Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
While I expect to lose our bet I think you may be over reliant on the LD administrations being unpopular. I am not familiar with all of them obviously but the ones around here are definitely not unpopular at all yet. It is far too soon. People are still blaming the previous Tory administrations. Give it a few more years and you will definitely be correct, but not yet.
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
While I expect to lose our bet I think you may be over reliant on the LD administrations being unpopular. I am not familiar with all of them obviously but the ones around here are definitely not unpopular at all yet. It is far too soon. People are still blaming the previous Tory administrations. Give it a few more years and you will definitely be correct, but not yet.
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
The typical Tory voter round here seems to be far more upset with the Government than with the local LibDem Council. Obviously the Tory activists complain about the Council but it doesn't seem to resonate.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Except that millions of pounds of public money were spent on a police enquiry, who could come up with nothing more than a civil servant inviting people working in No.10 into the boardroom to wish the boss a happy birthday.
Both Johnson and Truss have an eye to the battle for the soul of the Conservative Party that will surely follow an election loss.
Sunak is oddly disconnected from it in a way. He will trudge on to defeat with the only realistic strategy in the circumstances of "don't scare the horses" economic credibility to avoid making the situation worse, coupled with some tired old sh1te about small boats and Brexit dividends to shore up the core. But it is hard to believe that's a strategy for turning round the supertanker, just running it aground at slightly lower speed to limit the damage.
I think Johnson and Truss are aware of that and are happy enough for Sunak to take on what is a fool's errand. They may talk the talk, but I doubt they seriously believe the next election can be salvaged - a longer game is at play.
What is most absurd about the Conservative party is that Truss has standing in it at all. She is hated and ridiculed by voters. So why does she have this platform?
She is hated and ridiculed by members.
She is also hated and ridiculed by MPs.
The only reason not to stand down at the next election is the brass neck that led her to think she would be a great Prime Minister first time around. She gets to perform that trick exactly once.
The reason Boris has not yet stood down is that as an MP he can better play the Ukraine card. Which he sees as a route to making squillions.
Sunak doesn't need to remotely worry about either of them.
Alas, I suspect you remain detached from a large part of your party. I remember how certain you were that Penny Mordaunt would be leader, right up until the point she was destroyed by her own side.
I was - and remain of the view - that Penny Mordaunt was the best Conservative leader to have fought the next election.
That the Daily Mail went in with both feet - presumably because of some bat-shit notion that Boris could yet come back as leader - has much to answer for.
I rather liked Penny, but she was dreadful in the contest.
Useless as he is, Sunak was actually the best of a very poor field in last summers contest. One reason that the nation is such a mess is that Brexit has hollowed out what little talent there was in the party.
Johnson’s election as party leader and subsequent purge is at least partly responsible for the loss of talent.
Do Labour, the Lib Dems or the SNP have any talent ? This seems to be the worst lot of MPs there has ever been. If you have talent why would you want to be an MP and have to live under the 24 hour news/social media microscope?
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
While I expect to lose our bet I think you may be over reliant on the LD administrations being unpopular. I am not familiar with all of them obviously but the ones around here are definitely not unpopular at all yet. It is far too soon. People are still blaming the previous Tory administrations. Give it a few more years and you will definitely be correct, but not yet.
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
The typical Tory voter round here seems to be far more upset with the Government than with the local LibDem Council. Obviously the Tory activists complain about the Council but it doesn't seem to resonate.
Newly controlled councils of whatever colour tend (with some exceptions) to work harder and communicate better than complacent majorities in one-party states, like my local council which has 50 Labour councillors out of 50.
I think the only true monopolistic Lib Dem council is somewhere like Kingston.
Further, this is, I think, why the Government is fighting the battle on pay rises. Which some think electorally foolish.
The theory would go that an above inflation settlement in large section of public sector employment would trigger wage claims elsewhere. And the ripple effects would make the inflation "wave" last longer.
On the other hand, even if you and they are right, I predict they'll get very little credit for it. Arguing that the hypothetical alternative would have bern worse is rarely effective...
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
While I expect to lose our bet I think you may be over reliant on the LD administrations being unpopular. I am not familiar with all of them obviously but the ones around here are definitely not unpopular at all yet. It is far too soon. People are still blaming the previous Tory administrations. Give it a few more years and you will definitely be correct, but not yet.
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
The typical Tory voter round here seems to be far more upset with the Government than with the local LibDem Council. Obviously the Tory activists complain about the Council but it doesn't seem to resonate.
I have just had to google to find out the political colour of my LA (and it took a bit of thought to think which LA it actually is) but I can identify MPs by name and party/ies going back to 1987. I don't think local maps to national at all well in politics.
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
To illustrate your point, the LDs vote share went up 4% in 2019 but they lost 1 seat. Digging deeper, in 2017 the LDs came second in only 38 seats. In 2019 they were second in 91 seats (80 Con, 2 SNP, 9 Lab). Come polling day, I would expect their national vote share in 2024 to be around what it is was in 2019, but more focused on target seats.
In particular, while Labour is still the main challenger to the Conservatives in a significant number of "blue wall" seats the LDs are too in a roughly equal number of blue wall seats. If you want to vote tactically to get the Conservatives out, in most of the blue wall seats its fairly obvious which of Lab or LD you should choose to cast your vote for in a specific seat. So in the seats where the LDs are serious challengers, they and not Labour will be the main beneficiaries of a collapse in the Conservative vote. I expect them to do well in such seats, but in the vast majority of seats they will get squeezed further by Labour now that Labour is no longer led by Corbyn.
The other important factor is that with time the memories of Clegg are fading and so Labour supporters are willing to contemplate a LD vote where needs must.
I expect the LDs to pick up quite a few seats from the Conservatives, the number of net gains being into double figures. If Labour can squeeze the LDs in other seats, Labour might also outperform UNS.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
I would be rather surprised if Patriot didn't show up in the relevant areas of Romania - either sold or deployed.
For the drones.
Germany 🇩🇪proves to be a strong #NATO Ally. It will provide #Slovakia with 2 complete sets of #MANTIS Air Defence System to ensure security & defence of #Slovakia & @NATO Eastern flank. This support is permanent and for free. Thank you! https://mobile.twitter.com/JaroNad/status/1623692507300110337
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
I've drawn parallels with 1997 in the current polls in terms of stay at home Tories being the biggest factor and advances in the Labour vote from Tories and from Corbyn/Kinnock abstainers behind that, but asides from the different starting position, I think there are two important differences:
1. If a Labour victory is delivered on mass Tory abstention as in 1997, it's important to note the demographic changes in the Tory vote. The elderly would tend to be less abstentious, but the migration of the Tory vote to lower social class elderly voters might counteract that somewhat. No doubt a significant chunk of Tory 19 vote will simply fail to turn out, but the exact scale of that is a central question.
2. LD to Labour switching: The LDs whilst gaining seats lost 0.75m votes in 1997, but electorally were still scoring 15-20% as a norm in many ordinary Labour seats. Now, the LD vote is much more focused on areas on strength, and they typically sit below 5% where they are not seen as competitive.
One bit of the MRPs I simply do not believe is that a Tory near wipeout but with LD only gaining a dozen or so seats is even possible. I think the crossover level between LD & Con seat totals is likely above 50 in a Tory armageddon and, given that is the case, the window for SNP to be the official opposition, rather than Tory or Lib Dem, is very narrow. In other words a Tory collapse to me benefits the Lib Dems more than the analyses suggest
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
If only we knew who was in charge of the workplace, was boss of the workers in that workplace, lived in the workplace and from whom the workplace culture emanated.
Further, this is, I think, why the Government is fighting the battle on pay rises. Which some think electorally foolish.
The theory would go that an above inflation settlement in large section of public sector employment would trigger wage claims elsewhere. And the ripple effects would make the inflation "wave" last longer.
