A LAB gain opens as 90% favourite in the Rutherglen by-election – politicalbetting.com

System

A LAB gain opens as 90% favourite in the Rutherglen by-election – politicalbetting.com

The big political story this afternoon is that the SNP MP, Margeret Ferrier, has lost her seat following a successful recall petition. This means a by-election in what was an SNP gain from LAB at GE2019.

Read the full story here

londonpubman

I would expect LAB to be FIRST in this one

TheScreamingEagles

SNP to finish third behind the Tories, I feel it in my waters.

TheScreamingEagles

The way Humza Yousaf's luck is going a negative charging decision will be announced a few days before the by election vote.

TheScreamingEagles

I'll say it again the The Hundred's graphics suck, if they sucked any harder I'd orgasm.

Miklosvar

TheScreamingEagles said:

The way Humza Yousaf's luck is going a negative charging decision will be announced a few days before the by election vote.

You have to wonder whether there's a DPPs/Procurators Fiscal old boys network Starmer can tap in to

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

The way Humza Yousaf's luck is going a negative charging decision will be announced a few days before the by election vote.

Sorry, you'll have to explain, what's a "negative charging decision"? And why would it matter?

Big_G_NorthWales

Sky just said Ferrieir will not be standing

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The way Humza Yousaf's luck is going a negative charging decision will be announced a few days before the by election vote.

Sorry, you'll have to explain, what's a "negative charging decision"? And why would it matter?

Negative for the SNP.

Just imagine if it was announced 2 days before the by election that Sturgeon and her husband were getting charged.

That would be suboptimal for the SNP in this seat.

Yousaf would be under pressure to suspend Sturgeon.

Taz

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll say it again the The Hundred's graphics suck, if they sucked any harder I'd orgasm.

I thought the rock star singing act was quite good.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll say it again the The Hundred's graphics suck, if they sucked any harder I'd orgasm.

They've never improved them, so they must think it helps somehow. I can't figure out how crappy overlays bring non traditional fans to the game.

Carnyx

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The way Humza Yousaf's luck is going a negative charging decision will be announced a few days before the by election vote.

Sorry, you'll have to explain, what's a "negative charging decision"? And why would it matter?

You put your finger in the wrong hole of the socket.

Benpointer

O/T @Tims, re our discussion yesterday, the Met Office have now cautiously modified their view of the second half of August to:

During the second half of August, there is a greater chance of more settled spells developing, with warmer and drier conditions becoming slightly more likely than the unseasonably unsettled weather of July. However, unsettled conditions are never too far away and so there will likely still be some spells of rain or showers for many areas from time to time. Temperatures look like they will recover to at least average, or a little above, however any prolonged dry or hot spells appear to be unlikely.

Sunil_Prasannan

londonpubman said:

I would expect LAB to be FIRST in this one

Broken, sleazy SNP on the slide!

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The way Humza Yousaf's luck is going a negative charging decision will be announced a few days before the by election vote.

Sorry, you'll have to explain, what's a "negative charging decision"? And why would it matter?

Negative for the SNP.

Just imagine if it was announced 2 days before the by election that Sturgeon and her husband were getting charged.

That would be suboptimal for the SNP in this seat.

Yousaf would be under pressure to suspend Sturgeon.

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about Ferrier. Doh!

williamglenn

Could Labour Co-Op face a challenge from the Lidl Democrats?

Stuartinromford

Aldi little parties will be hoping to get a boost from the by election?

Flatlander

Stuartinromford said:

Aldi little parties will be hoping to get a boost from the by election?

Morrisons not to vote.

SandyRentool

I'd be happy with a strong SNP performance. I want Tory seats in Scotland to be minimised at the GE.

A weak SNP is good news for the Tories.

viewcode

Benpointer said:

O/T @Tims, re our discussion yesterday, the Met Office have now cautiously modified their view of the second half of August to:

During the second half of August, there is a greater chance of more settled spells developing, with warmer and drier conditions becoming slightly more likely than the unseasonably unsettled weather of July. However, unsettled conditions are never too far away and so there will likely still be some spells of rain or showers for many areas from time to time. Temperatures look like they will recover to at least average, or a little above, however any prolonged dry or hot spells appear to be unlikely.

TLDR: it will rain, but a bit less than July. Pack a brolly

BartholomewRoberts

Missed the end of the last thread, so FPT.

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.

People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.

I view the issue around ULEZ and LTNs as less about money and more about the undealt with post-covid trauma. People who disliked lockdown are now hyper sensitive to anything that smells like top down loss of freedoms. The conspiratorial wing have jumped off the deep end, but even the average person I think is now just risk averse to such things and want "normality". The problem is that "normality" is gone - covid was an example of what a climate catastrophic world could look like. Cars are a big issue - both from an emissions POV but also from the POV of how much infrastructure we dedicate to this highly inefficient (but profitable) mode of transportation.

We keep having this bullshit about cars being highly inefficient quoted on this website by the anti-car fanatics.

Cars are supremely efficient.

There is no other mode of transport so efficient as to quickly, affordably and reliably get you from A to B.

Cars are extremely efficient at transporting lots of people, very quickly. A road travelling at 30mph, let alone 70mph, can have an extremely high throughput of both people and goods/services.

No other mode of transport matches the efficiency of cars, which is why they are so extremely popular despite the fact that car drivers pay massively more in taxes than they get back in investment, while the polar opposite is true for other less efficient in almost all the country modes of transport like rail.

Nonsense, like usual.

1) Cycling is the most energy efficient form of transport, by miles.

2) Check this out:

Nonsense on stilts by someone with an agenda to push as normal.

I have absolutely no qualm with cycling routes being added, but the cold reality is that they're frequently then left empty 99% of the time whereas the cars roads are not.

As I've said a bike route has recently been added towards my kids school on what used to be an A road. I completely support this and its great to see kids feeling safer to ride to school. But efficient it is not. If you stand outside Tesco's on the road and count the number of bikes that go past, and count the number of cars/vans/buses on the one remaining road for them that go past then you'll end up counting about 50 to 100+ cars for every bike - and outside of school times, its not even that close.

Its great to support cycling as an option but lets not overegg the pudding with fallacious claims that its efficient. And lone bikes on the same road as a car reduce efficiency by slowing down the cars too until they can overtake the bike. Again, no harm in people having the option - but its not efficient.

If a cycling route is totally maximised in usage then it might be theoretically efficient but that is a result that only works like spherical chickens in a vacuum.

And I want to fix that! Once you have a coherent cycle network, like in the Netherlands, along come the masses.

An equivalent road to your cycle lane would be one that starts and ends in the middle of a field.

Cycling is not an option for most people - it's just too scary mixing with drivers.

The cycle lane runs the entire length of the town now. Its still not used much apart from kids going to school.

Cars travelling at 30mph or 40mph are more efficient at carrying more people than cyclists going at 15mph.

Perhaps all the cyclists have already got to work/school?

Check this cycle lane out: https://twitter.com/HeroesforZero/status/1679020569822371842?s=20

In 40 seconds, 12 pedestrians, 30 cyclists, 3 scooters and 0 cars pass one point.

Clearly not representative of British roads, the cars are stationery.

I drive faster than a cyclist, not slower than it. 🤦‍♂️

Perhaps you need to leave your city bubble and join the real world?

Also very unrepresentative as the pavement is wide and suitable for walkers, runners, people in wheelchairs or pushing prams.

It's not just about cyclists, whatever the cycle-lobby tend to think.

Indeed people like @Eabhal seem to have this naïve view of the world that bikes are scooting past cars as they move fast, while cars are stuck in congestion, and pedestrians basically don't exist.

The truth could not be further from that.

The truth is that cars move at 30-70mph depending on the speed limit not 0mph. When bikes and cars are near each other, the question drivers have is "how can I safely overtake this bike" not "why is that bike overtaking me".

But Eabhal found a statistic for urban and as he's so incapable of comprehending that urban means towns and in towns cars drive without congestion almost all the time, he's not able to wrap his head around why his proposals fail in the real world.

So we're constantly back to his spherical chicken in a vacuum nonsense. Rinse and repeat until he's back in a corner and then claims 80% urban as a get out of jail free to show that he doesn't understand what urban actually means.

2.3 Average speed on urban and rural roads
On urban classified Local ‘A’ roads, average speed was 17.4 mph in 2021. On rural classified Local ‘A’ roads, the average speed was 34.3 mph in 2021. Despite the differences in speed between the two road types, drivers on urban and rural Local ‘A’ roads may perceive changes in speed levels differently.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/travel-time-measures-for-the-strategic-road-network-and-local-a-roads-january-to-december-2021

seems to negate your claim.

Per your link: The average speed is estimated to be 58.9 mph

There's more than just A-roads available. Indeed A roads are often the slowest of the roads.

I'm curious how many cyclists travel at 58.9 mph?

LOL, the 58.9 is STRATEGIC roads. Motorways and a few serious trunk roads like the the A303. Entirely irrelevant to your claim. Local urban A roads, 17.4 MPH. Most town roads are not A roads. All are subject to speed limits of 30, probably soon 20. The lived experience of anyone who drives or cycles in their local town confirms that 17.4 is pretty good going in a car, and matchable on a bike (if you are going the same way as a car, you expect to both pass and be passed by it repeatedly).

https://dft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=16a310f850d04521bff5d70a39577d4a

Strange how he got that one wrong.

I didn't get it wrong.

Living in the real world of towns, I drive down strategic A roads all the frigging time at either 50mph and 70mph.

Most of my time driving is 50mph or 70mph. That's the entire point of the word strategic, the 20mph or 30mph is for local traffic, the A to B is 50mph or 70mph typically.

https://dft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=16a310f850d04521bff5d70a39577d4a

Can you never admit to making a mistake? The above is an exhaustive map of strategic roads as defined. If you are in Warrington your claim can only be true if you literally live on the M6 or M62. which nobody does.

