry and Wolverhampton) only

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)

TimS

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

What an utterly boring subject

Where does North Wales end and Central Wales begin?

Llandrindod Wells

Way too far South.

Foxy

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

Oxford is definitely in the Midlands, it just won't admit it because of snobbery.

dixiedean

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

I've been busy all day, missed PMQs. What was the consensus?

Starmer 6-0 to be fair

Wow!
That must have been a stuffing then.

HYUFD

dixiedean said:

The Barty/ HYUFD/numerous others of differing opinions is symptomatic of why the Tories are doomed as a government.
Absolutely no scintilla of an agreement on even the very basics of how the country ought to be run.

Arguably same with Starmerites and Blairites and Corbynites, that is FPTP for you.

With PR I would not be in the same party as Bart most likely

kjh

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

What an utterly boring subject

Come on Big G we could keep this going until the internet breaks

Stuartinromford

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

Taking TV regions as canonical (and I'm pretty sure that you should, due to the combination of societal ties, physics and geography), Oxford is in the "doesn't really fit anywhere that well" region.

In the early days, it was BBC London and South East and ITV Midlands. Now they both have it as a uncomfortably semi attached bit of the South.

As for the central point, London is different to its surrounding commuterland. Something about whether a place embraces its connection to the city or turns its back on it. Most of outer London accepts where it is, places like Bromley and Romford are still coming to terms with it, Brentwood is definitely not-London.

What's interesting is the way that some bits of the South East- Brighton is the classic example- look and behave a lot more like London than the intervening countryside.

Big_G_NorthWales

dixiedean said:

The Barty/ HYUFD/numerous others of differing opinions is symptomatic of why the Tories are doomed as a government.
Absolutely no scintilla of an agreement on even the very basics of how the country ought to be run.

@HYUFD is part of the ERG far right group much like the Corbynites in labour, and it is upto Rishi to take the party towards the centre and he will either win or lose 24 depending on just how successful he is over the next 2 years

It is a very big mountain to climb

HYUFD

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

What an utterly boring subject

Bart couldn't ruffle the HYUFD and chucked the towel in. TKO to the Chigwell Crusher.

I am getting my belt on now, Heavyweight Boring Subject Champion of the PB World - HYUFD!!!

Mexicanpete

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

What an utterly boring subject

Where does North Wales end and Central Wales begin?

Llandrindod Wells

No. Llandrindod is the mid point.

Business teams from the North meet up with those from the South at the Metropole in Llandrindod. I'd say the point where North meets Central is Welshpool/Newtown area. And South meets Central somewhere just South of Brecon.

Wow, this is a dull subject. Sorry.

TimS

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

I've been busy all day, missed PMQs. What was the consensus?

Starmer 6-0 to be fair

Wow!
That must have been a stuffing then.

I watched it after the event and it’s fair to say the 6-0 was a result of Starmer having 6 easy tap ins while the goalie went AWOL. Sunak was an empty vessel.

kjh

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

Oxford is definitely in the Midlands, it just won't admit it because of snobbery.

That's what I like to see; two new bloods into the fray.

dixiedean

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

The Barty/ HYUFD/numerous others of differing opinions is symptomatic of why the Tories are doomed as a government.
Absolutely no scintilla of an agreement on even the very basics of how the country ought to be run.

Arguably same with Starmerites and Blairites and Corbynites, that is FPTP for you.

With PR I would not be in the same party as Bart most likely

True. But that waxes and wanes. The Tory coalition is now stretched to breaking point.
Almost anything. Choice of background colour or font, and someone's moaning to the press, or speaking in the Commons or voting against.
Time for a change.

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

The Barty/ HYUFD/numerous others of differing opinions is symptomatic of why the Tories are doomed as a government.
Absolutely no scintilla of an agreement on even the very basics of how the country ought to be run.

Arguably same with Starmerites and Blairites and Corbynites, that is FPTP for you.

