Beware the Bookie rules before betting on a GE2024 overall majority – politicalbetting.com

System

Beware the Bookie rules before betting on a GE2024 overall majority – politicalbetting.com

To illsustrate this thread I am showing how Snarkets define an overall maajority in its GE24 market,

Read the full story here

Fishing

The predictor that matters is not how many seats a party got at the previous election where the correlation is low or actually negative, but the opinion polls three months or less before polling day, where the correlation is 80-90% or higher. I wrote a couple of thread headers about these points some years ago.

Yet for some reason people still persist in talking about "gains" and "mountains to climb" and so on. I suppose some myths are indestructible.

DavidL

Gutted to see the previous thread. As you say Mike, make the best of the time you have. I wish you and Robert the very best.

LostPassword

Fishing said:

The predictor that matters is not how many seats a party got at the previous election where the correlation is low or actually negative, but the opinion polls three months or less before polling day, where the correlation is 80-90% or higher. I wrote a couple of thread headers about these points some years ago.

Yet for some reason people still persist in talking about "gains" and "mountains to climb" and so on. I suppose some myths are indestructible.

Large numbers of seat gains are relatively rare because public opinion tends to change gradually. This is why no general election is a blank slate, because most voters will have voted in the previous election and persistence is a pretty good forecast in lots of circumstances.

Even when we have a dramatic election with ~100 seats changing hands, the vast majority stick with the incumbent party.

Anabobazina

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

kyf_100

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

148grss

Whilst I understand your caution from the POV of historic likelihood of such a swing - the polling averages over the last few months have suggested that this is a very easy number for Labour to reach. Historically campaigns don't matter that much, although I imagine this one could be atypical (especially with recent polling in certain seats suggesting that Greens could snipe some very Labour seats and Green involvement in debates could allow rare coverage of an anti Zionist party and a party not wedded to austerity). Still, I would be very surprised to see a massive shift during any campaign that would prevent Labour getting a clear majority, even when considering that that has to be a clear majority of seats available, not actually sat MPs.

Fishing

Darth Putin:

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Ship is submarine

Fishing

LostPassword said:

Fishing said:

The predictor that matters is not how many seats a party got at the previous election where the correlation is low or actually negative, but the opinion polls three months or less before polling day, where the correlation is 80-90% or higher. I wrote a couple of thread headers about these points some years ago.

Yet for some reason people still persist in talking about "gains" and "mountains to climb" and so on. I suppose some myths are indestructible.

Large numbers of seat gains are relatively rare because public opinion tends to change gradually. This is why no general election is a blank slate, because most voters will have voted in the previous election and persistence is a pretty good forecast in lots of circumstances.

Even when we have a dramatic election with ~100 seats changing hands, the vast majority stick with the incumbent party.

I don't think public opinion always changes gradually - the Truss debacle or the Black Wednesday and following events showed that when it changes it can change quickly. As an otherwise foolish man once said, "A week is a long time in politics", so five years is 250 long times, otherwise an eternity, in politics.

Pulpstar

148grss said:

Whilst I understand your caution from the POV of historic likelihood of such a swing - the polling averages over the last few months have suggested that this is a very easy number for Labour to reach. Historically campaigns don't matter that much, although I imagine this one could be atypical (especially with recent polling in certain seats suggesting that Greens could snipe some very Labour seats and Green involvement in debates could allow rare coverage of an anti Zionist party and a party not wedded to austerity). Still, I would be very surprised to see a massive shift during any campaign that would prevent Labour getting a clear majority, even when considering that that has to be a clear majority of seats available, not actually sat MPs.

"Historically campaigns don't matter that much" Corbyn / May was the exception that proved the rule here.

StillWaters

DavidL said:

Gutted to see the previous thread. As you say Mike, make the best of the time you have. I wish you and Robert the very best.

Fully agree. Keep well, Mike, and keep active as best you can. All the best to Robert and your family as well - it’s tough on them too.

GIN1138

Agreed Mike. I'm still thinking Labour will only get a very small majority of between 1-20 seats.

148grss

Pulpstar said:

148grss said:

Whilst I understand your caution from the POV of historic likelihood of such a swing - the polling averages over the last few months have suggested that this is a very easy number for Labour to reach. Historically campaigns don't matter that much, although I imagine this one could be atypical (especially with recent polling in certain seats suggesting that Greens could snipe some very Labour seats and Green involvement in debates could allow rare coverage of an anti Zionist party and a party not wedded to austerity). Still, I would be very surprised to see a massive shift during any campaign that would prevent Labour getting a clear majority, even when considering that that has to be a clear majority of seats available, not actually sat MPs.

"Historically campaigns don't matter that much" Corbyn / May was the exception that proved the rule here.

Well, quite - but that's why I say historically (and also why sometimes other evidence than historical precedent is always good to use when it is available and robust)

viewcode

viewcode said:

The United Kingdom after America's retreat into isolation, according to Zeihan

"The United Kingdom, After America || Peter Zeihan", Zeihan on Geopolitics, YouTube, 15 Feb 2024, 6 minutes, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjmBAhTDRXY

Transcript of the YouTube.

"...The United Kingdom is one of those countries that is not really going to emerge into a post- American world because they've got some really interesting decisions to make and I'm pretty sure I know how it's going to go so backdrop. Two things first.

• First, economy. Uh the British system never really adapted to the end of Empire they they do all the high value added stuff and they import a lot of the raw materials and some of their base manufactured goods things that they're not very good at because they're good at the really high Precision stuff um and when the Empire ended and they joined Europe all they did was kind of switch one Empire for another and relied upon the European continent for things like food stuffs and wood products and automotive uh they never made the transition that all the other former Imperial Powers did and so when brexit happened they find themselves in a bit of a [indecipherable] so that's kind of the economic side of things.
  
• On the security side of things they are an island and islands are worried about one thing: other countries developing navies that might allow an invasion so they've always looked at the major powers of the Eurasian land mass with more than just suspicion outright fear and concern whether it's Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or whatever Napoleon and on and on but that doesn't mean that they like non-military superpowers so when folks in the European Union start talking about ever closer Union and maybe having a common defense identity they get a little squeamish and they want to keep things within NATO where they've got veto power
  

So that's the economic that's the security. You play that forward to where we are right now and they're in a bit of a pickle demographically. The European Union is on its final legs, um, most of the major Powers especially Germany and Italy are going to be aging into obsolescence within a decade and most of the remaining countries within two. I don't mean to suggest that the UK has a super healthy demography but it is like the second healthiest within the union, so when the Brits started talking about brexit a decade ago I was like "Okay I can understand the conversation, uh getting a jump on what's next, leaving the sinking ship that is the economic aspect of the European Union, that makes some sense"...