Do you need to live in the M6 or M62 to get from A to B? Or [and this may be a novel idea to you] can you drive onto and off the motorways to get about?

If someone wanted to drive from say Winwick to Widnes would the only option be to drive along A roads or would getting onto and then off the motorway be an option?

And what would be the speed limit of say the Weston Point Expressway once you get off the motorway?

According to Google Maps that's 11 miles, 15 minutes by car, 57 minutes by public transport, and 48 minutes by bike.

What about say Winwick to Frodsham? Again A roads only, or do you think you might be able to get on the M6, M56 and use local roads only for the first and last distance?

According to Google Maps that's 22 minutes by car, 1 hour 27 minutes by bike and 48 minutes by public transport.

So tell me again please how cars are slower and less efficient than bikes and public transport?

Miklosvar

BartholomewRoberts said:

Missed the end of the last thread, so FPT.

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.

People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.

I view the issue around ULEZ and LTNs as less about money and more about the undealt with post-covid trauma. People who disliked lockdown are now hyper sensitive to anything that smells like top down loss of freedoms. The conspiratorial wing have jumped off the deep end, but even the average person I think is now just risk averse to such things and want "normality". The problem is that "normality" is gone - covid was an example of what a climate catastrophic world could look like. Cars are a big issue - both from an emissions POV but also from the POV of how much infrastructure we dedicate to this highly inefficient (but profitable) mode of transportation.

We keep having this bullshit about cars being highly inefficient quoted on this website by the anti-car fanatics.

Cars are supremely efficient.

There is no other mode of transport so efficient as to quickly, affordably and reliably get you from A to B.

Cars are extremely efficient at transporting lots of people, very quickly. A road travelling at 30mph, let alone 70mph, can have an extremely high throughput of both people and goods/services.

No other mode of transport matches the efficiency of cars, which is why they are so extremely popular despite the fact that car drivers pay massively more in taxes than they get back in investment, while the polar opposite is true for other less efficient in almost all the country modes of transport like rail.

Nonsense, like usual.

1) Cycling is the most energy efficient form of transport, by miles.

2) Check this out:

Nonsense on stilts by someone with an agenda to push as normal.

I have absolutely no qualm with cycling routes being added, but the cold reality is that they're frequently then left empty 99% of the time whereas the cars roads are not.

As I've said a bike route has recently been added towards my kids school on what used to be an A road. I completely support this and its great to see kids feeling safer to ride to school. But efficient it is not. If you stand outside Tesco's on the road and count the number of bikes that go past, and count the number of cars/vans/buses on the one remaining road for them that go past then you'll end up counting about 50 to 100+ cars for every bike - and outside of school times, its not even that close.

Its great to support cycling as an option but lets not overegg the pudding with fallacious claims that its efficient. And lone bikes on the same road as a car reduce efficiency by slowing down the cars too until they can overtake the bike. Again, no harm in people having the option - but its not efficient.

If a cycling route is totally maximised in usage then it might be theoretically efficient but that is a result that only works like spherical chickens in a vacuum.

And I want to fix that! Once you have a coherent cycle network, like in the Netherlands, along come the masses.

An equivalent road to your cycle lane would be one that starts and ends in the middle of a field.

Cycling is not an option for most people - it's just too scary mixing with drivers.

The cycle lane runs the entire length of the town now. Its still not used much apart from kids going to school.

Cars travelling at 30mph or 40mph are more efficient at carrying more people than cyclists going at 15mph.

Perhaps all the cyclists have already got to work/school?

Check this cycle lane out: https://twitter.com/HeroesforZero/status/1679020569822371842?s=20

In 40 seconds, 12 pedestrians, 30 cyclists, 3 scooters and 0 cars pass one point.

Clearly not representative of British roads, the cars are stationery.

I drive faster than a cyclist, not slower than it. 🤦‍♂️

Perhaps you need to leave your city bubble and join the real world?

Also very unrepresentative as the pavement is wide and suitable for walkers, runners, people in wheelchairs or pushing prams.

It's not just about cyclists, whatever the cycle-lobby tend to think.

Indeed people like @Eabhal seem to have this naïve view of the world that bikes are scooting past cars as they move fast, while cars are stuck in congestion, and pedestrians basically don't exist.

The truth could not be further from that.

The truth is that cars move at 30-70mph depending on the speed limit not 0mph. When bikes and cars are near each other, the question drivers have is "how can I safely overtake this bike" not "why is that bike overtaking me".

But Eabhal found a statistic for urban and as he's so incapable of comprehending that urban means towns and in towns cars drive without congestion almost all the time, he's not able to wrap his head around why his proposals fail in the real world.

So we're constantly back to his spherical chicken in a vacuum nonsense. Rinse and repeat until he's back in a corner and then claims 80% urban as a get out of jail free to show that he doesn't understand what urban actually means.

2.3 Average speed on urban and rural roads
On urban classified Local ‘A’ roads, average speed was 17.4 mph in 2021. On rural classified Local ‘A’ roads, the average speed was 34.3 mph in 2021. Despite the differences in speed between the two road types, drivers on urban and rural Local ‘A’ roads may perceive changes in speed levels differently.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/travel-time-measures-for-the-strategic-road-network-and-local-a-roads-january-to-december-2021

seems to negate your claim.

Per your link: The average speed is estimated to be 58.9 mph

There's more than just A-roads available. Indeed A roads are often the slowest of the roads.

I'm curious how many cyclists travel at 58.9 mph?

LOL, the 58.9 is STRATEGIC roads. Motorways and a few serious trunk roads like the the A303. Entirely irrelevant to your claim. Local urban A roads, 17.4 MPH. Most town roads are not A roads. All are subject to speed limits of 30, probably soon 20. The lived experience of anyone who drives or cycles in their local town confirms that 17.4 is pretty good going in a car, and matchable on a bike (if you are going the same way as a car, you expect to both pass and be passed by it repeatedly).

https://dft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=16a310f850d04521bff5d70a39577d4a

Strange how he got that one wrong.

I didn't get it wrong.

Living in the real world of towns, I drive down strategic A roads all the frigging time at either 50mph and 70mph.

Most of my time driving is 50mph or 70mph. That's the entire point of the word strategic, the 20mph or 30mph is for local traffic, the A to B is 50mph or 70mph typically.

https://dft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=16a310f850d04521bff5d70a39577d4a

Can you never admit to making a mistake? The above is an exhaustive map of strategic roads as defined. If you are in Warrington your claim can only be true if you literally live on the M6 or M62. which nobody does.

Do you need to live in the M6 or M62 to get from A to B? Or [and this may be a novel idea to you] can you drive onto and off the motorways to get about?

If someone wanted to drive from say Winwick to Widnes would the only option be to drive along A roads or would getting onto and then off the motorway be an option?

And what would be the speed limit of say the Weston Point Expressway once you get off the motorway?

According to Google Maps that's 11 miles, 15 minutes by car, 57 minutes by public transport, and 48 minutes by bike.

What about say Winwick to Frodsham? Again A roads only, or do you think you might be able to get on the M6, M56 and use local roads only for the first and last distance?

According to Google Maps that's 22 minutes by car, 1 hour 27 minutes by bike and 48 minutes by public transport.

So tell me again please how cars are slower and less efficient than bikes and public transport?

What happens on PT, stays on PT.

HYUFD

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

BartholomewRoberts

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Missed the end of the last thread, so FPT.

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.

People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.

I view the issue around ULEZ and LTNs as less about money and more about the undealt with post-covid trauma. People who disliked lockdown are now hyper sensitive to anything that smells like top down loss of freedoms. The conspiratorial wing have jumped off the deep end, but even the average person I think is now just risk averse to such things and want "normality". The problem is that "normality" is gone - covid was an example of what a climate catastrophic world could look like. Cars are a big issue - both from an emissions POV but also from the POV of how much infrastructure we dedicate to this highly inefficient (but profitable) mode of transportation.

We keep having this bullshit about cars being highly inefficient quoted on this website by the anti-car fanatics.

Cars are supremely efficient.

There is no other mode of transport so efficient as to quickly, affordably and reliably get you from A to B.

Cars are extremely efficient at transporting lots of people, very quickly. A road travelling at 30mph, let alone 70mph, can have an extremely high throughput of both people and goods/services.

No other mode of transport matches the efficiency of cars, which is why they are so extremely popular despite the fact that car drivers pay massively more in taxes than they get back in investment, while the polar opposite is true for other less efficient in almost all the country modes of transport like rail.

Nonsense, like usual.

1) Cycling is the most energy efficient form of transport, by miles.

2) Check this out:

Nonsense on stilts by someone with an agenda to push as normal.

I have absolutely no qualm with cycling routes being added, but the cold reality is that they're frequently then left empty 99% of the time whereas the cars roads are not.

As I've said a bike route has recently been added towards my kids school on what used to be an A road. I completely support this and its great to see kids feeling safer to ride to school. But efficient it is not. If you stand outside Tesco's on the road and count the number of bikes that go past, and count the number of cars/vans/buses on the one remaining road for them that go past then you'll end up counting about 50 to 100+ cars for every bike - and outside of school times, its not even that close.

Its great to support cycling as an option but lets not overegg the pudding with fallacious claims that its efficient. And lone bikes on the same road as a car reduce efficiency by slowing down the cars too until they can overtake the bike. Again, no harm in people having the option - but its not efficient.

If a cycling route is totally maximised in usage then it might be theoretically efficient but that is a result that only works like spherical chickens in a vacuum.

And I want to fix that! Once you have a coherent cycle network, like in the Netherlands, along come the masses.

An equivalent road to your cycle lane would be one that starts and ends in the middle of a field.

Cycling is not an option for most people - it's just too scary mixing with drivers.

