Howdy, Stranger!

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

If you thought we were having a May 2nd election boy were you wrong – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,391
    Eabhal said:

    Truman said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On weight, as with so much of @Dura's output he made a truly horrific post wherein he noted the difference in calorific intake required to maintain a certain weight between his younger years and now. Something like a third less just to stay where he was and at the same, or similar levels of activity.

    I find this the same - I have to reduce my calories vs years ago just to not put on weight, let alone lose it.

    Life really is a f**cker.

    The alternative is to increase activity levels. I run 20-25 miles a week which I find does it. Weight-bearing exercise is also good for your bones as you get older and will help to combat muscle loss which also happens as you age
    You are truly a hero. And I have no idea what age you are but I can also assure you that as you get older you are not only not going to be able to increase your weekly run, but running you will find will fuck you up.

    And I speak as someone who ran every day of their lives for - let me count - nearly three decades. And am two new hips to the good.

    It has to be low/non-impact sports such as cycling and swimming for me now. Except I hate swimming and refuse to do it. Oh and *****back riding in the winter.
    Rowing is interesting - met some 80+ rowers on the Tideway.

    Seeing someone that old sauntering down the boat ramp with a single balanced on one shoulder....
    Running is fine in moderation. Just dont overdo it. Twice a week combined with some gym work. Running every day is silly unless you are a pro athlete.
    Why's it silly? Literally what we are designed to do. Chase down deer.

    When I was 20 I could run 10k a day no bother. My ability to do that has diminished over the last 10 years. Time for the tribe to boot me out.
    "...Good morning and welcome to your own personalised iceflow. Provided for your convenience is a small pointy stick to fend off polar bears for literaly minutes, and some sandwiches and a flask which we estimate will last you for the rest of your life. Here is your "Sorry to see you go" card signed by about five of the tribe, please sign your exit interview forms, and don't forget to give us a review on Trustpilot. Please enjoy and on behalf of the tribe we wish you well in your new endeavours..."
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,127
    Eabhal said:

    Truman said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On weight, as with so much of @Dura's output he made a truly horrific post wherein he noted the difference in calorific intake required to maintain a certain weight between his younger years and now. Something like a third less just to stay where he was and at the same, or similar levels of activity.

    I find this the same - I have to reduce my calories vs years ago just to not put on weight, let alone lose it.

    Life really is a f**cker.

    The alternative is to increase activity levels. I run 20-25 miles a week which I find does it. Weight-bearing exercise is also good for your bones as you get older and will help to combat muscle loss which also happens as you age
    You are truly a hero. And I have no idea what age you are but I can also assure you that as you get older you are not only not going to be able to increase your weekly run, but running you will find will fuck you up.

    And I speak as someone who ran every day of their lives for - let me count - nearly three decades. And am two new hips to the good.

    It has to be low/non-impact sports such as cycling and swimming for me now. Except I hate swimming and refuse to do it. Oh and *****back riding in the winter.
    Rowing is interesting - met some 80+ rowers on the Tideway.

    Seeing someone that old sauntering down the boat ramp with a single balanced on one shoulder....
    Running is fine in moderation. Just dont overdo it. Twice a week combined with some gym work. Running every day is silly unless you are a pro athlete.
    Why's it silly? Literally what we are designed to do. Chase down deer.

    When I was 20 I could run 10k a day no bother. My ability to do that has diminished over the last 10 years. Time for the tribe to boot me out.
    Neither were our knees designed to last 5 decades of deer chasing!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Pro_Rata said:

    It is now longer since Liz Truss's mini-budget than the mini-budget was from the Hartlepool by-election.

    It is now longer from the end of Liz Truss's premiership than the end of her premiership was from the start of it.

    By a factor of ten (and a half).
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 723
    Leon said:

    Donkeys said:

    Leon said:

    I’ve just been to my local supermarket. It’s a testament to globalisation

    Now to be fair I am in an affluent seaside neighborhood. Nonetheless this is a pretty average Colombian city. It’s not famous like Cartagena (so no tourist income), it’s not important like bogota. It’s not big like Medellin

    It’s a city of 500,000 people quite near the troubled Venezuelan border in a country with a per capita income of $7000

    At first glance the supermarket could easily be in Spain or Croatia. Or a richer bit of wales. The cheese selection is better than most supermarkets in America. The wine is from all over. - but lots of chile and Argentinian. The veg and fruit selection is great and fresh. The bread is good. The hard liquor is fine - bought Bombay sapphire but could have bought Tanqueray or Hendricks

    Wide selection of European olive oils. Great chocolates. Obviously impressive array of coffees ground, beans, raw, all forms. About ten different balsamic vinegars. Dijon mustard. Loads of beers

    This - I repeat - is a nice supermarket in a nice but not outrageously wealthy neighborhood in an average and quite remote Colombian city

    Globalisation and capitalism are phenomenal things

    Have you spoken with any Colombians about the Colombian caste system yet?
    There are 6 levels, with number 6 at the top. That supermarket sounds like 4, possibly 5.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_Colombia
    I’ve said I’m in a richer burb. I don’t think the average Colombian is buying Camembert or Tanqueray Ten

    Nonetheless the locals are not creeping into this supermarket in awe at the wealth either

    I’ve been all over Colombia these last two weeks - capital, jungle, Medellin, Cartagena now Santa Marta. I’ve been on buses and in taxis and in minivans

    I’ve not seen a single place that looks as poor and shit as that road in Peru which triggered this whole argument. So I am right and you are wrong
    I am not competitive because I am not emotionally insecure like you.

    Rather than trying to continue any argument, I was trying to give you a tip: find out about the 6-level Colombian caste system ("stratification" I think it's called officially) that has been government policy since the 1990s. Every Colombian knows about it. It's big in housing and the school system.

    Just trying to give you a non-tourist handle on the country.

    I am assuming that the answer to my question "Have you spoken with any Colombians about the Colombian caste system yet?" is "No".

    This is rectifiable if you're still there. I guarantee that if you speak to a Colombian person they will know about it. They may even be impressed that you've heard of it, because tourists who go to Colombia as "travellers" or for the drugs are two a penny.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,119
    Eabhal said:

    Truman said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On weight, as with so much of @Dura's output he made a truly horrific post wherein he noted the difference in calorific intake required to maintain a certain weight between his younger years and now. Something like a third less just to stay where he was and at the same, or similar levels of activity.

    I find this the same - I have to reduce my calories vs years ago just to not put on weight, let alone lose it.

    Life really is a f**cker.

    The alternative is to increase activity levels. I run 20-25 miles a week which I find does it. Weight-bearing exercise is also good for your bones as you get older and will help to combat muscle loss which also happens as you age
    You are truly a hero. And I have no idea what age you are but I can also assure you that as you get older you are not only not going to be able to increase your weekly run, but running you will find will fuck you up.

    And I speak as someone who ran every day of their lives for - let me count - nearly three decades. And am two new hips to the good.

    It has to be low/non-impact sports such as cycling and swimming for me now. Except I hate swimming and refuse to do it. Oh and *****back riding in the winter.
    Rowing is interesting - met some 80+ rowers on the Tideway.

    Seeing someone that old sauntering down the boat ramp with a single balanced on one shoulder....
    Running is fine in moderation. Just dont overdo it. Twice a week combined with some gym work. Running every day is silly unless you are a pro athlete.
    Why's it silly? Literally what we are designed to do. Chase down deer.

    When I was 20 I could run 10k a day no bother. My ability to do that has diminished over the last 10 years. Time for the tribe to boot me out.
    No worries. The Tribe has a new thing. Better than flint tools. It came out of that Wheel thing (remember that mad bubble? - "Wheels will eliminate all the jobs!"). Apparently if you take a couple of those and some sticks and stuff, you can make what they call a bicycle.

    It going to eliminate all the jobs, I tell you.

    Also much lower impact on the knees than running. Great for the old'uns.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    Truman said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On weight, as with so much of @Dura's output he made a truly horrific post wherein he noted the difference in calorific intake required to maintain a certain weight between his younger years and now. Something like a third less just to stay where he was and at the same, or similar levels of activity.

    I find this the same - I have to reduce my calories vs years ago just to not put on weight, let alone lose it.

    Life really is a f**cker.

    The alternative is to increase activity levels. I run 20-25 miles a week which I find does it. Weight-bearing exercise is also good for your bones as you get older and will help to combat muscle loss which also happens as you age
    You are truly a hero. And I have no idea what age you are but I can also assure you that as you get older you are not only not going to be able to increase your weekly run, but running you will find will fuck you up.

    And I speak as someone who ran every day of their lives for - let me count - nearly three decades. And am two new hips to the good.

    It has to be low/non-impact sports such as cycling and swimming for me now. Except I hate swimming and refuse to do it. Oh and *****back riding in the winter.
    Rowing is interesting - met some 80+ rowers on the Tideway.

    Seeing someone that old sauntering down the boat ramp with a single balanced on one shoulder....
    Running is fine in moderation. Just dont overdo it. Twice a week combined with some gym work. Running every day is silly unless you are a pro athlete.
    Why's it silly? Literally what we are designed to do. Chase down deer.

    When I was 20 I could run 10k a day no bother. My ability to do that has diminished over the last 10 years. Time for the tribe to boot me out.
    Neither were our knees designed to last 5 decades of deer chasing!
    It's mostly football that buggers up people's knees. All that twisting and turning. People then retire from football but continue with running to keep the weight off, and blame running when their knees start hurting.

    Having said that, I only started running at 48 so I'm hoping mine can last indefinitely.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,123
    I have increased my bet on Jan 25.

    Sunak will cling on as they all try to do and get as many months as possible as PM on his wiki page.

    What does he care that the slaughter of Tory MPs will be worse after forcing public to endure election crap over xmas.
  • TrumanTruman Posts: 279

    nico679 said:

    What if the Rwanda policy actually works and leads to a big drop in boat crossings ?

    Together with that , the economy improving and interest rates falling there is certainly room for the Tories to see a significant improvement in their polling .

    Rwanda is not going to work!

    I think the economy will improve. We'll come out of recession. Interest rates could improve (albeit those renegotiating mortgages will still see big rises). I think it is possible that things look a bit better over the summer, the Tories avoid quite so many scandals, Reform UK trip up over something, and the Conservative polling improves somewhat. Not enough to win, but better than now.

    I think it is also possible that the death spiral will continue and their polling will fall below Reform UK. I think it is also possible that they just hover around the current figure. Lots of things might happen! I am sceptical of anyone claiming to have a crystal ball (except over Rwanda, which is not going to work).
    Rubbish. Awful ppi figures in the usa yesterday. Interest rates will stay higher for longer.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.
  • Ghedebrav said:

    Foxy said:

    I think there is now a real chance the Tories go for the nuclear option of PM #4 of this parliament.

    No election in May means an 7-8 month window has opened up. If the drip-drip negative headlines and poor Sunak media management continues, it starts to feel like enough MPs might be desperate enough for a last throw of the dice.

    I am beginning to take this possibility more seriously, only because Sunak appears to be so useless politically that another six months of him as PM is more likely to worsen the Tory position than not. He's not the safe pair of hands he was supposed to be when he replaced Truss.

    The only stumbling block is: who takes over?
    We’re lucky Boris isn’t in parliament, because I think they’re desperate enough to give him another go.

