Howdy, Stranger!

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

A LAB majority back as general election favourite – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 15 in General
imageA LAB majority back as general election favourite – politicalbetting.com

We have been focused so much recently on the American elections that we have ignored the betting on what is going to happen at the next UK General Election. The chart above shows how the outcome has fluctuated between a hung Parliament or a LAB majority and the latter has now just edged into the lead as a 43% chance.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,972
    edited November 15
    The Conservatives are stale and tired. It is time to let Labour have a go at ruining things in new and exciting ways.

    Oh, and first.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219
    edited November 15
    3rd, like Scottish Labour in today’s Deltapoll.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,000
    Yes looks like LAB are going to win! I say that without any enthusiasm. I suspect the majority will be relatively small. Not much real enthusiasm for Keir and team even recognising that the current government is useless 👿
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219
    Next PM Keir Starmer 4/9

    Next FM Anas Sarwar 16/1

    If Starmer is a dud, Sarwar is a disaster.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    That Type 26 business is funny. Sunak has learned the fine art of the reannouncement from Johnson. Expect to see the announcement again at least twice before the election.

    I took it as clearly watering the ground for scrapping the 3% promise. “Don’t look at the u-turn, look over here at all the expensive goodies defence will be getting.”

    Will Wallace walk?
    Of course not. Apart from the fact that the chafing between his massive fucking fat thighs makes walking difficult he did nothing when Johnson cut 10,000 troops 18 months after saying he wouldn't.

    He knows 3% isn't happening.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/10/ben-wallace-steps-back-liz-truss-defence-spending-target
    Another Tory bullshitter.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,305
    I think this absolutely makes sense.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    Ex Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith warns: "[Sunak] said in summer, categorically, he considered China to be a systemic threat. What we’re seeing here is the beginnings of a step away from his original position. I hope he’s not about to do a U-turn, it would be completely wrong."
    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1592471784456085505
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219

    Roger said:

    London
    Lab 63%
    Con 20%
    LD 8%
    Ref 4%
    UKIP 4%
    Grn 1%

    Rest of South
    Lab 47%
    Con 32%
    LD 9%
    Grn 8%
    Ref 3%
    UKIP 2%

    Midlands
    Lab 61%
    Con 25%
    Ref 5%
    UKIP 4%
    Grn 2%
    LD 2%

    North
    Lab 56%
    Con 26%
    Grn 7%
    LD 5%
    Ref 3%
    UKIP 2%

    Scotland
    SNP 53%
    Con 18%
    Lab 17%
    Grn 11%
    Ref 1%

    Wales
    Lab 42%
    Con 31%
    PC 20%
    LD 6%

    (Deltapoll; Sample Size: 1,060; Fieldwork 10-14 November)

    Phew! I thought the Tories were in trouble for a minute
    That’s a good Wales poll for them.
    When Wales is nearly their best performance you know the Tories are waaaaay up excrement canyon.

    The truly impressive findings there are:

    Scottish Labour back to 3rd
    Scottish Lib Dems on zilch
    Labour absolutely smashing the Tories in the Midlands.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580

    In the first 40 days of winter renewables produced more electricity than gas in the UK!

    Good news

    But renewables don't produce gas?

    *grabs tinfoil hat, then ducks head*
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219

    One of the clearest, frankest accounts of how Brexit has damaged the UK economy.

    https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1592152130433216512?s=46&t=Dxx36GTWKVGx7_1ZXvapvw

    And the Labour Party is pro-Brexit. Madness.

    The Labour Party isn't pro-Brexit, and never has been. It campaigned to remain, but lost. So Brexit has happened, against the Labour Party's wishes. Having lost, quite sensibly in order to win the next election, the Labour Party is seeking to make Brexit work much better than the Tories.
    Brexit cannot work.

    For much the same reason as The Oaf cannot win a 100 yard dash.

    The product design is not fit for purpose.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,850
    edited November 15
    ydoethur said:

    In the first 40 days of winter renewables produced more electricity than gas in the UK!

    Good news

    But renewables don't produce gas?

    *grabs tinfoil hat, then ducks head*
    PedanticBetting - yes it can. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_renewable.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580

    One of the clearest, frankest accounts of how Brexit has damaged the UK economy.

    https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1592152130433216512?s=46&t=Dxx36GTWKVGx7_1ZXvapvw

    And the Labour Party is pro-Brexit. Madness.

    The Labour Party isn't pro-Brexit, and never has been. It campaigned to remain, but lost. So Brexit has happened, against the Labour Party's wishes. Having lost, quite sensibly in order to win the next election, the Labour Party is seeking to make Brexit work much better than the Tories.
    Brexit Scottish independence cannot work.

    For much the same reason as The Oaf cannot win a 100 yard dash.

    The product design is not fit for purpose.
    .🤔
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580

    ydoethur said:

    In the first 40 days of winter renewables produced more electricity than gas in the UK!

    Good news

    But renewables don't produce gas?

    *grabs tinfoil hat, then ducks head*
    PedanticBetting - yes it can. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_renewable.html
    Pedantic Pedantic Betting: I said 'don't,' not 'can't.'
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219
    The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    https://twitter.com/brianforgie/status/1591802069874544642?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Congress has 100 senators + 435(?) state reps for a population of 332.4 million

    UK has 68.7M with 778 in HoL (wiki may be too low on that) + 650 in House of Commons

    Ludicrous


    https://twitter.com/areyouyesyet/status/1592153064588574720?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,743

    The Conservatives are stale and tired. It is time to let Labour have a go at ruining things in new and exciting ways.

    Labour will ruin things in bossy and woke soft socialist ways.

    So it will probably be hard to tell the difference with Sunak.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219
    Fishing said:

    The Conservatives are stale and tired. It is time to let Labour have a go at ruining things in new and exciting ways.

    Labour will ruin things in bossy and woke soft socialist ways.

    So it will probably be hard to tell the difference with Sunak.
    You’ll be voting Reform then?
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    In the first 40 days of winter renewables produced more electricity than gas in the UK!

    Good news

    But renewables don't produce gas?

    *grabs tinfoil hat, then ducks head*
    PedanticBetting - yes it can. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_renewable.html
    Pedantic Pedantic Betting: I said 'don't,' not 'can't.'
    PedanticBetting^3 - yes it does.

    https://www.britishgas.co.uk/energy/go-green/green-gas.html
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,248
    I think it is a mistake to think of the GE timing being in the hands of the PM. At this stage of the administration, the hope that something will show up to lift the polls will always trump "go now, it's the best it is going to get". So the Government will drag on until someone finally decides that they can't go to the polls in January, and they've run out of time.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,305

    One of the clearest, frankest accounts of how Brexit has damaged the UK economy.

    https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1592152130433216512?s=46&t=Dxx36GTWKVGx7_1ZXvapvw

    And the Labour Party is pro-Brexit. Madness.

    The Labour Party isn't pro-Brexit, and never has been. It campaigned to remain, but lost. So Brexit has happened, against the Labour Party's wishes. Having lost, quite sensibly in order to win the next election, the Labour Party is seeking to make Brexit work much better than the Tories.
    Brexit cannot work.

    For much the same reason as The Oaf cannot win a 100 yard dash.