The cycle lane runs the entire length of the town now. Its still not used much apart from kids going to school.

Cars travelling at 30mph or 40mph are more efficient at carrying more people than cyclists going at 15mph.

Perhaps all the cyclists have already got to work/school?

Check this cycle lane out: https://twitter.com/HeroesforZero/status/1679020569822371842?s=20

In 40 seconds, 12 pedestrians, 30 cyclists, 3 scooters and 0 cars pass one point.

Clearly not representative of British roads, the cars are stationery.

I drive faster than a cyclist, not slower than it. 🤦‍♂️

Perhaps you need to leave your city bubble and join the real world?

Also very unrepresentative as the pavement is wide and suitable for walkers, runners, people in wheelchairs or pushing prams.

It's not just about cyclists, whatever the cycle-lobby tend to think.

Indeed people like @Eabhal seem to have this naïve view of the world that bikes are scooting past cars as they move fast, while cars are stuck in congestion, and pedestrians basically don't exist.

The truth could not be further from that.

The truth is that cars move at 30-70mph depending on the speed limit not 0mph. When bikes and cars are near each other, the question drivers have is "how can I safely overtake this bike" not "why is that bike overtaking me".

But Eabhal found a statistic for urban and as he's so incapable of comprehending that urban means towns and in towns cars drive without congestion almost all the time, he's not able to wrap his head around why his proposals fail in the real world.

So we're constantly back to his spherical chicken in a vacuum nonsense. Rinse and repeat until he's back in a corner and then claims 80% urban as a get out of jail free to show that he doesn't understand what urban actually means.

2.3 Average speed on urban and rural roads
On urban classified Local ‘A’ roads, average speed was 17.4 mph in 2021. On rural classified Local ‘A’ roads, the average speed was 34.3 mph in 2021. Despite the differences in speed between the two road types, drivers on urban and rural Local ‘A’ roads may perceive changes in speed levels differently.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/travel-time-measures-for-the-strategic-road-network-and-local-a-roads-january-to-december-2021

seems to negate your claim.

Per your link: The average speed is estimated to be 58.9 mph

There's more than just A-roads available. Indeed A roads are often the slowest of the roads.

I'm curious how many cyclists travel at 58.9 mph?

LOL, the 58.9 is STRATEGIC roads. Motorways and a few serious trunk roads like the the A303. Entirely irrelevant to your claim. Local urban A roads, 17.4 MPH. Most town roads are not A roads. All are subject to speed limits of 30, probably soon 20. The lived experience of anyone who drives or cycles in their local town confirms that 17.4 is pretty good going in a car, and matchable on a bike (if you are going the same way as a car, you expect to both pass and be passed by it repeatedly).

https://dft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=16a310f850d04521bff5d70a39577d4a

Strange how he got that one wrong.

I didn't get it wrong.

Living in the real world of towns, I drive down strategic A roads all the frigging time at either 50mph and 70mph.

Most of my time driving is 50mph or 70mph. That's the entire point of the word strategic, the 20mph or 30mph is for local traffic, the A to B is 50mph or 70mph typically.

https://dft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=16a310f850d04521bff5d70a39577d4a

Can you never admit to making a mistake? The above is an exhaustive map of strategic roads as defined. If you are in Warrington your claim can only be true if you literally live on the M6 or M62. which nobody does.

Do you need to live in the M6 or M62 to get from A to B? Or [and this may be a novel idea to you] can you drive onto and off the motorways to get about?

If someone wanted to drive from say Winwick to Widnes would the only option be to drive along A roads or would getting onto and then off the motorway be an option?

And what would be the speed limit of say the Weston Point Expressway once you get off the motorway?

According to Google Maps that's 11 miles, 15 minutes by car, 57 minutes by public transport, and 48 minutes by bike.

What about say Winwick to Frodsham? Again A roads only, or do you think you might be able to get on the M6, M56 and use local roads only for the first and last distance?

According to Google Maps that's 22 minutes by car, 1 hour 27 minutes by bike and 48 minutes by public transport.

So tell me again please how cars are slower and less efficient than bikes and public transport?

What happens on PT, stays on PT.

Since when?

Or do you just not want to admit you're wrong?

Carnyx

BartholomewRoberts said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Missed the end of the last thread, so FPT.

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.

People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.

I view the issue around ULEZ and LTNs as less about money and more about the undealt with post-covid trauma. People who disliked lockdown are now hyper sensitive to anything that smells like top down loss of freedoms. The conspiratorial wing have jumped off the deep end, but even the average person I think is now just risk averse to such things and want "normality". The problem is that "normality" is gone - covid was an example of what a climate catastrophic world could look like. Cars are a big issue - both from an emissions POV but also from the POV of how much infrastructure we dedicate to this highly inefficient (but profitable) mode of transportation.

We keep having this bullshit about cars being highly inefficient quoted on this website by the anti-car fanatics.

Cars are supremely efficient.

There is no other mode of transport so efficient as to quickly, affordably and reliably get you from A to B.

Cars are extremely efficient at transporting lots of people, very quickly. A road travelling at 30mph, let alone 70mph, can have an extremely high throughput of both people and goods/services.

No other mode of transport matches the efficiency of cars, which is why they are so extremely popular despite the fact that car drivers pay massively more in taxes than they get back in investment, while the polar opposite is true for other less efficient in almost all the country modes of transport like rail.

Nonsense, like usual.

1) Cycling is the most energy efficient form of transport, by miles.

2) Check this out:

Nonsense on stilts by someone with an agenda to push as normal.

I have absolutely no qualm with cycling routes being added, but the cold reality is that they're frequently then left empty 99% of the time whereas the cars roads are not.

As I've said a bike route has recently been added towards my kids school on what used to be an A road. I completely support this and its great to see kids feeling safer to ride to school. But efficient it is not. If you stand outside Tesco's on the road and count the number of bikes that go past, and count the number of cars/vans/buses on the one remaining road for them that go past then you'll end up counting about 50 to 100+ cars for every bike - and outside of school times, its not even that close.

Its great to support cycling as an option but lets not overegg the pudding with fallacious claims that its efficient. And lone bikes on the same road as a car reduce efficiency by slowing down the cars too until they can overtake the bike. Again, no harm in people having the option - but its not efficient.

If a cycling route is totally maximised in usage then it might be theoretically efficient but that is a result that only works like spherical chickens in a vacuum.

And I want to fix that! Once you have a coherent cycle network, like in the Netherlands, along come the masses.

An equivalent road to your cycle lane would be one that starts and ends in the middle of a field.

Cycling is not an option for most people - it's just too scary mixing with drivers.

The cycle lane runs the entire length of the town now. Its still not used much apart from kids going to school.

Cars travelling at 30mph or 40mph are more efficient at carrying more people than cyclists going at 15mph.

Perhaps all the cyclists have already got to work/school?

Check this cycle lane out: https://twitter.com/HeroesforZero/status/1679020569822371842?s=20

In 40 seconds, 12 pedestrians, 30 cyclists, 3 scooters and 0 cars pass one point.

Clearly not representative of British roads, the cars are stationery.

I drive faster than a cyclist, not slower than it. 🤦‍♂️

Perhaps you need to leave your city bubble and join the real world?

Also very unrepresentative as the pavement is wide and suitable for walkers, runners, people in wheelchairs or pushing prams.

It's not just about cyclists, whatever the cycle-lobby tend to think.

Indeed people like @Eabhal seem to have this naïve view of the world that bikes are scooting past cars as they move fast, while cars are stuck in congestion, and pedestrians basically don't exist.

The truth could not be further from that.

The truth is that cars move at 30-70mph depending on the speed limit not 0mph. When bikes and cars are near each other, the question drivers have is "how can I safely overtake this bike" not "why is that bike overtaking me".

But Eabhal found a statistic for urban and as he's so incapable of comprehending that urban means towns and in towns cars drive without congestion almost all the time, he's not able to wrap his head around why his proposals fail in the real world.

So we're constantly back to his spherical chicken in a vacuum nonsense. Rinse and repeat until he's back in a corner and then claims 80% urban as a get out of jail free to show that he doesn't understand what urban actually means.

2.3 Average speed on urban and rural roads
On urban classified Local ‘A’ roads, average speed was 17.4 mph in 2021. On rural classified Local ‘A’ roads, the average speed was 34.3 mph in 2021. Despite the differences in speed between the two road types, drivers on urban and rural Local ‘A’ roads may perceive changes in speed levels differently.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/travel-time-measures-for-the-strategic-road-network-and-local-a-roads-january-to-december-2021

seems to negate your claim.

Per your link: The average speed is estimated to be 58.9 mph

There's more than just A-roads available. Indeed A roads are often the slowest of the roads.

I'm curious how many cyclists travel at 58.9 mph?

LOL, the 58.9 is STRATEGIC roads. Motorways and a few serious trunk roads like the the A303. Entirely irrelevant to your claim. Local urban A roads, 17.4 MPH. Most town roads are not A roads. All are subject to speed limits of 30, probably soon 20. The lived experience of anyone who drives or cycles in their local town confirms that 17.4 is pretty good going in a car, and matchable on a bike (if you are going the same way as a car, you expect to both pass and be passed by it repeatedly).

https://dft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=16a310f850d04521bff5d70a39577d4a

Strange how he got that one wrong.

I didn't get it wrong.

Living in the real world of towns, I drive down strategic A roads all the frigging time at either 50mph and 70mph.

Most of my time driving is 50mph or 70mph. That's the entire point of the word strategic, the 20mph or 30mph is for local traffic, the A to B is 50mph or 70mph typically.

https://dft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=16a310f850d04521bff5d70a39577d4a

Can you never admit to making a mistake? The above is an exhaustive map of strategic roads as defined. If you are in Warrington your claim can only be true if you literally live on the M6 or M62. which nobody does.