On the other hand, even if you and they are right, I predict they'll get very little credit for it. Arguing that the hypothetical alternative would have bern worse is rarely effective...
I'm not arguing they are right. I'm saying that this may well be the motive for actions.
I find it interesting that people need to assume that a "good" action can't have negative consequences. Consider -
1) A big pay rise for nurses 2) A big pay rise is inflationary 3) Excessive inflation is a bad thing 4) 2) & 3) doesn't mean that 1) is impossible, just that it has consequences.
I genuinely find the people arguing that, somehow, above inflation pay rises aren't inflationary, weird. Because nurses are lovely, of something.
They are inflationary. That doesn't mean that they can't/mustn't be done - just that they will have an effect.
Discovery of 3m-year-old stone tools sparks prehistoric whodunnit
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/09/discovery-ancient-stone-tools-prehistoric-mystery-whodunnit ...The site in western Kenya, Nyayanga, also yielded the oldest evidence of hominins consuming very large animals, with at least three individual hippos unearthed. Two of the incomplete skeletons included bones that showed signs of butchery. There were also antelope bones that showed evidence of flesh being sliced away or being crushed to extract bone marrow. The animals may have been scavenged rather than hunted.
Analysis of wear patterns of 30 of the stone tools showed they had been used to cut, scrape and pound animals and plants. The artefacts date to about 2m years before humans mastered fire, so the toolmakers would have eaten the hippo and antelope meat raw, possibly pounding it into something like a tartare to make it easier to chew...
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
That is (obviously) not the point. It's a risk/reward calculation. Accepting your point that risk is constant, reward varies between work situation and party situation. Even if it doesn't, it is not about the underlying calculation anyway, it is about rule following.
I would be rather surprised if Patriot didn't show up in the relevant areas of Romania - either sold or deployed.
For the drones.
Germany 🇩🇪proves to be a strong #NATO Ally. It will provide #Slovakia with 2 complete sets of #MANTIS Air Defence System to ensure security & defence of #Slovakia & @NATO Eastern flank. This support is permanent and for free. Thank you! https://mobile.twitter.com/JaroNad/status/1623692507300110337
MANTIS is a point defence system - useful for protecting an area from attack.
To shoot down Kalibr cruise missiles not actually heading directly for you, would take something like Patriot.
I've drawn parallels with 1997 in the current polls in terms of stay at home Tories being the biggest factor and advances in the Labour vote from Tories and from Corbyn/Kinnock abstainers behind that, but asides from the different starting position, I think there are two important differences:
1. If a Labour victory is delivered on mass Tory abstention as in 1997, it's important to note the demographic changes in the Tory vote. The elderly would tend to be less abstentious, but the migration of the Tory vote to lower social class elderly voters might counteract that somewhat. No doubt a significant chunk of Tory 19 vote will simply fail to turn out, but the exact scale of that is a central question.
2. LD to Labour switching: The LDs whilst gaining seats lost 0.75m votes in 1997, but electorally were still scoring 15-20% as a norm in many ordinary Labour seats. Now, the LD vote is much more focused on areas on strength, and they typically sit below 5% where they are not seen as competitive.
One bit of the MRPs I simply do not believe is that a Tory near wipeout but with LD only gaining a dozen or so seats is even possible. I think the crossover level between LD & Con seat totals is likely above 50 in a Tory armageddon and, given that is the case, the window for SNP to be the official opposition, rather than Tory or Lib Dem, is very narrow. In other words a Tory collapse to me benefits the Lib Dems more than the analyses suggest
Unlike 1997 for many even centre left voters let alone far left voters the LDs are still the part of austerity and Coalition. Hence many would still vote Labour, not LD, even if the LDs are the main challengers to the Tories whereas in 1997 they would have leant their votes to the LDs.
Sunak is also likely to see less tactical voting against him in the South than Johnson or Truss
Discovery of 3m-year-old stone tools sparks prehistoric whodunnit
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/09/discovery-ancient-stone-tools-prehistoric-mystery-whodunnit ...The site in western Kenya, Nyayanga, also yielded the oldest evidence of hominins consuming very large animals, with at least three individual hippos unearthed. Two of the incomplete skeletons included bones that showed signs of butchery. There were also antelope bones that showed evidence of flesh being sliced away or being crushed to extract bone marrow. The animals may have been scavenged rather than hunted.
Analysis of wear patterns of 30 of the stone tools showed they had been used to cut, scrape and pound animals and plants. The artefacts date to about 2m years before humans mastered fire, so the toolmakers would have eaten the hippo and antelope meat raw, possibly pounding it into something like a tartare to make it easier to chew...
You omit the final paragraph
'However, Spoor added that it was not possible to discount the alternative explanation that the teeth belonged to a victim rather than the hunter. “We eat pork cheeks and those Paranthropus creatures had very big chewing muscles,” he said. “I’m sure they were very tasty.” '
A score for nominative determinism, if nothing else.
I remember when people were saying that Labour should be getting bigger swings.
Now they’re routinely getting 10%+ swings even in safe seats the goal posts get moved again
Yes. And I haven't seen many "SKS fans please explain" comments from a particular poster recently. You know who I mean, the one who claims to be on the left but who revels in any piece of bad news for Labour.
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
While I expect to lose our bet I think you may be over reliant on the LD administrations being unpopular. I am not familiar with all of them obviously but the ones around here are definitely not unpopular at all yet. It is far too soon. People are still blaming the previous Tory administrations. Give it a few more years and you will definitely be correct, but not yet.
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
The typical Tory voter round here seems to be far more upset with the Government than with the local LibDem Council. Obviously the Tory activists complain about the Council but it doesn't seem to resonate.
Depends if LD councils are building on the greenbelt or not against promises, if they are and raising council tax the Tories will make gains on a NIMBY, low tax ticket
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
Last night the LDs, who run Cheltenham council, gained a ward off the Conservatives they had never won before.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
If only we knew who was in charge of the workplace, was boss of the workers in that workplace, lived in the workplace and from whom the workplace culture emanated.
That might not be the slam dunk you think it is. Is the PM that person? I rather thought it was the head of the civil service?
Look, none of it should have happened. The rules were stupid in the first place but if you ban families from visiting each other then you need to respect the rules your government has introduced. I just feel that the media and its allies made several huge mountain ranges out of tiny molehills. I was more concerned that the police failed to understand the law they were trying to enforce (no drinking tea on a walk with a friend outside...).
I remember when people were saying that Labour should be getting bigger swings.
Now they’re routinely getting 10%+ swings even in safe seats the goal posts get moved again
I genuinely think you are the ONLY person obsessing about this. What do you want? People flagellating themselves in the street, crying 'halleluja, Horse was right, I was wrong, I am not worthy'?
I would be rather surprised if Patriot didn't show up in the relevant areas of Romania - either sold or deployed.
For the drones.
Germany 🇩🇪proves to be a strong #NATO Ally. It will provide #Slovakia with 2 complete sets of #MANTIS Air Defence System to ensure security & defence of #Slovakia & @NATO Eastern flank. This support is permanent and for free. Thank you! https://mobile.twitter.com/JaroNad/status/1623692507300110337
MANTIS is a point defence system - useful for protecting an area from attack.
To shoot down Kalibr cruise missiles not actually heading directly for you, would take something like Patriot.
Indeed. But it's pretty useless against the Iranian style drones.
Point is there's not a gear deal if air defence capacity in NATO's border. And the cohntrids there are waking up to that.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
And yet most people drew completely the wrong conclusion from the hypocrisy...
King Charles III is a pervert, as his adultery shows, he has no respect for women.
The King and I!
Bizarre moment MailOnline reporter trying out the skimpy dress that broke the internet is spotted by KING CHARLES as his royal car pulls up at traffic lights (and his face says it all!)