148grss

Fishing said:

LostPassword said:

Fishing said:

The predictor that matters is not how many seats a party got at the previous election where the correlation is low or actually negative, but the opinion polls three months or less before polling day, where the correlation is 80-90% or higher. I wrote a couple of thread headers about these points some years ago.

Yet for some reason people still persist in talking about "gains" and "mountains to climb" and so on. I suppose some myths are indestructible.

Large numbers of seat gains are relatively rare because public opinion tends to change gradually. This is why no general election is a blank slate, because most voters will have voted in the previous election and persistence is a pretty good forecast in lots of circumstances.

Even when we have a dramatic election with ~100 seats changing hands, the vast majority stick with the incumbent party.

I don't think public opinion always changes gradually - the Truss debacle or the Black Wednesday and following events showed that when it changes it can change quickly. As an otherwise foolish man once said, "A week is a long time in politics", so five years is 250 long times, otherwise an eternity, in politics.

I mean, there had been a number of issues with the Tories prior to Truss; I think she was as much of "the straw that broke the camels back" as anything else. And support for the Tories has continued to worsen since Truss, so there is something else that is concerning people outside of her attempt at Real Conservatism (TM).

Anabobazina

kyf_100 said:

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

They are all pretty naff, aren't they?

I would have gone for geographical names, so the Forest line for the Chingford branch (which ends at Epping Forest), the Thames line for the Richmond branch and so on...

Nigel_Foremain

GIN1138 said:

Agreed Mike. I'm still thinking Labour will only get a very small majority of between 1-20 seats.

That is the ideal result for the country in my view. I have come to the conclusion that the worse evil than a hung parliament is a large majority.

Scott_xP

@SkyNews

A Conservative mayor has been expelled from the party after allegedly making antisemitic remarks, Sky News understands

Andy_JS

Scott_xP said:

@SkyNews

A Conservative mayor has been expelled from the party after allegedly making antisemitic remarks, Sky News understands

Mayor of Salisbury.

eek

GIN1138 said:

Agreed Mike. I'm still thinking Labour will only get a very small majority of between 1-20 seats.

The flaw in that argument is who is going to go out on a cold wet night in November and vote Tory.

There is no incentive for people to do so - yep you may like the forthcoming tax cuts but you probably won’t like the required (but not formally announced) spending cuts - which means I can say that adult social care will be decimated and the Tory party can’t say otherwise

Scott_xP

@mrhenrymorris

Tory mayoral candidate Susan Hall's rival suggestions for the London Overground lines.

GIN1138

Nigel_Foremain said:

GIN1138 said:

Agreed Mike. I'm still thinking Labour will only get a very small majority of between 1-20 seats.

That is the ideal result for the country in my view. I have come to the conclusion that the worse evil than a hung parliament is a large majority.

It's hard to know. It's better than a hung parliament but it might still leave a lot of the nuttier elements of the PLP calling the shots.

Andy_JS

Re. the Wellingborough by-election, I think the result will be very similar to Tamworth. A small Labour win.

GIN1138

Andy_JS said:

Re. the Wellingborough by-election, I think the result will be very similar to Tamworth. A small Labour win.

Well Con deserve to the pounded here, for their choice of candidate, if nothing else.

Anabobazina

GIN1138 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

GIN1138 said:

Agreed Mike. I'm still thinking Labour will only get a very small majority of between 1-20 seats.

That is the ideal result for the country in my view. I have come to the conclusion that the worse evil than a hung parliament is a large majority.

It's hard to know. It's better than a hung parliament but it might still leave a lot of the nuttier elements of the PLP calling the shots.

Yeah, big Labour majority by far the best outcome, for that reason. Will be the coup de grace to the Continuity Corbynites – the Owls Tendency as they are known on PB.

AverageNinja

I would have preferred The Horse Line in memory of our great friend CorrectHorseBattery. Will he ever be allowed back?

Anabobazina

The new Tube map.

They need to sort out the Northern lines next – five lines masquerading as one, for reasons unknown.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tube-map-with-the-new-lo-names.pdf

RochdalePioneers

AverageNinja said:

I would have preferred The Horse Line in memory of our great friend CorrectHorseBattery. Will he ever be allowed back?

The LadyG line
The eadric line
The SeanT line

etc

Anabobazina

AverageNinja said:

I would have preferred The Horse Line in memory of our great friend CorrectHorseBattery. Will he ever be allowed back?

We live in hope.

Clutch_Brompton

Rochdale seems to offer the most interesting betting possibilities in a long time. I could make a reasonable case for five parties to end up winning here and two of them seem to be being offered at remarkably long odds.

The LDs seem to be putting up the white flag which might explain them being 25-1. However, the Cons at 66-1 seems very generous given the circumstances. The non-Con vote is splitting two and probably three ways so if the Con vote holds up then who knows. Ref UK were at the GE and might not take much more given a terrible candidate selection and the fact the Con candidate is not Asian this time. (I don't say that is right - I merely state the fact that some voters are influenced by such things).

I thought I was crazy thinking the Cons had an outside sniff here before the Lab campaign fell apart. Maybe I was. Maybe I still am. Its still very much an outsider's chance but at those odds...

Theuniondivvie

RochdalePioneers said:

AverageNinja said:

I would have preferred The Horse Line in memory of our great friend CorrectHorseBattery. Will he ever be allowed back?

The LadyG line
The eadric line
The SeanT line

etc

As SeanT might have said, yer can't have too many lines.

148grss

Nigel_Foremain said:

GIN1138 said:

Agreed Mike. I'm still thinking Labour will only get a very small majority of between 1-20 seats.

That is the ideal result for the country in my view. I have come to the conclusion that the worse evil than a hung parliament is a large majority.

I don't know - I think a really massive Labour majority (at the election) could be helpful in the formation of new parties / more clearly different parties, which I think the UK needs. If Labour get a stonking majority, I wouldn't be surprised if SKS decided to kick out a lot of lefties who still stood as Labour MPs on the basis that he doesn't want to negotiate with them and they'd be more annoying to him inside the tent (and it would allow him to look even more "centrist and sensible"). If the Tories collapse completely and Reform make strides in vote share, even if they don't get any / many MPs I'd also think that maybe some Tory MPs won't care if their in opposition as Tories or Reform and therefore the wet Tories may get their party back, but al the personalities may become Reform MPs. If the Greens pick up a few more MPs (as polling suggests) and the LDs grow a bit more I think a stonking Labour win on election day could seed the ground for a much wider option of political discourse in the future.