Do you need to live in the M6 or M62 to get from A to B? Or [and this may be a novel idea to you] can you drive onto and off the motorways to get about?

If someone wanted to drive from say Winwick to Widnes would the only option be to drive along A roads or would getting onto and then off the motorway be an option?

And what would be the speed limit of say the Weston Point Expressway once you get off the motorway?

According to Google Maps that's 11 miles, 15 minutes by car, 57 minutes by public transport, and 48 minutes by bike.

What about say Winwick to Frodsham? Again A roads only, or do you think you might be able to get on the M6, M56 and use local roads only for the first and last distance?

According to Google Maps that's 22 minutes by car, 1 hour 27 minutes by bike and 48 minutes by public transport.

So tell me again please how cars are slower and less efficient than bikes and public transport?

What happens on PT, stays on PT.

Since when?

Or do you just not want to admit you're wrong?

L'esprit de l'escalier.

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

HYUFD

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Chris

Looks as though the Tories are nailed on to lose their deposit.

tlg86

SandyRentool said:

I'd be happy with a strong SNP performance. I want Tory seats in Scotland to be minimised at the GE.

A weak SNP is good news for the Tories.

Interesting! This suggests you are far from confident of Labour forming the next government. I think your pessimism is misplaced.

In any case, a strong showing from the SNP would send a message to England that Labour can't be relied upon to weaken the SNP and thus reduce the possibility of the SNP ending up in government.

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

Labour and the SNP are totally bonkers on this issue. Stopping production does not stop demand. It is a policy to funnel cash to despots and dictators in return for hydrocarbons.

Mind, it might fund a few new players for The Toon.

FF43

Don't have any particular insight into Rutherglen but 90% Labour seems high.

Miklosvar

BartholomewRoberts said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Missed the end of the last thread, so FPT.

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.

People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.

I view the issue around ULEZ and LTNs as less about money and more about the undealt with post-covid trauma. People who disliked lockdown are now hyper sensitive to anything that smells like top down loss of freedoms. The conspiratorial wing have jumped off the deep end, but even the average person I think is now just risk averse to such things and want "normality". The problem is that "normality" is gone - covid was an example of what a climate catastrophic world could look like. Cars are a big issue - both from an emissions POV but also from the POV of how much infrastructure we dedicate to this highly inefficient (but profitable) mode of transportation.

We keep having this bullshit about cars being highly inefficient quoted on this website by the anti-car fanatics.

Cars are supremely efficient.

There is no other mode of transport so efficient as to quickly, affordably and reliably get you from A to B.

Cars are extremely efficient at transporting lots of people, very quickly. A road travelling at 30mph, let alone 70mph, can have an extremely high throughput of both people and goods/services.

No other mode of transport matches the efficiency of cars, which is why they are so extremely popular despite the fact that car drivers pay massively more in taxes than they get back in investment, while the polar opposite is true for other less efficient in almost all the country modes of transport like rail.

Nonsense, like usual.

1) Cycling is the most energy efficient form of transport, by miles.

2) Check this out:

Nonsense on stilts by someone with an agenda to push as normal.

I have absolutely no qualm with cycling routes being added, but the cold reality is that they're frequently then left empty 99% of the time whereas the cars roads are not.

As I've said a bike route has recently been added towards my kids school on what used to be an A road. I completely support this and its great to see kids feeling safer to ride to school. But efficient it is not. If you stand outside Tesco's on the road and count the number of bikes that go past, and count the number of cars/vans/buses on the one remaining road for them that go past then you'll end up counting about 50 to 100+ cars for every bike - and outside of school times, its not even that close.

Its great to support cycling as an option but lets not overegg the pudding with fallacious claims that its efficient. And lone bikes on the same road as a car reduce efficiency by slowing down the cars too until they can overtake the bike. Again, no harm in people having the option - but its not efficient.

If a cycling route is totally maximised in usage then it might be theoretically efficient but that is a result that only works like spherical chickens in a vacuum.

And I want to fix that! Once you have a coherent cycle network, like in the Netherlands, along come the masses.

An equivalent road to your cycle lane would be one that starts and ends in the middle of a field.

Cycling is not an option for most people - it's just too scary mixing with drivers.

The cycle lane runs the entire length of the town now. Its still not used much apart from kids going to school.

Cars travelling at 30mph or 40mph are more efficient at carrying more people than cyclists going at 15mph.

Perhaps all the cyclists have already got to work/school?

Check this cycle lane out: https://twitter.com/HeroesforZero/status/1679020569822371842?s=20

In 40 seconds, 12 pedestrians, 30 cyclists, 3 scooters and 0 cars pass one point.

Clearly not representative of British roads, the cars are stationery.

I drive faster than a cyclist, not slower than it. 🤦‍♂️

Perhaps you need to leave your city bubble and join the real world?

Also very unrepresentative as the pavement is wide and suitable for walkers, runners, people in wheelchairs or pushing prams.

It's not just about cyclists, whatever the cycle-lobby tend to think.

Indeed people like @Eabhal seem to have this naïve view of the world that bikes are scooting past cars as they move fast, while cars are stuck in congestion, and pedestrians basically don't exist.

The truth could not be further from that.

The truth is that cars move at 30-70mph depending on the speed limit not 0mph. When bikes and cars are near each other, the question drivers have is "how can I safely overtake this bike" not "why is that bike overtaking me".

But Eabhal found a statistic for urban and as he's so incapable of comprehending that urban means towns and in towns cars drive without congestion almost all the time, he's not able to wrap his head around why his proposals fail in the real world.

So we're constantly back to his spherical chicken in a vacuum nonsense. Rinse and repeat until he's back in a corner and then claims 80% urban as a get out of jail free to show that he doesn't understand what urban actually means.

2.3 Average speed on urban and rural roads
On urban classified Local ‘A’ roads, average speed was 17.4 mph in 2021. On rural classified Local ‘A’ roads, the average speed was 34.3 mph in 2021. Despite the differences in speed between the two road types, drivers on urban and rural Local ‘A’ roads may perceive changes in speed levels differently.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/travel-time-measures-for-the-strategic-road-network-and-local-a-roads-january-to-december-2021

seems to negate your claim.

Per your link: The average speed is estimated to be 58.9 mph

There's more than just A-roads available. Indeed A roads are often the slowest of the roads.

I'm curious how many cyclists travel at 58.9 mph?

LOL, the 58.9 is STRATEGIC roads. Motorways and a few serious trunk roads like the the A303. Entirely irrelevant to your claim. Local urban A roads, 17.4 MPH. Most town roads are not A roads. All are subject to speed limits of 30, probably soon 20. The lived experience of anyone who drives or cycles in their local town confirms that 17.4 is pretty good going in a car, and matchable on a bike (if you are going the same way as a car, you expect to both pass and be passed by it repeatedly).

https://dft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=16a310f850d04521bff5d70a39577d4a

Strange how he got that one wrong.

I didn't get it wrong.

Living in the real world of towns, I drive down strategic A roads all the frigging time at either 50mph and 70mph.

Most of my time driving is 50mph or 70mph. That's the entire point of the word strategic, the 20mph or 30mph is for local traffic, the A to B is 50mph or 70mph typically.

https://dft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=16a310f850d04521bff5d70a39577d4a

Can you never admit to making a mistake? The above is an exhaustive map of strategic roads as defined. If you are in Warrington your claim can only be true if you literally live on the M6 or M62. which nobody does.

Do you need to live in the M6 or M62 to get from A to B? Or [and this may be a novel idea to you] can you drive onto and off the motorways to get about?

If someone wanted to drive from say Winwick to Widnes would the only option be to drive along A roads or would getting onto and then off the motorway be an option?

And what would be the speed limit of say the Weston Point Expressway once you get off the motorway?

According to Google Maps that's 11 miles, 15 minutes by car, 57 minutes by public transport, and 48 minutes by bike.

What about say Winwick to Frodsham? Again A roads only, or do you think you might be able to get on the M6, M56 and use local roads only for the first and last distance?

According to Google Maps that's 22 minutes by car, 1 hour 27 minutes by bike and 48 minutes by public transport.

So tell me again please how cars are slower and less efficient than bikes and public transport?

What happens on PT, stays on PT.

Since when?

Or do you just not want to admit you're wrong?

Jesus, mate, how much caffeine or meth do you do in a day? Just calm down. You HILARIOUSLY misread the average speed on motorways as the average speed, period: 58.9 MPH (implying that traffic on the actual motorways must be doing about 220 to compensate for all the 30 mph zones). I haven't the energy to discuss Winwick to Frodsham routes. Cars do an average of 17.4 in town on non-strat A roads, per the dept of transport and per everybody's experience(and that's averaged over 24 hours including 2300-0600 when you usually can do 30 in a 30 zone, so correspondingly less in daylight hours). I am not sure what we are arguing about? Anywhere people can and do 50 mph is no place to be on a bike. Places where 17.4 is the average, they are good.

tlg86

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

SandyRentool

tlg86 said:

SandyRentool said:

I'd be happy with a strong SNP performance. I want Tory seats in Scotland to be minimised at the GE.

A weak SNP is good news for the Tories.

Interesting! This suggests you are far from confident of Labour forming the next government. I think your pessimism is misplaced.

In any case, a strong showing from the SNP would send a message to England that Labour can't be relied upon to weaken the SNP and thus reduce the possibility of the SNP ending up in government.

I still feel the pain from 1992.

I don't see the next GE as a done deal.

Big_G_NorthWales

I find it amusing watching the SNP and labour taking chunks out of each other on the media

It makes a change from everyone taking chunks out of the conservatives

Carnyx

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

viewcode

SandyRentool said:

tlg86 said:

SandyRentool said:

I'd be happy with a strong SNP performance. I want Tory seats in Scotland to be minimised at the GE.