    Other than that, I can’t see beyond Mordaunt because there’s nobody else who isn’t either (a) measurably tied too closely to Rishi or Truss, or (b) who would want the poisoned chalice right now.
    For Mordaunt it is also the best chance of holding her seat. Being leader might well make the difference.
    I think Boris would have been at serious risk of losing his old seat in a GE as well, given the local issue of ULEZ would be less pertinent than it was in the by-election. Agree there would have been an immense clamour to get him back in charge though. They'd still likely lose with him, which he probably also knows, so is happy to be king-over-the-water for now.

    He's got a good ten years yet, and I don't think we've seen the last of him in politics.
    We've not seen the last of him in the sense that he remains "box office" to some degree. But he'll be in his 60s for this election, and probably at retirement age for the next.

    He's not like Cameron, who makes sense as a trusted elder statesman to back up the PM in a senior supporting role - nobody would be foolish enough to bring Johnson in expecting loyalty, and it'd either need to be in charge or nothing.

    The window just isn't there in my view - he'll say stuff for many years to come, but his time doing rather than saying has gone.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    One of the US volunteers in Ukraine has visited Congress.

    It’ll be coming out soon.
    But I went to the capitol for more than just the Ukraine aid bill that’s stuck before house speaker Johnson.

    I went to provide proof and speak to representatives over one of Chosen company’s fallen: Dalton “Gimli” Medlin.

    Gimli was an integral part of Chosen. One of the OGS (original members), he helped train up grenadiers, he helped with trench SOPs and overall was an amazing person.

    Dalton was subsequently executed by Russian soldiers and his body subsequently booby trapped mid 2023.

    Chosen will not stop on the battlefield to get justice and I’m now hoping the US government doesn’t stop to get justice as well. We know the unit responsible, the command responsible, and we will exact vengeance no matter where these members are in the world. Close your windows, hide your families, because we are coming and none of you will walk away.

    The biggest issue that put Dalton and our other fallen in excessive harms way is the lack of heavy munitions and the US government slow walking aid.

    In war, you can not be indecisive and sadly the USA has been just that. Talking constantly about Putin’s red lines which aren’t actually lines. Talking of this can’t happen etc. Without realizing these indecisive moments have cost hundreds if not thousands of lives and are pushing the world closer to a Franz Ferdinand moment.

    We talk about Putin red lines, without talking about Ukraine, Poland, France, Estonian etc red lines.

    This war will decide if we allow war criminals free rein over attacking democratic nations and will set a precedent for future conflicts.

    Either support Ukraine now, or we will have a lot more gold star families in the US in the future. Families that speaker Johnson and his ilk won’t meet face to face to apologize for getting their loved ones killed over partisan politics.

    PASS THE AID BILL NOW

    https://twitter.com/IhateTrenches/status/1768533153847681505

    We're due another Franz Ferdinand moment, their first album is an absolute banger.

    Which wiki tells me came out 20 years ago. Christ I'm old.

    Twenty years ago, if I was listening to a twenty-year-old album I would've thought it was ancient.
    It's now been longer since the first Radiohead album, than the first Radiohead album was since the first Beatles album.
    It's now been longer than the first Beatles album than the first Beatles album was from Mahler 3 or the death of Dvorak.
    It gives an insight into why football expectations were so high in the 80s and 90s for England (Never lived up to). 1966 wasn't really all that long ago. I didn't appreciate this at the time being born in 1981 but it's clear as day now.
    Indeed. Although also the domination of Europe by English clubs, with six successive European Cup winners from 1976/7-1981/2, and also 1983/4, plus three UEFA cups in about the same time.

    The fact that England didn't even qualify for the 1974 and 1978 World Cups always seems to be overlooked in terms of expectations; that 1966 was the rule rather than the exception.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Phil said:

    Curious if anyone here is still doing their New Year Resolutions or if those in 'fat club' are still on their diets etc?

    I've just had an NHS checkup this week due to being over 40 and was surprised how supportive the person doing it was of the carnivore diet I'm doing, most NHS materials still seem stuck in completely out of date "five fruit and veg" days so that was good. Even more supportive when I said how much weight I've lost.

    Now back at the same weight I was when I got married 11 years ago. Not at goal weight yet, but getting there.

    Well done!

    Not a New Year resolution in my case, but have been steadily losing weight since last summer by simply cutting down the amount that I eat while still eating largely my normal (vegetarian) diet. I'm down from 91 kg to 85 kg now and still gradually falling. My ideal weight would be around 80 kg, so should hopefully get there in another 6 months or so.

    I've tried radical approaches before, which do lead to quick weight loss but are difficult to maintain in the long term, and then it goes back on again. This time seems different - nothing radical, but just enough to tip the balance from gain to loss, and maintainable indefinitely.
    Not a NY resolution, but my goal this year has been an hour’s exercise in Zone 2 every day, by any means that feels good. Very slow running, cycling, whatever.

    Have pretty much kept to it so far & the fact that I’d not knackered after going for a run has probably contributed to that. I probably look a bit silly pootling along the towpath at a pace barely faster than a fast walk, but I can live with that :)

    Mostly doing it to try and build a decent cardio base for running, but the slow but steady loss of the post-pandemic / getting older weight gain has been an extra bonus. I seem to have lost approx 250g per week which seems eminently sustainable.
    I've got a slightly odd body shape - long body, shorter legs - which means that, at 90kg (currently), my BMI is 25.4 - just in the 'overweight' category.

    Yet I do loads of activities - and when I go down to (say) 85kg, not only is it difficult. but I find it harder to do activities. I think 90-95kg is my 'natural' weight - even if that's technically overweight, it doesn't stop me doing lots of energetic activity.
    I'm 57, 170 cm tall, weigh 73kg and a BMI of 25.2. I'm "overweight" yet I'm fitter, stronger, run further, ride gnarlier terrain and look and feel better than I have in years. Even entered an Enduro MTB race for later on in the summer. My diet is well balanced vegan, I quit the booze 3 years ago. I had a medical MOT and blood tests done late last year and all in the green, so I ignore that BMI malarkey!
    Agree that BMI is not a helpful tool on an individual basis. I've never not been technically 'overweight' even when I've been really slim and fit (at my peak cycling around 200-300k p/w at a decent pace). Am just *dense*.

    Unquestionably am a bit overweight at the moment, but technically teetering on 'obese', which even with my cripplingly terrible self-image I have to say is not how I look or feel at all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,127
    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    On weight, as with so much of @Dura's output he made a truly horrific post wherein he noted the difference in calorific intake required to maintain a certain weight between his younger years and now. Something like a third less just to stay where he was and at the same, or similar levels of activity.

    I find this the same - I have to reduce my calories vs years ago just to not put on weight, let alone lose it.

    Life really is a f**cker.

    The process does seem to be slowing though! At age 56 I'm still on 1700kCal/day and have been for nearly ten years to maintain 69kg and 9% body fat.

    At age 35 I was on 2800kCal/day to do the same.

    At age 20 when I was a semi-pro cyclist I was on 4,000+ but only weighed 64kg. I was riding 600km+ per week and doing a hell of a lot of PEDs though which makes a direct comparison difficult. At 64kg I was a very good grimpeur but had no punch in a sprint so I prefer a bit more muscle mass.

    It helps that I am not a food wanker and never eat out. It's just fuel to me.
    Indeed a lack of interest in food is key to weight loss.

    Mrs Foxys perma-diet is never very successful because she spends her time endlessly obsessing with food, and what her next meal is. She is quite a foodie so very creative and good cook, but would do far better if on a bland diet.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,954
    edited March 15

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    Haven't we already passed the point of no return on the government looking ridiculous? It now isn't going to be May. If the locals are as bad as they look like being then it can't be June/July, If summer is decent weather then the number of boats crossing will rule out September/October so December/January has to be it. There's going to be very little Tory activity on the streets in this campaign so make it more difficult for the opposition and have the election campaign cross Christmas, Maybe not 23rd January, but 9th or 16th are possibles.

    I don't know if the "boats" still has the totemic salience it did last year. Most people are used to it now and don't think the government either want to fix it or can fix it.

    The little shit wants to be PM as long as possible and doesn't really care if he leaves the tory party or country in a state of desolation after he's gone. However, he will want to go out at the inevitable GE loss not the indignity of being ousted as party leader in a Night of the Long Letters. With that in mind, he might want to avoid the tory conference which will be a febrile shit show if they are 20+ behind in the polls.
    Yes, so October. It's the sweet spot.
    Isn't there some reason why it won't be October, to do with royal visits or something? I seem to recall this discussion on here.

    My (figurative, in this case) money is on early December.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,701
    On topic, this was fuelled by nothing more than wishful thinking.

    Made me some money at least.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,473
    My favourite is that Cleopatra lived closer to the present day than she did to when the Great Pyramid was built.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So we have to put up with this drivel for another 6-9 months?

    Reform ahead of the Tories in the polls by midsummer? I don't think Sunak will enjoy his party conference.

    Pretty much. The people arguing that May 2nd was Sunak's last best chance were solid in their reasoning; I'm expecting things to go downhill (possibly chaotically) from here.

    But not even a hyper rationalist with a spreadsheet would call an election when twenty points behind.
    I don’t for one moment believe they are twenty points behind, I wouldn’t expect a May 2nd election if the Tories were 15 or more behind. I’m doubtful the top of the Tory party believe the situation is that difficult right now.

    You got to match current unicorn polling with what we know will happen in parliamentary constituency elections. Why? Because that’s the pattern from the last three elections this election will follow.

    The polling you refer to, and people have brainwashed themselves into thinking you can’t call an election when twenty points behind, is unicorn polling. Forced choice polling is the only indicator where we actually are, and that shows the Tories on 31% just 11 behind.

    History proves once campaigning starts, polls and voter behaviour can move in way it didn’t move in the years leading up. The problem is, the expected Swingback either will or won’t happen depending on the campaign month itself, not anything we can be sure of before the election actually kicks off, all we can look for are the risks in the campaign month.
    That shift won't always favour the Tories (see 2017) indeed the question to low attention voters will be "do you want 5 more years of this?"

    No fox. 2017 perfectly supports my point how fluid and different a GE is from everything that’s gone before it.

    The DNA of a GE election is different than the DNA of how pollsters are capturing GE choice opinion polls.

    And at this moment - Friday 1040 i’m still sceptical Rishi has actually confirmed no May 2nd election.

    Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are on a visit in the north-east of
    11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

    Any sign this morning of rowing back, or not confirming, or not even wishing to be drawn in election dates, confirms a May 2nd election.

    Watch this space 😁
    Sunak is pretty useless at politics but having given a direct quote yesterday as saying "there won't be a general election on that day [May 2nd]" surely even he could not be so dim as to go back on that. His campaign will be difficult enough as it is, he wouldn't want to start by telling a Johnsonian lie to people? Would he?
  • Ghedebrav said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    Haven't we already passed the point of no return on the government looking ridiculous? It now isn't going to be May. If the locals are as bad as they look like being then it can't be June/July, If summer is decent weather then the number of boats crossing will rule out September/October so December/January has to be it. There's going to be very little Tory activity on the streets in this campaign so make it more difficult for the opposition and have the election campaign cross Christmas, Maybe not 23rd January, but 9th or 16th are possibles.

