Off thread - I've just had a really, really good Eccles cake. Marks and Spencer's, of all places. I'm not normallyagreat advocate of their food, but this was excellent. Possibly in fact the best Eccles cake I have ever had. And I've had a lot of Eccles cakes.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Protetestantism is not generally very big on mysticism, though charismatic worship does have some common features.
That contact with God is pretty mind blowing when it happens. Intoxication is a passport substitute, and without the cultural hinterland of the shamen often positively misleading.
I agree with Tom Holland that possibly one of the strangest features of Christianity is the belief that pity and mercy are, in and of themselves, virtuous. That’s quite unnatural, really.
Jesus Christ made few concessions to human nature.
Of the many horrible things about Nietzsche his assaults on Christianity on account of its belief in mercy and pity are among the most grotesque to our modern minds. Jesus (with help from other traditions) has moved human nature along. Hooray.
God had His revenge on Nietzsche, however. The philosopher died of tertiary syphilis, quite insane, as an exhibit in his sister's spare bedroom; the disease was possibly caught from Nietzsche's one and only sexual encounter. With a hooker
That's either some real chateau-bottled bad luck, or God took a dim view of His premature obituary
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The fact that many proponents of ULEZ quite clearly can't hide their contempt for private vehicles and would prefer no cars on the road, not even Tesla's, feeds into it too.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
All true; also, ULEZ has a terrible name. An 'Ultra Low' emission zone. Sure, my car is relatively clean. But does it have an ultra low emissions? I wouldn't have thought it did. It's no surprise people assume they are going to get stung by it. If 90% of cars on the road are compliant, the bar for 'ultra' isn't set terribly low. As ever, language matters.
The name rather reminds me of the Martian cry in War of the Worlds and, going by the hysteria about it in the media, the effect on London seems somewhat similar.
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The fact that many proponents of ULEZ quite clearly can't hide their contempt for private vehicles and would prefer no cars on the road, not even Tesla's, feeds into it too.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
All true; also, ULEZ has a terrible name. An 'Ultra Low' emission zone. Sure, my car is relatively clean. But does it have an ultra low emissions? I wouldn't have thought it did. It's no surprise people assume they are going to get stung by it. If 90% of cars on the road are compliant, the bar for 'ultra' isn't set terribly low. As ever, language matters.
The name rather reminds me of the Martian cry in War of the Worlds and, going by the hysteria about it in the media, the effect on London seems somewhat similar.
Never before in the history of the country had such a mass of cars moved and suffered together.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Protetestantism is not generally very big on mysticism, though charismatic worship does have some common features.
That contact with God is pretty mind blowing when it happens. Intoxication is a passport substitute, and without the cultural hinterland of the shamen often positively misleading.
I agree with Tom Holland that possibly one of the strangest features of Christianity is the belief that pity and mercy are, in and of themselves, virtuous. That’s quite unnatural, really.
Jesus Christ made few concessions to human nature.
Of the many horrible things about Nietzsche his assaults on Christianity on account of its belief in mercy and pity are among the most grotesque to our modern minds. Jesus (with help from other traditions) has moved human nature along. Hooray.
God had His revenge on Nietzsche, however. The philosopher died of tertiary syphilis, quite insane, as an exhibit in his sister's spare bedroom; the disease was possibly caught from Nietzsche's one and only sexual encounter. With a hooker
That's either some real chateau-bottled bad luck, or God took a dim view of His premature obituary
He picked up unlabelled syphilis on a jaunt to a port city. The moral of the tale is don’t touch anything unless it’s got proper labelling isn’t it?
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Are you George Michael?
If I was topping would refuse to believe I exist nods
After a quiet spell, a bit more polling to either get your teeth into or to treat with utter disdain or somewhere inbetween.
R&W and Deltapoll both had 16 point Labour leads while We Think (Omnisis as was) has a 21-point Labour advantage. The R&W Blue Wall polling shows little change overall. Deltapoll has the first 30% Conservative share since Savanta in early July but with Labour in the mid 40s, all three pollsters continue to show Starmer in a strong position with the LDs in double figures and close to their 2019 numbers.
Starmer leads Sunak 44-34 (R&W) and 37-28 (We Think) on the "better PM" question - obviously, more DKs with We Think amd I also note overall DKs just 10% with R&W (8% among men, 12% among women) so perhaps we are seeing more minds being made up in advance of an election campaign which will effectively begin with the Party Conferences next month and into October.
“Starmer leads Sunak 44-34 (R&W) and 37-28 (We Think) on the "better PM" question”
If we believe there’s incumbency bonus on this measure, the figures are huge. The widening gap doesn’t reflect Starmer’s performance, but how Sunak is increasingly held in poor regard by voters.
This summer the political narratives been difficult for the Conservatives, and there is no reason to suspect next summer won’t be difficult either. If Sunak and the team around him actually had the Conservative Party to heart, had leaving the seat total in a place to help a future comeback as their aim, then there is no doubt they should go to the country in April or May.
No. 10 musical chairs, with three Tory PMs in four years, has eroded any incumbency bonus for CUP at next GE.
Hardened psephologists will note, similar phenomenon for Conservative Party of Canada in 1890s following death in office of John A. Macdonald, who was succeeded by three more Tory PMs before party was royally thumped by Liberals under Wilfrid Laurier at next federal GE.
Following up the debate this morning about Trump being excluded from the Presidential Election on the basis of the 14th Amendment, here is the paper on the subject by William Baude (University of Chicago - Law School) and Michael Stokes Paulsen (University of St. Thomas School of Law), published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Are you George Michael?
If I was topping would refuse to believe I exist nods
Serious answer however as I think its important. Faith should be something that guides how you live, it shouldnt be expected to guide how others live nor run a country. That I believe is the problem with faith. Some assume all should conform rather than just seeing it as a moral structure they choose to live by
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The fact that many proponents of ULEZ quite clearly can't hide their contempt for private vehicles and would prefer no cars on the road, not even Tesla's, feeds into it too.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
As an Inner London resident, I had a frisson of concern until I checked and confirmed my car was compliant after which I basically didn't care. I've not noticed a reduction in traffic volumes - the evidence on air pollution is less clear. Some anecdotal evidence suggests it has improved so I'm trying to remain open minded and cleaner air, per se, isn't an unworthy goal.
Does pro-ULEZ mean anti-private vehicle? I'm not sure - you may be seeing something I'm not. If you have a compliant vehicle, it literally makes no difference - the congestion charge still exists if you want or need to drive into central London but that's another question. No one I've heard says you shouldn't have a vehicle - the volume of very short-distance journeys does beg other questions but that's another issue.
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The fact that many proponents of ULEZ quite clearly can't hide their contempt for private vehicles and would prefer no cars on the road, not even Tesla's, feeds into it too.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
All true; also, ULEZ has a terrible name. An 'Ultra Low' emission zone. Sure, my car is relatively clean. But does it have an ultra low emissions? I wouldn't have thought it did. It's no surprise people assume they are going to get stung by it. If 90% of cars on the road are compliant, the bar for 'ultra' isn't set terribly low. As ever, language matters.
The name rather reminds me of the Martian cry in War of the Worlds and, going by the hysteria about it in the media, the effect on London seems somewhat similar.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Protetestantism is not generally very big on mysticism, though charismatic worship does have some common features.
That contact with God is pretty mind blowing when it happens. Intoxication is a passport substitute, and without the cultural hinterland of the shamen often positively misleading.
I agree with Tom Holland that possibly one of the strangest features of Christianity is the belief that pity and mercy are, in and of themselves, virtuous. That’s quite unnatural, really.
Jesus Christ made few concessions to human nature.
Of the many horrible things about Nietzsche his assaults on Christianity on account of its belief in mercy and pity are among the most grotesque to our modern minds. Jesus (with help from other traditions) has moved human nature along. Hooray.