I also think if the Labour party win a stonking majority and SKS holds it together something similar might happen anyway, just because it will be a party with a huge majority but a pretty unpopular PM. I think a lot of people will go "good, we got rid of the Tories, but I don't want to give SKS a honeymoon period" and that could similarly shake up politics as we would expect it.

AbandonedHope

As it's not the Underground but it is the Overground...

Great Uncle Bulgaria Line
Tobermory Line
Tomsk Line
Orinoco Line
Wellington Line
Madam Cholet Line

Theuniondivvie

A mild distraction.

It appears AI can't do hands.
Or wings.
Or engines.
Or anything aeronautcally symmetrical.

https://hushkit.net/2024/02/15/ai-attempts-to-draw-british-aircraft-and-we-spit-out-our-tea-in-awe-at-these-magnificent-obscenities/

Andy_JS

Clutch_Brompton said:

Rochdale seems to offer the most interesting betting possibilities in a long time. I could make a reasonable case for five parties to end up winning here and two of them seem to be being offered at remarkably long odds.

The LDs seem to be putting up the white flag which might explain them being 25-1. However, the Cons at 66-1 seems very generous given the circumstances. The non-Con vote is splitting two and probably three ways so if the Con vote holds up then who knows. Ref UK were at the GE and might not take much more given a terrible candidate selection and the fact the Con candidate is not Asian this time. (I don't say that is right - I merely state the fact that some voters are influenced by such things).

I thought I was crazy thinking the Cons had an outside sniff here before the Lab campaign fell apart. Maybe I was. Maybe I still am. Its still very much an outsider's chance but at those odds...

Galloway to win with 20% of the vote?

GIN1138

Clutch_Brompton said:

Rochdale seems to offer the most interesting betting possibilities in a long time. I could make a reasonable case for five parties to end up winning here and two of them seem to be being offered at remarkably long odds.

The LDs seem to be putting up the white flag which might explain them being 25-1. However, the Cons at 66-1 seems very generous given the circumstances. The non-Con vote is splitting two and probably three ways so if the Con vote holds up then who knows. Ref UK were at the GE and might not take much more given a terrible candidate selection and the fact the Con candidate is not Asian this time. (I don't say that is right - I merely state the fact that some voters are influenced by such things).

I thought I was crazy thinking the Cons had an outside sniff here before the Lab campaign fell apart. Maybe I was. Maybe I still am. Its still very much an outsider's chance but at those odds...

If Con were to win in Rochdale we'll be heading for a spring 2024 general election.

Personally I can't see it.

viewcode

PART TWO (cont)

...but here we are seven years after brexit and the Brits are still
trying to figure out what brexit means. We still don't have a meaningful policy
for how they should go into the new world and they really only have two choices

• Option one since they haven't done that economic change post Imperial era is to find a new Empire and go out and cut a series of deals with a series of countries that have young demographics that can provide them with raw materials and on and on and on. The problem is they can't do it like they did before before the secret of the British Empire the reason that they ruled the world for the better part of two centuries is they were in the early days of the industrial era and no no one else had caught up so they were able to use the order of magnitude greater economic intensity of early industrialization and the three orders of magnitude uh better power projection of military Technologies to dominate wherever they want with a very small number of people. Well that's not the world we're in anymore you can't go into a place like India with 50,000 people and conquer it like you could two three centuries ago (uh not to mention that the Indians wouldn't let it happen). So the idea that the Brits as a midsized power can be the center of a global trade node... that, that's a bit of a stretch. I don't want to say it's impossible because weirder things have happened in the last few years but it's difficult to see enough country signing on to the idea of British preeminence when the Brits can't force the issue.
  
• The second issue is to partner with a singular large wealthy country that has better demographic structures and shares the United Kingdom's overall security concerns about United Eurasia as a military power, and the only country that scratches that itch is the United States. Now it's not like what the brexiteers said (that they can just Waltz into Washington and ask for free trade deal that is better than what come from the EU) no no no no no no. When it comes to trade deals the United States is very specific and it doesn't like to bring in systems that could compete with in any meaningful way and that would mean that the Brits have to accede to American demands on any number of sectors from agriculture to finance to manufacturing hell we might even make him get rid of the metric system if we're in a bad mood.
  

viewcode

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

Clutch_Brompton

The window between Starmer gaining an overall majority and Starmer gaining an effective majority is only the SF and/or SDLP MPs. It is unlikely to come into play but far from impossible. I suspect it is at the very limit of Con possibilities but it is worth keeping in mind

LostPassword

Anabobazina said:

The new Tube map.

They need to sort out the Northern lines next – five lines masquerading as one, for reasons unknown.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tube-map-with-the-new-lo-names.pdf

The status quo is easy, because they have common bits and you can distinguish the other parts by the ultimate destination of the train, or the main station on the branch.

algarkirk

Fishing said:

The predictor that matters is not how many seats a party got at the previous election where the correlation is low or actually negative, but the opinion polls three months or less before polling day, where the correlation is 80-90% or higher. I wrote a couple of thread headers about these points some years ago.

Yet for some reason people still persist in talking about "gains" and "mountains to climb" and so on. I suppose some myths are indestructible.

At the start of April 2017 the Tories were about 15-20 points ahead, in the 2017 GE in June they were 2.5 points ahead.

Anabobazina

....

GIN1138

algarkirk said:

Fishing said:

The predictor that matters is not how many seats a party got at the previous election where the correlation is low or actually negative, but the opinion polls three months or less before polling day, where the correlation is 80-90% or higher. I wrote a couple of thread headers about these points some years ago.

Yet for some reason people still persist in talking about "gains" and "mountains to climb" and so on. I suppose some myths are indestructible.

At the start of April 2017 the Tories were about 15-20 points ahead, in the 2017 GE in June they were 2.5 points ahead.

Yeah, but nobody could ever be worse than Theresa May on the campaign trail... Could they?

Anabobazina

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

The new Tube map.

They need to sort out the Northern lines next – five lines masquerading as one, for reasons unknown.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tube-map-with-the-new-lo-names.pdf

The status quo is easy, because they have common bits and you can distinguish the other parts by the ultimate destination of the train, or the main station on the branch.

You can if you live here and are used to it. For lots of tourists, it's pretty confusing.