    The product design is not fit for purpose.
    I agree that Brexit is a dud, a dismal and costly cul de sac for Britain, from which we will probably eventually reverse. However, there will be no possibility of reversing course until there is a clear and stable majority in favour of that. I would say a 2:1 margin at least. Apart from anything else, the EU won't want us to dick them about by joining and then changing our mind again.
    So for the time being, Labour should respect the vote and try to make the best of things. Public opinion will gradually move towards rejoining. Or perhaps a compromise semi detached relationship will emerge as a new stable equilibrium. Who knows, perhaps Brexit will turn out to be okay. I mean, I don't think it will, but the future is uncertain.
    Trying to make it work is a sensible course for now.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,842
    On topic, as a general rule older people find it harder to adapt to changing circumstances.

    That's not meant as offensive. Just a truism.
  • Maybe it will be a January election, but January 2023 after England win the world cup...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093
    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,821

    The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    I should know the answer to this. It's on the tip of my tongue.

    No, it's no good. But I think it was something to do with the Lords being appointed for life. Someone once told me that it used to be the case that their children could carry on when they died, but I'm not sure whether I believe that.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,842
    edited November 15


    If Starmer is a dud

    He isn't.

    You're rather hellbent on this Stuart, if I may say, despite the evidence to the contrary. Try to remove the blinkers occasionally please. x
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    edited November 15

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    In the first 40 days of winter renewables produced more electricity than gas in the UK!

    Good news

    But renewables don't produce gas?

    *grabs tinfoil hat, then ducks head*
    PedanticBetting - yes it can. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_renewable.html
    Pedantic Pedantic Betting: I said 'don't,' not 'can't.'
    PedanticBetting^3 - yes it does.

    https://www.britishgas.co.uk/energy/go-green/green-gas.html
    PB to the fourth - it depends what gas you mean. CO2, now - that's a different kettle of fish. Especially if one differentiates between construction (e.g. concrete foundations for a wind turbine) and operation (ditto thereof). (Though I don't know if those who go on about the C02 emitted in concrete production remember that concrete curing reabsorbs the original C02, whether stoichiometrically I dunno).
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624
    edited November 15
    ydoethur said:

    In the first 40 days of winter renewables produced more electricity than gas in the UK!

    Good news

    But renewables don't produce gas?

    *grabs tinfoil hat, then ducks head*
    Edit: Deleted -too late.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,842
    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. .

    Agreed.

    It's an almost certainty now. It was in 1997. It is now.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,219

    Maybe it will be a January election, but January 2023 after England win the world cup...

    England are 10/1 to win the World Cup and the Tories are 5/1 to win the GE.

    What’s your stake?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    In the first 40 days of winter renewables produced more electricity than gas in the UK!

    Good news

    But renewables don't produce gas?

    *grabs tinfoil hat, then ducks head*
    PedanticBetting - yes it can. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_renewable.html
    Pedantic Pedantic Betting: I said 'don't,' not 'can't.'
    PedanticBetting^3 - yes it does.

    https://www.britishgas.co.uk/energy/go-green/green-gas.html
    PB to the fourth - it depends what gas you mean. CO2, now - that's a different kettle of fish. Especially if one differentiates between construction (e.g. concrete foundations for a wind turbine) and operation (ditto thereof). (Though I don't know if those who go on about the C02 emitted in concrete production remember that concrete curing reabsorbs the original C02, whether stoichiometrically I dunno).
    Concrete does absorb CO2 during the life of the structure/ This rate is greatly accelerated when the structure is demolished and crushed, creating much more surface area for mass transfer.

    While in theory you could reabsorb all of the "process" CO2 released from limestone calcination, you still have the fuel CO2 emissions from the production of the cement/concrete.

    Also, reabsorbing the CO2 in 50 years time isn't much use when the climate will be fecked long before then.

    BTW - this 50 year argument also applies to those buggers chopping down forests and burning the wood and saying it is OK because they will grow back again. Too late. Biomass needs to be short duration to be carbon neutral in the timescales that matter.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    https://twitter.com/brianforgie/status/1591802069874544642?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Congress has 100 senators + 435(?) state reps for a population of 332.4 million

    UK has 68.7M with 778 in HoL (wiki may be too low on that) + 650 in House of Commons

    Ludicrous


    https://twitter.com/areyouyesyet/status/1592153064588574720?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    The also have 50 elected state legislatures and everyone down to the county dick fluffer elected, everywhere
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,695
    Heathener said:

    On topic, as a general rule older people find it harder to adapt to changing circumstances.

    That's not meant as offensive. Just a truism.

    Depends how you define 'older'
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    In the first 40 days of winter renewables produced more electricity than gas in the UK!

    Good news

    But renewables don't produce gas?

    *grabs tinfoil hat, then ducks head*
    PedanticBetting - yes it can. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_renewable.html
    Pedantic Pedantic Betting: I said 'don't,' not 'can't.'
    PedanticBetting^3 - yes it does.

    https://www.britishgas.co.uk/energy/go-green/green-gas.html
    PB to the fourth - it depends what gas you mean. CO2, now - that's a different kettle of fish. Especially if one differentiates between construction (e.g. concrete foundations for a wind turbine) and operation (ditto thereof). (Though I don't know if those who go on about the C02 emitted in concrete production remember that concrete curing reabsorbs the original C02, whether stoichiometrically I dunno).
    Concrete does absorb CO2 during the life of the structure/ This rate is greatly accelerated when the structure is demolished and crushed, creating much more surface area for mass transfer.

    While in theory you could reabsorb all of the "process" CO2 released from limestone calcination, you still have the fuel CO2 emissions from the production of the cement/concrete.

    Also, reabsorbing the CO2 in 50 years time isn't much use when the climate will be fecked long before then.

    BTW - this 50 year argument also applies to those buggers chopping down forests and burning the wood and saying it is OK because they will grow back again. Too late. Biomass needs to be short duration to be carbon neutral in the timescales that matter.
    Thanks - hadn't realised how slow the process was.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    Excl: Dominic Raab seeks new staff to run his private office as bullying claims mount https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-raab-bullying-job-ad-b2225415.html
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,930
    Stanley Johnson on GB News:

    "I travel round the world all the time"

    "Climate change means some people may be told not to travel on planes"
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,501
    FPT:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    A quick recap:

    Leon said:



    “[Lake] has emerged as a Republican phenom by amplifying Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen,” read the subhead of its even longer profile. Last week, Axios went several steps further and reported that top Democratic strategists now believe Lake has the “potential to soar to a vice presidential spot or a post-Trump presidential candidacy.”

    PB-ers will no doubt be grateful that I pointed out all of this: several weeks before the actual American media.


    I am sure PB-ers will show our gratitude for this priceless tip in the usual way…. ;)
    No wonder Leondamus is leaving PB, what.three.words, Liz Truss will be an awesome PM, and now Kari Lake.

    His departure will be a shame as PB loses its most important (anti-tipster) tool.

    Still aliens and Dall-E though.
    The whole nation awaits the next reincarnation with bated breath.
    This one lasted quite awhile.
    I'm puzzled. @Leon claims to have been one of the original posters on PB, yet he only joined in Dec 2020. Something doesn't add up...
    Perhaps he meant 'original' rather than 'derivative'... Although did find him somewhat derivative of a couple host of previous posters.