A weak SNP is good news for the Tories.

Interesting! This suggests you are far from confident of Labour forming the next government. I think your pessimism is misplaced.

In any case, a strong showing from the SNP would send a message to England that Labour can't be relied upon to weaken the SNP and thus reduce the possibility of the SNP ending up in government.

I still feel the pain from 1992.

I don't see the next GE as a done deal.

Why don't you look like Yannis Varoufakis any more?

Nigelb

I hope someone who has interns is pulling the quotes of all the Republicans, starting with MItch McConnell, who said they voted against impeachment bc the proper remedy was prosecution.
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1686456824000593920

tlg86

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

viewcode

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I find it amusing watching the SNP and labour taking chunks out of each other on the media

It makes a change from everyone taking chunks out of the conservatives

It's not a good sign if your enemies stop attacking you. It means they've stopped being frightened of you

Cookie

They're showing the hundred in the hitel bar. There are many things wring with tge hundred, but what us infuriating me most about it right now is its ugliness. Jesus it's ugly. Cricket, along with baseball, is one of the best looking sports in the world. How have they made it so visually jarring? Everything about it is hideous. The kits, the fonts, the logos for the weird made up teams, the aggressive purple and green colour scheme. Ugh.

SandyRentool

viewcode said:

SandyRentool said:

tlg86 said:

SandyRentool said:

I'd be happy with a strong SNP performance. I want Tory seats in Scotland to be minimised at the GE.

A weak SNP is good news for the Tories.

Interesting! This suggests you are far from confident of Labour forming the next government. I think your pessimism is misplaced.

In any case, a strong showing from the SNP would send a message to England that Labour can't be relied upon to weaken the SNP and thus reduce the possibility of the SNP ending up in government.

I still feel the pain from 1992.

I don't see the next GE as a done deal.

Why don't you look like Yannis Varoufakis any more?

I've still got more hair than him!

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

I was thinking about doing a piece on those lines.

One of the most effective political posters of my lifetime.

Carnyx

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

HYUFD

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in
Scotland as the Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

Big_G_NorthWales

viewcode said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I find it amusing watching the SNP and labour taking chunks out of each other on the media

It makes a change from everyone taking chunks out of the conservatives

It's not a good sign if your enemies stop attacking you. It means they've stopped being frightened of you

They seem terrified of each other the little I have seen so far

It is going to be be a very bitter contest

TheScreamingEagles

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

No, The SNP want to break up the UK, voters in the rest of the UK would rather not have them in government in Westminster.

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in Scotland as tr e Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

What well paid oil rig jobs?

BlancheLivermore

I've just had a long chat with with my Siberian friend. We had a brief chat, our first in over a fortnight, on Sunday when she was in Kazakhstan. She was on her her way back from seeing her family for the first time in over three years

She's a British citizen / UK passport holder and has been for nearly fifteen years. She desperately wants to get her family out of Russia

She thinks it's impossible because they wouldn't be able to get visas to come here permanently

Her family is her parents, her sister and niece

Her Dad has property and business interests, with a bit of time to sell up he could support himself and Mum. Her sister is an excellent linguist who currently teaches English and Russian to kids in Siberia. She could probably teach English grammar to English kids

They hate Putin and want out

How hard would it be for them to come here permanently?

I've told her she should write to her MP and ask for help and advice, but I'm not sure how to help beyond that

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Sunil_Prasannan

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I find it amusing watching the SNP and labour taking chunks out of each other on the media

It makes a change from everyone taking chunks out of the conservatives

Broken, sleazy Tories AND SNP on the slide!

kle4

Nigelb said:

I hope someone who has interns is pulling the quotes of all the Republicans, starting with MItch McConnell, who said they voted against impeachment bc the proper remedy was prosecution.
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1686456824000593920

I like the contortions of those apparently unwilling to simply declare belief in Trump's innocence in various instances, but instead feel the need to go further and declare it wrong in principle to charge ex-Presidents, and therefore that they are indeed above the law.

Feels like it would be simpler to stick with the former, however it might look silly (you never know, they might get lucky with a jury), than just decide to abandon that equality before the law business. What if they want to charge Biden when he leaves office?

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

No, The SNP want to break up the UK, voters in the rest of the UK would rather not have them in government in Westminster.

How do you know, actually? It's a serious point - what about their policies, otherwise?

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

I was thinking about doing a piece on those lines.

One of the most effective political posters of my lifetime.

Certainly memorable. I don't know it will ever be as effective again.

tlg86

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

Yes, there are two classes of MPs. Those in government and those not in government. I don't think this is controversial.

kle4

God I hope this is not true - Trump getting 40-50% is scary enough.

Steve Bannon wants Trump to pick RFK Jr as a running mate:

“You could get 60 percent or higher in the country.”
https://nitter.net/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1686457083401486357#m

Nigelb

Nigelb said:

I hope someone who has interns is pulling the quotes of all the Republicans, starting with MItch McConnell, who said they voted against impeachment bc the proper remedy was prosecution.
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1686456824000593920

Oh.

(2021) Mitch McConnell savages Trump – minutes after voting to acquit
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/13/mitch-mcconnell-trump-republicans
...McConnell argued the Senate could not convict Trump because he had left office before the Senate trial began – a timeline McConnell orchestrated as Senate majority leader after refusing Democrats’ requests to call the Senate into an emergency session in January.
The House impeached Trump for a second time in his final days in office, but McConnell delayed starting the Senate trial until after Joe Biden was sworn in.
McConnell said the Senate was not meant to serve as a “moral tribunal” and said Trump could still be open to criminal prosecution.
“President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he’s in office,” McConnell said. “He didn’t get away with anything yet.”..

Big_G_NorthWales

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in Scotland as tr e Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

What well paid oil rig jobs?

Surely even you must admit there are tens of thousands of Scottish jobs in the oil industry

Indeed around 196,000 jobs are supported by the industry in Scotland

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-coasts-and-seas/oil-and-gas#:~:text=Scotland is thought to be,around 196,000 jobs in Scotland.

tlg86

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

I was thinking about doing a piece on those lines.

One of the most effective political posters of my lifetime.

Certainly memorable. I don't know it will ever be as effective again.

Not least because I'm not sure many people in England would recognize the SNP top brass.

Sunil_Prasannan

Just for a bit of fun:

https://www.lightningmaps.org/#m=oss;t=3;s=200;o=0;b=;ts=1;y=46.8728;x=4.6966;z=5;d=2;dl=2;dc=0;as=22-10-23T18;ts24=0;

Zoom out and check out Croatia! Also, Scilly Isles nearer to home.

HYUFD

tlg86 said:

SandyRentool said:

I'd be happy with a strong SNP performance. I want Tory seats in Scotland to be minimised at the GE.

A weak SNP is good news for the Tories.

Interesting! This suggests you are far from confident of Labour forming the next government. I think your pessimism is misplaced.

In any case, a strong showing from the SNP would send a message to England that Labour can't be relied upon to weaken the SNP and thus reduce the possibility of the SNP ending up in government.

Of course Labour have only got into government with English votes since WW2 twice, in 1997 and 1945.

In 1964 and Feb 1974 Wilson needed Scottish and Welsh Labour seats and votes, Home and Heath won a majority of seats in England.

Starmer is more Wilson in style than Blair 1997, perhaps Rishi will get closer than expected like his fellow Toff Sir Alec?

Theuniondivvie

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in
Scotland as the Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

Almost as unpopular? Lol.

TheScreamingEagles

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

No, The SNP want to break up the UK, voters in the rest of the UK would rather not have them in government in Westminster.

How do you know, actually? It's a serious point - what about their policies, otherwise?

Based on polling, based on my campaigning experiences in English marginals in 2015.

It wasn't anti Scottish sentiment, they didn't like the concept of Salmond/The SNP anywhere near the levers of power.

They admired Salmond's skills and thought he'd walk all over Ed Miliband, which made it a doubly bad idea.

Carnyx

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in Scotland as tr e Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

What well paid oil rig jobs?

Surely even you must admit there are tens of thousands of Scottish jobs in the oil industry

Indeed around 196,000 jobs are supported by the industry in Scotland

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-coasts-and-seas/oil-and-gas#:~:text=Scotland is thought to be,around 196,000 jobs in Scotland.

You're exaggerating by a factor of *at least* two, so far as I can see, and it's going down. The newe licenses won't make any difference for years, if they ever do.

kle4

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

I hope someone who has interns is pulling the quotes of all the Republicans, starting with MItch McConnell, who said they voted against impeachment bc the proper remedy was prosecution.
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1686456824000593920

Oh.

(2021) Mitch McConnell savages Trump – minutes after voting to acquit
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/13/mitch-mcconnell-trump-republicans
...McConnell argued the Senate could not convict Trump because he had left office before the Senate trial began – a timeline McConnell orchestrated as Senate majority leader after refusing Democrats’ requests to call the Senate into an emergency session in January.
The House impeached Trump for a second time in his final days in office, but McConnell delayed starting the Senate trial until after Joe Biden was sworn in.
McConnell said the Senate was not meant to serve as a “moral tribunal” and said Trump could still be open to criminal prosecution.
“President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he’s in office,” McConnell said. “He didn’t get away with anything yet.”..

There are several in the Senate and elsewhere who came as close as they ever had to disavowing Trump over January 6th, seemingly on the assumption they could relax and he was done, and are now having to eat their words, hard, to stay on his good side.

They kept waiting for something to ruin him, but bent the knee when the opportunities arose anyway.

kle4

tlg86 said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

I was thinking about doing a piece on those lines.

One of the most effective political posters of my lifetime.

Certainly memorable. I don't know it will ever be as effective again.

Not least because I'm not sure many people in England would recognize the SNP top brass.