    I don't know if the "boats" still has the totemic salience it did last year. Most people are used to it now and don't think the government either want to fix it or can fix it.

    The little shit wants to be PM as long as possible and doesn't really care if he leaves the tory party or country in a state of desolation after he's gone. However, he will want to go out at the inevitable GE loss not the indignity of being ousted as party leader in a Night of the Long Letters. With that in mind, he might want to avoid the tory conference which will be a febrile shit show if they are 20+ behind in the polls.
    Yes, so October. It's the sweet spot.
    Isn't there some reason why it won't be October, to do with royal visits or something? I seem to recall this discussion on here.

    My (figurative, in this case) money is on early December.
    Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference, 21-25 October in Samoa. The argument is it's all pretty big for the King so PM has to go, and it's a long way in an election campaign (let alone the oddity if the election is basically then).

    I've always thought that the argument was utter balls. It's the Commonwealth, Cameron or someone can go, and it's the Commonwealth.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,771
    Ghedebrav said:



    Isn't there some reason why it won't be October, to do with royal visits or something? I seem to recall this discussion on here.

    My (figurative, in this case) money is on early December.

    If Cancer King is still kicking by then he's supposed to going to Samoa in October to get some sick tats and attend the CHoGM.
  • dixiedean said:

    My favourite is that Cleopatra lived closer to the present day than she did to when the Great Pyramid was built.

    She came closer to seeing the opening ceremony for the Millennium Dome than for the Pyramids. Nice one to remember!
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645
    edited March 15

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So we have to put up with this drivel for another 6-9 months?

    Reform ahead of the Tories in the polls by midsummer? I don't think Sunak will enjoy his party conference.

    Pretty much. The people arguing that May 2nd was Sunak's last best chance were solid in their reasoning; I'm expecting things to go downhill (possibly chaotically) from here.

    But not even a hyper rationalist with a spreadsheet would call an election when twenty points behind.
    I don’t for one moment believe they are twenty points behind, I wouldn’t expect a May 2nd election if the Tories were 15 or more behind. I’m doubtful the top of the Tory party believe the situation is that difficult right now.

    You got to match current unicorn polling with what we know will happen in parliamentary constituency elections. Why? Because that’s the pattern from the last three elections this election will follow.

    The polling you refer to, and people have brainwashed themselves into thinking you can’t call an election when twenty points behind, is unicorn polling. Forced choice polling is the only indicator where we actually are, and that shows the Tories on 31% just 11 behind.

    History proves once campaigning starts, polls and voter behaviour can move in way it didn’t move in the years leading up. The problem is, the expected Swingback either will or won’t happen depending on the campaign month itself, not anything we can be sure of before the election actually kicks off, all we can look for are the risks in the campaign month.
    That shift won't always favour the Tories (see 2017) indeed the question to low attention voters will be "do you want 5 more years of this?"

    No fox. 2017 perfectly supports my point how fluid and different a GE is from everything that’s gone before it.

    The DNA of a GE election is different than the DNA of how pollsters are capturing GE choice opinion polls.

    And at this moment - Friday 1040 i’m still sceptical Rishi has actually confirmed no May 2nd election.

    Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are on a visit in the north-east of
    11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

    Any sign this morning of rowing back, or not confirming, or not even wishing to be drawn in election dates, confirms a May 2nd election.

    Watch this space 😁
    Sunak is pretty useless at politics but having given a direct quote yesterday as saying "there won't be a general election on that day [May 2nd]" surely even he could not be so dim as to go back on that. His campaign will be difficult enough as it is, he wouldn't want to start by telling a Johnsonian lie to people? Would he?
    He didn’t give a direct quote. He spent several minutes refusing to answer the question. He didn’t turn up planning to say it or with a direct quote.

    Let’s see if it is backed up by direct quote on media rounds today.

    If yesterdays slip not firmly confirmed by direct quote today, it confirms May 2nd General Election. We will 90% know in next couple of hours.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    Exactly. I don't get biscuits or crisps or any of that crap in and stand on my own two feet (i.e. stand up in my kitchen for a couple of hours) and cook every meal from scratch (often in large batches, creating freezer blocks). I can make 16 servings of delicious casseroles/mouth-watering authentic curries/and luscious ragus etc in one shift, all from fresh ingredients with no artificial additives.

    I always implore people to examine the ingredients on a ready meal, or in a Maccy D's, or on a so-called 'healthy' spread like Flora. This shit is BAD for you. No wonder the French, Italians and Spanish think we are fucking barbarians.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,909
    edited March 15
    DM_Andy said:

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    Haven't we already passed the point of no return on the government looking ridiculous? It now isn't going to be May. If the locals are as bad as they look like being then it can't be June/July, If summer is decent weather then the number of boats crossing will rule out September/October so December/January has to be it. There's going to be very little Tory activity on the streets in this campaign so make it more difficult for the opposition and have the election campaign cross Christmas, Maybe not 23rd January, but 9th or 16th are possibles.
    If the GE is on January 9th or 16th, or December 19th, then we'd be able to fit the entire election campaign and change of government into the US transition period between polling day and inauguration. With time to spare.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Ghedebrav said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    Haven't we already passed the point of no return on the government looking ridiculous? It now isn't going to be May. If the locals are as bad as they look like being then it can't be June/July, If summer is decent weather then the number of boats crossing will rule out September/October so December/January has to be it. There's going to be very little Tory activity on the streets in this campaign so make it more difficult for the opposition and have the election campaign cross Christmas, Maybe not 23rd January, but 9th or 16th are possibles.

    I don't know if the "boats" still has the totemic salience it did last year. Most people are used to it now and don't think the government either want to fix it or can fix it.

    The little shit wants to be PM as long as possible and doesn't really care if he leaves the tory party or country in a state of desolation after he's gone. However, he will want to go out at the inevitable GE loss not the indignity of being ousted as party leader in a Night of the Long Letters. With that in mind, he might want to avoid the tory conference which will be a febrile shit show if they are 20+ behind in the polls.
    Yes, so October. It's the sweet spot.
    Isn't there some reason why it won't be October, to do with royal visits or something? I seem to recall this discussion on here.

    My (figurative, in this case) money is on early December.
    Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference, 21-25 October in Samoa. The argument is it's all pretty big for the King so PM has to go, and it's a long way in an election campaign (let alone the oddity if the election is basically then).

    I've always thought that the argument was utter balls. It's the Commonwealth, Cameron or someone can go, and it's the Commonwealth.
    Oh yeah, Can't see that being too big an obstacle then. I'd guess optics around the US election in could be a bigger concern from a campaigning POV.

    The other thing I suppose is how it works with the pre-election period vs conference schedule. I would guess that a conference season would be likely to boost Labour and drag on the Tories.
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 723
    edited March 15
    A sensible version of the Turing test would be if you are allowed to converse with the program 1) however you like (e.g. use humour, or switch between registers) and 2) on whatever subjects you like, and 3) you try to catch it out.

    By catch it out I don't mean its knowledge of information. But you are allowed to talk about a specialist subject or unusual interest and explain a bit about it and see whether the program can keep its end of the conversation up the way a human could.

    Another point is that intelligence of various kinds in the general population is obviously falling in the smartphone epoch. So to some extent what programmers are chasing is getting closer. E.g. if most humans on certain types of subject sound like Wikipedia articles, or they keep looking shit up on Google when they're supposedly talking with each other, the bar is lowered and it's easier for a program to imitate a human.

    But there will never be AGI because there is no such thing as general intelligence, machines don't have minds, the mind is not a machine, and Skinnerian behaviourism should be flung into the dustbin of history along with Galtonian eugenics.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,418

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    I've given the analysis several times. And if there is no canvassing over the holiday period, it does not matter how many "left-wing teachers on holiday" there are available to do a thing that cannot be done. That is the point. And if you want to attack people for wrong predictions, start with those who said the 2nd of May.
  • Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    You can't outrun a Big Mac.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,909

    Pulpstar said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour should refuse to honour any pledges made by the Tories in the autumn statement.

    Good morning

    Even good ones?
    Well they're opposing the idea of abolishing NI, which is utterly ridiculous, its something Labour should completely 100% support and be advocating itself.

    If its January 2025 the election, then I would like to see tax thresholds frozen again in the autumn and another 2% NI cut in the autumn statement.
    I agree with this. Freezing the thresholds and using the created fiscal drag to cut employee NI down to zero is what should be done over the next parliament. It'd be a boost for lower paid workers at the expense of those on middling and higher incomes. Once employee NI is at zero income tax thresholds (Or cuts) should then start moving up again.
    Hello Money Tree, more please as Bart Simpson thinks it is a good idea, and a unicorn woudl be nice as well.
    It's not reliant on any money trees.
    Fiscal drag is increasing IT fairly rapidly (inflation). So NI cuts are merely reducing the increase.

    Anyone else like my idea on the triple lock?

    1) When the pension reaches the level of the personal allowance (not long now), lock the two together. The personal allowance is set at the same level as the pension.
    2) So both are evaluated on the triple lock.
    It has a nice neat feel about it, but I wonder about the long-term affordability. AI would have to provide some strong productivity improvements.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So we have to put up with this drivel for another 6-9 months?

    Reform ahead of the Tories in the polls by midsummer? I don't think Sunak will enjoy his party conference.

    Pretty much. The people arguing that May 2nd was Sunak's last best chance were solid in their reasoning; I'm expecting things to go downhill (possibly chaotically) from here.

    But not even a hyper rationalist with a spreadsheet would call an election when twenty points behind.
    I don’t for one moment believe they are twenty points behind, I wouldn’t expect a May 2nd election if the Tories were 15 or more behind. I’m doubtful the top of the Tory party believe the situation is that difficult right now.

    You got to match current unicorn polling with what we know will happen in parliamentary constituency elections. Why? Because that’s the pattern from the last three elections this election will follow.

    The polling you refer to, and people have brainwashed themselves into thinking you can’t call an election when twenty points behind, is unicorn polling. Forced choice polling is the only indicator where we actually are, and that shows the Tories on 31% just 11 behind.

    History proves once campaigning starts, polls and voter behaviour can move in way it didn’t move in the years leading up. The problem is, the expected Swingback either will or won’t happen depending on the campaign month itself, not anything we can be sure of before the election actually kicks off, all we can look for are the risks in the campaign month.
    That shift won't always favour the Tories (see 2017) indeed the question to low attention voters will be "do you want 5 more years of this?"

    No fox. 2017 perfectly supports my point how fluid and different a GE is from everything that’s gone before it.

    The DNA of a GE election is different than the DNA of how pollsters are capturing GE choice opinion polls.

    And at this moment - Friday 1040 i’m still sceptical Rishi has actually confirmed no May 2nd election.

    Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are on a visit in the north-east of
    11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

    Any sign this morning of rowing back, or not confirming, or not even wishing to be drawn in election dates, confirms a May 2nd election.

    Watch this space 😁
    Sunak is pretty useless at politics but having given a direct quote yesterday as saying "there won't be a general election on that day [May 2nd]" surely even he could not be so dim as to go back on that. His campaign will be difficult enough as it is, he wouldn't want to start by telling a Johnsonian lie to people? Would he?
    He didn’t give a direct quote. He spent several minutes refusing to answer the question. He didn’t turn up planning to say it or with a direct quote.