    Has the flounce happened yet? We're long overdue a Smarkets market on the next poster to leave PB, whether by ban or by flounce :wink:
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,729

    Yes looks like LAB are going to win! I say that without any enthusiasm. I suspect the majority will be relatively small. Not much real enthusiasm for Keir and team even recognising that the current government is useless 👿

    A small majority (or quite possibly, no majority) would almost certainly turn out to be a better Labour win for the country than a massive one.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Heathener said:

    On topic, as a general rule older people find it harder to adapt to changing circumstances.

    That's not meant as offensive. Just a truism.

    A general rule is not a truism
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412

    One of the clearest, frankest accounts of how Brexit has damaged the UK economy.

    https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1592152130433216512?s=46&t=Dxx36GTWKVGx7_1ZXvapvw

    And the Labour Party is pro-Brexit. Madness.

    The Labour Party isn't pro-Brexit, and never has been. It campaigned to remain, but lost. So Brexit has happened, against the Labour Party's wishes. Having lost, quite sensibly in order to win the next election, the Labour Party is seeking to make Brexit work much better than the Tories.
    Brexit cannot work.

    For much the same reason as The Oaf cannot win a 100 yard dash.

    The product design is not fit for purpose.
    I agree that Brexit is a dud, a dismal and costly cul de sac for Britain, from which we will probably eventually reverse. However, there will be no possibility of reversing course until there is a clear and stable majority in favour of that. I would say a 2:1 margin at least. Apart from anything else, the EU won't want us to dick them about by joining and then changing our mind again.
    So for the time being, Labour should respect the vote and try to make the best of things. Public opinion will gradually move towards rejoining. Or perhaps a compromise semi detached relationship will emerge as a new stable equilibrium. Who knows, perhaps Brexit will turn out to be okay. I mean, I don't think it will, but the future is uncertain.
    Trying to make it work is a sensible course for now.
    Moving to close regulatory alignment and sorting out mobility for workers, short of full freedom of movement, will do it. I honestly think some people think there is no trade with the EU at the moment. What we have is trade with increased friction - the paperwork etc - that is making it harder. Work as hard as possible to reduce that and make the case for more people coming to the UK to work and Brexit will look better.

    I asked last night how failure is defined and how success might be. No answer. To remainers its seems its a failure because of the economy, while to brexiteers its a success because sovreignty. Both can be right at the same time.

    I think a Labour government would have the mandate and space to move the position closer to where most people want to be - people like @RochdalePioneers who voted for Brexit assuming we would end up in the EEA or some such. I also suspect that Sunak is a sight more pragmatic than Johnson or Truss and will try to move in the same direction. The mood music around NI suggests that is the case.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412

    Maybe it will be a January election, but January 2023 after England win the world cup...

    England are 10/1 to win the World Cup and the Tories are 5/1 to win the GE.

    What’s your stake?
    Lay both
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,930
    IanB2 said:

    Yes looks like LAB are going to win! I say that without any enthusiasm. I suspect the majority will be relatively small. Not much real enthusiasm for Keir and team even recognising that the current government is useless 👿

    A small majority (or quite possibly, no majority) would almost certainly turn out to be a better Labour win for the country than a massive one.
    I think it'll be a Lab/LD coalition with SNP support.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,501
    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    I've got Con most seats and Con majority, similarly from a long time ago :disappointed:

    Have you traded out to minimise loss? Or hoping for something to turn up to either make it a less bad bet or a more tradeable one?

    I've offloaded some; I planned to trade the rest out in a Truss bounce, but that never materialised, quite the reverse, in fact. The Sunak honeymoon hasn't really done the job either.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    edited November 15

    The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    https://twitter.com/brianforgie/status/1591802069874544642?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Congress has 100 senators + 435(?) state reps for a population of 332.4 million

    UK has 68.7M with 778 in HoL (wiki may be too low on that) + 650 in House of Commons

    Ludicrous


    https://twitter.com/areyouyesyet/status/1592153064588574720?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    The 435 house reps is far too low and the reason it is so slow is to skew power towrads rural districts.

    After every census they used to increase the number of members of the House of Representatives - until the early 1900s and the first census to show more Americans living in Urban than Rural areas. At that point the brakes were slammed on increasing the chamber.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412

    Maybe it will be a January election, but January 2023 after England win the world cup...

    England are 10/1 to win the World Cup and the Tories are 5/1 to win the GE.

    What’s your stake?
    TBH I wouldn't be amazed if England failed to get out of the group. Playing Iran first up is not good, and playing Wales and the USA is really tough. Easy to see a dull 0-0 for the first, a narrow loss in the second and then drawing the third and back home to blighty.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,693
    Entertaining fracas over what stripes are permitted at the Scottish Parliament at the mo.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,322

    Maybe it will be a January election, but January 2023 after England win the world cup...

    England are 10/1 to win the World Cup and the Tories are 5/1 to win the GE.

    What’s your stake?
    TBH I wouldn't be amazed if England failed to get out of the group. Playing Iran first up is not good, and playing Wales and the USA is really tough. Easy to see a dull 0-0 for the first, a narrow loss in the second and then drawing the third and back home to blighty.
    We’ve never beaten the USA at a World Cup.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    Its very likely, but not nailed on. The current Labour polling position is artificially high, LD etc artificially low due to 'grrrrrrrr' respondees mid term with a useless government. If the Tories msintain contact with 30, a cling to nurse, not ready for Starmer, can't stand Labour effect in a campaign might be enough to get to 33/34 which might stop a majority without Scotland turning.
    The Tories need a small to moderate improvement and to maintain that position to have a chance of stopping SKS.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,920
    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    Losing bet I'm afraid.

    Starmer may be PM, but not at the head of a Labour majority.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624
    I've found a way to persuade Leon to join the environmental movement:

    Sophia Kianni


  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,471
    FPT (nobody announced the new thread!):

    Meanwhile, I note that today's data shows that private sector pay rises are running at 6.6%, with public sector rises at 2.2%. Both of course are below inflation, but there's no doubt that public sector workers are bearing the brunt of the current cost of living crisis.

    Of course there are lots of well-paid public sector workers who can withstand this. But millions of public sector workers are on low wages. It's hardly surprising that they're getting a bit bolshie, when their supermarket shop and other basic bills are rising by 10% or more.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,125

    One of the clearest, frankest accounts of how Brexit has damaged the UK economy.

    https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1592152130433216512?s=46&t=Dxx36GTWKVGx7_1ZXvapvw

    And the Labour Party is pro-Brexit. Madness.

    The Labour Party isn't pro-Brexit, and never has been. It campaigned to remain, but lost. So Brexit has happened, against the Labour Party's wishes. Having lost, quite sensibly in order to win the next election, the Labour Party is seeking to make Brexit work much better than the Tories.
    Brexit cannot work.

    For much the same reason as The Oaf cannot win a 100 yard dash.