God had His revenge on Nietzsche, however. The philosopher died of tertiary syphilis, quite insane, as an exhibit in his sister's spare bedroom; the disease was possibly caught from Nietzsche's one and only sexual encounter. With a hooker
That's either some real chateau-bottled bad luck, or God took a dim view of His premature obituary
I don't think Nietzsche needed any help on that one.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
I'm not making any point at all about Labour Blue Wall success or otherwise.
I'm simply saying that the poll includes both Tory/Lib Dem and Tory/Labour seats. So you'd not expect to see evidence of tactical voting in the headline figures.
For example, the poll includes Chingford (a Labour target) and Cheltenham (a Lib Dem target). So exactly the same headline figures could be arrived at by Labour romping home in Chingford and Lib Dems in Cheltenham each by 55/40/5, or both missing agonisingly 39/40/21 - i.e. that tactical voting is huge or neglible.
So I'm not saying there will be massive tactical voting. I'm saying the headline figures from the poll tells you nothing about that because of the seats covered.
On local elections, mixed picture as ever but I'd say they tend to point to tactical voting. My impression (only an impression) is Lib Dems, Labour and Greens all made gains in wards where they were seen as clear challengers. Hard to extrapolate, though.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Protetestantism is not generally very big on mysticism, though charismatic worship does have some common features.
That contact with God is pretty mind blowing when it happens. Intoxication is a passport substitute, and without the cultural hinterland of the shamen often positively misleading.
I agree with Tom Holland that possibly one of the strangest features of Christianity is the belief that pity and mercy are, in and of themselves, virtuous. That’s quite unnatural, really.
Jesus Christ made few concessions to human nature.
Of the many horrible things about Nietzsche his assaults on Christianity on account of its belief in mercy and pity are among the most grotesque to our modern minds. Jesus (with help from other traditions) has moved human nature along. Hooray.
God had His revenge on Nietzsche, however. The philosopher died of tertiary syphilis, quite insane, as an exhibit in his sister's spare bedroom; the disease was possibly caught from Nietzsche's one and only sexual encounter. With a hooker
That's either some real chateau-bottled bad luck, or God took a dim view of His premature obituary
Thanks for your suggestions earlier by the way. Much appreciated but I had to go to that boring court thing again.
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The fact that many proponents of ULEZ quite clearly can't hide their contempt for private vehicles and would prefer no cars on the road, not even Tesla's, feeds into it too.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
As an Inner London resident, I had a frisson of concern until I checked and confirmed my car was compliant after which I basically didn't care. I've not noticed a reduction in traffic volumes - the evidence on air pollution is less clear. Some anecdotal evidence suggests it has improved so I'm trying to remain open minded and cleaner air, per se, isn't an unworthy goal.
Does pro-ULEZ mean anti-private vehicle? I'm not sure - you may be seeing something I'm not. If you have a compliant vehicle, it literally makes no difference - the congestion charge still exists if you want or need to drive into central London but that's another question. No one I've heard says you shouldn't have a vehicle - the volume of very short-distance journeys does beg other questions but that's another issue.
Of course not, any more than supporting LTNs implies opposition to private cars.
It's about improved air quality as required by Government set targets, quality of life, freedom to choose appropriate travel options, and the Govt looking to save their butt via wedge issues.
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The fact that many proponents of ULEZ quite clearly can't hide their contempt for private vehicles and would prefer no cars on the road, not even Tesla's, feeds into it too.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
All true; also, ULEZ has a terrible name. An 'Ultra Low' emission zone. Sure, my car is relatively clean. But does it have an ultra low emissions? I wouldn't have thought it did. It's no surprise people assume they are going to get stung by it. If 90% of cars on the road are compliant, the bar for 'ultra' isn't set terribly low. As ever, language matters.
The name rather reminds me of the Martian cry in War of the Worlds and, going by the hysteria about it in the media, the effect on London seems somewhat similar.
Never before in the history of the country had such a mass of cars moved and suffered together.
The chances of anything coming from the M25 were a million to one they said, The chances of anything coming from the M25 were a million to one, but still they come.
Off thread - I've just had a really, really good Eccles cake. Marks and Spencer's, of all places. I'm not normallyagreat advocate of their food, but this was excellent. Possibly in fact the best Eccles cake I have ever had. And I've had a lot of Eccles cakes.
Eccles - the place name - is cognate with the Welsh Eglwys which in turn is derived from the Greek Ecclesia. It's a remnant of 'Y Hen Gogledd' - the ancient Britons of the north country who were cut off from the land of their fathers when the Anglo Saxons arrived in Chester.
Off thread - I've just had a really, really good Eccles cake. Marks and Spencer's, of all places. I'm not normallyagreat advocate of their food, but this was excellent. Possibly in fact the best Eccles cake I have ever had. And I've had a lot of Eccles cakes.
Eccles - the place name - is cognate with the Welsh Eglwys which in turn is derived from the Greek Ecclesia. It's a remnant of 'Y Hen Gogledd' - the ancient Britons of the north country who were cut off from the land of their fathers when the Anglo Saxons arrived in Chester.
That’s brilliant. So it really means “church cake”?!
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The fact that many proponents of ULEZ quite clearly can't hide their contempt for private vehicles and would prefer no cars on the road, not even Tesla's, feeds into it too.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
As an Inner London resident, I had a frisson of concern until I checked and confirmed my car was compliant after which I basically didn't care. I've not noticed a reduction in traffic volumes - the evidence on air pollution is less clear. Some anecdotal evidence suggests it has improved so I'm trying to remain open minded and cleaner air, per se, isn't an unworthy goal.
Does pro-ULEZ mean anti-private vehicle? I'm not sure - you may be seeing something I'm not. If you have a compliant vehicle, it literally makes no difference - the congestion charge still exists if you want or need to drive into central London but that's another question. No one I've heard says you shouldn't have a vehicle - the volume of very short-distance journeys does beg other questions but that's another issue.
And part of the problem is that some genuine problems- people just beyond the edges of support schemes- have got drowned out in a pile of politicised piffle.
The important thing, though, is what happens next. Londonwide ULEZ is now an established fact on the ground. Come next May's elections, there will be a market of sorts for its reversal, but a small, shrinking and increasingly shrill one. (Most Londoners will clock that it doesn't affect them in the next few days, and many of those affected will bite the bullet and change their cars over the next few months. That will leave the Reform/Reclaim style paranoid as the core of the remaining opposition.)
So having failed to stop ULEZ expansion, what do City Hall Conservatives say and do next?
Off thread - I've just had a really, really good Eccles cake. Marks and Spencer's, of all places. I'm not normallyagreat advocate of their food, but this was excellent. Possibly in fact the best Eccles cake I have ever had. And I've had a lot of Eccles cakes.
Eccles - the place name - is cognate with the Welsh Eglwys which in turn is derived from the Greek Ecclesia. It's a remnant of 'Y Hen Gogledd' - the ancient Britons of the north country who were cut off from the land of their fathers when the Anglo Saxons arrived in Chester.
So its not just short for Ecclefechan? Well, there you are.
After a quiet spell, a bit more polling to either get your teeth into or to treat with utter disdain or somewhere inbetween.
R&W and Deltapoll both had 16 point Labour leads while We Think (Omnisis as was) has a 21-point Labour advantage. The R&W Blue Wall polling shows little change overall. Deltapoll has the first 30% Conservative share since Savanta in early July but with Labour in the mid 40s, all three pollsters continue to show Starmer in a strong position with the LDs in double figures and close to their 2019 numbers.
Starmer leads Sunak 44-34 (R&W) and 37-28 (We Think) on the "better PM" question - obviously, more DKs with We Think amd I also note overall DKs just 10% with R&W (8% among men, 12% among women) so perhaps we are seeing more minds being made up in advance of an election campaign which will effectively begin with the Party Conferences next month and into October.
“Starmer leads Sunak 44-34 (R&W) and 37-28 (We Think) on the "better PM" question”
If we believe there’s incumbency bonus on this measure, the figures are huge. The widening gap doesn’t reflect Starmer’s performance, but how Sunak is increasingly held in poor regard by voters.