They find London baffling enough at the best of times – witness the amount who still queue up to buy tickets despite there being no need to do so.

GIN1138

GIN1138 said:

algarkirk said:

Fishing said:

The predictor that matters is not how many seats a party got at the previous election where the correlation is low or actually negative, but the opinion polls three months or less before polling day, where the correlation is 80-90% or higher. I wrote a couple of thread headers about these points some years ago.

Yet for some reason people still persist in talking about "gains" and "mountains to climb" and so on. I suppose some myths are indestructible.

At the start of April 2017 the Tories were about 15-20 points ahead, in the 2017 GE in June they were 2.5 points ahead.

Yeah, but nobody could ever be worse than Theresa May on the campaign trail... Could they?

In answer to myself:


T


R


U


S


S

JosiasJessop

Theuniondivvie said:

A mild distraction.

It appears AI can't do hands.
Or wings.
Or engines.
Or anything aeronautcally symmetrical.

https://hushkit.net/2024/02/15/ai-attempts-to-draw-british-aircraft-and-we-spit-out-our-tea-in-awe-at-these-magnificent-obscenities/

That's brilliant. Thanks.

"It appears AI can't do hands..."

And that's because, despite whatever @Leon tries to tell us, these things have zero intelligence. They attempt to mimic it.

But these image generators can be useful if carefully curated, or just for LOLing at what some people thing is 'intelligent'...

bondegezou

Clutch_Brompton said:

Rochdale seems to offer the most interesting betting possibilities in a long time. I could make a reasonable case for five parties to end up winning here and two of them seem to be being offered at remarkably long odds.

The LDs seem to be putting up the white flag which might explain them being 25-1. However, the Cons at 66-1 seems very generous given the circumstances. The non-Con vote is splitting two and probably three ways so if the Con vote holds up then who knows. Ref UK were at the GE and might not take much more given a terrible candidate selection and the fact the Con candidate is not Asian this time. (I don't say that is right - I merely state the fact that some voters are influenced by such things).

I thought I was crazy thinking the Cons had an outside sniff here before the Lab campaign fell apart. Maybe I was. Maybe I still am. Its still very much an outsider's chance but at those odds...

I think Rochdale sounds fun because of what's happened, but the fundamentals (safe Labour seat) make me think it will produce a much decisive result than today's by-elections.

OnlyLivingBoy

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

I'm not sure I share all this guy's analysis, but I do share his conclusion. The only real alternative to the UK being part of the EU is being much more closely aligned with the US, perhaps even as the 51st or 51st-53rd states.

algarkirk

GIN1138 said:

Agreed Mike. I'm still thinking Labour will only get a very small majority of between 1-20 seats.

NOM remains value. To lose control of the story the Tories need to lose 50/51 seats. To gain (entire) control of the story, Labour need to win 123+. This gives huge space for speculative possibilities.

The Rochdale incident also indicates the possibility of a 2017 style shift of opinion, this time away from Labour; what will be an abysmally dirty campaign from the right hasn't really started yet. No doubt there are lots of Rochdales in the Tory central office safe.

The Tory votes Labour needs are mostly from centrists who are habitually highly respectful of the Jewish community. This is still in place. (Though less so to the Israel government).

Stuartinromford

algarkirk said:

Fishing said:

The predictor that matters is not how many seats a party got at the previous election where the correlation is low or actually negative, but the opinion polls three months or less before polling day, where the correlation is 80-90% or higher. I wrote a couple of thread headers about these points some years ago.

Yet for some reason people still persist in talking about "gains" and "mountains to climb" and so on. I suppose some myths are indestructible.

At the start of April 2017 the Tories were about 15-20 points ahead, in the 2017 GE in June they were 2.5 points ahead.

That was much more about Labour rising than it was about Conservative falling.

Now it's possible that Campaign Trail Rishi will galvanise the public the way that Campaign Trail Magic Grandpa did. Anything that's a future event is possible...

...but it's not very probable, is it?

Anabobazina

More on splitting the Northern line:

https://citymonitor.ai/transport/change-london-tube-and-rail-maps-underground-overground-tube

GarethoftheVale2

FPT - Malmsbury's suggestion is an excellent one. Dementia research gets a fraction of the money that cancer research does and can potentially offer greater benefit (as many cancers already have good survival rates now)

Malmesbury

GarethoftheVale2 said:

FPT - Malmsbury's suggestion is an excellent one. Dementia research gets a fraction of the money that cancer research does and can potentially offer greater benefit (as many cancers already have good survival rates now)

Can some of the medical scientists, here on PB, make a suggestion?

bondegezou

Anabobazina said:

More on splitting the Northern line:

https://citymonitor.ai/transport/change-london-tube-and-rail-maps-underground-overground-tube

The author of that piece has something on the Overground lines coming out in the Guardian later today. Look out for it.

Stuartinromford

Anabobazina said:

The new Tube map.

They need to sort out the Northern lines next – five lines masquerading as one, for reasons unknown.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tube-map-with-the-new-lo-names.pdf

Reasons are pretty well known for that one. If you want to properly split the Northern Line, it needs to be easy for lots of people to change trains at Camden Town. That's expensive, and commercial development atop the site has been Nimbied out.

Full story here:

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/we-need-to-talk-about-camden/

HYUFD

If Sunak can squeeze DKs and the RefUK vote then he could get a hung parliament even if Labour likely still wins most seats and forms the next government

isam

Anabobazina said:

kyf_100 said:

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

They are all pretty naff, aren't they?

I would have gone for geographical names, so the Forest line for the Chingford branch (which ends at Epping Forest), the Thames line for the Richmond branch and so on...

I agree, they are much better

eek

Stuartinromford said:

Anabobazina said:

The new Tube map.

They need to sort out the Northern lines next – five lines masquerading as one, for reasons unknown.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tube-map-with-the-new-lo-names.pdf

Reasons are pretty well known for that one. If you want to properly split the Northern Line, it needs to be easy for lots of people to change trains at Camden Town. That's expensive, and commercial development atop the site has been Nimbied out.

Full story here:

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/we-need-to-talk-about-camden/

Changing Tottenham Court Road to Centrepoint would make sense though

FF43

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

Not clear what's in it for the United States. What does the UK offer as a vassal that the US doesn't have already? Similar applies to the EU but here the UK does have some cards it could play, on security, market access etc. Maybe China?

Thanks for transcript btw.

BartholomewRoberts

Nigel_Foremain said:

GIN1138 said:

Agreed Mike. I'm still thinking Labour will only get a very small majority of between 1-20 seats.