    Let’s see if it is backed up by direct quote on media rounds today.

    If yesterdays slip not firmly confirmed by direct quote today, it confirms May 2nd General Election. We will 90% know in next couple of hours.
    The BBC says he did giver a direct quote. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68568448
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,452

    On topic, this was fuelled by nothing more than wishful thinking.

    Made me some money at least.

    More to it than that, though.

    Governments don't do the sort of noise about tax cuts in January and April we've heard if they're not looking at a Spring election. Any feel good buzz resulting has a fair chance of dissipating by the autumn. And for all the excited whispers that this is just the warmup act, there simply isn't the money left for another round. And more generally, there looks like a downside bias in events (dear boy) from here.

    But given the stubborn refusal of the polls to shift, it's not happening. No government willingly calls an election this far behind. Even Pedro Sanchez was only single figures behind when he called the 2023 election in Spain, and he had both Spanish temperament and a plan.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,473
    Comparisons with the 2017 campaign are moot.
    No-one was anticipating an election anytime soon then.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,889
    edited March 15

    Ghedebrav said:

    Foxy said:

    I think there is now a real chance the Tories go for the nuclear option of PM #4 of this parliament.

    No election in May means an 7-8 month window has opened up. If the drip-drip negative headlines and poor Sunak media management continues, it starts to feel like enough MPs might be desperate enough for a last throw of the dice.

    I am beginning to take this possibility more seriously, only because Sunak appears to be so useless politically that another six months of him as PM is more likely to worsen the Tory position than not. He's not the safe pair of hands he was supposed to be when he replaced Truss.

    The only stumbling block is: who takes over?
    We’re lucky Boris isn’t in parliament, because I think they’re desperate enough to give him another go.

    Other than that, I can’t see beyond Mordaunt because there’s nobody else who isn’t either (a) measurably tied too closely to Rishi or Truss, or (b) who would want the poisoned chalice right now.
    For Mordaunt it is also the best chance of holding her seat. Being leader might well make the difference.
    I think Boris would have been at serious risk of losing his old seat in a GE as well, given the local issue of ULEZ would be less pertinent than it was in the by-election. Agree there would have been an immense clamour to get him back in charge though. They'd still likely lose with him, which he probably also knows, so is happy to be king-over-the-water for now.

    He's got a good ten years yet, and I don't think we've seen the last of him in politics.
    We've not seen the last of him in the sense that he remains "box office" to some degree. But he'll be in his 60s for this election, and probably at retirement age for the next.

    He's not like Cameron, who makes sense as a trusted elder statesman to back up the PM in a senior supporting role - nobody would be foolish enough to bring Johnson in expecting loyalty, and it'd either need to be in charge or nothing.

    The window just isn't there in my view - he'll say stuff for many years to come, but his time doing rather than saying has gone.
    If Trump makes a comeback in November and wins a rematch with Biden, Boris will definitely fancy having another go at now PM Starmer again with his main Tory rivals Sunak and Hunt facing the blame for likely GE defeat and leaving the scene in opposition (even if Hunt held his seat and stood for leader again he would likely get about as much support from Conservative members as Haley has done from GOP primary voters). Remember Trump is 20 years older than Boris. Berlusconi in Italy also won, lost and won again multiple times and was Italian PM well over retirement age.

    If President Biden wins again however Boris will probably just focus on his books and speeches and columns and making money. How the US votes in November could also shape our politics here
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So we have to put up with this drivel for another 6-9 months?

    Reform ahead of the Tories in the polls by midsummer? I don't think Sunak will enjoy his party conference.

    Pretty much. The people arguing that May 2nd was Sunak's last best chance were solid in their reasoning; I'm expecting things to go downhill (possibly chaotically) from here.

    But not even a hyper rationalist with a spreadsheet would call an election when twenty points behind.
    I don’t for one moment believe they are twenty points behind, I wouldn’t expect a May 2nd election if the Tories were 15 or more behind. I’m doubtful the top of the Tory party believe the situation is that difficult right now.

    You got to match current unicorn polling with what we know will happen in parliamentary constituency elections. Why? Because that’s the pattern from the last three elections this election will follow.

    The polling you refer to, and people have brainwashed themselves into thinking you can’t call an election when twenty points behind, is unicorn polling. Forced choice polling is the only indicator where we actually are, and that shows the Tories on 31% just 11 behind.

    History proves once campaigning starts, polls and voter behaviour can move in way it didn’t move in the years leading up. The problem is, the expected Swingback either will or won’t happen depending on the campaign month itself, not anything we can be sure of before the election actually kicks off, all we can look for are the risks in the campaign month.
    That shift won't always favour the Tories (see 2017) indeed the question to low attention voters will be "do you want 5 more years of this?"

    No fox. 2017 perfectly supports my point how fluid and different a GE is from everything that’s gone before it.

    The DNA of a GE election is different than the DNA of how pollsters are capturing GE choice opinion polls.

    And at this moment - Friday 1040 i’m still sceptical Rishi has actually confirmed no May 2nd election.

    Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are on a visit in the north-east of
    11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

    Any sign this morning of rowing back, or not confirming, or not even wishing to be drawn in election dates, confirms a May 2nd election.

    Watch this space 😁
    Sunak is pretty useless at politics but having given a direct quote yesterday as saying "there won't be a general election on that day [May 2nd]" surely even he could not be so dim as to go back on that. His campaign will be difficult enough as it is, he wouldn't want to start by telling a Johnsonian lie to people? Would he?
    He didn’t give a direct quote. He spent several minutes refusing to answer the question. He didn’t turn up planning to say it or with a direct quote.

    Let’s see if it is backed up by direct quote on media rounds today.

    If yesterdays slip not firmly confirmed by direct quote today, it confirms May 2nd General Election. We will 90% know in next couple of hours.
    The BBC says he did giver a direct quote. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68568448
    I simply suggest, Go view it for yourself, including the five minutes in build up to slipping it out, where he refused to be drawn, and decide for yourself if BBC are right to refer to it in those terms.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,954

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    You can't outrun a Big Mac.
    I reckon I eat more McDonald's/Greggs than 90% of people on here, and run more than 90% too.

    Ultimately it's CICO. But Maccies leaves you feeling empty, even after loads of calories. Chuck in a baked potato instead and you're set.

    The best tip I ever got was to drink a glass of water every time you get a craving.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    I've given the analysis several times. And if there is no canvassing over the holiday period, it does not matter how many "left-wing teachers on holiday" there are available to do a thing that cannot be done. That is the point. And if you want to attack people for wrong predictions, start with those who said the 2nd of May.
    I'm not attacking you for a wrong prediction, I'm criticising you for the certain language that you use: try couch your opinions as such rather than writing them as fact for dramatic effect.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,391
    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    Truman said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On weight, as with so much of @Dura's output he made a truly horrific post wherein he noted the difference in calorific intake required to maintain a certain weight between his younger years and now. Something like a third less just to stay where he was and at the same, or similar levels of activity.

    I find this the same - I have to reduce my calories vs years ago just to not put on weight, let alone lose it.

    Life really is a f**cker.

    The alternative is to increase activity levels. I run 20-25 miles a week which I find does it. Weight-bearing exercise is also good for your bones as you get older and will help to combat muscle loss which also happens as you age
    You are truly a hero. And I have no idea what age you are but I can also assure you that as you get older you are not only not going to be able to increase your weekly run, but running you will find will fuck you up.

    And I speak as someone who ran every day of their lives for - let me count - nearly three decades. And am two new hips to the good.

    It has to be low/non-impact sports such as cycling and swimming for me now. Except I hate swimming and refuse to do it. Oh and *****back riding in the winter.
    Rowing is interesting - met some 80+ rowers on the Tideway.

    Seeing someone that old sauntering down the boat ramp with a single balanced on one shoulder....
    Running is fine in moderation. Just dont overdo it. Twice a week combined with some gym work. Running every day is silly unless you are a pro athlete.
    Why's it silly? Literally what we are designed to do. Chase down deer.

    When I was 20 I could run 10k a day no bother. My ability to do that has diminished over the last 10 years. Time for the tribe to boot me out.
    Neither were our knees designed to last 5 decades of deer chasing!
    Teeth have a failure rate.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,231
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    You can't outrun a Big Mac.
    I reckon I eat more McDonald's/Greggs than 90% of people on here, and run more than 90% too.

    Ultimately it's CICO. But Maccies leaves you feeling empty, even after loads of calories. Chuck in a baked potato instead and you're set.

    The best tip I ever got was to drink a glass of water every time you get a craving.
    Or a cup of tea.

    I read a tip somewhere that the best measure is to have a neckless with a vial of vomit as a pendant, and when you feel hungry open the top and have a sniff. Takes away all appetite like nothing else.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Dura_Ace said:

    Ghedebrav said:



    Isn't there some reason why it won't be October, to do with royal visits or something? I seem to recall this discussion on here.

    My (figurative, in this case) money is on early December.

    If Cancer King is still kicking by then he's supposed to going to Samoa in October to get some sick tats and attend the CHoGM.
    I'm probably the most republican person on here, but is this necessary? He's a human being FFS, your post is just nasty.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    You can't outrun a Big Mac.
    That's one way of looking at it. However, increasing your activity levels is a good way of increasing how much you need to eat. At 100 calories a mile, 25 miles a week makes quite a difference. Also muscle mass is harder to maintain so it will increase your base energy expenditure

    Not eating biscuits is another good one. It is much easier to control how much you eat in main meals IMO than the bits and pieces you eat in between. One of the advantages of low carb (for me, anyway) is that I do not feel the need to snack between meals. Most days, the only energy I consume between meals is the small amount of milk I have in coffee.

    There is also nothing of nutritional value in a digestive.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,954
    A packet of digestives = a 20 mile run, by my rough calculation.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    I've given the analysis several times. And if there is no canvassing over the holiday period, it does not matter how many "left-wing teachers on holiday" there are available to do a thing that cannot be done. That is the point. And if you want to attack people for wrong predictions, start with those who said the 2nd of May.
    “If you want to attack people for wrong predictions, start with those who said the 2nd of May”

    Yeah. Especially those still saying 2nd of May in this very thread.

    Who wants some 🥊

    😁
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 723
    edited March 15

    Ghedebrav said:

    Foxy said:

    I think there is now a real chance the Tories go for the nuclear option of PM #4 of this parliament.

    No election in May means an 7-8 month window has opened up. If the drip-drip negative headlines and poor Sunak media management continues, it starts to feel like enough MPs might be desperate enough for a last throw of the dice.

    I am beginning to take this possibility more seriously, only because Sunak appears to be so useless politically that another six months of him as PM is more likely to worsen the Tory position than not. He's not the safe pair of hands he was supposed to be when he replaced Truss.

    The only stumbling block is: who takes over?
    We’re lucky Boris isn’t in parliament, because I think they’re desperate enough to give him another go.

    Other than that, I can’t see beyond Mordaunt because there’s nobody else who isn’t either (a) measurably tied too closely to Rishi or Truss, or (b) who would want the poisoned chalice right now.
    For Mordaunt it is also the best chance of holding her seat. Being leader might well make the difference.
    I think Boris would have been at serious risk of losing his old seat in a GE as well, given the local issue of ULEZ would be less pertinent than it was in the by-election. Agree there would have been an immense clamour to get him back in charge though. They'd still likely lose with him, which he probably also knows, so is happy to be king-over-the-water for now.