I've drawn parallels with 1997 in the current polls in terms of stay at home Tories being the biggest factor and advances in the Labour vote from Tories and from Corbyn/Kinnock abstainers behind that, but asides from the different starting position, I think there are two important differences:
1. If a Labour victory is delivered on mass Tory abstention as in 1997, it's important to note the demographic changes in the Tory vote. The elderly would tend to be less abstentious, but the migration of the Tory vote to lower social class elderly voters might counteract that somewhat. No doubt a significant chunk of Tory 19 vote will simply fail to turn out, but the exact scale of that is a central question.
2. LD to Labour switching: The LDs whilst gaining seats lost 0.75m votes in 1997, but electorally were still scoring 15-20% as a norm in many ordinary Labour seats. Now, the LD vote is much more focused on areas on strength, and they typically sit below 5% where they are not seen as competitive.
One bit of the MRPs I simply do not believe is that a Tory near wipeout but with LD only gaining a dozen or so seats is even possible. I think the crossover level between LD & Con seat totals is likely above 50 in a Tory armageddon and, given that is the case, the window for SNP to be the official opposition, rather than Tory or Lib Dem, is very narrow. In other words a Tory collapse to me benefits the Lib Dems more than the analyses suggest
Unlike 1997 for many even centre left voters let alone far left voters the LDs are still the part of austerity and Coalition. Hence many would still vote Labour, not LD, even if the LDs are the main challengers to the Tories whereas in 1997 they would have leant their votes to the LDs.
Sunak is also likely to see less tactical voting against him in the South than Johnson or Truss
I’m sceptical there are many of those, away from the deepest recesses of Twitter. People who voted Lib Dem in 2005 and 2010 because they thought they were left of Labour were always a transitory phenomenon and mainly in the inner cities, seats we won’t be getting back.
What the Lib Dems have now which we didn’t before is a huge swathe of formerly Tory, remain voting professionals in affluent target seats.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
I think that’s absolutely right. All the most powerfully angry stories were from people denied the ability to visit loved ones or be with them when they died. Authoritarianism + hypocrisy (one rule for them) is toxic.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
If only we knew who was in charge of the workplace, was boss of the workers in that workplace, lived in the workplace and from whom the workplace culture emanated.
That might not be the slam dunk you think it is. Is the PM that person? I rather thought it was the head of the civil service?
Look, none of it should have happened. The rules were stupid in the first place but if you ban families from visiting each other then you need to respect the rules your government has introduced. I just feel that the media and its allies made several huge mountain ranges out of tiny molehills. I was more concerned that the police failed to understand the law they were trying to enforce (no drinking tea on a walk with a friend outside...).
Yeah, well, I’m entirely unsurprised that BJ and his fans take entirely the wrong message from the buck(s) stop here.
I've drawn parallels with 1997 in the current polls in terms of stay at home Tories being the biggest factor and advances in the Labour vote from Tories and from Corbyn/Kinnock abstainers behind that, but asides from the different starting position, I think there are two important differences:
1. If a Labour victory is delivered on mass Tory abstention as in 1997, it's important to note the demographic changes in the Tory vote. The elderly would tend to be less abstentious, but the migration of the Tory vote to lower social class elderly voters might counteract that somewhat. No doubt a significant chunk of Tory 19 vote will simply fail to turn out, but the exact scale of that is a central question.
2. LD to Labour switching: The LDs whilst gaining seats lost 0.75m votes in 1997, but electorally were still scoring 15-20% as a norm in many ordinary Labour seats. Now, the LD vote is much more focused on areas on strength, and they typically sit below 5% where they are not seen as competitive.
One bit of the MRPs I simply do not believe is that a Tory near wipeout but with LD only gaining a dozen or so seats is even possible. I think the crossover level between LD & Con seat totals is likely above 50 in a Tory armageddon and, given that is the case, the window for SNP to be the official opposition, rather than Tory or Lib Dem, is very narrow. In other words a Tory collapse to me benefits the Lib Dems more than the analyses suggest
Unlike 1997 for many even centre left voters let alone far left voters the LDs are still the part of austerity and Coalition. Hence many would still vote Labour, not LD, even if the LDs are the main challengers to the Tories whereas in 1997 they would have leant their votes to the LDs.
Sunak is also likely to see less tactical voting against him in the South than Johnson or Truss
I’m sceptical there are many of those, away from the deepest recesses of Twitter. People who voted Lib Dem in 2005 and 2010 because they thought they were left of Labour were always a transitory phenomenon and mainly in the inner cities, seats we won’t be getting back.
What the Lib Dems have now which we didn’t before is a huge swathe of formerly Tory, remain voting professionals in affluent target seats.
Yes the Lib Dem vote is now an anti-Tory/pro Cameron vote. The Lib Dems need to understand that because they don’t overlap with Labour whatsoever.
I would be rather surprised if Patriot didn't show up in the relevant areas of Romania - either sold or deployed.
For the drones.
Germany 🇩🇪proves to be a strong #NATO Ally. It will provide #Slovakia with 2 complete sets of #MANTIS Air Defence System to ensure security & defence of #Slovakia & @NATO Eastern flank. This support is permanent and for free. Thank you! https://mobile.twitter.com/JaroNad/status/1623692507300110337
MANTIS is a point defence system - useful for protecting an area from attack.
To shoot down Kalibr cruise missiles not actually heading directly for you, would take something like Patriot.
Indeed. But it's pretty useless against the Iranian style drones.
Point is there's not a gear deal if air defence capacity in NATO's border. And the cohntrids there are waking up to that.
The little Iranian drones worked once, when no-one knew what they were. Now the Ukrainians know that they’re small and low, and can be taken out with ground-based artillery.
I've drawn parallels with 1997 in the current polls in terms of stay at home Tories being the biggest factor and advances in the Labour vote from Tories and from Corbyn/Kinnock abstainers behind that, but asides from the different starting position, I think there are two important differences:
1. If a Labour victory is delivered on mass Tory abstention as in 1997, it's important to note the demographic changes in the Tory vote. The elderly would tend to be less abstentious, but the migration of the Tory vote to lower social class elderly voters might counteract that somewhat. No doubt a significant chunk of Tory 19 vote will simply fail to turn out, but the exact scale of that is a central question.
2. LD to Labour switching: The LDs whilst gaining seats lost 0.75m votes in 1997, but electorally were still scoring 15-20% as a norm in many ordinary Labour seats. Now, the LD vote is much more focused on areas on strength, and they typically sit below 5% where they are not seen as competitive.
One bit of the MRPs I simply do not believe is that a Tory near wipeout but with LD only gaining a dozen or so seats is even possible. I think the crossover level between LD & Con seat totals is likely above 50 in a Tory armageddon and, given that is the case, the window for SNP to be the official opposition, rather than Tory or Lib Dem, is very narrow. In other words a Tory collapse to me benefits the Lib Dems more than the analyses suggest
Unlike 1997 for many even centre left voters let alone far left voters the LDs are still the part of austerity and Coalition. Hence many would still vote Labour, not LD, even if the LDs are the main challengers to the Tories whereas in 1997 they would have leant their votes to the LDs.
Sunak is also likely to see less tactical voting against him in the South than Johnson or Truss
Well I put myself as mainstream left and so a bit further along that spectrum than centre left. And while you may claim to know what I think, I can tell you that you've got it utterly wrong. In 2015, I despised Clegg's LDs. Now I would be prepared to hold my nose if necessary in a GE, were I to live in a different seat. I recognise that many 2019 LD supporters will similarly be voting Labour on the same tactical premise.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
If only we knew who was in charge of the workplace, was boss of the workers in that workplace, lived in the workplace and from whom the workplace culture emanated.
That might not be the slam dunk you think it is. Is the PM that person? I rather thought it was the head of the civil service?