    The product design is not fit for purpose.
    I agree that Brexit is a dud, a dismal and costly cul de sac for Britain, from which we will probably eventually reverse. However, there will be no possibility of reversing course until there is a clear and stable majority in favour of that. I would say a 2:1 margin at least. Apart from anything else, the EU won't want us to dick them about by joining and then changing our mind again.
    So for the time being, Labour should respect the vote and try to make the best of things. Public opinion will gradually move towards rejoining. Or perhaps a compromise semi detached relationship will emerge as a new stable equilibrium. Who knows, perhaps Brexit will turn out to be okay. I mean, I don't think it will, but the future is uncertain.
    Trying to make it work is a sensible course for now.
    It’s more likely that the next administration will recognise reality & move towards a closer alignment with the EU. Maybe not full EEA because that requires freedom of movement, but probably joining the customs union in order to get free trade with the EU.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Andy_JS said:

    Stanley Johnson on GB News:

    "I travel round the world all the time"

    "Climate change means some people may be told not to travel on planes"

    No plane travel for anyone earning over £100,000 a year. Simple. Wealthy twats stay home and save lives.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546
    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    I am more cautious. I think the probabilities currently are about:

    Lab maj (325/6 seats) 30%
    NOM 55%
    Tory maj (325/6 seats) 15%

    Obviously it look s now as if the Tory maj chance is nil, but as in the last two years things can change fast and black swans are getting a bit common. Such value as there is is with NOM because there is a awful lot of middle ground within which NOM is still the outcome. Both a Tory and Labour majority require something rather extreme to happen.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    For a summit happening against arguably the most fraught global backdrop in decades, the Group of 20 meeting on the Indonesian resort island of Bali is — so far — going as well as could be expected.

    The presidents of the US and China emerged from a lengthy meeting late yesterday with a clutch of goodwill gestures that lower the temperature between the world’s two biggest economies. Plus, summit negotiators have wrangled a draft communique that seeks to bridge differences over how heavily to condemn Russia for its war in Ukraine.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-11-15/g-20-leaders-avoid-a-train-wreck-for-now-balance-of-power
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093
    Selebian said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    I've got Con most seats and Con majority, similarly from a long time ago :disappointed:

    Have you traded out to minimise loss? Or hoping for something to turn up to either make it a less bad bet or a more tradeable one?

    I've offloaded some; I planned to trade the rest out in a Truss bounce, but that never materialised, quite the reverse, in fact. The Sunak honeymoon hasn't really done the job either.
    Well even shrewdies like me and you screw up sometimes.

    My approach here is to ringfence and say "bye bye" to the money. It has already lost as far as I'm concerned. If I still believed in its ultimate fruition I'd be laying more at short prices to get my average down. Like with my Big Short on Trump. But I don't believe in it. It's a new era and this bet belongs in the old one.

    Course this - again unlike with Trump - is a punt against what I otherwise want to happen so it's big :smile: on that front. God I'm sick of the Tories.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    edited November 15
    Eabhal said:

    Entertaining fracas over what stripes are permitted at the Scottish Parliament at the mo.

    The Vicar of Bath not impressed:

    Are our representatives REALLY this terrified of the people? Do they fear that someone might watch, think "Hey, someone's wearing Suffragette colours, now I'm changing my mind about this policy"?

    It's just so *pathetic* I'm ashamed to be Scottish.


    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1592482815194517505


  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093
    IanB2 said:

    Yes looks like LAB are going to win! I say that without any enthusiasm. I suspect the majority will be relatively small. Not much real enthusiasm for Keir and team even recognising that the current government is useless 👿

    A small majority (or quite possibly, no majority) would almost certainly turn out to be a better Labour win for the country than a massive one.
    Would you not be worried by the left being too influential if that happens? Eg a Lab equivalent of the ERG led by Richard Burgon?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981

    The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    https://twitter.com/brianforgie/status/1591802069874544642?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Congress has 100 senators + 435(?) state reps for a population of 332.4 million

    UK has 68.7M with 778 in HoL (wiki may be too low on that) + 650 in House of Commons

    Ludicrous


    https://twitter.com/areyouyesyet/status/1592153064588574720?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    The number of US Senators is constitutionally constrained, and there is widespread debate around the under representation of large states.
    As far as the House is concerned, it's stupid that they haven't increased the numbers if congresspersons since before WWII, despite the massive increase in population.
    That too is a matter of political debate.

    The HoL is crap, but not because of any comparison with the US.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,305

    One of the clearest, frankest accounts of how Brexit has damaged the UK economy.

    https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1592152130433216512?s=46&t=Dxx36GTWKVGx7_1ZXvapvw

    And the Labour Party is pro-Brexit. Madness.

    The Labour Party isn't pro-Brexit, and never has been. It campaigned to remain, but lost. So Brexit has happened, against the Labour Party's wishes. Having lost, quite sensibly in order to win the next election, the Labour Party is seeking to make Brexit work much better than the Tories.
    Brexit cannot work.

    For much the same reason as The Oaf cannot win a 100 yard dash.

    The product design is not fit for purpose.
    I agree that Brexit is a dud, a dismal and costly cul de sac for Britain, from which we will probably eventually reverse. However, there will be no possibility of reversing course until there is a clear and stable majority in favour of that. I would say a 2:1 margin at least. Apart from anything else, the EU won't want us to dick them about by joining and then changing our mind again.
    So for the time being, Labour should respect the vote and try to make the best of things. Public opinion will gradually move towards rejoining. Or perhaps a compromise semi detached relationship will emerge as a new stable equilibrium. Who knows, perhaps Brexit will turn out to be okay. I mean, I don't think it will, but the future is uncertain.
    Trying to make it work is a sensible course for now.
    Moving to close regulatory alignment and sorting out mobility for workers, short of full freedom of movement, will do it. I honestly think some people think there is no trade with the EU at the moment. What we have is trade with increased friction - the paperwork etc - that is making it harder. Work as hard as possible to reduce that and make the case for more people coming to the UK to work and Brexit will look better.

    I asked last night how failure is defined and how success might be. No answer. To remainers its seems its a failure because of the economy, while to brexiteers its a success because sovreignty. Both can be right at the same time.

    I think a Labour government would have the mandate and space to move the position closer to where most people want to be - people like @RochdalePioneers who voted for Brexit assuming we would end up in the EEA or some such. I also suspect that Sunak is a sight more pragmatic than Johnson or Truss and will try to move in the same direction. The mood music around NI suggests that is the case.
    I think the kind of outcome you describe would be a good place for us for now, as long as that freedom of movement was reciprocated. The problem with it as a long term proposition is on sovereignty: regulatory alignment leaves us as a rule taker not a rule maker. I'm not sure that is a comfortable position for a country like us, especially as we were actually disproportionately influential in the nitty gritty of rule setting in Brussels.
    Sorry I didn't answer your question last night, I went to bed! I would define Brexit as a failure if it leaves us poorer and less able to exert influence in the world. In my opinion both of those conditions are already met, although of course it is early days still.
    I think the kind of bold Brexit that could succeed on its own terms, eg complete deregulation or perhaps becoming part of the United States, is politically unfeasible. The failure to define what Brexit would actually look like, but then voting for it anyway, is an extraordinary failure of politics and statecraft and explains why Brexit is turning out to be such a dud, IMHO.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    And….it’s in the newspapers….

    Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking that the Scottish Parliament thinks it’s acceptable to police a woman’s clothing in this manner with the order to remove a scarf in the colours of the suffragettes.

    “To do so during the discussion of a Bill that would limit the rights of women and girls makes it even worse.