They could bring Sturgeon back - the continuity candidate won after all, so it's not as though the party members wanted her gone.

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

No, The SNP want to break up the UK, voters in the rest of the UK would rather not have them in government in Westminster.

How do you know, actually? It's a serious point - what about their policies, otherwise?

Based on polling, based on my campaigning experiences in English marginals in 2015.

It wasn't anti Scottish sentiment, they didn't like the concept of Salmond/The SNP anywhere near the levers of power.

They admired Salmond's skills and thought he'd walk all over Ed Miliband, which made it a doubly bad idea.

But that was almost a decade ago. I'd be surprised if they even knew who Mr Yousaf is. Anyway, we'll see what you say.

HYUFD

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in
Scotland as the Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

Almost as unpopular? Lol.

So SNP still about 10% down
on the 45% they got in 2019
and heading for their worst result since 2010 and losing their majority with the Greens at Holyrood too in 2026

Big_G_NorthWales

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in Scotland as tr e Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

What well paid oil rig jobs?

Surely even you must admit there are tens of thousands of Scottish jobs in the oil industry

Indeed around 196,000 jobs are supported by the industry in Scotland

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-coasts-and-seas/oil-and-gas#:~:text=Scotland is thought to be,around 196,000 jobs in Scotland.

You're exaggerating by a factor of *at least* two, so far as I can see, and it's going down. The newe licenses won't make any difference for years, if they ever do.

It is not me - it is Nature Scotland who published it and if you read it it says updated 10th July 2033

Carnyx

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in Scotland as tr e Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

What well paid oil rig jobs?

Surely even you must admit there are tens of thousands of Scottish jobs in the oil industry

Indeed around 196,000 jobs are supported by the industry in Scotland

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-coasts-and-seas/oil-and-gas#:~:text=Scotland is thought to be,around 196,000 jobs in Scotland.

You're exaggerating by a factor of *at least* two, so far as I can see, and it's going down. The newe licenses won't make any difference for years, if they ever do.

It is not me - it is Nature Scotland who published it and if you read it it says updated 10th July 2033

You have a crystal ball? I'm really impressed at the effects of the new licences.

I was looking at a Scottish Government report on the oil industry, actually.

Theuniondivvie

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in
Scotland as the Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

Almost as unpopular? Lol.

So SNP still about 10% down on average on the 45% they got in 2019

And the leperous Tories around 20% down.

Peck

FPT

Beibheirli_C said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

TEN BEST DEATH CAMPS/SITES OF MASS EXTERMINATION (that I’ve visited)

In reverse order


10. Srebrenica
9. That village in France
8. Solovetsky islands
7. Kamanets Podolskiy
6. St Petersburg in toto
5. Teotihuacan
4. Tuol sleng
3. Japanese occupied China
2. Cheoung Ek

And yet again. For the 78th year running. Still way out in front. The death camp that “has it all”. The nation’s favourite

1. Auschwitz

Probably won’t ever be beaten?

9. is Oradour-sur-Glane, never just 'that village in France' please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane

And, the most disturbing thing about Oradour? The fact that it stands out as an atrocity in France.

In Eastern Europe, there were hundreds, maybe thousands of Oradour's, and in most cases, only the locals remember them.

That's fair. It's a moving and instructive place to visit though.

The level of cruelty in the East defies belief. Count Tolstoy gave Harold Macmillan and Lord Aldington lot of stick over the repatriations at Klagenfurt and Bleiburg.

After reading about the activities of SS Cossacks, and the Ustasha, I think the British Army showed immense restraint not to shoot them on the spot.

Where I’ve just been. Kamanets Podilskyi. How many people have heard of it?

Yet it was the first big Aktion of the Final Solution. In just two days the einsatzgruppen marched 23,000 Jews to bomb craters at the edge of town, and forced them to strip and then shot them dead. Piling the corpses like layer cakes. Line after line after line

23,000. In 2 days. How do you even do that? I wonder if auschwitz at full blast could kill that many in 48 hours

You almost sound excited...

No. But it is fascinating in a satanically macabre way

I just checked. Auschwitz could NOT kill 23,000 in 2 days. At the very height of the Holocaust it is thought maybe 15,000 were dying every day - but that’s all the death camps working together. Auschwitz plus Belzec and Sobibor etc

The Americans managed to kill 70,000 people in Hiroshima in a few seconds. I know it is not a death camp but the killing rate is equivalent to more than 600 million people per day. Since your list is titled "Mass extermination" Hiroshima should be No.1

Agreed. And it's scary to see people like John von Neumann (who did the maths to calculate the right height above Nagasaki at which to explode the nuclear weapon in order to maximise the damage) and Robert Oppenheimer lauded as heroes.

Mass murder is only "fascinating in a satanically macabre way" for a sick arsehole.

Leon, you'll probably get off on the "Serb cutter" knife used in Jasenovac concentration camp, including by Petar Brzica, who is said to have murdered 1360 prisoners in one night. (They had a contest.) Goodness knows what his real score was. Does it matter? They had a competition to see who could murder the most prisoners. That does matter.

Mass murder tourism is vile and reminiscent of the character R M Renfield in Dracula who feeds flies to spiders, and spiders to birds, and then wants to get a cat.

Big_G_NorthWales

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in Scotland as tr e Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

What well paid oil rig jobs?

Surely even you must admit there are tens of thousands of Scottish jobs in the oil industry

Indeed around 196,000 jobs are supported by the industry in Scotland

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-coasts-and-seas/oil-and-gas#:~:text=Scotland is thought to be,around 196,000 jobs in Scotland.

You're exaggerating by a factor of *at least* two, so far as I can see, and it's going down. The newe licenses won't make any difference for years, if they ever do.

It is not me - it is Nature Scotland who published it and if you read it it says updated 10th July 2033

You have a crystal ball? I'm really impressed at the effects of the new licences.

I was looking at a Scottish Government report on the oil industry, actually.

That article if you read it, is nothing to do with new licences but the present employment status in the Scottish oil industry

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

I was thinking about doing a piece on those lines.

One of the most effective political posters of my lifetime.

That was the tame version.

Carnyx

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in Scotland as tr e Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

What well paid oil rig jobs?

Surely even you must admit there are tens of thousands of Scottish jobs in the oil industry

Indeed around 196,000 jobs are supported by the industry in Scotland

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-coasts-and-seas/oil-and-gas#:~:text=Scotland is thought to be,around 196,000 jobs in Scotland.

You're exaggerating by a factor of *at least* two, so far as I can see, and it's going down. The newe licenses won't make any difference for years, if they ever do.

It is not me - it is Nature Scotland who published it and if you read it it says updated 10th July 2033

You have a crystal ball? I'm really impressed at the effects of the new licences.

I was looking at a Scottish Government report on the oil industry, actually.

That article if you read it, is nothing to do with new licences but the present employment status in the Scottish oil industry

But NS aren't the specialist agency for employment data and the economy. It's about nature conservation and the report refers to employment only in passing.

TimS

Benpointer said:

O/T @Tims, re our discussion yesterday, the Met Office have now cautiously modified their view of the second half of August to:

During the second half of August, there is a greater chance of more settled spells developing, with warmer and drier conditions becoming slightly more likely than the unseasonably unsettled weather of July. However, unsettled conditions are never too far away and so there will likely still be some spells of rain or showers for many areas from time to time. Temperatures look like they will recover to at least average, or a little above, however any prolonged dry or hot spells appear to be unlikely.

Sounds about right. The ensembles are still showing the same - not a month of wall to wall sunshine but certainly a big improvement.

Even further off topic but in the spirit of Leon’s earlier incarnation as Michael Portillo battlefields and castles, I have an industrial history recommendation. I’m spending the week working from an Airbnb rental in Cromford in Derbyshire, for reasons too complicated to go into here. It’s a fascinating place: the Derwent valley, cradle of the Industrial Revolution. Richard Arkwright built arguably the world’s first proper factory here in the 1780s, then built the village to house the workers.

We do industrial heritage very well in Britain. Derwent Valley, Beamish, Ironbridge, the Black Country museum, Chatham dockyard, all really worthwhile places to visit. This one’s a revelation to me. There’s no way I’d be spending a summer week in the Derby Dales we’re it not for family exigencies taking us up to the North midlands and a cancelled holiday in Georgia on account of broken ribs (todays the day we were due to be driving up to Kazbegi in the Caucasus).

Big_G_NorthWales

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in
Scotland as the Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

Almost as unpopular? Lol.

So SNP still about 10% down on average on the 45% they got in 2019

And the leperous Tories around 20% down.

This battle is not to do with the tories but the future of the SNP in Scotland and it is looking very bleak

HYUFD

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in
Scotland as the Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

Almost as unpopular? Lol.

So SNP still about 10% down on average on the 45% they got in 2019

And the leperous Tories around 20% down.

No, most polls have the Tories on 25 to 30% not 23%

Foxy

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

I was thinking about doing a piece on those lines.

One of the most effective political posters of my lifetime.

Imagine what that coalition of chaos would have been like, rather than the steady, sober government that we got in 2015.

It was a narrow escape!

Big_G_NorthWales

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in Scotland as tr e Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

What well paid oil rig jobs?

Surely even you must admit there are tens of thousands of Scottish jobs in the oil industry

Indeed around 196,000 jobs are supported by the industry in Scotland

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-coasts-and-seas/oil-and-gas#:~:text=Scotland is thought to be,around 196,000 jobs in Scotland.

You're exaggerating by a factor of *at least* two, so far as I can see, and it's going down. The newe licenses won't make any difference for years, if they ever do.

It is not me - it is Nature Scotland who published it and if you read it it says updated 10th July 2033

You have a crystal ball? I'm really impressed at the effects of the new licences.

I was looking at a Scottish Government report on the oil industry, actually.