Look, none of it should have happened. The rules were stupid in the first place but if you ban families from visiting each other then you need to respect the rules your government has introduced. I just feel that the media and its allies made several huge mountain ranges out of tiny molehills. I was more concerned that the police failed to understand the law they were trying to enforce (no drinking tea on a walk with a friend outside...).
Yeah, well, I’m entirely unsurprised that BJ and his fans take entirely the wrong message from the buck(s) stop here.
I'm definitely not a Johnson fan. Lots was wrong during the pandemic - the restrictions on visiting people, especially relatives was one of the biggest. I hope there is testimony at the inquiries from people who were not allowed to be with dying relatives.
Johnson is a shit, only interested in himself. But I still maintain that partygate is to a large part a confected story. Remember it actually broke twice - the first time it gained absolutely NO traction.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
That is (obviously) not the point. It's a risk/reward calculation. Accepting your point that risk is constant, reward varies between work situation and party situation. Even if it doesn't, it is not about the underlying calculation anyway, it is about rule following.
Remember, Starmer himself was unsure whether he had followed the rules.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
I think we’ll see the Lib Dems with minimum 20 seats
A question for @RochdalePioneers. Given that the Tories have upset the fishing industry, and the SNP have upset the oil industry, do you think there will be a LibDem revival in north east Scotland?
Five by elections yesterday, in Cheltenham, Dartford, Denbighshire, Hertfordshire and North Yorkshire.
Cheltenham and North Yorkshire were LibDem gains from Con, Denbighshire a Con gain from Labour, Hertfordshire a Lab hold, and Dartford a Con hold.
Good Week/Bad Week Index
LDm +145 Lab +21 Grn +1 Con -84
Lab decent in Hertfordshire, but nearly cancelled out by poor in Denbighshire. Con very poor in Cheltenham and North Yorkshire, but some positive in Dartford and Denbighshire. LDm very good in Cheltenham and North Yorkshire – although interestingly North Yorkshire is signficantly better (+87) than Cheltenham (+58), while for the Cons Cheltenham (-81) is worse than North Yorkshire (-69)
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
While I expect to lose our bet I think you may be over reliant on the LD administrations being unpopular. I am not familiar with all of them obviously but the ones around here are definitely not unpopular at all yet. It is far too soon. People are still blaming the previous Tory administrations. Give it a few more years and you will definitely be correct, but not yet.
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
The typical Tory voter round here seems to be far more upset with the Government than with the local LibDem Council. Obviously the Tory activists complain about the Council but it doesn't seem to resonate.
Newly controlled councils of whatever colour tend (with some exceptions) to work harder and communicate better than complacent majorities in one-party states, like my local council which has 50 Labour councillors out of 50.
I think the only true monopolistic Lib Dem council is somewhere like Kingston.
Following the all-up elections in May 2022 the St Albans district council is current Lib Dem 50, Conservative 4, Green 1, Independent 1.
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
Lib Dems really didn't gain control of that many Councils in 2019. I think they are defending about eight all up districts in May, which is where the seat numbers are (albeit they are small wards).
What happened in 2019 was Lib Dems gaining back some lost ground from 2015 and 2011. But in many cases that was getting a few wards in basically Tory districts.
So in most places in the districts it's very much Tory councils running on their records rather than Lib Dems (and, of course, that can be a positive in some places as well as a negative in others).
Tories thrashed in Rishi’s backyard… despite pulling in activists from the furthest reaches of North Yorkshire… will be most amusing if another by-election means NYCC goes NOC just as it become the unitary authority in April
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
Lib Dems really didn't gain control of that many Councils in 2019. I think they are defending about eight all up districts in May, which is where the seat numbers are (albeit they are small wards).
What happened in 2019 was Lib Dems gaining back some lost ground from 2015 and 2011. But in many cases that was getting a few wards in basically Tory districts.
So in most places in the districts it's very much Tory councils running on their records rather than Lib Dems (and, of course, that can be a positive in some places as well as a negative in others).
The LDs gained control of far more than just 8 new councils after deals with Independents and Residents' Associations in 2019.
The Tories lost control of 44 councils in May 2019 for goodness sake!!!!
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
While I expect to lose our bet I think you may be over reliant on the LD administrations being unpopular. I am not familiar with all of them obviously but the ones around here are definitely not unpopular at all yet. It is far too soon. People are still blaming the previous Tory administrations. Give it a few more years and you will definitely be correct, but not yet.
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
The typical Tory voter round here seems to be far more upset with the Government than with the local LibDem Council. Obviously the Tory activists complain about the Council but it doesn't seem to resonate.
Newly controlled councils of whatever colour tend (with some exceptions) to work harder and communicate better than complacent majorities in one-party states, like my local council which has 50 Labour councillors out of 50.
I think the only true monopolistic Lib Dem council is somewhere like Kingston.
Following the all-up elections in May 2022 the St Albans district council is current Lib Dem 50, Conservative 4, Green 1, Independent 1.
Usual thirds election in May 2023.
It can’t be good to have councils so dominated by one party, no matter which party it happens to be.
Such councils will quickly be caught up in party factionalism and favouritism, and end up just as disfunctional as any Soviet state.
Happy to accept counter-arguments, where a local monopoly council managed to actually achieve stuff that was beneficial to the people in general, rather than just the people around the table.
I think we’ll see the Lib Dems with minimum 20 seats
A question for @RochdalePioneers. Given that the Tories have upset the fishing industry, and the SNP have upset the oil industry, do you think there will be a LibDem revival in north east Scotland?
A bunch of people dim enough to believe that cutting off their biggest export market would increase their profits are not going to win many prizes in the rational thinking competition.....
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
You are completely missing the point. What Starmer did may have been stupid, but he wasn't the one making the rules. Many, possibly even most, people broke the rules at some point, some more egregiously than others. That is annoying for those people who followed the rules, but it is nothing like as infuriating as rule-breaking by those who were, at the time time, warning us to follow the rules. Most people hate hypocrisy, and they don't forget it either.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
While I expect to lose our bet I think you may be over reliant on the LD administrations being unpopular. I am not familiar with all of them obviously but the ones around here are definitely not unpopular at all yet. It is far too soon. People are still blaming the previous Tory administrations. Give it a few more years and you will definitely be correct, but not yet.
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
The typical Tory voter round here seems to be far more upset with the Government than with the local LibDem Council. Obviously the Tory activists complain about the Council but it doesn't seem to resonate.
Newly controlled councils of whatever colour tend (with some exceptions) to work harder and communicate better than complacent majorities in one-party states, like my local council which has 50 Labour councillors out of 50.
I think the only true monopolistic Lib Dem council is somewhere like Kingston.
Following the all-up elections in May 2022 the St Albans district council is current Lib Dem 50, Conservative 4, Green 1, Independent 1.
Usual thirds election in May 2023.
It can’t be good to have councils so dominated by one party, no matter which party it happens to be.
Such councils will quickly be caught up in party factionalism and favouritism, and end up just as disfunctional as any Soviet state.
Happy to accept counter-arguments, where a local monopoly council managed to actually achieve stuff that was beneficial to the people in general, rather than just the people around the table.
Competitive councils are no guarantee either. Where I live we've had two different parties leading coalitions in charge since the last elections, and they're pretty indistinguishably useless.
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
While I expect to lose our bet I think you may be over reliant on the LD administrations being unpopular. I am not familiar with all of them obviously but the ones around here are definitely not unpopular at all yet. It is far too soon. People are still blaming the previous Tory administrations. Give it a few more years and you will definitely be correct, but not yet.
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
The typical Tory voter round here seems to be far more upset with the Government than with the local LibDem Council. Obviously the Tory activists complain about the Council but it doesn't seem to resonate.