That is the ideal result for the country in my view. I have come to the conclusion that the worse evil than a hung parliament is a large majority.

I don't know, do we want a government where Abbott, Burgon, Sultana and other fruits and nuts can call the shots because they have veto power in having a majority?

It seems to me that a healthy majority, like democracy, is the worst form of government - except for all others.

isam

Bit of a slip up from Sadiq Khan

I believe they call this a Freudian slip

https://x.com/mrwinmarshall/status/1758110379731751158?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Anabobazina

Stuartinromford said:

Anabobazina said:

The new Tube map.

They need to sort out the Northern lines next – five lines masquerading as one, for reasons unknown.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tube-map-with-the-new-lo-names.pdf

Reasons are pretty well known for that one. If you want to properly split the Northern Line, it needs to be easy for lots of people to change trains at Camden Town. That's expensive, and commercial development atop the site has been Nimbied out.

Full story here:

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/we-need-to-talk-about-camden/

Interesting but I was talking about labelling – there are several possible routes – why not give each a different colour and call it a different line? The fact that they have some track in common is immaterial: so do the district, circle, metropolitan (and district and piccadilly).

northern_monkey

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

I'm not sure I share all this guy's analysis, but I do share his conclusion. The only real alternative to the UK being part of the EU is being much more closely aligned with the US, perhaps even as the 51st or 51st-53rd states.

And that’s why the right pushed so hard for Brexit, and told their fantastical lies to make it happen. They would rather have a small state, low tax, highly unequal UK, with a crumbling public realm and services, rather than EU-style worker protections, environmental protections, etc, etc, etc.

So they whipped up an immigration panic and promised unicorns for all to get just enough people to shoot themselves in the foot.

Gardenwalker

FF43 said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

Not clear what's in it for the United States. What does the UK offer as a vassal that the US doesn't have already? Similar applies to the EU but here the UK does have some cards it could play, on security, market access etc. Maybe China?

Thanks for transcript btw.

The US wants the UK’s food and pharma markets open for US giants. And maybe, at a stretch, it wants to protect New York’s financial services from London competition.

Once again, I want to point out the possibilities for an ever-closer UK-Canada union.

Casino_Royale

You know who really gives railways a bad name?

Sadiq Khan.

Theuniondivvie

JosiasJessop said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A mild distraction.

It appears AI can't do hands.
Or wings.
Or engines.
Or anything aeronautcally symmetrical.

https://hushkit.net/2024/02/15/ai-attempts-to-draw-british-aircraft-and-we-spit-out-our-tea-in-awe-at-these-magnificent-obscenities/

That's brilliant. Thanks.

"It appears AI can't do hands..."

And that's because, despite whatever @Leon tries to tell us, these things have zero intelligence. They attempt to mimic it.

But these image generators can be useful if carefully curated, or just for LOLing at what some people thing is 'intelligent'...

I'd imagine if you put Blohm & Voss BV141 into the image generator, it might blow AI's tiny mind.

Sandpit

kyf_100 said:

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

The London plan comes across as typical Sadiq being Sadiq, and looking for the sort of names that will offend people who don’t like him, further cementing societal division.

If you’re going to give out random names then auction them off. Loads of cities, including mine, do this, the big money is for the destination and interchange stations, or companies buying the station nearest their own business.

Anabobazina

Casino_Royale said:

You know who really gives railways a bad name?

Sadiq Khan.

Chapeau

rcs1000

Casino_Royale said:

You know who really gives railways a bad name?

Sadiq Khan.

What name does he give them?

Gardenwalker

northern_monkey said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

I'm not sure I share all this guy's analysis, but I do share his conclusion. The only real alternative to the UK being part of the EU is being much more closely aligned with the US, perhaps even as the 51st or 51st-53rd states.

And that’s why the right pushed so hard for Brexit, and told their fantastical lies to make it happen. They would rather have a small state, low tax, highly unequal UK, with a crumbling public realm and services, rather than EU-style worker protections, environmental protections, etc, etc, etc.

So they whipped up an immigration panic and promised unicorns for all to get just enough people to shoot themselves in the foot.

The idea that EU regulation resulted in higher consumer prices - a shibboleth of Euroscepticism since the early 90s - turned out to be total junk as well.

Witness food prices.

Sandpit

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

GIN1138 said:

Agreed Mike. I'm still thinking Labour will only get a very small majority of between 1-20 seats.

That is the ideal result for the country in my view. I have come to the conclusion that the worse evil than a hung parliament is a large majority.

I don't know, do we want a government where Abbott, Burgon, Sultana and other fruits and nuts can call the shots because they have veto power in having a majority?

It seems to me that a healthy majority, like democracy, is the worst form of government - except for all others.

True, but a fat lot of good it’s been for the past couple of years. There was a huge opportunity to reshape the country after the pandemic, but instead we got petty party infighting led by those who couldn’t accept the result of an election.

Gardenwalker

Sandpit said:

kyf_100 said:

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

The London plan comes across as typical Sadiq being Sadiq, and looking for the sort of names that will offend people who don’t like him, further cementing societal division.

If you’re going to give out random names then auction them off. Loads of cities, including mine, do this, the big money is for the destination and interchange stations, or companies buying the station nearest their own business.

I don’t think Khan goes out of his way to cause division.
I just think he’s a bit of a twit. His instincts are just off. Kind of a leftist Sunak.

Anabobazina

Casino_Royale said:

You know who really gives railways a bad name?

Sadiq Khan.

Chapeau

Sandpit said:

kyf_100 said:

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

The London plan comes across as typical Sadiq being Sadiq, and looking for the sort of names that will offend people who don’t like him, further cementing societal division.

If you’re going to give out random names then auction them off. Loads of cities, including mine, do this, the big money is for the destination and interchange stations, or companies buying the station nearest their own business.

That's an even worse idea. We'd end up with the Google line and the Amazon line – no thanks.

BartholomewRoberts

Gardenwalker said:

northern_monkey said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

I'm not sure I share all this guy's analysis, but I do share his conclusion. The only real alternative to the UK being part of the EU is being much more closely aligned with the US, perhaps even as the 51st or 51st-53rd states.

And that’s why the right pushed so hard for Brexit, and told their fantastical lies to make it happen. They would rather have a small state, low tax, highly unequal UK, with a crumbling public realm and services, rather than EU-style worker protections, environmental protections, etc, etc, etc.

So they whipped up an immigration panic and promised unicorns for all to get just enough people to shoot themselves in the foot.