That article if you read it, is nothing to do with new licences but the present employment status in the Scottish oil industry

But NS aren't the specialist agency for employment data and the economy. It's about nature conservation and the report refers to employment only in passing.

You are sounding fairly desperate to be honest

Carnyx

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in Scotland as tr e Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

What well paid oil rig jobs?

Surely even you must admit there are tens of thousands of Scottish jobs in the oil industry

Indeed around 196,000 jobs are supported by the industry in Scotland

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-coasts-and-seas/oil-and-gas#:~:text=Scotland is thought to be,around 196,000 jobs in Scotland.

You're exaggerating by a factor of *at least* two, so far as I can see, and it's going down. The newe licenses won't make any difference for years, if they ever do.

It is not me - it is Nature Scotland who published it and if you read it it says updated 10th July 2033

You have a crystal ball? I'm really impressed at the effects of the new licences.

I was looking at a Scottish Government report on the oil industry, actually.

That article if you read it, is nothing to do with new licences but the present employment status in the Scottish oil industry

But NS aren't the specialist agency for employment data and the economy. It's about nature conservation and the report refers to employment only in passing.

You are sounding fairly desperate to be honest

You are citing a brochure on nature conservation advice as a primary source.

TheScreamingEagles

Well.



https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1686467372415090689

TimS

BlancheLivermore said:

I've just had a long chat with with my Siberian friend. We had a brief chat, our first in over a fortnight, on Sunday when she was in Kazakhstan. She was on her her way back from seeing her family for the first time in over three years

She's a British citizen / UK passport holder and has been for nearly fifteen years. She desperately wants to get her family out of Russia

She thinks it's impossible because they wouldn't be able to get visas to come here permanently

Her family is her parents, her sister and niece

Her Dad has property and business interests, with a bit of time to sell up he could support himself and Mum. Her sister is an excellent linguist who currently teaches English and Russian to kids in Siberia. She could probably teach English grammar to English kids

They hate Putin and want out

How hard would it be for them to come here permanently?

I've told her she should write to her MP and ask for help and advice, but I'm not sure how to help beyond that

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Sounds tricky to me assuming the family have no British links.

We’ve brought in employees from former Soviet states in recent years but the sponsored visa is key, and they take time.

Much easier I assume to go somewhere like Armenia or Azerbaijan, Turkey, maybe UAE. In the EU given fathers business perhaps Cyprus.

Cookie

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

No, The SNP want to break up the UK, voters in the rest of the UK would rather not have them in government in Westminster.

I woukd rather have any major group than tge SNP in power. It's not just that they want to break up tge UK. It's that they will actively govern against tge interests of a) the UK and b) the English. And also that they appear to be fucking nutters.
I'm fairly agnostic on the matter of whether or not England or Scotland would be better off together or apart. I think a desire for Scottish independence a perfectly respectable position. But the SNP themselves are not to be trusted. Honestly, I'd rather have Corbyn in the cabinet than Sturgeon.

kle4

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

I was thinking about doing a piece on those lines.

One of the most effective political posters of my lifetime.

That was the tame version.

Less effective. The intended scare despite being obvious they felt the need to both spell it out and justify it with a specific allegation, whereas the other one stands on its own very well, not only not needing any words but implying weakness for both Labour and Milband personally.

MattW

FPT

JosiasJessop said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

I think the Cons are absolutely right to pick a fight over this, and car ownership, and the JSO-type entreaties because most of us have a car and for very good reasons, and many of us realise the impracticalities of acting too quickly to dispossess us of them, or of penalising ownership because no one thinks it will stop at 10-yr old diesels when there are regulations and fines to impose for zealous councils. All of which the furore over ULEZ has shown so clearly.

This is the coincidence of green politics and the pound in your pocket (not you @Anabobazina), and the latter usually and especially now will win.

Going far beyond that now, and the car issue, though, as the news this mornign shows.

People are wary of money making on the one hand and money costing schemes on the other.

ULEZ, LTNs, etc are money making schemes and people are very cautious about them. Extra taxes, meanwhile, for green initiatives, or higher prices for green energy are money costing schemes and people loathe them.

I view the issue around ULEZ and LTNs as less about money and more about the undealt with post-covid trauma. People who disliked lockdown are now hyper sensitive to anything that smells like top down loss of freedoms. The conspiratorial wing have jumped off the deep end, but even the average person I think is now just risk averse to such things and want "normality". The problem is that "normality" is gone - covid was an example of what a climate catastrophic world could look like. Cars are a big issue - both from an emissions POV but also from the POV of how much infrastructure we dedicate to this highly inefficient (but profitable) mode of transportation.

We keep having this bullshit about cars being highly inefficient quoted on this website by the anti-car fanatics.

Cars are supremely efficient.

There is no other mode of transport so efficient as to quickly, affordably and reliably get you from A to B.

Cars are extremely efficient at transporting lots of people, very quickly. A road travelling at 30mph, let alone 70mph, can have an extremely high throughput of both people and goods/services.

No other mode of transport matches the efficiency of cars, which is why they are so extremely popular despite the fact that car drivers pay massively more in taxes than they get back in investment, while the polar opposite is true for other less efficient in almost all the country modes of transport like rail.

Nonsense, like usual.

1) Cycling is the most energy efficient form of transport, by miles.

2) Check this out:

I have absolutely no qualm with cycling routes being added, but the cold reality is that they're frequently then left empty 99% of the time whereas the cars roads are not.

I love this kind of argument. Exactly the same is true of a large proportion of roads.

And both are bullshit.

Look ! Look ! Look at empty, abandoned cycle track! It is inefficient !

Then look at the cyclecounter which shows that at least 2.67 million people have passed down that 3.5m wide cycletrack in well under a year. And it's at nothing like capacity.

That sniffs wrong. Given that there are 525,600 minutes in a year. If we take the 2.67 million to be in a year, then it means approximately five bikes a minute, including at nights. Or one every twelve seconds. Given there will be fewer at night, you would be looking at seven or eight per minute during 'day'.

As I say, that sniffs wrong. even for, as I believe that is, the Embankment.

(Aside: the data on LTNs is that they cut collision victims by half, and 20mph limits add a further 10-20% reduction. That is one reason why Sunak is completely barmy trying to weaponise banning them.)

Yes - the Embankment.

I'm honestly not sure why you say that, or the basis for the doubt. That is TFL data from a series that has been published for about 10-15 (?) years now iirc. I expect it is actually rather higher, if anything. If there was an issue with it, the Daily Mail would have had a fit by now .

The normal saturation flow for a dedicated cycle track is specified as 1 per second per metre of track width, which is doable but not very comfortable. I've clipped the data table from the LTN 1/20 standard below. 5 cyclists per minute is the max flow deemed acceptable on a 3m wide shared pedestrian / cycle path.

Here is a short clip of 3 cyclists per second on half of a similar cycle track in London. Physically quite doable, and reduction would perhaps be caused by lights etc, but then it will get priority most of the time since the cars will sitting more or less still in their lanes of traffic jam at peak hour.
https://youtu.be/CxpJL8RWRWg?t=259

All I can suggest is next time you visit take 15 minutes in a rush hour to count them !

Peck

HYUFD said:

tlg86 said:

SandyRentool said:

I'd be happy with a strong SNP performance. I want Tory seats in Scotland to be minimised at the GE.

A weak SNP is good news for the Tories.

Interesting! This suggests you are far from confident of Labour forming the next government. I think your pessimism is misplaced.

In any case, a strong showing from the SNP would send a message to England that Labour can't be relied upon to weaken the SNP and thus reduce the possibility of the SNP ending up in government.

Of course Labour have only got into government with English votes since WW2 twice, in 1997 and 1945.

In 1964 and Feb 1974 Wilson needed Scottish and Welsh Labour seats and votes, Home and Heath won a majority of seats in England.

Starmer is more Wilson in style than Blair 1997, perhaps Rishi will get closer than expected like his fellow Toff Sir Alec?

That is some amazing spinning. In 2001 Labour won almost twice as many seats as the Tories did in England. But maybe that doesn't count as getting "into" government and 323 isn't a majority anyway even if the Tories only achieved 165 and therefore your statements are technically correct. But the idea that Labour victories have in the past depended on overwhelming support in Scotland and Wales is often overstated.

I don't know whether your final para is ironic. Rishi Sunak isn't a toff. He may be an out of touch twat who doesn't have a clue about how ordinary people live their lives (the last Tory leader who may possibly have had a clue was John Major) but that doesn't make him a toff.

Nigelb

The former AG candidate now charged with voting machine tampering (Matt DePerno) was—big surprise—the same guy who kicked off the Dominion voting machine craze that eventually cost Fox News hundreds of millions. Also a grifter...
https://twitter.com/SollenbergerRC/status/1686462011918467073

TimS

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

I was thinking about doing a piece on those lines.

One of the most effective political posters of my lifetime.

Imagine what that coalition of chaos would have been like, rather than the steady, sober government that we got in 2015.

It was a narrow escape!

The fact that a similar poster with Sturgeon could have worked but one with Yousaf is just a laughable prospect shows the issue the SNP have and also the bluntness of this sort of attack if the Tories try it again.

Labour beating the SNP is an excellent opportunity to position themselves as the (or at the very least a) tactical unionist choice, and hopefully stifle any Tory resurgence at SNP expense.

Big_G_NorthWales

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in Scotland as tr e Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

What well paid oil rig jobs?

Surely even you must admit there are tens of thousands of Scottish jobs in the oil industry

Indeed around 196,000 jobs are supported by the industry in Scotland

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-coasts-and-seas/oil-and-gas#:~:text=Scotland is thought to be,around 196,000 jobs in Scotland.

You're exaggerating by a factor of *at least* two, so far as I can see, and it's going down. The newe licenses won't make any difference for years, if they ever do.