Newly controlled councils of whatever colour tend (with some exceptions) to work harder and communicate better than complacent majorities in one-party states, like my local council which has 50 Labour councillors out of 50.
I think the only true monopolistic Lib Dem council is somewhere like Kingston.
Following the all-up elections in May 2022 the St Albans district council is current Lib Dem 50, Conservative 4, Green 1, Independent 1.
Usual thirds election in May 2023.
It's councils like this that are going to cause me to lose my bet with @HYUFD. Trust the LDs to mess it up for me
I think we’ll see the Lib Dems with minimum 20 seats
A question for @RochdalePioneers. Given that the Tories have upset the fishing industry, and the SNP have upset the oil industry, do you think there will be a LibDem revival in north east Scotland?
lol - I'm not ramping that one. But it makes a valid point - the Tories have screwed farming and fishing, the SNP want to screw oil and gas. My Banff & Buchan constituency has a lot of all of these (plenty live locally and work off-shore).
I expect Duggie to get beaten by the SNP. Because whilst you may not like everything the SNP government are doing about oil and gas at least they are being open about it. Duguid is trying to claim mega benefits for farming and fishing even as the industry leaders he claims to be working with are providing vivid details about why the opposite is true.
The Lancashire result is appalling for the Tory leadership.
Hunt and Sunak to go after May looking increasingly likely to me. I suspect Johnson will be back.
It wasn't appalling at all, the swing Labour got last night wouldn't even give Starmer a majority.
It was a bad result yes but certainly wasn't an appalling one and indeed an improvement on the swings to LAB Truss was getting in polls and even better for Rishi than some of the swings against Boris in by elections
Here I would believe the MRP. There is a ceiling effect on swing.
While the Tories are polling just a few percent lower than April 2019 in the fag end years of the May government, the difference is that Labour is polling much better. This points to a significant drubbing for the Tories in the May Locals.
The LDs are polling much lower than 2019 too though.
So while the Tories will lose seats to Labour they may even gain some from the LDs, especially as most of the seats up are in English shires where there are relatively fewer Labour v Tory contests and more Tory v LD contests than UK wide.
London and Wales don't have elections in May for example
The national share for the LibDems is very deceptive.
It would be better for the LibDems to get 50%+ share in just 50 seats, and 1% in the rest (a national share of just 5%) than a 20% share in every seat (a national share of 20% but no seats!).
In the 2019 General Election, the Greens got 3% share of votes and got just one seat - Brighton Pavillion. The SNP got just 4% share of the vote and yet got 48 seats - because their seats were all concentrated in Scotland. The national share is deceptive. Punters shouldn't be deceived by the LibDem national share.
The LD poll rating is down about 4 or 5% from Spring 2019
Remember the LDs gained control of lots of southern Tory councils in May 2019 too and some of those LD administrations will be unpopular and the Tories could even get a protest vote there
While I expect to lose our bet I think you may be over reliant on the LD administrations being unpopular. I am not familiar with all of them obviously but the ones around here are definitely not unpopular at all yet. It is far too soon. People are still blaming the previous Tory administrations. Give it a few more years and you will definitely be correct, but not yet.
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
The typical Tory voter round here seems to be far more upset with the Government than with the local LibDem Council. Obviously the Tory activists complain about the Council but it doesn't seem to resonate.
Newly controlled councils of whatever colour tend (with some exceptions) to work harder and communicate better than complacent majorities in one-party states, like my local council which has 50 Labour councillors out of 50.
I think the only true monopolistic Lib Dem council is somewhere like Kingston.
Following the all-up elections in May 2022 the St Albans district council is current Lib Dem 50, Conservative 4, Green 1, Independent 1.
Usual thirds election in May 2023.
It can’t be good to have councils so dominated by one party, no matter which party it happens to be.
Such councils will quickly be caught up in party factionalism and favouritism, and end up just as disfunctional as any Soviet state.
Happy to accept counter-arguments, where a local monopoly council managed to actually achieve stuff that was beneficial to the people in general, rather than just the people around the table.
Competitive councils are no guarantee either. Where I live we've had two different parties leading coalitions in charge since the last elections, and they're pretty indistinguishably useless.
Not a guarantee, no, but not as certain as one party states which are usually far worse.
“Hence the logic in Anderson’s appointment. In a world of political automatons – “non-playable characters” as my children’s generation call them – he’s genuinely box office. He’s a former coal miner: how many MPs are from manual labour backgrounds? He’s a single parent who worked at Citizens Advice and (as he says) “knows how it feels to put your last fiver in the gas meter”. How many politicians can say the same? And he just happens to have a suite of opinions that will have his opponents railing for months. If they take the bait.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
You are completely missing the point. What Starmer did may have been stupid, but he wasn't the one making the rules. Many, possibly even most, people broke the rules at some point, some more egregiously than others. That is annoying for those people who followed the rules, but it is nothing like as infuriating as rule-breaking by those who were, at the time time, warning us to follow the rules. Most people hate hypocrisy, and they don't forget it either.
The other thing is that beergate was in late spring 2021 when lockdown restrictions were being wound down and the majority had been vaccinated. Pub gardens were open for meals by then for example. Johnsons party culture was from the very beginning, because he never follows the rules, not even his own.
“Hence the logic in Anderson’s appointment. In a world of political automatons – “non-playable characters” as my children’s generation call them – he’s genuinely box office. He’s a former coal miner: how many MPs are from manual labour backgrounds? He’s a single parent who worked at Citizens Advice and (as he says) “knows how it feels to put your last fiver in the gas meter”. How many politicians can say the same? And he just happens to have a suite of opinions that will have his opponents railing for months. If they take the bait.
Wow. The British Right now regard Lee Anderson as their messiah.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
You are completely missing the point. What Starmer did may have been stupid, but he wasn't the one making the rules. Many, possibly even most, people broke the rules at some point, some more egregiously than others. That is annoying for those people who followed the rules, but it is nothing like as infuriating as rule-breaking by those who were, at the time time, warning us to follow the rules. Most people hate hypocrisy, and they don't forget it either.
I have not missed the point, either partially or completely. I understand your point, but think it's... misdirected (*). Starmer is the LOTO. He did not argue against the rules. I believe he voted for them. He was also a top lawyer, fully aware of his own actions. Starmer wasn't exactly exhorting us to break the rules, was he?
You are trying to make distinctions to clear Starmer of the same hypocrisy that you accuse Johnson of.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
You are completely missing the point. What Starmer did may have been stupid, but he wasn't the one making the rules. Many, possibly even most, people broke the rules at some point, some more egregiously than others. That is annoying for those people who followed the rules, but it is nothing like as infuriating as rule-breaking by those who were, at the time time, warning us to follow the rules. Most people hate hypocrisy, and they don't forget it either.
The other thing is that beergate was in late spring 2021 when lockdown restrictions were being wound down and the majority had been vaccinated. Pub gardens were open for meals by then for example. Johnsons party culture was from the very beginning, because he never follows the rules, not even his own.
Currygate was the most pathetically nakedly partisan thing I've ever seen.
A Tory MP's son - odd we weren't told that by the Mail - happened to be walking past a window in a closed area and happened to have a good camera with him with which to take the photo and then was able to send it to the Mail who luckily happened to have the ability to post it the next day, oddly as Johnson was again being investigated.
Let's be honest, a dissatisfied Corbynite tipped this bloke off, he sent his son to take the photos and he had contacts at the Mail.
Remember this when people say that the Corbynites want Labour in power - they seem to enjoy helping the Tories.
“Hence the logic in Anderson’s appointment. In a world of political automatons – “non-playable characters” as my children’s generation call them – he’s genuinely box office. He’s a former coal miner: how many MPs are from manual labour backgrounds? He’s a single parent who worked at Citizens Advice and (as he says) “knows how it feels to put your last fiver in the gas meter”. How many politicians can say the same? And he just happens to have a suite of opinions that will have his opponents railing for months. If they take the bait.