The idea that EU regulation resulted in higher consumer prices - a shibboleth of Euroscepticism since the early 90s - turned out to be total junk as well.

Witness food prices.

And yet we still get squealing and whining that farmers may face competition from the likes of Australia and New Zealand.

You can't have it both ways.

Why isn't affordable Aussie and Kiwi good enough for us without any tariffs?

viewcode

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

You know who really gives railways a bad name?

Sadiq Khan.

What name does he give them?

A bad one.

Casino_Royale

Chat GPT just helped me: Can you create for me five very woke names for railways?

ChatGPT
Sure, here are five "woke" names for railways:

1. Unity Line
2. Harmony Express
3. Diversity Junction
4. Inclusion Railway
5. Equity Route

MightyAlex

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

I'm not sure I share all this guy's analysis, but I do share his conclusion. The only real alternative to the UK being part of the EU is being much more closely aligned with the US, perhaps even as the 51st or 51st-53rd states.

Will we accept being a protectorate to an isolationist mercurial America that does not care about our interests?

IMO if we can't re-join the EU, we'll have to revitalise the commonwealth. Become an hub of investment, trade and education to countries that struggle in global markets. To me this sounds preferable than suffering what we must under an American strong man.

viewcode

Gardenwalker said:

FF43 said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

Not clear what's in it for the United States. What does the UK offer as a vassal that the US doesn't have already? Similar applies to the EU but here the UK does have some cards it could play, on security, market access etc. Maybe China?

Thanks for transcript btw.

The US wants the UK’s food and pharma markets open for US giants. And maybe, at a stretch, it wants to protect New York’s financial services from London competition.

Once again, I want to point out the possibilities for an ever-closer UK-Canada union.

Given the troubles UK & Canada are facing, that's not actually a stupid idea...

Nigelb

AbandonedHope said:

As it's not the Underground but it is the Overground...

Great Uncle Bulgaria Line
Tobermory Line
Tomsk Line
Orinoco Line
Wellington Line
Madam Cholet Line

Underground, overground surely ?

GarethoftheVale2 said:

FPT - Malmsbury's suggestion is an excellent one. Dementia research gets a fraction of the money that cancer research does and can potentially offer greater benefit (as many cancers already have good survival rates now)

I'm not a scientist, but this is the big UK charity:
https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org

Actually Alzheimer's has seen quite a big increase in research in the last few years, since the first (albeit only marginally effective) therapies were approved.

There's a US list of some of the clinical trials here:
https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/ongoing-AD-trials

Anabobazina

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

kyf_100 said:

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

The London plan comes across as typical Sadiq being Sadiq, and looking for the sort of names that will offend people who don’t like him, further cementing societal division.

If you’re going to give out random names then auction them off. Loads of cities, including mine, do this, the big money is for the destination and interchange stations, or companies buying the station nearest their own business.

I don’t think Khan goes out of his way to cause division.
I just think he’s a bit of a twit. His instincts are just off. Kind of a leftist Sunak.

His delivery record is good:

• Night Tube
• Crossrail
• Ulez
• Ulez-X

But, his railway-naming skills leave a lot to be desired.

OnlyLivingBoy

northern_monkey said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

I'm not sure I share all this guy's analysis, but I do share his conclusion. The only real alternative to the UK being part of the EU is being much more closely aligned with the US, perhaps even as the 51st or 51st-53rd states.

And that’s why the right pushed so hard for Brexit, and told their fantastical lies to make it happen. They would rather have a small state, low tax, highly unequal UK, with a crumbling public realm and services, rather than EU-style worker protections, environmental protections, etc, etc, etc.

So they whipped up an immigration panic and promised unicorns for all to get just enough people to shoot themselves in the foot.

Indeed. Of course if the UK joined the United States we would pull their politics substantially to the left. If we joined as three States, England would be the largest state of the Union, population wise, with a population about 50% larger again than California. They might insist that England split itself into two or three smaller states, although that would pull their politics even further leftwards owing to its effect on the Senate.

Mexicanpete

Scott_xP said:

@SkyNews

A Conservative mayor has been expelled from the party after allegedly making antisemitic remarks, Sky News understands

Ridiculous. I am sure it was merely satire.

FF43

Gardenwalker said:

FF43 said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

Not clear what's in it for the United States. What does the UK offer as a vassal that the US doesn't have already? Similar applies to the EU but here the UK does have some cards it could play, on security, market access etc. Maybe China?

Thanks for transcript btw.

The US wants the UK’s food and pharma markets open for US giants. And maybe, at a stretch, it wants to protect New York’s financial services from London competition.

Once again, I want to point out the possibilities for an ever-closer UK-Canada union.

Following Brexit the US Department of Commerce canvassed opinion from business on how to get the most advantage from the UK leaving the EU. A Brexit dividend for them as it were. The answer they got was to ensure the UK had the closest possible relationship with the EU as that protects their investments. They weren't very interested in the UK as a standalone entity. They can always go to the EU direct, a much more important market for them.

_____

I should add. The UK could, and I think is quite likely to allow different US standards of goods to come into the UK. What I meant was, what is in it for the US so that it offers something of value in return?

BartholomewRoberts

AbandonedHope said:

As it's not the Underground but it is the Overground...

Great Uncle Bulgaria Line
Tobermory Line
Tomsk Line
Orinoco Line
Wellington Line
Madam Cholet Line

Anyone who wants to study the movement of large numbers of people could then examine the Orinoco flow.

Gardenwalker

BartholomewRoberts said:

Gardenwalker said:

northern_monkey said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

I'm not sure I share all this guy's analysis, but I do share his conclusion. The only real alternative to the UK being part of the EU is being much more closely aligned with the US, perhaps even as the 51st or 51st-53rd states.

And that’s why the right pushed so hard for Brexit, and told their fantastical lies to make it happen. They would rather have a small state, low tax, highly unequal UK, with a crumbling public realm and services, rather than EU-style worker protections, environmental protections, etc, etc, etc.

So they whipped up an immigration panic and promised unicorns for all to get just enough people to shoot themselves in the foot.

The idea that EU regulation resulted in higher consumer prices - a shibboleth of Euroscepticism since the early 90s - turned out to be total junk as well.

Witness food prices.

And yet we still get squealing and whining that farmers may face competition from the likes of Australia and New Zealand.

You can't have it both ways.

Why isn't affordable Aussie and Kiwi good enough for us without any tariffs?

The net impact so far is that prices are up (even net of the broader inflation issues), and choice is down.
It’s possible, though I defer to Nick Palmer, that welfare standards are expected to decline too.