    “You can buy items bearing suffragette colours in the Scottish Parliament gift shop but for some baffling reason, you can’t wear these colours while listening to a committee.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23125768.woman-suffragette-colours-asked-leave-holyrood-committee-room/
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    Losing bet I'm afraid.

    Starmer may be PM, but not at the head of a Labour majority.
    I disagree but - technical correction - if you're right and Lab fail to get a majority that'd be a WINNING bet for me.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    I posted this news yesterday, as it had been reported by supposedly reputable news organisations.
    Apparently it wasn't true.

    The widely shared claim that the Iranian regime has committed to executing 15,000 detained protesters is not true. Please stop sharing it. The Iranian regime is horrific, brutal and ruthless as it actually is. There's no need to make up stories.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1592476918305427458
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,501
    edited November 15
    kinabalu said:

    Selebian said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    I've got Con most seats and Con majority, similarly from a long time ago :disappointed:

    Have you traded out to minimise loss? Or hoping for something to turn up to either make it a less bad bet or a more tradeable one?

    I've offloaded some; I planned to trade the rest out in a Truss bounce, but that never materialised, quite the reverse, in fact. The Sunak honeymoon hasn't really done the job either.
    Well even shrewdies like me and you screw up sometimes.

    My approach here is to ringfence and say "bye bye" to the money. It has already lost as far as I'm concerned. If I still believed in its ultimate fruition I'd be laying more at short prices to get my average down. Like with my Big Short on Trump. But I don't believe in it. It's a new era and this bet belongs in the old one.

    Course this - again unlike with Trump - is a punt against what I otherwise want to happen so it's big :smile: on that front. God I'm sick of the Tories.
    Yep, bye-bye time, I think. Well, nevermind. As you say, no regrets losing this one, really. Better to see it as a "current Tory party back in power insurance policy" that doesn't pay out :smile:

    ETA: As for being shrewd, turns out I've also laid Trump running for president. Not getting the nomination or winning in 24 (both solid bets) but simply filing. What a numpty :blush: (Fortunately not for very much and I'll still be ahead unless he actually wins in 24)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,657
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    Its very likely, but not nailed on. The current Labour polling position is artificially high, LD etc artificially low due to 'grrrrrrrr' respondees mid term with a useless government. If the Tories msintain contact with 30, a cling to nurse, not ready for Starmer, can't stand Labour effect in a campaign might be enough to get to 33/34 which might stop a majority without Scotland turning.
    The Tories need a small to moderate improvement and to maintain that position to have a chance of stopping SKS.
    Ok, yes, by "nailed on" I meant a 75% chance, something like that. You have to price in some 'time & events' risk.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,501
    edited November 15
    Nigelb said:

    I posted this news yesterday, as it had been reported by supposedly reputable news organisations.
    Apparently it wasn't true.

    The widely shared claim that the Iranian regime has committed to executing 15,000 detained protesters is not true. Please stop sharing it. The Iranian regime is horrific, brutal and ruthless as it actually is. There's no need to make up stories.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1592476918305427458

    I did wonder (and meant to ask) about the significance of a vote (assuming that bit was true). Parliament might vote for it, but does that actually mean anything without executive support?

    ETA: Respect for coming back to correct (and highlight) an inaccurate post
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412

    Eabhal said:

    Entertaining fracas over what stripes are permitted at the Scottish Parliament at the mo.

    The Vicar of Bath not impressed:

    Are our representatives REALLY this terrified of the people? Do they fear that someone might watch, think "Hey, someone's wearing Suffragette colours, now I'm changing my mind about this policy"?

    It's just so *pathetic* I'm ashamed to be Scottish.


    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1592482815194517505


    He's got a point.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    edited November 15

    And….it’s in the newspapers….

    Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking that the Scottish Parliament thinks it’s acceptable to police a woman’s clothing in this manner with the order to remove a scarf in the colours of the suffragettes.

    “To do so during the discussion of a Bill that would limit the rights of women and girls makes it even worse.

    “You can buy items bearing suffragette colours in the Scottish Parliament gift shop but for some baffling reason, you can’t wear these colours while listening to a committee.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23125768.woman-suffragette-colours-asked-leave-holyrood-committee-room/

    That's part of a wider rule that *visitors* can't wear politically related clothing, slogans, etc., to help discourage demonstrations, etc., in the chamber. So there is some point - and there is the same rule at Westminster.

    https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/security/


  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    I am more cautious. I think the probabilities currently are about:

    Lab maj (325/6 seats) 30%
    NOM 55%
    Tory maj (325/6 seats) 15%

    Obviously it look s now as if the Tory maj chance is nil, but as in the last two years things can change fast and black swans are getting a bit common. Such value as there is is with NOM because there is a awful lot of middle ground within which NOM is still the outcome. Both a Tory and Labour majority require something rather extreme to happen.
    We're quite a way apart atm then, you and I.

    Lab maj: 70%
    NOM: 25%
    Tory maj: 5%

    But I could be persuaded to something like 60/30/10. By persuaded I mean to not strongly disagree with.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    https://twitter.com/brianforgie/status/1591802069874544642?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Congress has 100 senators + 435(?) state reps for a population of 332.4 million

    UK has 68.7M with 778 in HoL (wiki may be too low on that) + 650 in House of Commons

    Ludicrous


    https://twitter.com/areyouyesyet/status/1592153064588574720?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Hmm. I think we could reduce both, but I also don't think certain numbers are intrinsically better. It would depend on the nature of the system. Is 100 enough for the US?

    I think maximum 500 each would be enough personally.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,501
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    Losing bet I'm afraid.

    Starmer may be PM, but not at the head of a Labour majority.
    I disagree but - technical correction - if you're right and Lab fail to get a majority that'd be a WINNING bet for me.
    Which is a reason your lay is better than my Con backing. Plus you could get a pay out and a Labour (led) government.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,705
    edited November 15

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    Losing bet I'm afraid.

    Starmer may be PM, but not at the head of a Labour majority.
    Eh ??
  • BournvilleBournville Posts: 237
    Carnyx said:

    And….it’s in the newspapers….

    Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking that the Scottish Parliament thinks it’s acceptable to police a woman’s clothing in this manner with the order to remove a scarf in the colours of the suffragettes.

    “To do so during the discussion of a Bill that would limit the rights of women and girls makes it even worse.

    “You can buy items bearing suffragette colours in the Scottish Parliament gift shop but for some baffling reason, you can’t wear these colours while listening to a committee.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23125768.woman-suffragette-colours-asked-leave-holyrood-committee-room/

    That's part of a wider rule that *visitors* can't wear politically related clothing, slogans, etc., to help discourage demonstrations, etc., in the chamber. So there is some point - and there is the same rule at Westminster.

    https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/security/


    Why is it political to wear a suffragette scarf, but not political to wear a rainbow lanyard?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412

    One of the clearest, frankest accounts of how Brexit has damaged the UK economy.

    https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1592152130433216512?s=46&t=Dxx36GTWKVGx7_1ZXvapvw

    And the Labour Party is pro-Brexit. Madness.

    The Labour Party isn't pro-Brexit, and never has been. It campaigned to remain, but lost. So Brexit has happened, against the Labour Party's wishes. Having lost, quite sensibly in order to win the next election, the Labour Party is seeking to make Brexit work much better than the Tories.
    Brexit cannot work.