Wow. The British Right now regard Lee Anderson as their messiah.
How many times in recent months have we seen people confidently predict the Tories have now laid the killer trap that Labour’s going to walk into?
He’s a liability, and he’s not smart. The best culture warriors (Trump included, and Johnson in his prime) are smart. They know what buttons to press and how to do it. They do it cynically, to create traps. You can see the twinkle in the eye when they’re at it. Lee is more like his left wing warrior counterparts: he really believes this stuff and doesn’t deploy it with the requisite degree of tactical nous.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
You are completely missing the point. What Starmer did may have been stupid, but he wasn't the one making the rules. Many, possibly even most, people broke the rules at some point, some more egregiously than others. That is annoying for those people who followed the rules, but it is nothing like as infuriating as rule-breaking by those who were, at the time time, warning us to follow the rules. Most people hate hypocrisy, and they don't forget it either.
The other thing is that beergate was in late spring 2021 when lockdown restrictions were being wound down and the majority had been vaccinated. Pub gardens were open for meals by then for example. Johnsons party culture was from the very beginning, because he never follows the rules, not even his own.
Currygate was the most pathetically nakedly partisan thing I've ever seen.
A Tory MP's son - odd we weren't told that by the Mail - happened to be walking past a window in a closed area and happened to have a good camera with him with which to take the photo and then was able to send it to the Mail who luckily happened to have the ability to post it the next day, oddly as Johnson was again being investigated.
Let's be honest, a dissatisfied Corbynite tipped this bloke off, he sent his son to take the photos and he had contacts at the Mail.
Remember this when people say that the Corbynites want Labour in power - they seem to enjoy helping the Tories.
Was it a Tory MPs son? I thought it was the son of old Delly Welly.
Somewhat off-topic, but has anyone else noticed some BBC news stories starting to have slightly jarring explainers of why or what they are referencing. I've noticed it a few times now and came across another one today. I've wondered if it's a reaction to being bombarded with "OMG why did you mention what *that person* said?!?!?!".
"UK economy avoids recession but not out of woods - Hunt ... The Bank of England still expects the UK to enter recession this year.
But it thinks it will be shorter and less severe than previously forecast.
The Bank of England is the UK's central bank. The BBC included its view as it has a central role in managing the overall state of the economy. ... Mr Hunt, who the BBC spoke to for the government's position, said that high inflation remains a problem and continues to cause "pain for families up and down the country"."
Somewhat off-topic, but has anyone else noticed some BBC news stories starting to have slightly jarring explainers of why or what they are referencing. I've noticed it a few times now and came across another one today. I've wondered if it's a reaction to being bombarded with "OMG why did you mention what *that person* said?!?!?!".
"UK economy avoids recession but not out of woods - Hunt ... The Bank of England still expects the UK to enter recession this year.
But it thinks it will be shorter and less severe than previously forecast.
The Bank of England is the UK's central bank. The BBC included its view as it has a central role in managing the overall state of the economy. ... Mr Hunt, who the BBC spoke to for the government's position, said that high inflation remains a problem and continues to cause "pain for families up and down the country"."
Maybe a new Google algorithm that favours 'explanations'.
“Hence the logic in Anderson’s appointment. In a world of political automatons – “non-playable characters” as my children’s generation call them – he’s genuinely box office. He’s a former coal miner: how many MPs are from manual labour backgrounds? He’s a single parent who worked at Citizens Advice and (as he says) “knows how it feels to put your last fiver in the gas meter”. How many politicians can say the same? And he just happens to have a suite of opinions that will have his opponents railing for months. If they take the bait.
Wow. The British Right now regard Lee Anderson as their messiah.
Who else have they got?
And Fraser Nelson makes some valid points there. Attacking Anderson requires patience and guile. I suspect the thing to do will be to give him enough rope and wait for him to hang himself.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
You are completely missing the point. What Starmer did may have been stupid, but he wasn't the one making the rules. Many, possibly even most, people broke the rules at some point, some more egregiously than others. That is annoying for those people who followed the rules, but it is nothing like as infuriating as rule-breaking by those who were, at the time time, warning us to follow the rules. Most people hate hypocrisy, and they don't forget it either.
The other thing is that beergate was in late spring 2021 when lockdown restrictions were being wound down and the majority had been vaccinated. Pub gardens were open for meals by then for example. Johnsons party culture was from the very beginning, because he never follows the rules, not even his own.
When was Starmer calling for more restrictions and lockdowns?
Here's a useful timeline of the restrictins. Note there's nothing in April 2021 for "getting pissed and having a curry indoors with people from around the country."
“Hence the logic in Anderson’s appointment. In a world of political automatons – “non-playable characters” as my children’s generation call them – he’s genuinely box office. He’s a former coal miner: how many MPs are from manual labour backgrounds? He’s a single parent who worked at Citizens Advice and (as he says) “knows how it feels to put your last fiver in the gas meter”. How many politicians can say the same? And he just happens to have a suite of opinions that will have his opponents railing for months. If they take the bait.
“Hence the logic in Anderson’s appointment. In a world of political automatons – “non-playable characters” as my children’s generation call them – he’s genuinely box office. He’s a former coal miner: how many MPs are from manual labour backgrounds? He’s a single parent who worked at Citizens Advice and (as he says) “knows how it feels to put your last fiver in the gas meter”. How many politicians can say the same? And he just happens to have a suite of opinions that will have his opponents railing for months. If they take the bait.
Wow. The British Right now regard Lee Anderson as their messiah.
Who else have they got?
And Fraser Nelson makes some valid points there. Attacking Anderson requires patience and guile. I suspect the thing to do will be to give him enough rope and wait for him to hang himself.
At least that would be consistent with his views on capital punishment.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
I've drawn parallels with 1997 in the current polls in terms of stay at home Tories being the biggest factor and advances in the Labour vote from Tories and from Corbyn/Kinnock abstainers behind that, but asides from the different starting position, I think there are two important differences:
1. If a Labour victory is delivered on mass Tory abstention as in 1997, it's important to note the demographic changes in the Tory vote. The elderly would tend to be less abstentious, but the migration of the Tory vote to lower social class elderly voters might counteract that somewhat. No doubt a significant chunk of Tory 19 vote will simply fail to turn out, but the exact scale of that is a central question.
2. LD to Labour switching: The LDs whilst gaining seats lost 0.75m votes in 1997, but electorally were still scoring 15-20% as a norm in many ordinary Labour seats. Now, the LD vote is much more focused on areas on strength, and they typically sit below 5% where they are not seen as competitive.
One bit of the MRPs I simply do not believe is that a Tory near wipeout but with LD only gaining a dozen or so seats is even possible. I think the crossover level between LD & Con seat totals is likely above 50 in a Tory armageddon and, given that is the case, the window for SNP to be the official opposition, rather than Tory or Lib Dem, is very narrow. In other words a Tory collapse to me benefits the Lib Dems more than the analyses suggest
In the polls at the moment you have a very large proportion of 2019 Lib Dem voters switching to Labour. Some of that will come to pass - Corbyn will have put off a lot of voters who choose to vote Lib Dem instead - but a fair chunk of those voters might end up deciding that they live in a seat that only the Lib Dems have a chance of taking from the Tories and vote accordingly.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
You always see this with single issue parties, you get nutjobs. See UKIP and the Brexit Party.
Mr. Boy, actually, NPC is a good line for those unable to think beyond a limited set of slogans given how they operate in videogames.
It makes him sound like my 13yo son who is always calling people NPCs. It is a long-standing Gen Z meme. Still, great to see that Nelson still has his fingers on the pulse fresh from ramping the Liz Truss premiership last year.