This summer the political narratives been difficult for the Conservatives, and there is no reason to suspect next summer won’t be difficult either. If Sunak and the team around him actually had the Conservative Party to heart, had leaving the seat total in a place to help a future comeback as their aim, then there is no doubt they should go to the country in April or May.
No. 10 musical chairs, with three Tory PMs in four years, has eroded any incumbency bonus for CUP at next GE.
Hardened psephologists will note, similar phenomenon for Conservative Party of Canada in 1890s following death in office of John A. Macdonald, who was succeeded by three more Tory PMs before party was royally thumped by Liberals under Wilfrid Laurier at next federal GE.
I don't think the party appreciates just how much the chaos of last year wounded them, that it's not something that can be simply brushed past or reset. It's one reason why Sunak has had so much more trouble trying to restore things than they probably expected (timidity, after an initially understandable period of caution to stop the descent, is another).
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Are you George Michael?
If I was topping would refuse to believe I exist nods
Serious answer however as I think its important. Faith should be something that guides how you live, it shouldnt be expected to guide how others live nor run a country. That I believe is the problem with faith. Some assume all should conform rather than just seeing it as a moral structure they choose to live by
Reminds me of Roger Williams, English protestant rebel (both Old & New England) and founder of Rhode Island.
Unlike you, Williams did believe faith and religion ought to guide governments.
HOWEVER, he was opposed to religious coercion by government, or beyond, on grounds that true faith and religion could NOT be coerced.
Williams was able to protect Rhode Island against its Puritan neighbors, Massachusetts and Connecticut, by securing a rather remarkable charter from Charles I, including guarantee of religious liberty. The smartest of Stuarts had a different agenda than Williams, namely sticking it to the Puritans and suchlike (in the Old World as well as the New) AND establishing toleration principle he hoped would aid Catholics in Britain. While in the short-to-mid term that did NOT work out, in the long run it most certainly did.
Getting back to your basic point, one validates their faith by governing themselves, not others.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Are you George Michael?
If I was topping would refuse to believe I exist nods
Serious answer however as I think its important. Faith should be something that guides how you live, it shouldnt be expected to guide how others live nor run a country. That I believe is the problem with faith. Some assume all should conform rather than just seeing it as a moral structure they choose to live by
Reminds me of Roger Williams, English protestant rebel (both Old & New England) and founder of Rhode Island.
Unlike you, Williams did believe faith and religion ought to guide governments.
HOWEVER, he was opposed to religious coercion by government, or beyond, on grounds that true faith and religion could NOT be coerced.
Williams was able to protect Rhode Island against its Puritan neighbors, Massachusetts and Connecticut, by securing a rather remarkable charter from Charles I, including guarantee of religious liberty. The smartest of Stuarts had a different agenda than Williams, namely sticking it to the Puritans and suchlike (in the Old World as well as the New) AND establishing toleration principle he hoped would aid Catholics in Britain. While in the short-to-mid term that did NOT work out, in the long run it most certainly did.
Getting back to your basic point, one validates their faith by governing themselves, not others.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Are you George Michael?
If I was topping would refuse to believe I exist nods
Serious answer however as I think its important. Faith should be something that guides how you live, it shouldnt be expected to guide how others live nor run a country. That I believe is the problem with faith. Some assume all should conform rather than just seeing it as a moral structure they choose to live by
Reminds me of Roger Williams, English protestant rebel (both Old & New England) and founder of Rhode Island.
Unlike you, Williams did believe faith and religion ought to guide governments.
HOWEVER, he was opposed to religious coercion by government, or beyond, on grounds that true faith and religion could NOT be coerced.
Williams was able to protect Rhode Island against its Puritan neighbors, Massachusetts and Connecticut, by securing a rather remarkable charter from Charles I, including guarantee of religious liberty. The smartest of Stuarts had a different agenda than Williams, namely sticking it to the Puritans and suchlike (in the Old World as well as the New) AND establishing toleration principle he hoped would aid Catholics in Britain. While in the short-to-mid term that did NOT work out, in the long run it most certainly did.
Getting back to your basic point, one validates their faith by governing themselves, not others.
He was a fascinating character of the period. There was so much religious and social upheaval and ideas, but his approach still stands out in some ways.
Lacking a cool label like Ranter, Quaker, Seekers, or Muggletonians though.
Off thread - I've just had a really, really good Eccles cake. Marks and Spencer's, of all places. I'm not normallyagreat advocate of their food, but this was excellent. Possibly in fact the best Eccles cake I have ever had. And I've had a lot of Eccles cakes.
"Cookie and the Eccles Cake" is a title that might potentially end up on NYT list of childrens book bestsellers.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
Is there a grey wall where the Conservative vote will hold up due to a preponderance of pensioners? Coastal constituencies maybe? Any others?
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Are you George Michael?
If I was topping would refuse to believe I exist nods
Serious answer however as I think its important. Faith should be something that guides how you live, it shouldnt be expected to guide how others live nor run a country. That I believe is the problem with faith. Some assume all should conform rather than just seeing it as a moral structure they choose to live by
It is rare for me to agree with you so completely. People should live their lives as they choose, but should not force others to live the same way.
Off thread - I've just had a really, really good Eccles cake. Marks and Spencer's, of all places. I'm not normallyagreat advocate of their food, but this was excellent. Possibly in fact the best Eccles cake I have ever had. And I've had a lot of Eccles cakes.
Eccles - the place name - is cognate with the Welsh Eglwys which in turn is derived from the Greek Ecclesia. It's a remnant of 'Y Hen Gogledd' - the ancient Britons of the north country who were cut off from the land of their fathers when the Anglo Saxons arrived in Chester.
So its not just short for Ecclefechan? Well, there you are.
An Eccles Cake is different from an Ecclefechan Tart. Both would be preferable to a tiny piece of bread at communion.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
I'm not making any point at all about Labour Blue Wall success or otherwise.
I'm simply saying that the poll includes both Tory/Lib Dem and Tory/Labour seats. So you'd not expect to see evidence of tactical voting in the headline figures.
For example, the poll includes Chingford (a Labour target) and Cheltenham (a Lib Dem target). So exactly the same headline figures could be arrived at by Labour romping home in Chingford and Lib Dems in Cheltenham each by 55/40/5, or both missing agonisingly 39/40/21 - i.e. that tactical voting is huge or neglible.
So I'm not saying there will be massive tactical voting. I'm saying the headline figures from the poll tells you nothing about that because of the seats covered.
On local elections, mixed picture as ever but I'd say they tend to point to tactical voting. My impression (only an impression) is Lib Dems, Labour and Greens all made gains in wards where they were seen as clear challengers. Hard to extrapolate, though.
But your last paragraph is the key part here in the mistake you are making - wards are one thing, FPTP Parliamentary Constituencies are a different ball game. History shows LLG tactical voting needs to be pretty precise to be effective - Uxbridge as example stayed blue thanks to number of green votes.
Surely you admit the Blue Wall map overall favours more Lib Dem opportunities from precise LLG voting than it favours Labour? Yet Labour leads the polling and Lib Dem’s static. It is going to need a Blue Wall voting shift from Labour to LibDem that defies these current polls, for the LLG vote to hurt the Conservatives in a general election as much as it has done in local elections.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Are you George Michael?
If I was topping would refuse to believe I exist nods
Serious answer however as I think its important. Faith should be something that guides how you live, it shouldnt be expected to guide how others live nor run a country. That I believe is the problem with faith. Some assume all should conform rather than just seeing it as a moral structure they choose to live by
It is rare for me to agree with you so completely. People should live their lives as they choose, but should not force others to live the same way.
Likewise but people are complicated most will have views that synchronize no matter if on most matters we are opposed
The PB Bumpkins droning on about Ulez AGAIN. Somebody make it stop.
A thread where the profound fundamentals of religious faith can coexist with discussions of ULEZ, and the origin of the words "Eccles Cake", and somehow they are mysteriously interlinked
Verily, this is the Holy Trinity of PB: Father, Son and Holy Ghost
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
Is there a grey wall where the Conservative vote will hold up due to a preponderance of pensioners? Coastal constituencies maybe? Any others?