    For much the same reason as The Oaf cannot win a 100 yard dash.

    The product design is not fit for purpose.
    I agree that Brexit is a dud, a dismal and costly cul de sac for Britain, from which we will probably eventually reverse. However, there will be no possibility of reversing course until there is a clear and stable majority in favour of that. I would say a 2:1 margin at least. Apart from anything else, the EU won't want us to dick them about by joining and then changing our mind again.
    So for the time being, Labour should respect the vote and try to make the best of things. Public opinion will gradually move towards rejoining. Or perhaps a compromise semi detached relationship will emerge as a new stable equilibrium. Who knows, perhaps Brexit will turn out to be okay. I mean, I don't think it will, but the future is uncertain.
    Trying to make it work is a sensible course for now.
    Moving to close regulatory alignment and sorting out mobility for workers, short of full freedom of movement, will do it. I honestly think some people think there is no trade with the EU at the moment. What we have is trade with increased friction - the paperwork etc - that is making it harder. Work as hard as possible to reduce that and make the case for more people coming to the UK to work and Brexit will look better.

    I asked last night how failure is defined and how success might be. No answer. To remainers its seems its a failure because of the economy, while to brexiteers its a success because sovreignty. Both can be right at the same time.

    I think a Labour government would have the mandate and space to move the position closer to where most people want to be - people like @RochdalePioneers who voted for Brexit assuming we would end up in the EEA or some such. I also suspect that Sunak is a sight more pragmatic than Johnson or Truss and will try to move in the same direction. The mood music around NI suggests that is the case.
    I think the kind of outcome you describe would be a good place for us for now, as long as that freedom of movement was reciprocated. The problem with it as a long term proposition is on sovereignty: regulatory alignment leaves us as a rule taker not a rule maker. I'm not sure that is a comfortable position for a country like us, especially as we were actually disproportionately influential in the nitty gritty of rule setting in Brussels.
    Sorry I didn't answer your question last night, I went to bed! I would define Brexit as a failure if it leaves us poorer and less able to exert influence in the world. In my opinion both of those conditions are already met, although of course it is early days still.
    I think the kind of bold Brexit that could succeed on its own terms, eg complete deregulation or perhaps becoming part of the United States, is politically unfeasible. The failure to define what Brexit would actually look like, but then voting for it anyway, is an extraordinary failure of politics and statecraft and explains why Brexit is turning out to be such a dud, IMHO.
    Went to bed? Fair enough! The moral of the story of Brexit, that it means different things to different people is something that those espousing (and indeed opposing) Scottish Independence would be well to heed. The last vote in 2014 was the classic Yes/No. We would have had an almighty row after the vote, pace Brexit, about currency, debt, the army, etc.

    On Brexit I think it is too early to say, and will be for a considerable while. Did we exert more influence around the world as part of the EU than we do outside? I'm not convinced.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412
    Selebian said:

    Nigelb said:

    I posted this news yesterday, as it had been reported by supposedly reputable news organisations.
    Apparently it wasn't true.

    The widely shared claim that the Iranian regime has committed to executing 15,000 detained protesters is not true. Please stop sharing it. The Iranian regime is horrific, brutal and ruthless as it actually is. There's no need to make up stories.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1592476918305427458

    I did wonder (and meant to ask) about the significance of a vote (assuming that bit was true). Parliament might vote for it, but does that actually mean anything without executive support?

    ETA: Respect for coming back to correct (and highlight) an inaccurate post
    You might ask what kind of parliament would vote for it though, even if it won't come to pass.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Carnyx said:

    And….it’s in the newspapers….

    Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking that the Scottish Parliament thinks it’s acceptable to police a woman’s clothing in this manner with the order to remove a scarf in the colours of the suffragettes.

    “To do so during the discussion of a Bill that would limit the rights of women and girls makes it even worse.

    “You can buy items bearing suffragette colours in the Scottish Parliament gift shop but for some baffling reason, you can’t wear these colours while listening to a committee.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23125768.woman-suffragette-colours-asked-leave-holyrood-committee-room/

    That's part of a wider rule that *visitors* can't wear politically related clothing, slogans, etc., to help discourage demonstrations, etc., in the chamber. So there is some point - and there is the same rule at Westminster.

    https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/security/


    Why is it political to wear a suffragette scarf, but not political to wear a rainbow lanyard?
    Because the rainbow lanyard in question is being worn by staff and will have been through an approval process quite separate from visitors' clothing. Simple as that.

    I'm actually surprised this hasn't come up before - but bear in mind that banning some but not all slogans/etc would count as discrimination.

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,334
    Scott_xP said:

    Ex Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith warns: "[Sunak] said in summer, categorically, he considered China to be a systemic threat. What we’re seeing here is the beginnings of a step away from his original position. I hope he’s not about to do a U-turn, it would be completely wrong."
    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1592471784456085505

    Osborne digging in his claws

    Only interested in money not in geopolitics
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    Its very likely, but not nailed on. The current Labour polling position is artificially high, LD etc artificially low due to 'grrrrrrrr' respondees mid term with a useless government. If the Tories msintain contact with 30, a cling to nurse, not ready for Starmer, can't stand Labour effect in a campaign might be enough to get to 33/34 which might stop a majority without Scotland turning.
    The Tories need a small to moderate improvement and to maintain that position to have a chance of stopping SKS.
    Ok, yes, by "nailed on" I meant a 75% chance, something like that. You have to price in some 'time & events' risk.
    Language means different things to different people. I find the use of most confusing - technically 'most' means over 50%, but in my head its more like 80% or more.

    Nailed on for me is almost a certainty, so 99% or more chance.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,693
    Carnyx said:

    And….it’s in the newspapers….

    Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking that the Scottish Parliament thinks it’s acceptable to police a woman’s clothing in this manner with the order to remove a scarf in the colours of the suffragettes.

    “To do so during the discussion of a Bill that would limit the rights of women and girls makes it even worse.

    “You can buy items bearing suffragette colours in the Scottish Parliament gift shop but for some baffling reason, you can’t wear these colours while listening to a committee.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23125768.woman-suffragette-colours-asked-leave-holyrood-committee-room/

    That's part of a wider rule that *visitors* can't wear politically related clothing, slogans, etc., to help discourage demonstrations, etc., in the chamber. So there is some point - and there is the same rule at Westminster.

    https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/security/


    Someone just got asked to take off a solid purple scarf, which the colour of the Scottish Parliament itself (iirc)

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412
    Carnyx said:

    And….it’s in the newspapers….

    Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking that the Scottish Parliament thinks it’s acceptable to police a woman’s clothing in this manner with the order to remove a scarf in the colours of the suffragettes.

    “To do so during the discussion of a Bill that would limit the rights of women and girls makes it even worse.