Cookie

Andy_JS said:

Clutch_Brompton said:

Rochdale seems to offer the most interesting betting possibilities in a long time. I could make a reasonable case for five parties to end up winning here and two of them seem to be being offered at remarkably long odds.

The LDs seem to be putting up the white flag which might explain them being 25-1. However, the Cons at 66-1 seems very generous given the circumstances. The non-Con vote is splitting two and probably three ways so if the Con vote holds up then who knows. Ref UK were at the GE and might not take much more given a terrible candidate selection and the fact the Con candidate is not Asian this time. (I don't say that is right - I merely state the fact that some voters are influenced by such things).

I thought I was crazy thinking the Cons had an outside sniff here before the Lab campaign fell apart. Maybe I was. Maybe I still am. Its still very much an outsider's chance but at those odds...

Galloway to win with 20% of the vote?

Yes, Rochdale is fascinating. My prediction is:

Lab: 26%
Galloway: 22%
LD: 17%
Con: 15%
RefUK: 10%
Green: 5%
Others: 5%

What odds should that imply? I dunno. But I've done a little spreadsheet: I've taken the above as my central estimate, then given each party a random result from half to double of their score above, and repeated it 10,000 times. (10,000 chosen because running it 10,000 times seems to bring the variance down to a level of no more than a couple of percentage points - no matter how often you do the exercise, Lab never win more than 56% of times or less than 54%).
This gives implied probabilities of:

Lab 54-56%
Galloway 30-32%
LD: 9-10%
Con: 4-5%
Ref: <1%
Others: 0%

On this basis I have Lab and LD as value.

But of course that only works if you think the the starting points are about right!

Peter_the_Punter

Still trying to come to terms with the sad news about Mike.

My first post was on the first anniversary of the Site's formation. It has been a big part of my life ever since. For a decade or so it helped keep me solvent and it has always been a great source of fun and enlightenment. Over the years I got to know Mike well enough to make me wonder now whether it might be time for me to take my coat. To stay feels a bit like lingering at a party after the host has had to retire to bed unwell. He wouldn't mind, I'm sure, but somehow it doesn't feel right to keep posting away while OGH and My Good Friend is incapacitated.

I'll think it over but you'll understand if I go a bit quiet. If any of you have views on the matter that you'd like to share privately, you know where to find me.

Atb.

PtP

Sandpit

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

kyf_100 said:

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

The London plan comes across as typical Sadiq being Sadiq, and looking for the sort of names that will offend people who don’t like him, further cementing societal division.

If you’re going to give out random names then auction them off. Loads of cities, including mine, do this, the big money is for the destination and interchange stations, or companies buying the station nearest their own business.

That's an even worse idea. We'd end up with the Google line and the Amazon line – no thanks.

But you’d end up with a few hundred million quid in TfL’s coffers, which allows for investment in modernisation and keeps the fares down.

Tangentially on topic, Paris have announced a doubling of their Metro system fares during the Olympics, but with exceptions for the monthly and annual passes used by residents.
https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2023/12/01/paris-metro-tickets-to-double-in-price-during-2024-olympics/

isam

Casino_Royale said:

Chat GPT just helped me: Can you create for me five very woke names for railways?

ChatGPT
Sure, here are five "woke" names for railways:

1. Unity Line
2. Harmony Express
3. Diversity Junction
4. Inclusion Railway
5. Equity Route

In Rainham, Essex there was a notorious council estate called The Mardyke, and when it was knocked down, the streets that replaced it had names like that

Nigelb

Theuniondivvie said:

A mild distraction.

It appears AI can't do hands.
Or wings.
Or engines.
Or anything aeronautcally symmetrical.

https://hushkit.net/2024/02/15/ai-attempts-to-draw-british-aircraft-and-we-spit-out-our-tea-in-awe-at-these-magnificent-obscenities/

Strangely, the actual aircraft 'inspiring' almost all of them are quite recognisable.

Sandpit

BartholomewRoberts said:

AbandonedHope said:

As it's not the Underground but it is the Overground...

Great Uncle Bulgaria Line
Tobermory Line
Tomsk Line
Orinoco Line
Wellington Line
Madam Cholet Line

Anyone who wants to study the movement of large numbers of people could then examine the Orinoco flow.

That was a great song!

BartholomewRoberts

Gardenwalker said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Gardenwalker said:

northern_monkey said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

I'm not sure I share all this guy's analysis, but I do share his conclusion. The only real alternative to the UK being part of the EU is being much more closely aligned with the US, perhaps even as the 51st or 51st-53rd states.

And that’s why the right pushed so hard for Brexit, and told their fantastical lies to make it happen. They would rather have a small state, low tax, highly unequal UK, with a crumbling public realm and services, rather than EU-style worker protections, environmental protections, etc, etc, etc.

So they whipped up an immigration panic and promised unicorns for all to get just enough people to shoot themselves in the foot.

The idea that EU regulation resulted in higher consumer prices - a shibboleth of Euroscepticism since the early 90s - turned out to be total junk as well.

Witness food prices.

And yet we still get squealing and whining that farmers may face competition from the likes of Australia and New Zealand.

You can't have it both ways.

Why isn't affordable Aussie and Kiwi good enough for us without any tariffs?

The net impact so far is that prices are up (even net of the broader inflation issues), and choice is down.
It’s possible, though I defer to Nick Palmer, that welfare standards are expected to decline too.

I'd like to see any evidence whatsoever that prices are up in the UK compared to other countries net of broader inflation issues. Or that choice is down similarly.

Food inflation has been seen across the globe, so I'm sceptical.

There's nothing wrong with animal welfare in New Zealand etc, I'd be quite delighted to see non-tariff barriers that are falsely portrayed as "welfare" issues to be abolished.

Casino_Royale

Anabobazina said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

kyf_100 said:

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

The London plan comes across as typical Sadiq being Sadiq, and looking for the sort of names that will offend people who don’t like him, further cementing societal division.

If you’re going to give out random names then auction them off. Loads of cities, including mine, do this, the big money is for the destination and interchange stations, or companies buying the station nearest their own business.

I don’t think Khan goes out of his way to cause division.
I just think he’s a bit of a twit. His instincts are just off. Kind of a leftist Sunak.

His delivery record is good:

• Night Tube
• Crossrail
• Ulez
• Ulez-X

But, his railway-naming skills leave a lot to be desired.

His contribution to the delivery of Crossrail is that he just happened to be in office when Crossrail opened.