That is an excellent question. I think Grey Wall voting will play a part in the coming General Election. Constituencies where Grey Vote is higher than average will buck trends and keep Conservative MPs, when the swings bring the outcome into margins of just hundreds of votes, like recent Uxbridge.
I think Uxbridge may have had an element of this, but as hypothesis, i haven’t seen any statistics that puts Grey Vote in Uxbridge higher than average.
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The fact that many proponents of ULEZ quite clearly can't hide their contempt for private vehicles and would prefer no cars on the road, not even Tesla's, feeds into it too.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
As an Inner London resident, I had a frisson of concern until I checked and confirmed my car was compliant after which I basically didn't care. I've not noticed a reduction in traffic volumes - the evidence on air pollution is less clear. Some anecdotal evidence suggests it has improved so I'm trying to remain open minded and cleaner air, per se, isn't an unworthy goal.
Does pro-ULEZ mean anti-private vehicle? I'm not sure - you may be seeing something I'm not. If you have a compliant vehicle, it literally makes no difference - the congestion charge still exists if you want or need to drive into central London but that's another question. No one I've heard says you shouldn't have a vehicle - the volume of very short-distance journeys does beg other questions but that's another issue.
And part of the problem is that some genuine problems- people just beyond the edges of support schemes- have got drowned out in a pile of politicised piffle.
The important thing, though, is what happens next. Londonwide ULEZ is now an established fact on the ground. Come next May's elections, there will be a market of sorts for its reversal, but a small, shrinking and increasingly shrill one. (Most Londoners will clock that it doesn't affect them in the next few days, and many of those affected will bite the bullet and change their cars over the next few months. That will leave the Reform/Reclaim style paranoid as the core of the remaining opposition.)
So having failed to stop ULEZ expansion, what do City Hall Conservatives say and do next?
The hypocrisy of the Tories on ULEZ is staggering, accusing Khan of a cash grab on motorists after the government told Khan he should extend the congestion charging zone to the N/S Circular (and he refused)... Such arseholes.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Are you George Michael?
If I was topping would refuse to believe I exist nods
Serious answer however as I think its important. Faith should be something that guides how you live, it shouldnt be expected to guide how others live nor run a country. That I believe is the problem with faith. Some assume all should conform rather than just seeing it as a moral structure they choose to live by
It is rare for me to agree with you so completely. People should live their lives as they choose, but should not force others to live the same way.
Likewise but people are complicated most will have views that synchronize no matter if on most matters we are opposed
To an extent it is a formula that works. Woman chooses to wear niqab is fine, woman forced to wear niquab by others very much not fine.
The collision is inevitable though, so I am fine with Trans-folk living as they choose, but it does require others to conform to their choice.
No person is an island, we are all part of the main, and where there is people there is politics.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
I'm not making any point at all about Labour Blue Wall success or otherwise.
I'm simply saying that the poll includes both Tory/Lib Dem and Tory/Labour seats. So you'd not expect to see evidence of tactical voting in the headline figures.
For example, the poll includes Chingford (a Labour target) and Cheltenham (a Lib Dem target). So exactly the same headline figures could be arrived at by Labour romping home in Chingford and Lib Dems in Cheltenham each by 55/40/5, or both missing agonisingly 39/40/21 - i.e. that tactical voting is huge or neglible.
So I'm not saying there will be massive tactical voting. I'm saying the headline figures from the poll tells you nothing about that because of the seats covered.
On local elections, mixed picture as ever but I'd say they tend to point to tactical voting. My impression (only an impression) is Lib Dems, Labour and Greens all made gains in wards where they were seen as clear challengers. Hard to extrapolate, though.
But your last paragraph is the key part here in the mistake you are making - wards are one thing, FPTP Parliamentary Constituencies are a different ball game. History shows LLG tactical voting needs to be pretty precise to be effective - Uxbridge as example stayed blue thanks to number of green votes.
Surely you admit the Blue Wall map overall favours more Lib Dem opportunities from precise LLG voting than it favours Labour? Yet Labour leads the polling and Lib Dem’s static. It is going to need a Blue Wall voting shift from Labour to LibDem that defies these current polls, for the LLG vote to hurt the Conservatives in a general election as much as it has done in local elections.
Not an issue yet.
Like Fatima's next job in cyber, millions of voters live in Lib Dem target seats, but I suspect they don't know it yet.
(Rough guess? There are about 50 seats like that, so 3.5 million voters.)
Votes outside those seats might be nice to have, but they don't really benefit the Lib Dems if they don't elect MPs.
Closer to the big day, it will be as obvious as "Can't win here" arrow on a barchart what those seats are, but most voters won't have started to think about it. In the meantime, patience dear Moon.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
I'm not making any point at all about Labour Blue Wall success or otherwise.
I'm simply saying that the poll includes both Tory/Lib Dem and Tory/Labour seats. So you'd not expect to see evidence of tactical voting in the headline figures.
For example, the poll includes Chingford (a Labour target) and Cheltenham (a Lib Dem target). So exactly the same headline figures could be arrived at by Labour romping home in Chingford and Lib Dems in Cheltenham each by 55/40/5, or both missing agonisingly 39/40/21 - i.e. that tactical voting is huge or neglible.
So I'm not saying there will be massive tactical voting. I'm saying the headline figures from the poll tells you nothing about that because of the seats covered.
On local elections, mixed picture as ever but I'd say they tend to point to tactical voting. My impression (only an impression) is Lib Dems, Labour and Greens all made gains in wards where they were seen as clear challengers. Hard to extrapolate, though.
But your last paragraph is the key part here in the mistake you are making - wards are one thing, FPTP Parliamentary Constituencies are a different ball game. History shows LLG tactical voting needs to be pretty precise to be effective - Uxbridge as example stayed blue thanks to number of green votes.
Surely you admit the Blue Wall map overall favours more Lib Dem opportunities from precise LLG voting than it favours Labour? Yet Labour leads the polling and Lib Dem’s static. It is going to need a Blue Wall voting shift from Labour to LibDem that defies these current polls, for the LLG vote to hurt the Conservatives in a general election as much as it has done in local elections.
No, I don't accept that because the data tables for the R&W poll list the seats that are covered. I've not been through them one by one, but they look pretty evenly divided between Lib Dem and Labour targets from the Conservatives.
On local elections, you are of course right that wards and constituencies differ. There might be a Labour target ward in a Lib Dem target constituency for example. How is one to read a great Labour result there? As evidence Labour voters will go red come what may or that Lib Dems will vote Labour if it makes sense in that specific ward but will go yellow at a general? Either is possible, I accept.
I'd just say that generally looking across results in different areas (with exceptions as ever) the impression one gets is you had a lot of areas where there was a Lib Dem gain next door to a Labour gain, next door to a Green or Independent gain, each from the Tories. Where that happens enough, that at least looks like people working out their best bet to beat the blues from leaflets etc on the ground, and doing that. They don't always judge it right of course, and there were some savage red on yellow contests as part of the mix - but you look at overall patterns from a confusing picture.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
Is there a grey wall where the Conservative vote will hold up due to a preponderance of pensioners? Coastal constituencies maybe? Any others?
That is an excellent question. I think Grey Wall voting will play a part in the coming General Election. Constituencies where Grey Vote is higher than average will buck trends and keep Conservative MPs, when the swings bring the outcome into margins of just hundreds of votes, like recent Uxbridge.
I think Uxbridge may have had an element of this, but as hypothesis, i haven’t seen any statistics that puts Grey Vote in Uxbridge higher than average.
Suspect that in Uxbridge, the X-factor may have been fear of ULEZ expense (overblown or not) by voters in the less-leafy parts of the constituency, closest to Heathrow, with relatively modest incomes faced with relatively high housing and other costs.
IF this was a factor at all, would remind me of vote in WA State back in 1990s, on cutting car license fees which were then based on value of car; more affluent voters tended to support higher fees as reasonable form of taxation (in state with NO state income tax). But less affluent voters, even (or rather especially) non-ideological Democrats, tended to vote for the cuts, on grounds that THEY needed the money to offset rising cost of living.