    “You can buy items bearing suffragette colours in the Scottish Parliament gift shop but for some baffling reason, you can’t wear these colours while listening to a committee.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23125768.woman-suffragette-colours-asked-leave-holyrood-committee-room/

    That's part of a wider rule that *visitors* can't wear politically related clothing, slogans, etc., to help discourage demonstrations, etc., in the chamber. So there is some point - and there is the same rule at Westminster.

    https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/security/


    What about poppies?
  • kle4 said:

    The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    https://twitter.com/brianforgie/status/1591802069874544642?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Congress has 100 senators + 435(?) state reps for a population of 332.4 million

    UK has 68.7M with 778 in HoL (wiki may be too low on that) + 650 in House of Commons

    Ludicrous


    https://twitter.com/areyouyesyet/status/1592153064588574720?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Hmm. I think we could reduce both, but I also don't think certain numbers are intrinsically better. It would depend on the nature of the system. Is 100 enough for the US?

    I think maximum 500 each would be enough personally.
    USA has a far far greater devolved state.

    Make the UK a federal state where decisions are taken very locally and reducing the central government makes great sense.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,334

    The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    https://twitter.com/brianforgie/status/1591802069874544642?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Congress has 100 senators + 435(?) state reps for a population of 332.4 million

    UK has 68.7M with 778 in HoL (wiki may be too low on that) + 650 in House of Commons

    Ludicrous


    https://twitter.com/areyouyesyet/status/1592153064588574720?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Did they add in the state level representatives?

    I thought not!

    Ludicrous
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093
    Selebian said:

    kinabalu said:

    Selebian said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    I've got Con most seats and Con majority, similarly from a long time ago :disappointed:

    Have you traded out to minimise loss? Or hoping for something to turn up to either make it a less bad bet or a more tradeable one?

    I've offloaded some; I planned to trade the rest out in a Truss bounce, but that never materialised, quite the reverse, in fact. The Sunak honeymoon hasn't really done the job either.
    Well even shrewdies like me and you screw up sometimes.

    My approach here is to ringfence and say "bye bye" to the money. It has already lost as far as I'm concerned. If I still believed in its ultimate fruition I'd be laying more at short prices to get my average down. Like with my Big Short on Trump. But I don't believe in it. It's a new era and this bet belongs in the old one.

    Course this - again unlike with Trump - is a punt against what I otherwise want to happen so it's big :smile: on that front. God I'm sick of the Tories.
    Yep, bye-bye time, I think. Well, nevermind. As you say, no regrets losing this one, really. Better to see it as a "current Tory party back in power insurance policy" that doesn't pay out :smile:

    ETA: As for being shrewd, turns out I've also laid Trump running for president. Not getting the nomination or winning in 24 (both solid bets) but simply filing. What a numpty :blush: (Fortunately not for very much and I'll still be ahead unless he actually wins in 24)
    Ah a chance for me to smug up and I will damn well take it! - I've done well on "yes" for Trump to run. In at 1.45 and out at 1.11.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412
    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    Losing bet I'm afraid.

    Starmer may be PM, but not at the head of a Labour majority.
    Eh ??
    Minority government, confidence and supply, coalition. All would be PM without a labour majority.
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 202

    Roger said:

    London
    Lab 63%
    Con 20%
    LD 8%
    Ref 4%
    UKIP 4%
    Grn 1%

    Rest of South
    Lab 47%
    Con 32%
    LD 9%
    Grn 8%
    Ref 3%
    UKIP 2%

    Midlands
    Lab 61%
    Con 25%
    Ref 5%
    UKIP 4%
    Grn 2%
    LD 2%

    North
    Lab 56%
    Con 26%
    Grn 7%
    LD 5%
    Ref 3%
    UKIP 2%

    Scotland
    SNP 53%
    Con 18%
    Lab 17%
    Grn 11%
    Ref 1%

    Wales
    Lab 42%
    Con 31%
    PC 20%
    LD 6%

    (Deltapoll; Sample Size: 1,060; Fieldwork 10-14 November)

    Phew! I thought the Tories were in trouble for a minute
    That’s a good Wales poll for them.
    When Wales is nearly their best performance you know the Tories are waaaaay up excrement canyon.

    The truly impressive findings there are:

    Scottish Labour back to 3rd
    Scottish Lib Dems on zilch
    Labour absolutely smashing the Tories in the Midlands.

    Roger said:

    London
    Lab 63%
    Con 20%
    LD 8%
    Ref 4%
    UKIP 4%
    Grn 1%

    Rest of South
    Lab 47%
    Con 32%
    LD 9%
    Grn 8%
    Ref 3%
    UKIP 2%

    Midlands
    Lab 61%
    Con 25%
    Ref 5%
    UKIP 4%
    Grn 2%
    LD 2%

    North
    Lab 56%
    Con 26%
    Grn 7%
    LD 5%
    Ref 3%
    UKIP 2%

    Scotland
    SNP 53%
    Con 18%
    Lab 17%
    Grn 11%
    Ref 1%

    Wales
    Lab 42%
    Con 31%
    PC 20%
    LD 6%

    (Deltapoll; Sample Size: 1,060; Fieldwork 10-14 November)

    Phew! I thought the Tories were in trouble for a minute
    That’s a good Wales poll for them.
    When Wales is nearly their best performance you know the Tories are waaaaay up excrement canyon.

    The truly impressive findings there are:

    Scottish Labour back to 3rd
    Scottish Lib Dems on zilch
    Labour absolutely smashing the Tories in the Midlands.
    Do you believe those crossbreaks for Scotland and Wales?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    https://twitter.com/brianforgie/status/1591802069874544642?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Congress has 100 senators + 435(?) state reps for a population of 332.4 million

    UK has 68.7M with 778 in HoL (wiki may be too low on that) + 650 in House of Commons

    Ludicrous


    https://twitter.com/areyouyesyet/status/1592153064588574720?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    The also have 50 elected state legislatures and everyone down to the county dick fluffer elected, everywhere
    Nebraska has a single state legislature with 49 members (officially though not really non partisan) for about 2 million people.

    New Hampshire has a small state Senate of 24 and a state house of representatives of 400, for about 1.4 million.

    I love it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Carnyx said:

    And….it’s in the newspapers….

    Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking that the Scottish Parliament thinks it’s acceptable to police a woman’s clothing in this manner with the order to remove a scarf in the colours of the suffragettes.

    “To do so during the discussion of a Bill that would limit the rights of women and girls makes it even worse.

    “You can buy items bearing suffragette colours in the Scottish Parliament gift shop but for some baffling reason, you can’t wear these colours while listening to a committee.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23125768.woman-suffragette-colours-asked-leave-holyrood-committee-room/

    That's part of a wider rule that *visitors* can't wear politically related clothing, slogans, etc., to help discourage demonstrations, etc., in the chamber. So there is some point - and there is the same rule at Westminster.

    https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/security/


    What about poppies?
    I did wonder about white and purple poppies. But poppies aren't formally political, or at least not officially deemed to be.

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,334
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    In the first 40 days of winter renewables produced more electricity than gas in the UK!

    Good news

    But renewables don't produce gas?

    *grabs tinfoil hat, then ducks head*
    PedanticBetting - yes it can. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_renewable.html
    Pedantic Pedantic Betting: I said 'don't,' not 'can't.'
    PedanticBetting^3 - yes it does.

    https://www.britishgas.co.uk/energy/go-green/green-gas.html
    PB to the fourth - it depends what gas you mean. CO2, now - that's a different kettle of fish. Especially if one differentiates between construction (e.g. concrete foundations for a wind turbine) and operation (ditto thereof). (Though I don't know if those who go on about the C02 emitted in concrete production remember that concrete curing reabsorbs the original C02, whether stoichiometrically I dunno).
    PB^5

    Surely not the original CO2, merely a similar quantity?