With PR I would not be in the same party as Bart most likely

I am sure he would be delighted at that news

Dura_Ace

I'm out of Twitter jail! Just going to have a cup of tea then get to work on dicktard culture warrior Mark Jenkinson MP.

Luckyguy1983

FrankBooth said:

Dura_Ace said:

FrankBooth said:

What threats or warnings has Iran been given over its involvement in the war in Ukraine? There seems to have been a shrug of the shoulders.

What do you want to happen? A fresh war in the Middle East because the last two or three went so terrifically well?

There are plenty of options available without a full blown war. Time and again all you do is oppose the use of western military force in response to the aggressions of others. I'm sure you regard it as 'realism.' I'm inclined to wonder which side you support.

Given the damage already done to our economy by participating in this conflict, your desire to pick a fight with another country at the same time rather leads me to wonder which side you support. It doesn't seem to be the UK's.

Andy_JS

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

No, Banbury is also South East.

West Midlands is Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and West Midlands metropolitan county (including Birmingham and Coventry and Wolverhampton) only

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)

They shouldn't have changed the old South East and East Anglia regions in 1999. Before then East Anglia simply consisted of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, and the South East still included Hertfordshire, Essex and Bedfordshire.

Nigelb

kinabalu said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

And the best thing is now they're up and running with it that's it for as long as the internet exists. I've racked my brains to think of how it can stop and there's literally no way.

I missed it all on the last thread, so very grateful to see the rematch.

Though I do think they should make at least a token effort to scan and rhyme .

HYUFD

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

Oxford is definitely in the Midlands, it just won't admit it because of snobbery.

You would give Christ Church high table heart attacks if you told them they were eating in the Midlands!

Anabobazina

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

The Barty/ HYUFD/numerous others of differing opinions is symptomatic of why the Tories are doomed as a government.
Absolutely no scintilla of an agreement on even the very basics of how the country ought to be run.

@HYUFD is part of the ERG far right group much like the Corbynites in labour, and it is upto Rishi to take the party towards the centre and he will either win or lose 24 depending on just how successful he is over the next 2 years

It is a very big mountain to climb

HYUFD is not far right. That’s completely ridiculous

Big_G_NorthWales

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

I've been busy all day, missed PMQs. What was the consensus?

Starmer 6-0 to be fair

Wow!
That must have been a stuffing then.

Not really

Just being fair, but Rishi is still the one to improve the conservative fortunes over time but 2 years is not long

dixiedean

TimS said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

I've been busy all day, missed PMQs. What was the consensus?

Starmer 6-0 to be fair

Wow!
That must have been a stuffing then.

I watched it after the event and it’s fair to say the 6-0 was a result of Starmer having 6 easy tap ins while the goalie went AWOL. Sunak was an empty vessel.

Was or is?
I've always thought it was is.

williamglenn

Dura_Ace said:

I'm out of Twitter jail! Just going to have a cup of tea then get to work on dicktard culture warrior Mark Jenkinson MP.

How does Twitter jail work? Do you get banned for a specific period of time?

HYUFD

Andy_JS said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

No, Banbury is also South East.

West Midlands is Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and West Midlands metropolitan county (including Birmingham and Coventry and Wolverhampton) only

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)

They shouldn't have changed the old South East and East Anglia regions in 1999. Before then East Anglia simply consisted of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, and the South East still included Hertfordshire, Essex and Bedfordshire.

North Essex though is much closer to Cambridgeshire and Suffolk than it is to the rest of the South East

FrankBooth

Luckyguy1983 said:

FrankBooth said:

Dura_Ace said:

FrankBooth said:

What threats or warnings has Iran been given over its involvement in the war in Ukraine? There seems to have been a shrug of the shoulders.

What do you want to happen? A fresh war in the Middle East because the last two or three went so terrifically well?

There are plenty of options available without a full blown war. Time and again all you do is oppose the use of western military force in response to the aggressions of others. I'm sure you regard it as 'realism.' I'm inclined to wonder which side you support.