On topic: Of Rishi Sunak’s many problems I think the fundamental one, making all the others that much harder to solve, is the lack of mandate. He has a mandate technically of course, the Conservatives have a strong majority from the last election and he’s the leader of the Conservative Party, but as an accountant (chartered) I apply ‘substance over form’ and on this basis he has no right to be there. Not because of the polls, it's absurd to claim a government behind in the polls has lost its mandate, but because of the peculiar nature of the 2019 election.
The policy mandate boiled down to the act of leaving the EU and this was extinguished on delivery since there was no vision for what post Brexit Britain should look like. The other driver of the election result was the 2 party leaders. Lots of people voted to kill off Jeremy Corbyn as a serious proposition, which is done, no ongoing mandate there either. That leaves Boris Johnson. It’s hard to credit but many voted positively for him in 2019, they liked him and wanted him as PM. Johnson as PM was the only residual meaningful mandate from the 2019 GE and it bit the dust when he was ousted. What’s left? Nothing. The government is essentially illegitimate, I think they know it, and I think this severely hampers any sort of recovery.
People voting positively for Boris Johnson will be one of those things that I will never understand, his character was known about well in advance and it was obvious what would happen.
Of course, it is our fault for putting up Jezza against him.
I would be rather surprised if Patriot didn't show up in the relevant areas of Romania - either sold or deployed.
For the drones.
Germany 🇩🇪proves to be a strong #NATO Ally. It will provide #Slovakia with 2 complete sets of #MANTIS Air Defence System to ensure security & defence of #Slovakia & @NATO Eastern flank. This support is permanent and for free. Thank you! https://mobile.twitter.com/JaroNad/status/1623692507300110337
MANTIS is a point defence system - useful for protecting an area from attack.
To shoot down Kalibr cruise missiles not actually heading directly for you, would take something like Patriot.
Indeed. But it's pretty useless against the Iranian style drones.
Point is there's not a gear deal if air defence capacity in NATO's border. And the cohntrids there are waking up to that.
MANTIS would be excellent for defending, say, a power station. Iranian drones - trivial. Would probably do Kalibr as well.
For area defence you need a long range missile system. Or an air patrol backed by AWACS, using look-down-shoot-down. Or both..
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
'Liked' apart from the cretins bit. Thinking Scotland has been let down by the UK Government isn't cretinous - it's just that everywhere has too.
People voting positively for Boris Johnson will be one of those things that I will never understand, his character was known about well in advance and it was obvious what would happen.
Of course, it is our fault for putting up Jezza against him.
The last sentence shows, I think, that you do get it: to most floating voters, even though Boris was bad, Corbyn was worse.
On topic: Of Rishi Sunak’s many problems I think the fundamental one, making all the others that much harder to solve, is the lack of mandate. He has a mandate technically of course, the Conservatives have a strong majority from the last election and he’s the leader of the Conservative Party, but as an accountant (chartered) I apply ‘substance over form’ and on this basis he has no right to be there. Not because of the polls, it's absurd to claim a government behind in the polls has lost its mandate, but because of the peculiar nature of the 2019 election.
The policy mandate boiled down to the act of leaving the EU and this was extinguished on delivery since there was no vision for what post Brexit Britain should look like. The other driver of the election result was the 2 party leaders. Lots of people voted to kill off Jeremy Corbyn as a serious proposition, which is done, no ongoing mandate there either. That leaves Boris Johnson. It’s hard to credit but many voted positively for him in 2019, they liked him and wanted him as PM. Johnson as PM was the only residual meaningful mandate from the 2019 GE and it bit the dust when he was ousted. What’s left? Nothing. The government is essentially illegitimate, I think they know it, and I think this severely hampers any sort of recovery.
Yep, I'd see mandates as a kind of credit card for parties when they come into government. That credit allows them to push through the manifesto they were elected on, get through feck ups & scandals, deal with black swans and even bring forward new legislation. Rishi & co's MastersoftheUniversecard is screwed, all debt on maximum interest and penalties for late payment being applied continually. Gonnae be a long time before their credit rating allows them to apply for a new card.
Comments
if and when I lose my bet it will be because of the poll ratings compared to 2019. That one at present I concede you have the upper hand on.
I think the only true monopolistic Lib Dem council is somewhere like Kingston.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
In particular, while Labour is still the main challenger to the Conservatives in a significant number of "blue wall" seats the LDs are too in a roughly equal number of blue wall seats. If you want to vote tactically to get the Conservatives out, in most of the blue wall seats its fairly obvious which of Lab or LD you should choose to cast your vote for in a specific seat. So in the seats where the LDs are serious challengers, they and not Labour will be the main beneficiaries of a collapse in the Conservative vote. I expect them to do well in such seats, but in the vast majority of seats they will get squeezed further by Labour now that Labour is no longer led by Corbyn.
The other important factor is that with time the memories of Clegg are fading and so Labour supporters are willing to contemplate a LD vote where needs must.
I expect the LDs to pick up quite a few seats from the Conservatives, the number of net gains being into double figures. If Labour can squeeze the LDs in other seats, Labour might also outperform UNS.
Germany 🇩🇪proves to be a strong #NATO Ally. It will provide #Slovakia with 2 complete sets of #MANTIS Air Defence System to ensure security & defence of #Slovakia &
@NATO Eastern flank. This support is permanent and for free. Thank you!
https://mobile.twitter.com/JaroNad/status/1623692507300110337
Leave it, lads. It's an oblate spheroid.
1. If a Labour victory is delivered on mass Tory abstention as in 1997, it's important to note the demographic changes in the Tory vote. The elderly would tend to be less abstentious, but the migration of the Tory vote to lower social class elderly voters might counteract that somewhat. No doubt a significant chunk of Tory 19 vote will simply fail to turn out, but the exact scale of that is a central question.
2. LD to Labour switching: The LDs whilst gaining seats lost 0.75m votes in 1997, but electorally were still scoring 15-20% as a norm in many ordinary Labour seats. Now, the LD vote is much more focused on areas on strength, and they typically sit below 5% where they are not seen as competitive.
One bit of the MRPs I simply do not believe is that a Tory near wipeout but with LD only gaining a dozen or so seats is even possible. I think the crossover level between LD & Con seat totals is likely above 50 in a Tory armageddon and, given that is the case, the window for SNP to be the official opposition, rather than Tory or Lib Dem, is very narrow. In other words a Tory collapse to me benefits the Lib Dems more than the analyses suggest
I find it interesting that people need to assume that a "good" action can't have negative consequences. Consider -
1) A big pay rise for nurses
2) A big pay rise is inflationary
3) Excessive inflation is a bad thing
4) 2) & 3) doesn't mean that 1) is impossible, just that it has consequences.
I genuinely find the people arguing that, somehow, above inflation pay rises aren't inflationary, weird. Because nurses are lovely, of something.
They are inflationary. That doesn't mean that they can't/mustn't be done - just that they will have an effect.
Now they’re routinely getting 10%+ swings even in safe seats the goal posts get moved again
Featuring Chopper Anderson.....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/09/bring-back-hanging-and-real-men-making-the-tories-great-again-by-lee-anderson
Discovery of 3m-year-old stone tools sparks prehistoric whodunnit
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/09/discovery-ancient-stone-tools-prehistoric-mystery-whodunnit
...The site in western Kenya, Nyayanga, also yielded the oldest evidence of hominins consuming very large animals, with at least three individual hippos unearthed. Two of the incomplete skeletons included bones that showed signs of butchery. There were also antelope bones that showed evidence of flesh being sliced away or being crushed to extract bone marrow. The animals may have been scavenged rather than hunted.
Analysis of wear patterns of 30 of the stone tools showed they had been used to cut, scrape and pound animals and plants. The artefacts date to about 2m years before humans mastered fire, so the toolmakers would have eaten the hippo and antelope meat raw, possibly pounding it into something like a tartare to make it easier to chew...