    He's got a good ten years yet, and I don't think we've seen the last of him in politics.
    We've not seen the last of him in the sense that he remains "box office" to some degree. But he'll be in his 60s for this election, and probably at retirement age for the next.

    He's not like Cameron, who makes sense as a trusted elder statesman to back up the PM in a senior supporting role - nobody would be foolish enough to bring Johnson in expecting loyalty, and it'd either need to be in charge or nothing.

    The window just isn't there in my view - he'll say stuff for many years to come, but his time doing rather than saying has gone.
    Johnson keeps lying his head off and losing his job for it.
    The law of diminishing returns comes into play.
    They'll have to replace Sunak with somebody else before the election, a person with charisma so not Badenoch, Braverman, or Hunt. If Mordaunt develops a rabid rightwing face to go with her other one, she may be in a strong position.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,556

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    Exactly. I don't get biscuits or crisps or any of that crap in and stand on my own two feet (i.e. stand up in my kitchen for a couple of hours) and cook every meal from scratch (often in large batches, creating freezer blocks). I can make 16 servings of delicious casseroles/mouth-watering authentic curries/and luscious ragus etc in one shift, all from fresh ingredients with no artificial additives.

    I always implore people to examine the ingredients on a ready meal, or in a Maccy D's, or on a so-called 'healthy' spread like Flora. This shit is BAD for you. No wonder the French, Italians and Spanish think we are fucking barbarians.
    The French absolutely fucking love frozen ready meals. You go to Super U or Leclerc and it’s the busiest area. Their frozen meals are atrocious as well which makes it funnier. The idea that every French person is spending hours over the range cooking a boeuf bourguignon or a bouillabaisse whilst supping a glass of wine like a nation of Keith Floyd’s is bs.

    And France has more Macdonalds (1485) than the UK (1432).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    Pulpstar said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour should refuse to honour any pledges made by the Tories in the autumn statement.

    Good morning

    Even good ones?
    Well they're opposing the idea of abolishing NI, which is utterly ridiculous, its something Labour should completely 100% support and be advocating itself.

    If its January 2025 the election, then I would like to see tax thresholds frozen again in the autumn and another 2% NI cut in the autumn statement.
    I agree with this. Freezing the thresholds and using the created fiscal drag to cut employee NI down to zero is what should be done over the next parliament. It'd be a boost for lower paid workers at the expense of those on middling and higher incomes. Once employee NI is at zero income tax thresholds (Or cuts) should then start moving up again.
    Hello Money Tree, more please as Bart Simpson thinks it is a good idea, and a unicorn woudl be nice as well.
    It's not reliant on any money trees.
    Fiscal drag is increasing IT fairly rapidly (inflation). So NI cuts are merely reducing the increase.

    Anyone else like my idea on the triple lock?

    1) When the pension reaches the level of the personal allowance (not long now), lock the two together. The personal allowance is set at the same level as the pension.
    2) So both are evaluated on the triple lock.
    It has a nice neat feel about it, but I wonder about the long-term affordability. AI would have to provide some strong productivity improvements.
    You could pay for it for a while by holding the higher thresholds stationary.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,187
    This weekend's watch on Netflix; Chicken Nugget.
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt28642797/
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,231

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    I've given the analysis several times. And if there is no canvassing over the holiday period, it does not matter how many "left-wing teachers on holiday" there are available to do a thing that cannot be done. That is the point. And if you want to attack people for wrong predictions, start with those who said the 2nd of May.
    14.5 on bf, January GE
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,473
    Donkeys said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Foxy said:

    I think there is now a real chance the Tories go for the nuclear option of PM #4 of this parliament.

    No election in May means an 7-8 month window has opened up. If the drip-drip negative headlines and poor Sunak media management continues, it starts to feel like enough MPs might be desperate enough for a last throw of the dice.

    I am beginning to take this possibility more seriously, only because Sunak appears to be so useless politically that another six months of him as PM is more likely to worsen the Tory position than not. He's not the safe pair of hands he was supposed to be when he replaced Truss.

    The only stumbling block is: who takes over?
    We’re lucky Boris isn’t in parliament, because I think they’re desperate enough to give him another go.

    Other than that, I can’t see beyond Mordaunt because there’s nobody else who isn’t either (a) measurably tied too closely to Rishi or Truss, or (b) who would want the poisoned chalice right now.
    For Mordaunt it is also the best chance of holding her seat. Being leader might well make the difference.
    I think Boris would have been at serious risk of losing his old seat in a GE as well, given the local issue of ULEZ would be less pertinent than it was in the by-election. Agree there would have been an immense clamour to get him back in charge though. They'd still likely lose with him, which he probably also knows, so is happy to be king-over-the-water for now.

    He's got a good ten years yet, and I don't think we've seen the last of him in politics.
    We've not seen the last of him in the sense that he remains "box office" to some degree. But he'll be in his 60s for this election, and probably at retirement age for the next.

    He's not like Cameron, who makes sense as a trusted elder statesman to back up the PM in a senior supporting role - nobody would be foolish enough to bring Johnson in expecting loyalty, and it'd either need to be in charge or nothing.

    The window just isn't there in my view - he'll say stuff for many years to come, but his time doing rather than saying has gone.
    Johnson keeps lying his head off and losing his job for it.
    The law of diminishing returns comes into play.
    They'll have to replace Sunak with somebody else before the election, a person with charisma so not Badenoch, Braverman, or Hunt. If Mordaunt develops a rabid rightwing face to go with her other one, she may be in a strong position.
    Someone with a vial of vomit necklace would be appropriate
  • I really believed it would be May and could still be. But I’m happy to say I have been wrong so far.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    boulay said:

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    Exactly. I don't get biscuits or crisps or any of that crap in and stand on my own two feet (i.e. stand up in my kitchen for a couple of hours) and cook every meal from scratch (often in large batches, creating freezer blocks). I can make 16 servings of delicious casseroles/mouth-watering authentic curries/and luscious ragus etc in one shift, all from fresh ingredients with no artificial additives.

    I always implore people to examine the ingredients on a ready meal, or in a Maccy D's, or on a so-called 'healthy' spread like Flora. This shit is BAD for you. No wonder the French, Italians and Spanish think we are fucking barbarians.
    The French absolutely fucking love frozen ready meals. You go to Super U or Leclerc and it’s the busiest area. Their frozen meals are atrocious as well which makes it funnier. The idea that every French person is spending hours over the range cooking a boeuf bourguignon or a bouillabaisse whilst supping a glass of wine like a nation of Keith Floyd’s is bs.

    And France has more Macdonalds (1485) than the UK (1432).
    Their McDonald's have rather different menus.

    And, they ain't doing badly on obesity.......

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1276227/overweight-and-obesity-rate-in-europe-by-gender/
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    boulay said:

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    Exactly. I don't get biscuits or crisps or any of that crap in and stand on my own two feet (i.e. stand up in my kitchen for a couple of hours) and cook every meal from scratch (often in large batches, creating freezer blocks). I can make 16 servings of delicious casseroles/mouth-watering authentic curries/and luscious ragus etc in one shift, all from fresh ingredients with no artificial additives.

    I always implore people to examine the ingredients on a ready meal, or in a Maccy D's, or on a so-called 'healthy' spread like Flora. This shit is BAD for you. No wonder the French, Italians and Spanish think we are fucking barbarians.
    The French absolutely fucking love frozen ready meals. You go to Super U or Leclerc and it’s the busiest area. Their frozen meals are atrocious as well which makes it funnier. The idea that every French person is spending hours over the range cooking a boeuf bourguignon or a bouillabaisse whilst supping a glass of wine like a nation of Keith Floyd’s is bs.

    And France has more Macdonalds (1485) than the UK (1432).
    My theory is the French think about food the way the English think about football: essentially they invented it, own it, are better than everyone at it, do it the only proper way and should be regarded as such by the rest of the world despite all evidence to the contrary.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So we have to put up with this drivel for another 6-9 months?

    Reform ahead of the Tories in the polls by midsummer? I don't think Sunak will enjoy his party conference.

    Pretty much. The people arguing that May 2nd was Sunak's last best chance were solid in their reasoning; I'm expecting things to go downhill (possibly chaotically) from here.

    But not even a hyper rationalist with a spreadsheet would call an election when twenty points behind.
    I don’t for one moment believe they are twenty points behind, I wouldn’t expect a May 2nd election if the Tories were 15 or more behind. I’m doubtful the top of the Tory party believe the situation is that difficult right now.

    You got to match current unicorn polling with what we know will happen in parliamentary constituency elections. Why? Because that’s the pattern from the last three elections this election will follow.

    The polling you refer to, and people have brainwashed themselves into thinking you can’t call an election when twenty points behind, is unicorn polling. Forced choice polling is the only indicator where we actually are, and that shows the Tories on 31% just 11 behind.

    History proves once campaigning starts, polls and voter behaviour can move in way it didn’t move in the years leading up. The problem is, the expected Swingback either will or won’t happen depending on the campaign month itself, not anything we can be sure of before the election actually kicks off, all we can look for are the risks in the campaign month.
    That shift won't always favour the Tories (see 2017) indeed the question to low attention voters will be "do you want 5 more years of this?"

    No fox. 2017 perfectly supports my point how fluid and different a GE is from everything that’s gone before it.

    The DNA of a GE election is different than the DNA of how pollsters are capturing GE choice opinion polls.

    And at this moment - Friday 1040 i’m still sceptical Rishi has actually confirmed no May 2nd election.

    Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are on a visit in the north-east of
    11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

    Any sign this morning of rowing back, or not confirming, or not even wishing to be drawn in election dates, confirms a May 2nd election.

    Watch this space 😁
    Sunak is pretty useless at politics but having given a direct quote yesterday as saying "there won't be a general election on that day [May 2nd]" surely even he could not be so dim as to go back on that. His campaign will be difficult enough as it is, he wouldn't want to start by telling a Johnsonian lie to people? Would he?
    He didn’t give a direct quote. He spent several minutes refusing to answer the question. He didn’t turn up planning to say it or with a direct quote.

    Let’s see if it is backed up by direct quote on media rounds today.

    If yesterdays slip not firmly confirmed by direct quote today, it confirms May 2nd General Election. We will 90% know in next couple of hours.
    The BBC says he did giver a direct quote. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68568448
    I simply suggest, Go view it for yourself, including the five minutes in build up to slipping it out, where he refused to be drawn, and decide for yourself if BBC are right to refer to it in those terms.
    https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2024-03-14/rishi-sunak-there-will-be-no-general-election-on-2-may

    ITV headline: "Rishi Sunak tells ITV News there won't be a general election on May 2"
    Speaking to ITV News, the prime minister said: "In several weeks time, we've got elections for police and crime commissioners, for local councils, for mayors across the country, they're important elections. That's what I'm focussed on. "There won't be a general election on that day," he added.

    I think I understand your line of reasoning on this. You're saying that when he said that "There won't be a general election on that day" he really meant that "There could be a general election on that day." And that the BBC and ITV should realise that the words "won't" and "could" have the same meaning.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,710
    edited March 15
    dixiedean said:

    Donkeys said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Foxy said:

    I think there is now a real chance the Tories go for the nuclear option of PM #4 of this parliament.