It is not me - it is Nature Scotland who published it and if you read it it says updated 10th July 2033

You have a crystal ball? I'm really impressed at the effects of the new licences.

I was looking at a Scottish Government report on the oil industry, actually.

That article if you read it, is nothing to do with new licences but the present employment status in the Scottish oil industry

But NS aren't the specialist agency for employment data and the economy. It's about nature conservation and the report refers to employment only in passing.

You are sounding fairly desperate to be honest

You are citing a brochure on nature conservation advice as a primary source.

This source quotes 213,000 across the sector so 196,000 quoted by Nature Scotland is not unreasonable

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-work-experience/job-sectors/energy-and-utilities/jobs-in-the-oil-and-gas-industry

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well.



https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1686467372415090689

Christina Bobb, I believe, was the lawyer duped by Trump's shenanigans into certifying a false statement that a diligent search for sensitive documents had been carried out at Mar-a-Lago.

People who work for Trump, outside perhaps his long term core associates, need to stop doing anything he says without question.

On the AG candidate, it's not hard to imagine several more officials may be at it. And accusations of it will be rife in any case. But thankfully many of the worst did not get elected.

TimS

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

I was thinking about doing a piece on those lines.

One of the most effective political posters of my lifetime.

That was the tame version.

Less effective. The intended scare despite being obvious they felt the need to both spell it out and justify it with a specific allegation, whereas the other one stands on its own very well, not only not needing any words but implying weakness for both Labour and Milband personally.

Yes, the original poster was an attack on Miliband not Salmond.

Theuniondivvie

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

No, The SNP want to break up the UK, voters in the rest of the UK would rather not have them in government in Westminster.

I woukd rather have any major group than tge SNP in power. It's not just that they want to break up tge UK. It's that they will actively govern against tge interests of a) the UK and b) the English. And also that they appear to be fucking nutters.
I'm fairly agnostic on the matter of whether or not England or Scotland would be better off together or apart. I think a desire for Scottish independence a perfectly respectable position. But the SNP themselves are not to be trusted. Honestly, I'd rather have Corbyn in the cabinet than Sturgeon.

The eternal cry, why do the Scots keep voting for people that make me, a fine upstanding Englishman, feel uncomfortable.
Next you'll be telling us we should be grateful for the wise, far seeing government that you impose upon us.

TheScreamingEagles

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

No, The SNP want to break up the UK, voters in the rest of the UK would rather not have them in government in Westminster.

I woukd rather have any major group than tge SNP in power. It's not just that they want to break up tge UK. It's that they will actively govern against tge interests of a) the UK and b) the English. And also that they appear to be fucking nutters.
I'm fairly agnostic on the matter of whether or not England or Scotland would be better off together or apart. I think a desire for Scottish independence a perfectly respectable position. But the SNP themselves are not to be trusted. Honestly, I'd rather have Corbyn in the cabinet than Sturgeon.

The eternal cry, why do the Scots keep voting for people that make me, a fine upstanding Englishman, feel uncomfortable.
Next you'll be telling us we should be grateful for the wise, far seeing government that you impose upon us.

No, you should be grateful to the 55%.

Benpointer

BlancheLivermore said:

I've just had a long chat with with my Siberian friend. We had a brief chat, our first in over a fortnight, on Sunday when she was in Kazakhstan. She was on her her way back from seeing her family for the first time in over three years

She's a British citizen / UK passport holder and has been for nearly fifteen years. She desperately wants to get her family out of Russia

She thinks it's impossible because they wouldn't be able to get visas to come here permanently

Her family is her parents, her sister and niece

Her Dad has property and business interests, with a bit of time to sell up he could support himself and Mum. Her sister is an excellent linguist who currently teaches English and Russian to kids in Siberia. She could probably teach English grammar to English kids

They hate Putin and want out

How hard would it be for them to come here permanently?

I've told her she should write to her MP and ask for help and advice, but I'm not sure how to help beyond that

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Assuming your friend is (or will be) in Britain, she could contact her local Citizens Advice. The local advisers probably won't be able to advise her directly, as it's covered by Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) the government body that regulates immigration advice, but they should be able to refer your friend to the CA specialist immigration team.

There's some basic information on the CA public site here: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/immigration/

kle4

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in
Scotland as the Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

Almost as unpopular? Lol.

So SNP still about 10% down on average on the 45% they got in 2019

And the leperous Tories around 20% down.

This battle is not to do with the tories but the future of the SNP in Scotland and it is looking very bleak

I won't count any chickens until they hatch.

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in
Scotland as the Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

Almost as unpopular? Lol.

So SNP still about 10% down on average on the 45% they got in 2019

And the leperous Tories around 20% down.

This battle is not to do with the tories but the future of the SNP in Scotland and it is looking very bleak

I won't count any chickens until they hatch.

Same, that said, I still cannot get over that full scale Scotland poll that showed Alex Salmond with worst ratings than Boris Johnson.

That makes me confident that Alba will not do well whilst Salmond is in charge.

Big_G_NorthWales

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On the latest Redfield Scotland only poll there will be a 12% swing from SNP to Labour since the 2019 general election in Scotland.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/scottish-independence-referendum-westminster-voting-intention-1-2-july-2023/

Labour should therefore win Rutherglen by a comfortable 14% margin in the by election, more with Tory and LD tactical voting for Labour.

Indeed Labour gains in Scotland combined with the Labour majority in Wales could ensure a Starmer Labour majority in the UK overall even if Labour fall short of a majority in England

A MONTH ago.

Not after the latest SKS news.

It's about as useful as a kipper with the meat eaten and left out for the seagulls for a week.

What latest SKS news?

Meanwhile Yougov this week finds Scots back the UK government's policy of more oil and gas licenses in the North Sea which the SNP oppose by a huge 48% to 27% margin, even more than the 42% to 27% margin UK wide
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/31/aac1f/1

SKS? The last month, full stop. Plus it's so touching to find you still haven't grasped the concept of subsamples and statistical error ranges, working to within one percentage point for your learned conclusions.

Oh dear, the poor Scots NAT not only finds the SNP now almost as unpopular in
Scotland as the Tories are in England. Yet even worse the supposed 'progressive' Scots love their fossil fuels even more than the English what with those well paid oil rig jobs and need to keep warm in winter

Almost as unpopular? Lol.

So SNP still about 10% down on average on the 45% they got in 2019

And the leperous Tories around 20% down.

This battle is not to do with the tories but the future of the SNP in Scotland and it is looking very bleak

I won't count any chickens until they hatch.

I just do not see the SNP retaining the seat nor doing anything like as well for Westminster or Holyrood going forward

Theuniondivvie

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

No, The SNP want to break up the UK, voters in the rest of the UK would rather not have them in government in Westminster.

I woukd rather have any major group than tge SNP in power. It's not just that they want to break up tge UK. It's that they will actively govern against tge interests of a) the UK and b) the English. And also that they appear to be fucking nutters.
I'm fairly agnostic on the matter of whether or not England or Scotland would be better off together or apart. I think a desire for Scottish independence a perfectly respectable position. But the SNP themselves are not to be trusted. Honestly, I'd rather have Corbyn in the cabinet than Sturgeon.

The eternal cry, why do the Scots keep voting for people that make me, a fine upstanding Englishman, feel uncomfortable.
Next you'll be telling us we should be grateful for the wise, far seeing government that you impose upon us.

No, you should be grateful to the 55%.

Brexit, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and the unending shitshow of Tory government?
Cheers guys.

TheScreamingEagles

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Carnyx said:

tlg86 said:

Arguably, this by-election is more important for the next general election in England than it is for Scotland.

Really? How come? Not many SNP candidates in England. And neither Labour nor the Tory parties are representative of the ones in England.

Labour win and it sends a message to voters in England (and Wales) that Labour are capable of picking up seats in Scotland, thus reducing the risk of them having to do a deal with the SNP.

It's a tough thing for the average voter to calculate, so it would be a significant event.

In other words, Labour have adopted the exclusionist philosophy of the Tories, a doctrine of first and second class MPs?

No, The SNP want to break up the UK, voters in the rest of the UK would rather not have them in government in Westminster.

I woukd rather have any major group than tge SNP in power. It's not just that they want to break up tge UK. It's that they will actively govern against tge interests of a) the UK and b) the English. And also that they appear to be fucking nutters.
I'm fairly agnostic on the matter of whether or not England or Scotland would be better off together or apart. I think a desire for Scottish independence a perfectly respectable position. But the SNP themselves are not to be trusted. Honestly, I'd rather have Corbyn in the cabinet than Sturgeon.

The eternal cry, why do the Scots keep voting for people that make me, a fine upstanding Englishman, feel uncomfortable.
Next you'll be telling us we should be grateful for the wise, far seeing government that you impose upon us.

No, you should be grateful to the 55%.

Brexit, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and the unending shitshow of Tory government?
Cheers guys.

That's democracy.

SeaShantyIrish2

kle4 said:

God I hope this is not true - Trump getting 40-50% is scary enough.

Steve Bannon wants Trump to pick RFK Jr as a running mate:

“You could get 60 percent or higher in the country.”
https://nitter.net/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1686457083401486357#m

Unlikely to achieve 60% with 45 on the ticket, regardless of VP.

But DJT-RFKjr would stir the pot, though the pain might outweigh the gain. However, same obviously true of Trump!

Another question: Bannon thinks it's a peachy keen idea, however am WAY less sure that actual Republicans will concur.

Starting with Tim Scott . . .

. . .from the Way-Back Machine:

In 1864, Abraham Lincoln was re-nominated by Republicans for POTUS, but incumbent VP Hannibal Hamilin was skipped over, in favor of "War Democrat" Andrew Johnson; Lincoln & Johnson then ran as "Union" ticket, and were elected over Democratic nominees, George McClellan, also a War Democrat, and George Pendleton, a "Peace Democrat".