Off thread - I've just had a really, really good Eccles cake. Marks and Spencer's, of all places. I'm not normallyagreat advocate of their food, but this was excellent. Possibly in fact the best Eccles cake I have ever had. And I've had a lot of Eccles cakes.
Eccles - the place name - is cognate with the Welsh Eglwys which in turn is derived from the Greek Ecclesia. It's a remnant of 'Y Hen Gogledd' - the ancient Britons of the north country who were cut off from the land of their fathers when the Anglo Saxons arrived in Chester.
So its not just short for Ecclefechan? Well, there you are.
At the risk of being blindingly obvious, Ecclefachan (= little church) is also a remnant of the Cymric folk who used to live in that neck of the woods. Not being a 'pb scotch expert' I've no idea to what extent that element of the national heritage is recognised, compared with the extant Celtic fringe. The P-Celts (Cymric) and the Q-Celts (Gaels) fell out over something or other a very long time ago. Or maybe they just drifted apart and agreed to go their separate ways.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
Is there a grey wall where the Conservative vote will hold up due to a preponderance of pensioners? Coastal constituencies maybe? Any others?
That is an excellent question. I think Grey Wall voting will play a part in the coming General Election. Constituencies where Grey Vote is higher than average will buck trends and keep Conservative MPs, when the swings bring the outcome into margins of just hundreds of votes, like recent Uxbridge.
I think Uxbridge may have had an element of this, but as hypothesis, i haven’t seen any statistics that puts Grey Vote in Uxbridge higher than average.
In one recent GE (2017 I think) I carefully went through constituencies looking for ones with significantly different age demographics, looking for betting value. It wasn't easy to find good value, but notably a lot of "red wall" seats are also grey wall. The youngsters have moved to the metropolitan constituencies.
Off thread - I've just had a really, really good Eccles cake. Marks and Spencer's, of all places. I'm not normallyagreat advocate of their food, but this was excellent. Possibly in fact the best Eccles cake I have ever had. And I've had a lot of Eccles cakes.
Eccles - the place name - is cognate with the Welsh Eglwys which in turn is derived from the Greek Ecclesia. It's a remnant of 'Y Hen Gogledd' - the ancient Britons of the north country who were cut off from the land of their fathers when the Anglo Saxons arrived in Chester.
So its not just short for Ecclefechan? Well, there you are.
There's a decent cheapish hotel at Ecclefechan with a bar which doubles as the village pub. Good food too. A recommended overnight stop when driving from south england to to highlands. And you can visit the Thomas Carlyle museum.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
I'm not making any point at all about Labour Blue Wall success or otherwise.
I'm simply saying that the poll includes both Tory/Lib Dem and Tory/Labour seats. So you'd not expect to see evidence of tactical voting in the headline figures.
For example, the poll includes Chingford (a Labour target) and Cheltenham (a Lib Dem target). So exactly the same headline figures could be arrived at by Labour romping home in Chingford and Lib Dems in Cheltenham each by 55/40/5, or both missing agonisingly 39/40/21 - i.e. that tactical voting is huge or neglible.
So I'm not saying there will be massive tactical voting. I'm saying the headline figures from the poll tells you nothing about that because of the seats covered.
On local elections, mixed picture as ever but I'd say they tend to point to tactical voting. My impression (only an impression) is Lib Dems, Labour and Greens all made gains in wards where they were seen as clear challengers. Hard to extrapolate, though.
But your last paragraph is the key part here in the mistake you are making - wards are one thing, FPTP Parliamentary Constituencies are a different ball game. History shows LLG tactical voting needs to be pretty precise to be effective - Uxbridge as example stayed blue thanks to number of green votes.
Surely you admit the Blue Wall map overall favours more Lib Dem opportunities from precise LLG voting than it favours Labour? Yet Labour leads the polling and Lib Dem’s static. It is going to need a Blue Wall voting shift from Labour to LibDem that defies these current polls, for the LLG vote to hurt the Conservatives in a general election as much as it has done in local elections.
Bedfordshire Mid is very much the playing out of this battle for vote efficiency.
By any normal analysis, Labour shouldn't be in the game there. Their closest approach was losing by a full 13.5% to the Tories in 1997, the LDs and predecessors came second in 4 of the last 10 GEs. The LDs should be the only game in town.
But, but. That Baxter analysis - Labour, on current polling, gain 62 seats in the non-London South. How does Labour access that without LD confusion. Mid Beds tantalisingly close.
A moonshot in a by-election. Labour want that Winning Here kudos so as many of those 62 know to vote Labour. I can't recall them doing that before but, tonight, they are the LibDems.
Off thread - I've just had a really, really good Eccles cake. Marks and Spencer's, of all places. I'm not normallyagreat advocate of their food, but this was excellent. Possibly in fact the best Eccles cake I have ever had. And I've had a lot of Eccles cakes.
Eccles - the place name - is cognate with the Welsh Eglwys which in turn is derived from the Greek Ecclesia. It's a remnant of 'Y Hen Gogledd' - the ancient Britons of the north country who were cut off from the land of their fathers when the Anglo Saxons arrived in Chester.
So its not just short for Ecclefechan? Well, there you are.
At the risk of being blindingly obvious, Ecclefachan (= little church) is also a remnant of the Cymric folk who used to live in that neck of the woods. Not being a 'pb scotch expert' I've no idea to what extent that element of the national heritage is recognised, compared with the extant Celtic fringe. The P-Celts (Cymric) and the Q-Celts (Gaels) fell out over something or other a very long time ago. Or maybe they just drifted apart and agreed to go their separate ways.
You can see the same word for church, in Cornish - eglos - in places like Lanteglos = "church in the valley"
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
Is there a grey wall where the Conservative vote will hold up due to a preponderance of pensioners? Coastal constituencies maybe? Any others?
That is an excellent question. I think Grey Wall voting will play a part in the coming General Election. Constituencies where Grey Vote is higher than average will buck trends and keep Conservative MPs, when the swings bring the outcome into margins of just hundreds of votes, like recent Uxbridge.
I think Uxbridge may have had an element of this, but as hypothesis, i haven’t seen any statistics that puts Grey Vote in Uxbridge higher than average.
Personally, I think Uxbridge risks giving a massive bum steer to the Tories' General Election strategy.
I think the correct steer they should take from it is that, if they can find a really good issue to pin on a local non-Tory council or mayor, they should milk it for all it's worth as Labour support is wide but rather shallow. It's not terribly novel to say that you look for a good local issue if the national picture is bad, but it's no less true for being obvious.
I think the steer they will in fact take is that there is a generalised mood against green policies, and also that local hot button topics play as well at a General Election as at a by-election. My instinct is that neither of those are correct.
They won't be the only people to take a major bum steer from a success. In 2015, the Lib Dems "learned" from their Eastleigh defence that they could fight a by-election style defence in 40+ seats and hope for a good success rate. That absolutely didn't happen - they over-targeted and didn't abandon held seats that they plainly ought to have cut adrift.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
Is there a grey wall where the Conservative vote will hold up due to a preponderance of pensioners? Coastal constituencies maybe? Any others?
That is an excellent question. I think Grey Wall voting will play a part in the coming General Election. Constituencies where Grey Vote is higher than average will buck trends and keep Conservative MPs, when the swings bring the outcome into margins of just hundreds of votes, like recent Uxbridge.
I think Uxbridge may have had an element of this, but as hypothesis, i haven’t seen any statistics that puts Grey Vote in Uxbridge higher than average.
In one recent GE (2017 I think) I carefully went through constituencies looking for ones with significantly different age demographics, looking for betting value. It wasn't easy to find good value, but notably a lot of "red wall" seats are also grey wall. The youngsters have moved to the metropolitan constituencies.
I agree with you. Red wall having a grey wall element is a great call.
I think Labour will win more red wall targets than blue wall targets simply because of the much greater number of red wall targets, but the swings and win ratio may be lower for Labour in red wall, as their vote has struggled there throughout this parliament.