    No election in May means an 7-8 month window has opened up. If the drip-drip negative headlines and poor Sunak media management continues, it starts to feel like enough MPs might be desperate enough for a last throw of the dice.

    I am beginning to take this possibility more seriously, only because Sunak appears to be so useless politically that another six months of him as PM is more likely to worsen the Tory position than not. He's not the safe pair of hands he was supposed to be when he replaced Truss.

    The only stumbling block is: who takes over?
    We’re lucky Boris isn’t in parliament, because I think they’re desperate enough to give him another go.

    Other than that, I can’t see beyond Mordaunt because there’s nobody else who isn’t either (a) measurably tied too closely to Rishi or Truss, or (b) who would want the poisoned chalice right now.
    For Mordaunt it is also the best chance of holding her seat. Being leader might well make the difference.
    I think Boris would have been at serious risk of losing his old seat in a GE as well, given the local issue of ULEZ would be less pertinent than it was in the by-election. Agree there would have been an immense clamour to get him back in charge though. They'd still likely lose with him, which he probably also knows, so is happy to be king-over-the-water for now.

    He's got a good ten years yet, and I don't think we've seen the last of him in politics.
    We've not seen the last of him in the sense that he remains "box office" to some degree. But he'll be in his 60s for this election, and probably at retirement age for the next.

    He's not like Cameron, who makes sense as a trusted elder statesman to back up the PM in a senior supporting role - nobody would be foolish enough to bring Johnson in expecting loyalty, and it'd either need to be in charge or nothing.

    The window just isn't there in my view - he'll say stuff for many years to come, but his time doing rather than saying has gone.
    Johnson keeps lying his head off and losing his job for it.
    The law of diminishing returns comes into play.
    They'll have to replace Sunak with somebody else before the election, a person with charisma so not Badenoch, Braverman, or Hunt. If Mordaunt develops a rabid rightwing face to go with her other one, she may be in a strong position.
    Someone with a vial of vomit necklace would be appropriate
    I'm convinced the Truss will return as Tory leader. The British Right are desperate for her to redeem herself, because all the time she remains a failure everything they've ever believed remains a failure.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    I've been telling you for many months it wouldn't be May.

    October, unless something weird turns up (foot and mouth, for example - in which case January).
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,556

    boulay said:

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    Exactly. I don't get biscuits or crisps or any of that crap in and stand on my own two feet (i.e. stand up in my kitchen for a couple of hours) and cook every meal from scratch (often in large batches, creating freezer blocks). I can make 16 servings of delicious casseroles/mouth-watering authentic curries/and luscious ragus etc in one shift, all from fresh ingredients with no artificial additives.

    I always implore people to examine the ingredients on a ready meal, or in a Maccy D's, or on a so-called 'healthy' spread like Flora. This shit is BAD for you. No wonder the French, Italians and Spanish think we are fucking barbarians.
    The French absolutely fucking love frozen ready meals. You go to Super U or Leclerc and it’s the busiest area. Their frozen meals are atrocious as well which makes it funnier. The idea that every French person is spending hours over the range cooking a boeuf bourguignon or a bouillabaisse whilst supping a glass of wine like a nation of Keith Floyd’s is bs.

    And France has more Macdonalds (1485) than the UK (1432).
    Their McDonald's have rather different menus.

    And, they ain't doing badly on obesity.......

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1276227/overweight-and-obesity-rate-in-europe-by-gender/
    It’s a lot easier to fight obesity when half your population spend the day cycling for miles selling onions.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Ghedebrav said:

    boulay said:

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    Exactly. I don't get biscuits or crisps or any of that crap in and stand on my own two feet (i.e. stand up in my kitchen for a couple of hours) and cook every meal from scratch (often in large batches, creating freezer blocks). I can make 16 servings of delicious casseroles/mouth-watering authentic curries/and luscious ragus etc in one shift, all from fresh ingredients with no artificial additives.

    I always implore people to examine the ingredients on a ready meal, or in a Maccy D's, or on a so-called 'healthy' spread like Flora. This shit is BAD for you. No wonder the French, Italians and Spanish think we are fucking barbarians.
    The French absolutely fucking love frozen ready meals. You go to Super U or Leclerc and it’s the busiest area. Their frozen meals are atrocious as well which makes it funnier. The idea that every French person is spending hours over the range cooking a boeuf bourguignon or a bouillabaisse whilst supping a glass of wine like a nation of Keith Floyd’s is bs.

    And France has more Macdonalds (1485) than the UK (1432).
    My theory is the French think about food the way the English think about football: essentially they invented it, own it, are better than everyone at it, do it the only proper way and should be regarded as such by the rest of the world despite all evidence to the contrary.
    "all evidence to the contrary" – the general standard of food/eating nationwide in France is among the best in the world, still now. They might not have the most cutting-edge restaurants but they still have a fantastic general standard of restaurant and food shopping. And among the lowest obesity rates in Europe.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1276227/overweight-and-obesity-rate-in-europe-by-gender/
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    dixiedean said:

    Comparisons with the 2017 campaign are moot.
    No-one was anticipating an election anytime soon then.

    Well, it was certainly a possibility because the Tory majority was tiny, its lead in the polls was huge and Brexit was always going to be difficult.

    The comparisons with 2017 are moot more because the situation is so different now.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    Eabhal said:

    A packet of digestives = a 20 mile run, by my rough calculation.

    It's easier to just not buy biscuits
    Indeed. Pointless things. Just empty calories.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Ghedebrav said:

    boulay said:

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    Exactly. I don't get biscuits or crisps or any of that crap in and stand on my own two feet (i.e. stand up in my kitchen for a couple of hours) and cook every meal from scratch (often in large batches, creating freezer blocks). I can make 16 servings of delicious casseroles/mouth-watering authentic curries/and luscious ragus etc in one shift, all from fresh ingredients with no artificial additives.

    I always implore people to examine the ingredients on a ready meal, or in a Maccy D's, or on a so-called 'healthy' spread like Flora. This shit is BAD for you. No wonder the French, Italians and Spanish think we are fucking barbarians.
    The French absolutely fucking love frozen ready meals. You go to Super U or Leclerc and it’s the busiest area. Their frozen meals are atrocious as well which makes it funnier. The idea that every French person is spending hours over the range cooking a boeuf bourguignon or a bouillabaisse whilst supping a glass of wine like a nation of Keith Floyd’s is bs.

    And France has more Macdonalds (1485) than the UK (1432).
    My theory is the French think about food the way the English think about football: essentially they invented it, own it, are better than everyone at it, do it the only proper way and should be regarded as such by the rest of the world despite all evidence to the contrary.
    "all evidence to the contrary" – the general standard of food/eating nationwide in France is among the best in the world, still now. They might not have the most cutting-edge restaurants but they still have a fantastic general standard of restaurant and food shopping. And among the lowest obesity rates in Europe.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1276227/overweight-and-obesity-rate-in-europe-by-gender/
    Nor are England terrible at football.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,679
    The Tory Conference is already booked for 29th Sept to 2nd Oct in Birmingham. It is already being promoted to businesses.

    Sunak will make his big speech on Wednesday 2nd October and announce that the GE will take place six weeks later on 14th November. It will be the launch of the Tory campaign.


  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,149
    Nigelb said:

    I've been suggesting January 2025 for a while, glad to see its catching on. Its the most logical date, because a government 20 plus points behind doesn't go for an early election. Anyone who thought May 2024 was in cloud cuckoo land - or hopecasting.

    We'll get our revenge at the polls, eventually.
    Best served cold as the saying goes, January should fit the bill assuming the climate isn’t totally fcuked,
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    dixiedean said:

    Donkeys said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Foxy said:

    I think there is now a real chance the Tories go for the nuclear option of PM #4 of this parliament.

    No election in May means an 7-8 month window has opened up. If the drip-drip negative headlines and poor Sunak media management continues, it starts to feel like enough MPs might be desperate enough for a last throw of the dice.

    I am beginning to take this possibility more seriously, only because Sunak appears to be so useless politically that another six months of him as PM is more likely to worsen the Tory position than not. He's not the safe pair of hands he was supposed to be when he replaced Truss.

    The only stumbling block is: who takes over?
    We’re lucky Boris isn’t in parliament, because I think they’re desperate enough to give him another go.

    Other than that, I can’t see beyond Mordaunt because there’s nobody else who isn’t either (a) measurably tied too closely to Rishi or Truss, or (b) who would want the poisoned chalice right now.
    For Mordaunt it is also the best chance of holding her seat. Being leader might well make the difference.
    I think Boris would have been at serious risk of losing his old seat in a GE as well, given the local issue of ULEZ would be less pertinent than it was in the by-election. Agree there would have been an immense clamour to get him back in charge though. They'd still likely lose with him, which he probably also knows, so is happy to be king-over-the-water for now.

    He's got a good ten years yet, and I don't think we've seen the last of him in politics.
    We've not seen the last of him in the sense that he remains "box office" to some degree. But he'll be in his 60s for this election, and probably at retirement age for the next.

    He's not like Cameron, who makes sense as a trusted elder statesman to back up the PM in a senior supporting role - nobody would be foolish enough to bring Johnson in expecting loyalty, and it'd either need to be in charge or nothing.

    The window just isn't there in my view - he'll say stuff for many years to come, but his time doing rather than saying has gone.
    Johnson keeps lying his head off and losing his job for it.
    The law of diminishing returns comes into play.
    They'll have to replace Sunak with somebody else before the election, a person with charisma so not Badenoch, Braverman, or Hunt. If Mordaunt develops a rabid rightwing face to go with her other one, she may be in a strong position.
    Someone with a vial of vomit necklace would be appropriate
    I'm convinced the Truss will return as Tory leader. The British Right are desperate for her to redeem herself, because all the time she remains a failure everything they've ever believed remains a failure.
    There is an excess of logic in that statement. True believers don't need evidence. To the extent that Truss failed, it was because Truss failed, not her ideas.

    See also Brexit, communism etc.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Ghedebrav said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    boulay said:

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    Exactly. I don't get biscuits or crisps or any of that crap in and stand on my own two feet (i.e. stand up in my kitchen for a couple of hours) and cook every meal from scratch (often in large batches, creating freezer blocks). I can make 16 servings of delicious casseroles/mouth-watering authentic curries/and luscious ragus etc in one shift, all from fresh ingredients with no artificial additives.

    I always implore people to examine the ingredients on a ready meal, or in a Maccy D's, or on a so-called 'healthy' spread like Flora. This shit is BAD for you. No wonder the French, Italians and Spanish think we are fucking barbarians.
    The French absolutely fucking love frozen ready meals. You go to Super U or Leclerc and it’s the busiest area. Their frozen meals are atrocious as well which makes it funnier. The idea that every French person is spending hours over the range cooking a boeuf bourguignon or a bouillabaisse whilst supping a glass of wine like a nation of Keith Floyd’s is bs.