Casino_Royale

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

Chat GPT just helped me: Can you create for me five very woke names for railways?

ChatGPT
Sure, here are five "woke" names for railways:

1. Unity Line
2. Harmony Express
3. Diversity Junction
4. Inclusion Railway
5. Equity Route

In Rainham, Essex there was a notorious council estate called The Mardyke, and when it was knocked down, the streets that replaced it had names like that

There are plenty of people who think precisely like this.

Sandpit

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

kyf_100 said:

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

The London plan comes across as typical Sadiq being Sadiq, and looking for the sort of names that will offend people who don’t like him, further cementing societal division.

If you’re going to give out random names then auction them off. Loads of cities, including mine, do this, the big money is for the destination and interchange stations, or companies buying the station nearest their own business.

I don’t think Khan goes out of his way to cause division.
I just think he’s a bit of a twit. His instincts are just off. Kind of a leftist Sunak.

Perhaps, but, as someone who does disgreee with him on almost everything, it comes across as needlessly antagonistic. There’s plenty of London history that can be seen as positive for the city, rather than dwelling on negative history.

LostPassword

I know that Americans often have idle discussions about how they might split their country up, but do they ever have idle discussions about adding other countries as new States?

Just wondering whether the light-hearted interest in the UK joining the US is reciprocated?

BartholomewRoberts

Sandpit said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

kyf_100 said:

Anabobazina said:

FPT point of order it's the Lioness line not the Lionesses line.

Which is slightly (but not much) better.

Unless you're trying to pronounce it after a skinful. Come to think of it "I'm just jumping on a Suffragette" is probably going to get some traction amongst the lairy friday night out crowd.

All in all the names have a vague "if Dave Spart ran a competition for the under 8s to name the lines, then miraculously picked the worst names out of a hat" feel to them.

The London plan comes across as typical Sadiq being Sadiq, and looking for the sort of names that will offend people who don’t like him, further cementing societal division.

If you’re going to give out random names then auction them off. Loads of cities, including mine, do this, the big money is for the destination and interchange stations, or companies buying the station nearest their own business.

I don’t think Khan goes out of his way to cause division.
I just think he’s a bit of a twit. His instincts are just off. Kind of a leftist Sunak.

Perhaps, but, as someone who does disgreee with him on almost everything, it comes across as needlessly antagonistic. There’s plenty of London history that can be seen as positive for the city, rather than dwelling on negative history.

The names are naff, but which are negative? They're all positive.

BartholomewRoberts

LostPassword said:

I know that Americans often have idle discussions about how they might split their country up, but do they ever have idle discussions about adding other countries as new States?

Just wondering whether the light-hearted interest in the UK joining the US is reciprocated?

They won't even admit part of their own country (Puerto Rico) as a state as it would alter the balance of Congress, let alone add other countries.

RochdalePioneers

The Northern Line? Separate them! Since the Battersea branch was added its already (mostly) operationally separate at that end. Run Battersea - Edgware as one line, and Morden to High Barnet as the other line. Expensive and complex junctions at Camden Town are largely left with the lines separate, interchanges at Camden sub-surface, done.

Battersea line for the western half, City line for the eastern half.

Gardenwalker

BartholomewRoberts said:

Gardenwalker said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Gardenwalker said:

northern_monkey said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

viewcode said:

PART THREE

...Now when the Johnson Administration in Britain came over to talk to Donald
Trump's Administration about a trade deal and they found out what the
conditions would be they walked away. And then the next government came in and did the same thing and walked away (or was it Teresa May?). Anyway there were two back-to-back and so the Brits right now are in this nether world where they kind of quietly admit to themselves that, in order to find a future that has some degree of economic functionality, they have to get into bed with their kids and accept all the demands and the hit to their economy will be real and the hit
to their ego will be massive...


...But the alternatives (trying to build an alternate system or maybe going back to the EU) neither of those are long-term solutions that are very functional, so really what we're doing is going through the paces until the Brits admit the obvious, and when that happens Britain will lose the thing that it values the most: its freedom to act, its agency. It will become a subsidiary of the American system for Better or For Worse and while that will be horrible for the British mindset it is the best game in town from both an economic and a security point of view and in time I have no doubt that that is where the Brits will end up, so stiff upper lip...

I'm not sure I share all this guy's analysis, but I do share his conclusion. The only real alternative to the UK being part of the EU is being much more closely aligned with the US, perhaps even as the 51st or 51st-53rd states.

And that’s why the right pushed so hard for Brexit, and told their fantastical lies to make it happen. They would rather have a small state, low tax, highly unequal UK, with a crumbling public realm and services, rather than EU-style worker protections, environmental protections, etc, etc, etc.

So they whipped up an immigration panic and promised unicorns for all to get just enough people to shoot themselves in the foot.

The idea that EU regulation resulted in higher consumer prices - a shibboleth of Euroscepticism since the early 90s - turned out to be total junk as well.

Witness food prices.

And yet we still get squealing and whining that farmers may face competition from the likes of Australia and New Zealand.

You can't have it both ways.

Why isn't affordable Aussie and Kiwi good enough for us without any tariffs?

The net impact so far is that prices are up (even net of the broader inflation issues), and choice is down.
It’s possible, though I defer to Nick Palmer, that welfare standards are expected to decline too.

I'd like to see any evidence whatsoever that prices are up in the UK compared to other countries net of broader inflation issues. Or that choice is down similarly.

Food inflation has been seen across the globe, so I'm sceptical.

There's nothing wrong with animal welfare in New Zealand etc, I'd be quite delighted to see non-tariff barriers that are falsely portrayed as "welfare" issues to be abolished.

First of many results on Google.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/brexit-blame-third-britains-food-bill-rise-researchers-say-2023-05-25/

JosiasJessop

Casino_Royale said:

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

Chat GPT just helped me: Can you create for me five very woke names for railways?

ChatGPT
Sure, here are five "woke" names for railways:

1. Unity Line
2. Harmony Express
3. Diversity Junction
4. Inclusion Railway
5. Equity Route

In Rainham, Essex there was a notorious council estate called The Mardyke, and when it was knocked down, the streets that replaced it had names like that

There are plenty of people who think precisely like this.

We have a couple of Harry Potter inspired street names near us, as our part of the town was built at the height of the books' popularity. Later sections are named after airplanes and manufacturers, as they're nearer the old Bourn airfield. Vickers way, York Road, Spitfire Road, Fairey Close, Blackbird Road etc.

Better names and themes than Khan's monstrosities...