There is not one simple answer to stickiness. Saying it’s ULEZ wot won it, or Grey Vote wot won it is simple politicking not psephology, but the different factors playing the greater part, such a Grey Vote, will be different from constituency to constituency.
From the absolute shambles of a parliamentary term Government, the Tories have at least looked after their client “grey vote” very well - and this fact should reap dividends in the General Election.
Off thread - I've just had a really, really good Eccles cake. Marks and Spencer's, of all places. I'm not normallyagreat advocate of their food, but this was excellent. Possibly in fact the best Eccles cake I have ever had. And I've had a lot of Eccles cakes.
Eccles - the place name - is cognate with the Welsh Eglwys which in turn is derived from the Greek Ecclesia. It's a remnant of 'Y Hen Gogledd' - the ancient Britons of the north country who were cut off from the land of their fathers when the Anglo Saxons arrived in Chester.
So its not just short for Ecclefechan? Well, there you are.
At the risk of being blindingly obvious, Ecclefachan (= little church) is also a remnant of the Cymric folk who used to live in that neck of the woods. Not being a 'pb scotch expert' I've no idea to what extent that element of the national heritage is recognised, compared with the extant Celtic fringe. The P-Celts (Cymric) and the Q-Celts (Gaels) fell out over something or other a very long time ago. Or maybe they just drifted apart and agreed to go their separate ways.
You can see the same word for church, in Cornish - eglos - in places like Lanteglos = "church in the valley"
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
I'm not making any point at all about Labour Blue Wall success or otherwise.
I'm simply saying that the poll includes both Tory/Lib Dem and Tory/Labour seats. So you'd not expect to see evidence of tactical voting in the headline figures.
For example, the poll includes Chingford (a Labour target) and Cheltenham (a Lib Dem target). So exactly the same headline figures could be arrived at by Labour romping home in Chingford and Lib Dems in Cheltenham each by 55/40/5, or both missing agonisingly 39/40/21 - i.e. that tactical voting is huge or neglible.
So I'm not saying there will be massive tactical voting. I'm saying the headline figures from the poll tells you nothing about that because of the seats covered.
On local elections, mixed picture as ever but I'd say they tend to point to tactical voting. My impression (only an impression) is Lib Dems, Labour and Greens all made gains in wards where they were seen as clear challengers. Hard to extrapolate, though.
But your last paragraph is the key part here in the mistake you are making - wards are one thing, FPTP Parliamentary Constituencies are a different ball game. History shows LLG tactical voting needs to be pretty precise to be effective - Uxbridge as example stayed blue thanks to number of green votes.
Surely you admit the Blue Wall map overall favours more Lib Dem opportunities from precise LLG voting than it favours Labour? Yet Labour leads the polling and Lib Dem’s static. It is going to need a Blue Wall voting shift from Labour to LibDem that defies these current polls, for the LLG vote to hurt the Conservatives in a general election as much as it has done in local elections.
Bedfordshire Mid is very much the playing out of this battle for vote efficiency.
By any normal analysis, Labour shouldn't be in the game there. Their closest approach was losing by a full 13.5% to the Tories in 1997, the LDs and predecessors
Normal analysis goes out of the window when there's a by-election on. Different contexts, different turnouts, different candidate ranges and so on.
Pressed go early - now edited with a little more of my train of thought.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
Is there a grey wall where the Conservative vote will hold up due to a preponderance of pensioners? Coastal constituencies maybe? Any others?
That is an excellent question. I think Grey Wall voting will play a part in the coming General Election. Constituencies where Grey Vote is higher than average will buck trends and keep Conservative MPs, when the swings bring the outcome into margins of just hundreds of votes, like recent Uxbridge.
I think Uxbridge may have had an element of this, but as hypothesis, i haven’t seen any statistics that puts Grey Vote in Uxbridge higher than average.
In one recent GE (2017 I think) I carefully went through constituencies looking for ones with significantly different age demographics, looking for betting value. It wasn't easy to find good value, but notably a lot of "red wall" seats are also grey wall. The youngsters have moved to the metropolitan constituencies.
I agree with you. Red wall having a grey wall element is a great call.
I think Labour will win more red wall targets than blue wall targets simply because of the much greater number of red wall targets, but the swings and win ratio may be lower for Labour in red wall, as their vote has struggled there throughout this parliament.
There is not one simple answer to stickiness. Saying it’s ULEZ wot won it, or Grey Vote wot won it is simple politicking not psephology, but the different factors playing the greater part, such a Grey Vote, will be different from constituency to constituency.
From the absolute shambles of a parliamentary term Government, the Tories have at least looked after their client “grey vote” very well - and this fact should reap dividends in the General Election.
The latest polls still have the Conservatives about 20 points ahead of Labour with the over 65s. That's about the same as they scored in their 2015 win. The problem is that younger people absolutely hate them; their 45 point deficit with under 50s is worse than in the 1997 rout.
So looking for grey wall seats might be a decent way of working out who survives on the blue team.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
I'm not making any point at all about Labour Blue Wall success or otherwise.
I'm simply saying that the poll includes both Tory/Lib Dem and Tory/Labour seats. So you'd not expect to see evidence of tactical voting in the headline figures.
For example, the poll includes Chingford (a Labour target) and Cheltenham (a Lib Dem target). So exactly the same headline figures could be arrived at by Labour romping home in Chingford and Lib Dems in Cheltenham each by 55/40/5, or both missing agonisingly 39/40/21 - i.e. that tactical voting is huge or neglible.
So I'm not saying there will be massive tactical voting. I'm saying the headline figures from the poll tells you nothing about that because of the seats covered.
On local elections, mixed picture as ever but I'd say they tend to point to tactical voting. My impression (only an impression) is Lib Dems, Labour and Greens all made gains in wards where they were seen as clear challengers. Hard to extrapolate, though.
But your last paragraph is the key part here in the mistake you are making - wards are one thing, FPTP Parliamentary Constituencies are a different ball game. History shows LLG tactical voting needs to be pretty precise to be effective - Uxbridge as example stayed blue thanks to number of green votes.
Surely you admit the Blue Wall map overall favours more Lib Dem opportunities from precise LLG voting than it favours Labour? Yet Labour leads the polling and Lib Dem’s static. It is going to need a Blue Wall voting shift from Labour to LibDem that defies these current polls, for the LLG vote to hurt the Conservatives in a general election as much as it has done in local elections.
No, I don't accept that because the data tables for the R&W poll list the seats that are covered. I've not been through them one by one, but they look pretty evenly divided between Lib Dem and Labour targets from the Conservatives.
On local elections, you are of course right that wards and constituencies differ. There might be a Labour target ward in a Lib Dem target constituency for example. How is one to read a great Labour result there? As evidence Labour voters will go red come what may or that Lib Dems will vote Labour if it makes sense in that specific ward but will go yellow at a general? Either is possible, I accept.
I'd just say that generally looking across results in different areas (with exceptions as ever) the impression one gets is you had a lot of areas where there was a Lib Dem gain next door to a Labour gain, next door to a Green or Independent gain, each from the Tories. Where that happens enough, that at least looks like people working out their best bet to beat the blues from leaflets etc on the ground, and doing that. They don't always judge it right of course, and there were some savage red on yellow contests as part of the mix - but you look at overall patterns from a confusing picture.
“No, I don't accept that because the data tables for the R&W poll list the seats that are covered… they look pretty evenly divided between Lib Dem and Labour targets from the Conservatives.“
What leaps out straight away, if R&W concept of a Blue Wall they are polling is pretty evenly divided between Lib Dem and Labour targets, I would suggest the R&W concept of a Blue Wall does not match the reality of the actual Blue Wall, that won’t be so even. And that would explain the point we are arguing over, you are thinking of a conceptual Blue Wall, I think of the actual blue Wall.
It would also mean the R&W polling of a fabricated wall cannot read across perfectly into the actual blue wall. However, I still suspect Labour is polling too far ahead of Lib dems, in both Blue Walls, fabricated and true, for tactical voting to be very effective if it stays like this. I’m still sure tactical voting needs drift from Labour to Libdem to give us confidence of precision strikes.