    And France has more Macdonalds (1485) than the UK (1432).
    My theory is the French think about food the way the English think about football: essentially they invented it, own it, are better than everyone at it, do it the only proper way and should be regarded as such by the rest of the world despite all evidence to the contrary.
    "all evidence to the contrary" – the general standard of food/eating nationwide in France is among the best in the world, still now. They might not have the most cutting-edge restaurants but they still have a fantastic general standard of restaurant and food shopping. And among the lowest obesity rates in Europe.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1276227/overweight-and-obesity-rate-in-europe-by-gender/
    Nor are England terrible at football.
    Indeed. Who said we were? Not me.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,889

    dixiedean said:

    Donkeys said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Foxy said:

    I think there is now a real chance the Tories go for the nuclear option of PM #4 of this parliament.

    No election in May means an 7-8 month window has opened up. If the drip-drip negative headlines and poor Sunak media management continues, it starts to feel like enough MPs might be desperate enough for a last throw of the dice.

    I am beginning to take this possibility more seriously, only because Sunak appears to be so useless politically that another six months of him as PM is more likely to worsen the Tory position than not. He's not the safe pair of hands he was supposed to be when he replaced Truss.

    The only stumbling block is: who takes over?
    We’re lucky Boris isn’t in parliament, because I think they’re desperate enough to give him another go.

    Other than that, I can’t see beyond Mordaunt because there’s nobody else who isn’t either (a) measurably tied too closely to Rishi or Truss, or (b) who would want the poisoned chalice right now.
    For Mordaunt it is also the best chance of holding her seat. Being leader might well make the difference.
    I think Boris would have been at serious risk of losing his old seat in a GE as well, given the local issue of ULEZ would be less pertinent than it was in the by-election. Agree there would have been an immense clamour to get him back in charge though. They'd still likely lose with him, which he probably also knows, so is happy to be king-over-the-water for now.

    He's got a good ten years yet, and I don't think we've seen the last of him in politics.
    We've not seen the last of him in the sense that he remains "box office" to some degree. But he'll be in his 60s for this election, and probably at retirement age for the next.

    He's not like Cameron, who makes sense as a trusted elder statesman to back up the PM in a senior supporting role - nobody would be foolish enough to bring Johnson in expecting loyalty, and it'd either need to be in charge or nothing.

    The window just isn't there in my view - he'll say stuff for many years to come, but his time doing rather than saying has gone.
    Johnson keeps lying his head off and losing his job for it.
    The law of diminishing returns comes into play.
    They'll have to replace Sunak with somebody else before the election, a person with charisma so not Badenoch, Braverman, or Hunt. If Mordaunt develops a rabid rightwing face to go with her other one, she may be in a strong position.
    Someone with a vial of vomit necklace would be appropriate
    I'm convinced the Truss will return as Tory leader. The British Right are desperate for her to redeem herself, because all the time she remains a failure everything they've ever believed remains a failure.
    Boris might return, he is a proven winner, Truss won't given her failure as PM though she might get a Shadow Cabinet role if Badenoch or Braverman, Jenrick, Cleverly or Patel become Conservative leader
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,036

    I really believed it would be May and could still be. But I’m happy to say I have been wrong so far.

    Has AverageNinja been banned or has he renegerated, in a Dr Who stylee.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Eabhal said:

    Truman said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On weight, as with so much of @Dura's output he made a truly horrific post wherein he noted the difference in calorific intake required to maintain a certain weight between his younger years and now. Something like a third less just to stay where he was and at the same, or similar levels of activity.

    I find this the same - I have to reduce my calories vs years ago just to not put on weight, let alone lose it.

    Life really is a f**cker.

    The alternative is to increase activity levels. I run 20-25 miles a week which I find does it. Weight-bearing exercise is also good for your bones as you get older and will help to combat muscle loss which also happens as you age
    You are truly a hero. And I have no idea what age you are but I can also assure you that as you get older you are not only not going to be able to increase your weekly run, but running you will find will fuck you up.

    And I speak as someone who ran every day of their lives for - let me count - nearly three decades. And am two new hips to the good.

    It has to be low/non-impact sports such as cycling and swimming for me now. Except I hate swimming and refuse to do it. Oh and *****back riding in the winter.
    Rowing is interesting - met some 80+ rowers on the Tideway.

    Seeing someone that old sauntering down the boat ramp with a single balanced on one shoulder....
    Running is fine in moderation. Just dont overdo it. Twice a week combined with some gym work. Running every day is silly unless you are a pro athlete.
    Why's it silly? Literally what we are designed to do. Chase down deer.

    When I was 20 I could run 10k a day no bother. My ability to do that has diminished over the last 10 years. Time for the tribe to boot me out.
    Just sit toothless in your cave and no whinging
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    malcolmg said:

    Truman said:

    Interesting this.

    Macron tells France in a live TV address:

    "We negotiated as much as we could, but there is nothing to talk about with Putin anymore. Ukraine must win. There will be no red lines for France. I’m the President of France and I decide"

    He should send USA a backbone
    I think it's a message to Scholz. The problem with the Americans is not so much the lack of backbone as outright Putinist support.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,036
    Barnesian said:

    The Tory Conference is already booked for 29th Sept to 2nd Oct in Birmingham. It is already being promoted to businesses.

    Sunak will make his big speech on Wednesday 2nd October and announce that the GE will take place six weeks later on 14th November. It will be the launch of the Tory campaign.


    That makes perfect sense. 6 weeks of it FFS. I miss the shorter campaigns.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,640
    Ali Campbell and Rory the Tory have got an Election 2024 tour booked in October, and from what they're saying, on the odd occasion I listen, they're talking as if the autumn is a foregone conclusion.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Barnesian said:

    The Tory Conference is already booked for 29th Sept to 2nd Oct in Birmingham. It is already being promoted to businesses.

    Sunak will make his big speech on Wednesday 2nd October and announce that the GE will take place six weeks later on 14th November. It will be the launch of the Tory campaign.


    That was my assumption for over a year.

    The question now is whether the conference will be more of a liability, with activists and MPs falling out, a lack of a clear message for the future, unrealistic promises and a general sense of fatigue and uselessness. Plus guests like Farage and Johnson on the fringe outshining the PM and ministers.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,391
    ****
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,954
    Fascinating thread about the M25 and motorways in general:

    https://x.com/MichaelDnes1/status/1768566977721688142?s=20

    Something for everyone, but an astonishing stat that 78% of the traffic on this bit of the M25 is just local people trying to get to the other side of it, rather than using it to bypass that part of London.
  • Taz said:

    I really believed it would be May and could still be. But I’m happy to say I have been wrong so far.

    Has AverageNinja been banned or has he renegerated, in a Dr Who stylee.
    Sadly AverageNinja has been banned but thankfully he did campaign tirelessly to allow me back so I thank him for that.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645
    edited March 15

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So we have to put up with this drivel for another 6-9 months?

    Reform ahead of the Tories in the polls by midsummer? I don't think Sunak will enjoy his party conference.

    Pretty much. The people arguing that May 2nd was Sunak's last best chance were solid in their reasoning; I'm expecting things to go downhill (possibly chaotically) from here.

    But not even a hyper rationalist with a spreadsheet would call an election when twenty points behind.
    I don’t for one moment believe they are twenty points behind, I wouldn’t expect a May 2nd election if the Tories were 15 or more behind. I’m doubtful the top of the Tory party believe the situation is that difficult right now.

    You got to match current unicorn polling with what we know will happen in parliamentary constituency elections. Why? Because that’s the pattern from the last three elections this election will follow.

    The polling you refer to, and people have brainwashed themselves into thinking you can’t call an election when twenty points behind, is unicorn polling. Forced choice polling is the only indicator where we actually are, and that shows the Tories on 31% just 11 behind.

    History proves once campaigning starts, polls and voter behaviour can move in way it didn’t move in the years leading up. The problem is, the expected Swingback either will or won’t happen depending on the campaign month itself, not anything we can be sure of before the election actually kicks off, all we can look for are the risks in the campaign month.
    That shift won't always favour the Tories (see 2017) indeed the question to low attention voters will be "do you want 5 more years of this?"

    No fox. 2017 perfectly supports my point how fluid and different a GE is from everything that’s gone before it.

    The DNA of a GE election is different than the DNA of how pollsters are capturing GE choice opinion polls.

    And at this moment - Friday 1040 i’m still sceptical Rishi has actually confirmed no May 2nd election.

    Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are on a visit in the north-east of
    11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

    Any sign this morning of rowing back, or not confirming, or not even wishing to be drawn in election dates, confirms a May 2nd election.

    Watch this space 😁
    Sunak is pretty useless at politics but having given a direct quote yesterday as saying "there won't be a general election on that day [May 2nd]" surely even he could not be so dim as to go back on that. His campaign will be difficult enough as it is, he wouldn't want to start by telling a Johnsonian lie to people? Would he?
    He didn’t give a direct quote. He spent several minutes refusing to answer the question. He didn’t turn up planning to say it or with a direct quote.

    Let’s see if it is backed up by direct quote on media rounds today.

    If yesterdays slip not firmly confirmed by direct quote today, it confirms May 2nd General Election. We will 90% know in next couple of hours.
    The BBC says he did giver a direct quote. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68568448
    I simply suggest, Go view it for yourself, including the five minutes in build up to slipping it out, where he refused to be drawn, and decide for yourself if BBC are right to refer to it in those terms.
    https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2024-03-14/rishi-sunak-there-will-be-no-general-election-on-2-may

    ITV headline: "Rishi Sunak tells ITV News there won't be a general election on May 2"
    Speaking to ITV News, the prime minister said: "In several weeks time, we've got elections for police and crime commissioners, for local councils, for mayors across the country, they're important elections. That's what I'm focussed on. "There won't be a general election on that day," he added.

    I think I understand your line of reasoning on this. You're saying that when he said that "There won't be a general election on that day" he really meant that "There could be a general election on that day." And that the BBC and ITV should realise that the words "won't" and "could" have the same meaning.
    I’ve been thinking how they could row back on it if it was “misspeak”

    “The PM was merely pointing out there is no General Election on May 2nd, just local elections”.

    Let’s see what comes out the 11:30.

    And about the same time, whoever’s turn to front up the press today with the man himself - who’s probably wearing a hard hat in front a crane delivering levelling up.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Dura_Ace said:

    Ghedebrav said:



    Isn't there some reason why it won't be October, to do with royal visits or something? I seem to recall this discussion on here.

    My (figurative, in this case) money is on early December.

    If Cancer King is still kicking by then he's supposed to going to Samoa in October to get some sick tats and attend the CHoGM.
    I'm probably the most republican person on here, but is this necessary? He's a human being FFS, your post is just nasty.
    Kind of sums up all of DA's posts.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Eabhal said:

    A packet of digestives = a 20 mile run, by my rough calculation.

    20 minutes on the motorway if you are dawdling
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    Truman said:

    Interesting this.

    Macron tells France in a live TV address:

    "We negotiated as much as we could, but there is nothing to talk about with Putin anymore. Ukraine must win. There will be no red lines for France. I’m the President of France and I decide"

    He should send USA a backbone
    I think it's a message to Scholz. The problem with the Americans is not so much the lack of backbone as outright Putinist support.
    The American issue is they are not making enough money out of it and Ukraine does not hav eenough oil reserves etc, they are useless unless you can pay them a fortune.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,187
    .

    malcolmg said:

    Truman said:

    Interesting this.