To shoot down Kalibr cruise missiles not actually heading directly for you, would take something like Patriot.
Sunak is also likely to see less tactical voting against him in the South than Johnson or Truss
'However, Spoor added that it was not possible to discount the alternative explanation that the teeth belonged to a victim rather than the hunter. “We eat pork cheeks and those Paranthropus creatures had very big chewing muscles,” he said. “I’m sure they were very tasty.” '
A score for nominative determinism, if nothing else.
Imagine getting one of those lumps of tat instead of a Civic Type R or GR Yaris. Or Focus ST or GTi Clubsport.
I loved the way BL badged one of them GT, when if you were taller than Sunak you were bent in a hoop for 3 days after driving one more than 5 miles.
Look, none of it should have happened. The rules were stupid in the first place but if you ban families from visiting each other then you need to respect the rules your government has introduced. I just feel that the media and its allies made several huge mountain ranges out of tiny molehills. I was more concerned that the police failed to understand the law they were trying to enforce (no drinking tea on a walk with a friend outside...).
Battledown (Cheltenham council)
LDEM: 52.0% (+12.9)
CON: 36.1% (-10.1)
GRN: 9.3% (+0.7)
LAB: 2.6% (-3.5)
Votes cast: 1,685
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.
But it's pretty useless against the Iranian style drones.
Point is there's not a gear deal if air defence capacity in NATO's border.
And the cohntrids there are waking up to that.
The Tories have regained their sense of humour!
Good to see you. What are they doing with those five Conservative Clubs in Ludlow now? They can't all convert into farmers markets can they?
What the Lib Dems have now which we didn’t before is a huge swathe of formerly Tory, remain voting professionals in affluent target seats.
This is what Jo Swinson got so wrong.
Dream on, even in Cheltenham the last Tory seat fell last night to the Lib Dems.
Johnson is a shit, only interested in himself. But I still maintain that partygate is to a large part a confected story. Remember it actually broke twice - the first time it gained absolutely NO traction.
https://twitter.com/hale_shale/status/1623966470970408962
🔴 LAB: 50% (+4 from 1 Feb)
🔵 CON: 21% (-1)
🟠 LDM: 7% (-2)
🟣 RFM: 7% (=)
🟢 GRN: 6% (-1)
🟡 SNP: 4% (-1)
Full tables: peoplepolling.org/tables/202302_…
30 point lead very soon
Cheltenham and North Yorkshire were LibDem gains from Con, Denbighshire a Con gain from Labour, Hertfordshire a Lab hold, and Dartford a Con hold.
Good Week/Bad Week Index
LDm +145
Lab +21
Grn +1
Con -84
Lab decent in Hertfordshire, but nearly cancelled out by poor in Denbighshire.
Con very poor in Cheltenham and North Yorkshire, but some positive in Dartford and Denbighshire.
LDm very good in Cheltenham and North Yorkshire – although interestingly North Yorkshire is signficantly better (+87) than Cheltenham (+58), while for the Cons Cheltenham (-81) is worse than North Yorkshire (-69)
Adjusted Seat Value
LDm +2.4
Lab +0.4
Grn +0.0
Con -1.4
Fulll background to the GWBWI: https://drinkentire.wordpress.com/2023/02/07/the-good-week-bad-week-index/
Usual thirds election in May 2023.
What happened in 2019 was Lib Dems gaining back some lost ground from 2015 and 2011. But in many cases that was getting a few wards in basically Tory districts.
So in most places in the districts it's very much Tory councils running on their records rather than Lib Dems (and, of course, that can be a positive in some places as well as a negative in others).
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1623831512335491072?s=20&t=hph_Su7Ioa5o8jRpPhPriQ
The Tories lost control of 44 councils in May 2019 for goodness sake!!!!
Such councils will quickly be caught up in party factionalism and favouritism, and end up just as disfunctional as any Soviet state.
Happy to accept counter-arguments, where a local monopoly council managed to actually achieve stuff that was beneficial to the people in general, rather than just the people around the table.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
I expect Duggie to get beaten by the SNP. Because whilst you may not like everything the SNP government are doing about oil and gas at least they are being open about it. Duguid is trying to claim mega benefits for farming and fishing even as the industry leaders he claims to be working with are providing vivid details about why the opposite is true.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/09/pro-death-penalty-lee-anderson-causing-outrage-tories-delighted/
“Hence the logic in Anderson’s appointment. In a world of political automatons – “non-playable characters” as my children’s generation call them – he’s genuinely box office. He’s a former coal miner: how many MPs are from manual labour backgrounds? He’s a single parent who worked at Citizens Advice and (as he says) “knows how it feels to put your last fiver in the gas meter”. How many politicians can say the same? And he just happens to have a suite of opinions that will have his opponents railing for months. If they take the bait.
You are trying to make distinctions to clear Starmer of the same hypocrisy that you accuse Johnson of.
(*) A polite way of putting it.
Dominic Raab says ‘setting high standards’ not same as bullying as he sidesteps resignation question
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/feb/10/dominic-raab-says-setting-high-standards-not-same-as-bullying-as-he-sidesteps-resignation-question-uk-politics-live
A Tory MP's son - odd we weren't told that by the Mail - happened to be walking past a window in a closed area and happened to have a good camera with him with which to take the photo and then was able to send it to the Mail who luckily happened to have the ability to post it the next day, oddly as Johnson was again being investigated.
Let's be honest, a dissatisfied Corbynite tipped this bloke off, he sent his son to take the photos and he had contacts at the Mail.
Remember this when people say that the Corbynites want Labour in power - they seem to enjoy helping the Tories.
He’s a liability, and he’s not smart. The best culture warriors (Trump included, and Johnson in his prime) are smart. They know what buttons to press and how to do it. They do it cynically, to create traps. You can see the twinkle in the eye when they’re at it. Lee is more like his left wing warrior counterparts: he really believes this stuff and doesn’t deploy it with the requisite degree of tactical nous.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64584295
"UK economy avoids recession but not out of woods - Hunt
...
The Bank of England still expects the UK to enter recession this year.
But it thinks it will be shorter and less severe than previously forecast.
The Bank of England is the UK's central bank. The BBC included its view as it has a central role in managing the overall state of the economy.
...
Mr Hunt, who the BBC spoke to for the government's position, said that high inflation remains a problem and continues to cause "pain for families up and down the country"."
And Fraser Nelson makes some valid points there. Attacking Anderson requires patience and guile. I suspect the thing to do will be to give him enough rope and wait for him to hang himself.
Here's a useful timeline of the restrictins. Note there's nothing in April 2021 for "getting pissed and having a curry indoors with people from around the country."
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-12/timeline-coronavirus-lockdown-december-2021.pdf
It's bounced up and down between 25 and 30 point leads for months now, literally nothing has changed, it is all just noise.
What is happening is that Sunak's ratings are dropping to the floor.
https://peoplepolling.org/2023/gb-voting-intention-week-6-2023/
The policy mandate boiled down to the act of leaving the EU and this was extinguished on delivery since there was no vision for what post Brexit Britain should look like. The other driver of the election result was the 2 party leaders. Lots of people voted to kill off Jeremy Corbyn as a serious proposition, which is done, no ongoing mandate there either. That leaves Boris Johnson. It’s hard to credit but many voted positively for him in 2019, they liked him and wanted him as PM. Johnson as PM was the only residual meaningful mandate from the 2019 GE and it bit the dust when he was ousted. What’s left? Nothing. The government is essentially illegitimate, I think they know it, and I think this severely hampers any sort of recovery.
Of course, it is our fault for putting up Jezza against him.
For area defence you need a long range missile system. Or an air patrol backed by AWACS, using look-down-shoot-down. Or both..