Looks like a major Ukranian drone strike on Pskov airbase. It is 650km from Ukraine, near the Estonian frontier.
The Russians are fucked. The longer they deny this the more fucked they will get.
Looking back at the year so far and it seems that the growth in Ukraine's indigenous drone capabilities has been much more consequential than the arrival of Western tanks and armoured vehicles.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
Is there a grey wall where the Conservative vote will hold up due to a preponderance of pensioners? Coastal constituencies maybe? Any others?
That is an excellent question. I think Grey Wall voting will play a part in the coming General Election. Constituencies where Grey Vote is higher than average will buck trends and keep Conservative MPs, when the swings bring the outcome into margins of just hundreds of votes, like recent Uxbridge.
I think Uxbridge may have had an element of this, but as hypothesis, i haven’t seen any statistics that puts Grey Vote in Uxbridge higher than average.
In one recent GE (2017 I think) I carefully went through constituencies looking for ones with significantly different age demographics, looking for betting value. It wasn't easy to find good value, but notably a lot of "red wall" seats are also grey wall. The youngsters have moved to the metropolitan constituencies.
I agree with you. Red wall having a grey wall element is a great call.
I think Labour will win more red wall targets than blue wall targets simply because of the much greater number of red wall targets, but the swings and win ratio may be lower for Labour in red wall, as their vote has struggled there throughout this parliament.
There is not one simple answer to stickiness. Saying it’s ULEZ wot won it, or Grey Vote wot won it is simple politicking not psephology, but the different factors playing the greater part, such a Grey Vote, will be different from constituency to constituency.
From the absolute shambles of a parliamentary term Government, the Tories have at least looked after their client “grey vote” very well - and this fact should reap dividends in the General Election.
The latest polls still have the Conservatives about 20 points ahead of Labour with the over 65s. That's about the same as they scored in their 2015 win. The problem is that younger people absolutely hate them; their 45 point deficit with under 50s is worse than in the 1997 rout.
So looking for grey wall seats might be a decent way of working out who survives on the blue team.
Yes.
And even then it can be close. But a win will be a win, and each one cheered.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
A very interesting reply from you for me to think about. Thank you. You are clearly implying Labour are on course for their best success in Blue Wall since the 1940s, massively eclipsing even Blair’s landslides.
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
I'm not making any point at all about Labour Blue Wall success or otherwise.
I'm simply saying that the poll includes both Tory/Lib Dem and Tory/Labour seats. So you'd not expect to see evidence of tactical voting in the headline figures.
For example, the poll includes Chingford (a Labour target) and Cheltenham (a Lib Dem target). So exactly the same headline figures could be arrived at by Labour romping home in Chingford and Lib Dems in Cheltenham each by 55/40/5, or both missing agonisingly 39/40/21 - i.e. that tactical voting is huge or neglible.
So I'm not saying there will be massive tactical voting. I'm saying the headline figures from the poll tells you nothing about that because of the seats covered.
On local elections, mixed picture as ever but I'd say they tend to point to tactical voting. My impression (only an impression) is Lib Dems, Labour and Greens all made gains in wards where they were seen as clear challengers. Hard to extrapolate, though.
But your last paragraph is the key part here in the mistake you are making - wards are one thing, FPTP Parliamentary Constituencies are a different ball game. History shows LLG tactical voting needs to be pretty precise to be effective - Uxbridge as example stayed blue thanks to number of green votes.
Surely you admit the Blue Wall map overall favours more Lib Dem opportunities from precise LLG voting than it favours Labour? Yet Labour leads the polling and Lib Dem’s static. It is going to need a Blue Wall voting shift from Labour to LibDem that defies these current polls, for the LLG vote to hurt the Conservatives in a general election as much as it has done in local elections.
Not an issue yet.
Like Fatima's next job in cyber, millions of voters live in Lib Dem target seats, but I suspect they don't know it yet.
(Rough guess? There are about 50 seats like that, so 3.5 million voters.)
Votes outside those seats might be nice to have, but they don't really benefit the Lib Dems if they don't elect MPs.
Closer to the big day, it will be as obvious as "Can't win here" arrow on a barchart what those seats are, but most voters won't have started to think about it. In the meantime, patience dear Moon.
I’m still sure tactical voting needs drift from Labour to Libdem to give us confidence of effective precision strikes.
But I also subscribe to the theory you are suggesting, this movement might only happen in the last few weeks of campaign, after constituency polls and tactical polling guidance. Or even not appear in polls, first we know of Labour to Lib Dem vote transfer will be exit polls and PV.
I’m referring to not a single poll between now and voting putting Labour under 40%, but the PV putting them on 38 - that dramatic a switch and Blue Wall bloodbath.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Are you George Michael?
If I was topping would refuse to believe I exist nods
Serious answer however as I think its important. Faith should be something that guides how you live, it shouldnt be expected to guide how others live nor run a country. That I believe is the problem with faith. Some assume all should conform rather than just seeing it as a moral structure they choose to live by
It is rare for me to agree with you so completely. People should live their lives as they choose, but should not force others to live the same way.
Likewise but people are complicated most will have views that synchronize no matter if on most matters we are opposed
To an extent it is a formula that works. Woman chooses to wear niqab is fine, woman forced to wear niquab by others very much not fine.
The collision is inevitable though, so I am fine with Trans-folk living as they choose, but it does require others to conform to their choice.
No person is an island, we are all part of the main, and where there is people there is politics.
Actually that is the complete opposite of it. Someone believes they are the opposite sex thats fine....expecting others to conform to the view they have is no different to someone with faith believing they have to conform to the view of their faith.
Now don't get me wrong here....I will happily treat a trans person as the gender they choose. You their preferred name and prounouns. Where it conflicts with safeguarding I tend to the hard no unless they have actually had the surgery....by safeguarding I mean prisons, refuges, group counselling, and sport though its not so much safe guarding as fairness. I care nothing about toilets.
Looks like a major Ukranian drone strike on Pskov airbase. It is 650km from Ukraine, near the Estonian frontier.
Can we rule out any Estonian support?
The Russians won't...
As absolutely brilliant as the SMO is for all involved, the longer it goes on there is the chance that it will mestataise into something much worse due the intersection of ill luck and stupidity.
Comments
That's either some real chateau-bottled bad luck, or God took a dim view of His premature obituary
I disagree, for the recent local election maps of Blue Wall do not at all tally with the picture you paint of Labour having widespread opportunities does it?
The LLG in Blue Wall polling is huge, there’s potential for the map to be expunged of much blue, but only if it avoids the very split FPTP Constituency vote that allows many Tories to scrape home.
And all these R&W Blue Wall polls scream at me “very split opposition vote” if we don’t see any slide from Labour to Lib Dem.
Hardened psephologists will note, similar phenomenon for Conservative Party of Canada in 1890s following death in office of John A. Macdonald, who was succeeded by three more Tory PMs before party was royally thumped by Liberals under Wilfrid Laurier at next federal GE.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
Does pro-ULEZ mean anti-private vehicle? I'm not sure - you may be seeing something I'm not. If you have a compliant vehicle, it literally makes no difference - the congestion charge still exists if you want or need to drive into central London but that's another question. No one I've heard says you shouldn't have a vehicle - the volume of very short-distance journeys does beg other questions but that's another issue.
(The movie that made Copenhagen infamous!)
I'm simply saying that the poll includes both Tory/Lib Dem and Tory/Labour seats. So you'd not expect to see evidence of tactical voting in the headline figures.
For example, the poll includes Chingford (a Labour target) and Cheltenham (a Lib Dem target). So exactly the same headline figures could be arrived at by Labour romping home in Chingford and Lib Dems in Cheltenham each by 55/40/5, or both missing agonisingly 39/40/21 - i.e. that tactical voting is huge or neglible.
So I'm not saying there will be massive tactical voting. I'm saying the headline figures from the poll tells you nothing about that because of the seats covered.