  • The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    https://twitter.com/brianforgie/status/1591802069874544642?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Congress has 100 senators + 435(?) state reps for a population of 332.4 million

    UK has 68.7M with 778 in HoL (wiki may be too low on that) + 650 in House of Commons

    Ludicrous


    https://twitter.com/areyouyesyet/status/1592153064588574720?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    The UK has the only bicameral parliament whose Upper House has more members than its Lower House.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    And….it’s in the newspapers….

    Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking that the Scottish Parliament thinks it’s acceptable to police a woman’s clothing in this manner with the order to remove a scarf in the colours of the suffragettes.

    “To do so during the discussion of a Bill that would limit the rights of women and girls makes it even worse.

    “You can buy items bearing suffragette colours in the Scottish Parliament gift shop but for some baffling reason, you can’t wear these colours while listening to a committee.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23125768.woman-suffragette-colours-asked-leave-holyrood-committee-room/

    That's part of a wider rule that *visitors* can't wear politically related clothing, slogans, etc., to help discourage demonstrations, etc., in the chamber. So there is some point - and there is the same rule at Westminster.

    https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/security/


    What about poppies?
    I did wonder about white and purple poppies. But poppies aren't formally political, or at least not officially deemed to be.

    I think Fifa think they are. I guess organisations are free to make their own minds up.
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 202
    Andy_JS said:

    IanB2 said:

    Yes looks like LAB are going to win! I say that without any enthusiasm. I suspect the majority will be relatively small. Not much real enthusiasm for Keir and team even recognising that the current government is useless 👿

    A small majority (or quite possibly, no majority) would almost certainly turn out to be a better Labour win for the country than a massive one.
    I think it'll be a Lab/LD coalition with SNP support.
    There will be no coalition. A minority Government may happen.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,705

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think Lab Maj is nailed on. I have it laid at an average of over 5 (from the days before Johnson blew up) and it's the absolute dog of my portfolio. It's amazing what's happened - the switch - but it has happened and my sense is it's baked in now. I see the Lab lead staying in double digits all the way through to the election.

    Losing bet I'm afraid.

    Starmer may be PM, but not at the head of a Labour majority.
    Eh ??
    Minority government, confidence and supply, coalition. All would be PM without a labour majority.
    @Kinabalu's bet wins in that case.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    edited November 15
    .
    Selebian said:

    Nigelb said:

    I posted this news yesterday, as it had been reported by supposedly reputable news organisations.
    Apparently it wasn't true.

    The widely shared claim that the Iranian regime has committed to executing 15,000 detained protesters is not true. Please stop sharing it. The Iranian regime is horrific, brutal and ruthless as it actually is. There's no need to make up stories.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1592476918305427458

    I did wonder (and meant to ask) about the significance of a vote (assuming that bit was true). Parliament might vote for it, but does that actually mean anything without executive support?

    ETA: Respect for coming back to correct (and highlight) an inaccurate post
    Cheers.

    Has it been true, then it would likely have been across most front pages this morning, so I though I should have a look for some commentary.

    Of course some executions are happening, notwithstanding.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,850
    edited November 15
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    And….it’s in the newspapers….

    Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking that the Scottish Parliament thinks it’s acceptable to police a woman’s clothing in this manner with the order to remove a scarf in the colours of the suffragettes.

    “To do so during the discussion of a Bill that would limit the rights of women and girls makes it even worse.

    “You can buy items bearing suffragette colours in the Scottish Parliament gift shop but for some baffling reason, you can’t wear these colours while listening to a committee.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23125768.woman-suffragette-colours-asked-leave-holyrood-committee-room/

    That's part of a wider rule that *visitors* can't wear politically related clothing, slogans, etc., to help discourage demonstrations, etc., in the chamber. So there is some point - and there is the same rule at Westminster.

    https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/security/


    Why is it political to wear a suffragette scarf, but not political to wear a rainbow lanyard?
    Because the rainbow lanyard in question is being worn by staff and will have been through an approval process quite separate from visitors' clothing. Simple as that.

    I'm actually surprised this hasn't come up before - but bear in mind that banning some but not all slogans/etc would count as discrimination.

    So you're claiming if a visitor had something rainbow in their clothing they'd be told to leave too?

    What if a visitor wore a yellow tie to signify their support of the SNP? Or blue or red ties? Banned too?

    Seems unlikely. Colours aren't slogans.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,502
    I think that may just be a statistical blip that can disappear with more polls. For example, the line from Techne would be straight up and now in thirties, I’m predicting next Saturday’s Opinium to be 31+. We haven’t had a Kantor for a while.

    Your worm that turned can be gone next time you look. A case of Ephemeral Worms.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    Carnyx said:

    And….it’s in the newspapers….

    Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking that the Scottish Parliament thinks it’s acceptable to police a woman’s clothing in this manner with the order to remove a scarf in the colours of the suffragettes.

    “To do so during the discussion of a Bill that would limit the rights of women and girls makes it even worse.

    “You can buy items bearing suffragette colours in the Scottish Parliament gift shop but for some baffling reason, you can’t wear these colours while listening to a committee.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23125768.woman-suffragette-colours-asked-leave-holyrood-committee-room/

    That's part of a wider rule that *visitors* can't wear politically related clothing, slogans, etc., to help discourage demonstrations, etc., in the chamber. So there is some point - and there is the same rule at Westminster.

    https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/security/


    I tried to ask why a woman wearing scarf in suffragette colours was told to take it off or get out of parliament committee

    Convenor closed meeting. Security later said “political slogans” not permitted 🧐

    Who decided that suffragette colours are “political”? 🟪⬜️🟩


    https://twitter.com/RussellFindlay1/status/1592480700271583232



    I can hardly wait to read @ScotParl ‘s rules on when a sequence of colours becomes 'political', and why some juxtapositions are permitted while others aren't. And then I look forward to these regulations being scrutinised to ensure compliance with Equalities legislation.

    https://twitter.com/Adrian_Hilton/status/1592474719772893184


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,859

    kle4 said:

    The USA gets on with 100 senators yet the house of Lords needs 778 why?

    https://twitter.com/brianforgie/status/1591802069874544642?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Congress has 100 senators + 435(?) state reps for a population of 332.4 million

    UK has 68.7M with 778 in HoL (wiki may be too low on that) + 650 in House of Commons

    Ludicrous


    https://twitter.com/areyouyesyet/status/1592153064588574720?s=46&t=kauyGoQWOWWYQhb-p-yE4g

    Hmm. I think we could reduce both, but I also don't think certain numbers are intrinsically better. It would depend on the nature of the system. Is 100 enough for the US?

    I think maximum 500 each would be enough personally.
    USA has a far far greater devolved state.

    Make the UK a federal state where decisions are taken very locally and reducing the central government makes great sense.
    Yes, let the decisions be made as closely as possible to the people. There should be more powers devolved to counties, an English Parliament, and a UK Parliament of reduced size, that deals with security, defence and foreign relations. Most importantly, more taxes should be raised locally, and most local authorities should not be dependent on federal funding.
Sign In or Register to comment.