Given the damage already done to our economy by participating in this conflict, your desire to pick a fight with another country at the same time rather leads me to wonder which side you support. It doesn't seem to be the UK's.

Not that much damage actually. Gas prices have spiked but we'll hopefully get it under control. Our weapons stocks are down but if you look at the monetary contribution to Ukraine it isn't really that much. And the outcome of not getting involved is barely worth thinking about. A total humanitarian catastrophe with perhaps 20m refugees coming into the rest of Europe.

MoonRabbit

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

Oxford is definitely in the Midlands, it just won't admit it because of snobbery.

You would give Christ Church high table heart attacks if you told them they were eating in the Midlands!

But they are happy to be eating in the South East?

HYUFD

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

Oxford is definitely in the Midlands, it just won't admit it because of snobbery.

You would give Christ Church high table heart attacks if you told them they were eating in the Midlands!

But they are happy to be eating in the South East?

Yes, as it is the poshest region outside London

Nigelb

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

@rcs1000 re: abortion

Of course, in Pennsylvania the Mastriano campaign is deciding to poke the wasp nest with a stick

https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2022-11-02/pa-governor-delrosso-abortion

She said she had “many women calling my office screaming. They’re emotional voters.” But, she said, “I don’t think they’re gonna vote. … They yell and scream, and they forget to go to the polls.”

Mastriano is why I think Fetterman wins.

Oz is also a fairly special kind of awful.

MoonRabbit

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

What an utterly boring subject

Bart couldn't ruffle the HYUFD and chucked the towel in. TKO to the Chigwell Crusher.

I am getting my belt on now, Heavyweight Boring Subject Champion of the PB World - HYUFD!!!

Boring?

Mexicanpete

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

Dura_Ace said:

The Barty Bobs / HYUFD throwdown on the previous thread about South East England was pure Vogon poetry. Well done to all involved.

It’s quickly spread to this thread too 😯

Can I say, HY does have a good point - if London is a ”region” and South East is a region, how can two regions be in same place same time?

For example, can you tell me which region Oxford is in?

Oxford is also South East not London

Arguably, Oxford is the southern end of the Midlands. Banbury up the road isn't the SE for sure.

Oxford is definitely in the Midlands, it just won't admit it because of snobbery.

You would give Christ Church high table heart attacks if you told them they were eating in the Midlands!

But they are happy to be eating in the South East?

Yes, as it is the poshest region outside London

Posh! Have you ever been to Blackbird Leys?

Theuniondivvie

For all of us thinking we’ve had a shit year (again).

MoonRabbit

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

I've been busy all day, missed PMQs. What was the consensus?

Starmer 6-0 to be fair

Wow!
That must have been a stuffing then.

Not really

Just being fair, but Rishi is still the one to improve the conservative fortunes over time but 2 years is not long

Ablely assisted by his cabinet and party,

Big_G_NorthWales

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD I know you like linking to the internet for your facts so try looking up London in Wikapedia. It says: 'It stands on the River Thames in south-east England'

Now I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but you do so what do you say to that?

See you haven't either conceded IHT wasn't at the bottom of that table (last thread) as you said, but over half way up, although we can all see it.

You do look silly by not bailing.

The River Thames also goes through Oxfordshire and Berkshire in South East England yes, London doesn't.

It also says 'London, also known as Greater London, is one of nine regions of England and the top subdivision covering most of the city's metropolis.' London is 1 of those 9 regions, South East another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

What an utterly boring subject

Where does North Wales end and Central Wales begin?

Llandrindod Wells

No. Llandrindod is the mid point.

Business teams from the North meet up with those from the South at the Metropole in Llandrindod. I'd say the point where North meets Central is Welshpool/Newtown area. And South meets Central somewhere just South of Brecon.

Wow, this is a dull subject. Sorry.

I went to many meetings in the Metropole on business over the years, and you are correct as Welshpool is the answer

I am bored to tears with this, as must everyone else be, apart from maybe one person who must have exhausted Google by now