On local elections, mixed picture as ever but I'd say they tend to point to tactical voting. My impression (only an impression) is Lib Dems, Labour and Greens all made gains in wards where they were seen as clear challengers. Hard to extrapolate, though.
It's about improved air quality as required by Government set targets, quality of life, freedom to choose appropriate travel options, and the Govt looking to save their butt via wedge issues.
Here's Mogg's latest (GB News warning):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE6jF1q0gdQ&t=8s
The chances of anything coming from the M25 were a million to one, but still they come.
The important thing, though, is what happens next. Londonwide ULEZ is now an established fact on the ground. Come next May's elections, there will be a market of sorts for its reversal, but a small, shrinking and increasingly shrill one. (Most Londoners will clock that it doesn't affect them in the next few days, and many of those affected will bite the bullet and change their cars over the next few months. That will leave the Reform/Reclaim style paranoid as the core of the remaining opposition.)
So having failed to stop ULEZ expansion, what do City Hall Conservatives say and do next?
Unlike you, Williams did believe faith and religion ought to guide governments.
HOWEVER, he was opposed to religious coercion by government, or beyond, on grounds that true faith and religion could NOT be coerced.
Williams was able to protect Rhode Island against its Puritan neighbors, Massachusetts and Connecticut, by securing a rather remarkable charter from Charles I, including guarantee of religious liberty. The smartest of Stuarts had a different agenda than Williams, namely sticking it to the Puritans and suchlike (in the Old World as well as the New) AND establishing toleration principle he hoped would aid Catholics in Britain. While in the short-to-mid term that did NOT work out, in the long run it most certainly did.
Getting back to your basic point, one validates their faith by governing themselves, not others.
Lacking a cool label like Ranter, Quaker, Seekers, or Muggletonians though.
Surely you admit the Blue Wall map overall favours more Lib Dem opportunities from precise LLG voting than it favours Labour? Yet Labour leads the polling and Lib Dem’s static. It is going to need a Blue Wall voting shift from Labour to LibDem that defies these current polls, for the LLG vote to hurt the Conservatives in a general election as much as it has done in local elections.
Verily, this is the Holy Trinity of PB: Father, Son and Holy Ghost
I think Uxbridge may have had an element of this, but as hypothesis, i haven’t seen any statistics that puts Grey Vote in Uxbridge higher than average.
The hypocrisy of the Tories on ULEZ is staggering, accusing Khan of a cash grab on motorists after the government told Khan he should extend the congestion charging zone to the N/S Circular (and he refused)... Such arseholes.
The collision is inevitable though, so I am fine with Trans-folk living as they choose, but it does require others to conform to their choice.
No person is an island, we are all part of the main, and where there is people there is politics.
Like Fatima's next job in cyber, millions of voters live in Lib Dem target seats, but I suspect they don't know it yet.
(Rough guess? There are about 50 seats like that, so 3.5 million voters.)
Votes outside those seats might be nice to have, but they don't really benefit the Lib Dems if they don't elect MPs.
Closer to the big day, it will be as obvious as "Can't win here" arrow on a barchart what those seats are, but most voters won't have started to think about it. In the meantime, patience dear Moon.
On local elections, you are of course right that wards and constituencies differ. There might be a Labour target ward in a Lib Dem target constituency for example. How is one to read a great Labour result there? As evidence Labour voters will go red come what may or that Lib Dems will vote Labour if it makes sense in that specific ward but will go yellow at a general? Either is possible, I accept.
I'd just say that generally looking across results in different areas (with exceptions as ever) the impression one gets is you had a lot of areas where there was a Lib Dem gain next door to a Labour gain, next door to a Green or Independent gain, each from the Tories. Where that happens enough, that at least looks like people working out their best bet to beat the blues from leaflets etc on the ground, and doing that. They don't always judge it right of course, and there were some savage red on yellow contests as part of the mix - but you look at overall patterns from a confusing picture.
IF this was a factor at all, would remind me of vote in WA State back in 1990s, on cutting car license fees which were then based on value of car; more affluent voters tended to support higher fees as reasonable form of taxation (in state with NO state income tax). But less affluent voters, even (or rather especially) non-ideological Democrats, tended to vote for the cuts, on grounds that THEY needed the money to offset rising cost of living.
https://www.cressfieldhotel.co.uk/
By any normal analysis, Labour shouldn't be in the game there. Their closest approach was losing by a full 13.5% to the Tories in 1997, the LDs and predecessors came second in 4 of the last 10 GEs. The LDs should be the only game in town.
But, but. That Baxter analysis - Labour, on current polling, gain 62 seats in the non-London South. How does Labour access that without LD confusion. Mid Beds tantalisingly close.
A moonshot in a by-election. Labour want that Winning Here kudos so as many of those 62 know to vote Labour. I can't recall them doing that before but, tonight, they are the LibDems.
https://www.nationalchurchestrust.org/church/st-wyllow-lanteglos-fowey
Love it
I think the correct steer they should take from it is that, if they can find a really good issue to pin on a local non-Tory council or mayor, they should milk it for all it's worth as Labour support is wide but rather shallow. It's not terribly novel to say that you look for a good local issue if the national picture is bad, but it's no less true for being obvious.
I think the steer they will in fact take is that there is a generalised mood against green policies, and also that local hot button topics play as well at a General Election as at a by-election. My instinct is that neither of those are correct.
They won't be the only people to take a major bum steer from a success. In 2015, the Lib Dems "learned" from their Eastleigh defence that they could fight a by-election style defence in 40+ seats and hope for a good success rate. That absolutely didn't happen - they over-targeted and didn't abandon held seats that they plainly ought to have cut adrift.
I think Labour will win more red wall targets than blue wall targets simply because of the much greater number of red wall targets, but the swings and win ratio may be lower for Labour in red wall, as their vote has struggled there throughout this parliament.
There is not one simple answer to stickiness. Saying it’s ULEZ wot won it, or Grey Vote wot won it is simple politicking not psephology, but the different factors playing the greater part, such a Grey Vote, will be different from constituency to constituency.
From the absolute shambles of a parliamentary term Government, the Tories have at least looked after their client “grey vote” very well - and this fact should reap dividends in the General Election.
https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2023/08/beer-could-exert-greater-effects-than-probiotics-say-scientists/
So looking for grey wall seats might be a decent way of working out who survives on the blue team.
What leaps out straight away, if R&W concept of a Blue Wall they are polling is pretty evenly divided between Lib Dem and Labour targets, I would suggest the R&W concept of a Blue Wall does not match the reality of the actual Blue Wall, that won’t be so even. And that would explain the point we are arguing over, you are thinking of a conceptual Blue Wall, I think of the actual blue Wall.
It would also mean the R&W polling of a fabricated wall cannot read across perfectly into the actual blue wall. However, I still suspect Labour is polling too far ahead of Lib dems, in both Blue Walls, fabricated and true, for tactical voting to be very effective if it stays like this. I’m still sure tactical voting needs drift from Labour to Libdem to give us confidence of precision strikes.
Looking back at the year so far and it seems that the growth in Ukraine's indigenous drone capabilities has been much more consequential than the arrival of Western tanks and armoured vehicles.
And even then it can be close. But a win will be a win, and each one cheered.
But I also subscribe to the theory you are suggesting, this movement might only happen in the last few weeks of campaign, after constituency polls and tactical polling guidance. Or even not appear in polls, first we know of Labour to Lib Dem vote transfer will be exit polls and PV.
I’m referring to not a single poll between now and voting putting Labour under 40%, but the PV putting them on 38 - that dramatic a switch and Blue Wall bloodbath.
Now don't get me wrong here....I will happily treat a trans person as the gender they choose. You their preferred name and prounouns. Where it conflicts with safeguarding I tend to the hard no unless they have actually had the surgery....by safeguarding I mean prisons, refuges, group counselling, and sport though its not so much safe guarding as fairness. I care nothing about toilets.
As absolutely brilliant as the SMO is for all involved, the longer it goes on there is the chance that it will mestataise into something much worse due the intersection of ill luck and stupidity.