    Macron tells France in a live TV address:

    "We negotiated as much as we could, but there is nothing to talk about with Putin anymore. Ukraine must win. There will be no red lines for France. I’m the President of France and I decide"

    He should send USA a backbone
    I think it's a message to Scholz. The problem with the Americans is not so much the lack of backbone as outright Putinist support.
    Also the lack of backbone in the GOP to stand up to Trump.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645
    Cicero said:

    nico679 said:

    What if the Rwanda policy actually works and leads to a big drop in boat crossings ?

    Together with that , the economy improving and interest rates falling there is certainly room for the Tories to see a significant improvement in their polling .

    Rwanda is not designed to work as any kind of effective policy. It is designed as a political gimmick to wrong foot its opponents. It is simply a political gambit with no possibility of delivering its stated goal as policy.

    The fact that the Tories stooped to such silly media led subterfuges is what tells you that they have lost the will to live.

    Neither will they get much credit for an improving economy, even if it were to happen.
    I’m beginning to doubt they think of it themselves as a gimmick, that won’t work. If they did, May 2nd would be obvious escape route.

    I think this government genuinely believes putting flights in the air this summer will turn their electoral fortunes around.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    Truman said:

    Interesting this.

    Macron tells France in a live TV address:

    "We negotiated as much as we could, but there is nothing to talk about with Putin anymore. Ukraine must win. There will be no red lines for France. I’m the President of France and I decide"

    He should send USA a backbone
    I think it's a message to Scholz. The problem with the Americans is not so much the lack of backbone as outright Putinist support.
    Scholz is obviously a Putin lickspittle, prefers wobbling like a jelly behind the sofa.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,679

    Barnesian said:

    The Tory Conference is already booked for 29th Sept to 2nd Oct in Birmingham. It is already being promoted to businesses.

    Sunak will make his big speech on Wednesday 2nd October and announce that the GE will take place six weeks later on 14th November. It will be the launch of the Tory campaign.


    That was my assumption for over a year.

    The question now is whether the conference will be more of a liability, with activists and MPs falling out, a lack of a clear message for the future, unrealistic promises and a general sense of fatigue and uselessness. Plus guests like Farage and Johnson on the fringe outshining the PM and ministers.
    It will be an interesting spectacle.

    Sunak is a tiggerish figure with great optimism, a bit like Johnson but without Johnson's charisma. More like Norman Wisdom.

    I think he will genuinely think he can pull this around for the Tories with a great rousing speech. It will be funny and also sad to watch.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,909
    Eabhal said:

    Fascinating thread about the M25 and motorways in general:

    https://x.com/MichaelDnes1/status/1768566977721688142?s=20

    Something for everyone, but an astonishing stat that 78% of the traffic on this bit of the M25 is just local people trying to get to the other side of it, rather than using it to bypass that part of London.

    I had that on the N71 on Wednesday. Silly sod turned on to the road from my right and then took the next left. I had to lose 40kph of speed to avoid rear-ending him. Happily the brakes were still functional, and at least it wasn't cows.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    dixiedean said:

    Donkeys said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Foxy said:

    I think there is now a real chance the Tories go for the nuclear option of PM #4 of this parliament.

    No election in May means an 7-8 month window has opened up. If the drip-drip negative headlines and poor Sunak media management continues, it starts to feel like enough MPs might be desperate enough for a last throw of the dice.

    I am beginning to take this possibility more seriously, only because Sunak appears to be so useless politically that another six months of him as PM is more likely to worsen the Tory position than not. He's not the safe pair of hands he was supposed to be when he replaced Truss.

    The only stumbling block is: who takes over?
    We’re lucky Boris isn’t in parliament, because I think they’re desperate enough to give him another go.

    Other than that, I can’t see beyond Mordaunt because there’s nobody else who isn’t either (a) measurably tied too closely to Rishi or Truss, or (b) who would want the poisoned chalice right now.
    For Mordaunt it is also the best chance of holding her seat. Being leader might well make the difference.
    I think Boris would have been at serious risk of losing his old seat in a GE as well, given the local issue of ULEZ would be less pertinent than it was in the by-election. Agree there would have been an immense clamour to get him back in charge though. They'd still likely lose with him, which he probably also knows, so is happy to be king-over-the-water for now.

    He's got a good ten years yet, and I don't think we've seen the last of him in politics.
    We've not seen the last of him in the sense that he remains "box office" to some degree. But he'll be in his 60s for this election, and probably at retirement age for the next.

    He's not like Cameron, who makes sense as a trusted elder statesman to back up the PM in a senior supporting role - nobody would be foolish enough to bring Johnson in expecting loyalty, and it'd either need to be in charge or nothing.

    The window just isn't there in my view - he'll say stuff for many years to come, but his time doing rather than saying has gone.
    Johnson keeps lying his head off and losing his job for it.
    The law of diminishing returns comes into play.
    They'll have to replace Sunak with somebody else before the election, a person with charisma so not Badenoch, Braverman, or Hunt. If Mordaunt develops a rabid rightwing face to go with her other one, she may be in a strong position.
    Someone with a vial of vomit necklace would be appropriate
    I'm convinced the Truss will return as Tory leader. The British Right are desperate for her to redeem herself, because all the time she remains a failure everything they've ever believed remains a failure.
    Truss should be leading Reform then. That is where the bonehead element of the British Right are decamped.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,651
    edited March 15
    The value has gone on Labour landslide. It's the overwhelming consensus now. I'm a bit disappointed by this. I should have had a big bet a few months ago on the Cons to lose over 200 seats but I didn't.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645

    Barnesian said:

    The Tory Conference is already booked for 29th Sept to 2nd Oct in Birmingham. It is already being promoted to businesses.

    Sunak will make his big speech on Wednesday 2nd October and announce that the GE will take place six weeks later on 14th November. It will be the launch of the Tory campaign.


    That was my assumption for over a year.

    The question now is whether the conference will be more of a liability, with activists and MPs falling out, a lack of a clear message for the future, unrealistic promises and a general sense of fatigue and uselessness. Plus guests like Farage and Johnson on the fringe outshining the PM and ministers.
    Indeed. That makes no sense as election launch pad. Income tax cutting budget and out with the lecturn next morning makes more sense.

    They are not thinking rationally 🙇‍♀️
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,452

    dixiedean said:

    Donkeys said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Foxy said:

    I think there is now a real chance the Tories go for the nuclear option of PM #4 of this parliament.

    No election in May means an 7-8 month window has opened up. If the drip-drip negative headlines and poor Sunak media management continues, it starts to feel like enough MPs might be desperate enough for a last throw of the dice.

    I am beginning to take this possibility more seriously, only because Sunak appears to be so useless politically that another six months of him as PM is more likely to worsen the Tory position than not. He's not the safe pair of hands he was supposed to be when he replaced Truss.

    The only stumbling block is: who takes over?
    We’re lucky Boris isn’t in parliament, because I think they’re desperate enough to give him another go.

    Other than that, I can’t see beyond Mordaunt because there’s nobody else who isn’t either (a) measurably tied too closely to Rishi or Truss, or (b) who would want the poisoned chalice right now.
    For Mordaunt it is also the best chance of holding her seat. Being leader might well make the difference.
    I think Boris would have been at serious risk of losing his old seat in a GE as well, given the local issue of ULEZ would be less pertinent than it was in the by-election. Agree there would have been an immense clamour to get him back in charge though. They'd still likely lose with him, which he probably also knows, so is happy to be king-over-the-water for now.

    He's got a good ten years yet, and I don't think we've seen the last of him in politics.
    We've not seen the last of him in the sense that he remains "box office" to some degree. But he'll be in his 60s for this election, and probably at retirement age for the next.

    He's not like Cameron, who makes sense as a trusted elder statesman to back up the PM in a senior supporting role - nobody would be foolish enough to bring Johnson in expecting loyalty, and it'd either need to be in charge or nothing.

    The window just isn't there in my view - he'll say stuff for many years to come, but his time doing rather than saying has gone.
    Johnson keeps lying his head off and losing his job for it.
    The law of diminishing returns comes into play.
    They'll have to replace Sunak with somebody else before the election, a person with charisma so not Badenoch, Braverman, or Hunt. If Mordaunt develops a rabid rightwing face to go with her other one, she may be in a strong position.
    Someone with a vial of vomit necklace would be appropriate
    I'm convinced the Truss will return as Tory leader. The British Right are desperate for her to redeem herself, because all the time she remains a failure everything they've ever believed remains a failure.
    Truss should be leading Reform then. That is where the bonehead element of the British Right are decamped.
    Subtle but important distinction between boneheaded (Reform) and batso (Truss).
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Truman said:

    Interesting this.

    Macron tells France in a live TV address:

    "We negotiated as much as we could, but there is nothing to talk about with Putin anymore. Ukraine must win. There will be no red lines for France. I’m the President of France and I decide"

    He should send USA a backbone
    I think it's a message to Scholz. The problem with the Americans is not so much the lack of backbone as outright Putinist support.
    Scholz is obviously a Putin lickspittle, prefers wobbling like a jelly behind the sofa.
    No, he's a cushion bearing the imprint of whoever sat on him most recently and most firmly.

    Macron is also messaging Putin directly, and Eastern Europe. However, Europe needs to get its act together on this. Shells don't build themselves.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So we have to put up with this drivel for another 6-9 months?

    Reform ahead of the Tories in the polls by midsummer? I don't think Sunak will enjoy his party conference.

    Pretty much. The people arguing that May 2nd was Sunak's last best chance were solid in their reasoning; I'm expecting things to go downhill (possibly chaotically) from here.

    But not even a hyper rationalist with a spreadsheet would call an election when twenty points behind.
    I don’t for one moment believe they are twenty points behind, I wouldn’t expect a May 2nd election if the Tories were 15 or more behind. I’m doubtful the top of the Tory party believe the situation is that difficult right now.

    You got to match current unicorn polling with what we know will happen in parliamentary constituency elections. Why? Because that’s the pattern from the last three elections this election will follow.

    The polling you refer to, and people have brainwashed themselves into thinking you can’t call an election when twenty points behind, is unicorn polling. Forced choice polling is the only indicator where we actually are, and that shows the Tories on 31% just 11 behind.

    History proves once campaigning starts, polls and voter behaviour can move in way it didn’t move in the years leading up. The problem is, the expected Swingback either will or won’t happen depending on the campaign month itself, not anything we can be sure of before the election actually kicks off, all we can look for are the risks in the campaign month.
    That shift won't always favour the Tories (see 2017) indeed the question to low attention voters will be "do you want 5 more years of this?"

    No fox. 2017 perfectly supports my point how fluid and different a GE is from everything that’s gone before it.

    The DNA of a GE election is different than the DNA of how pollsters are capturing GE choice opinion polls.

    And at this moment - Friday 1040 i’m still sceptical Rishi has actually confirmed no May 2nd election.

    Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are on a visit in the north-east of
    11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

    Any sign this morning of rowing back, or not confirming, or not even wishing to be drawn in election dates, confirms a May 2nd election.

    Watch this space 😁
    Sunak is pretty useless at politics but having given a direct quote yesterday as saying "there won't be a general election on that day [May 2nd]" surely even he could not be so dim as to go back on that. His campaign will be difficult enough as it is, he wouldn't want to start by telling a Johnsonian lie to people? Would he?
    He didn’t give a direct quote. He spent several minutes refusing to answer the question. He didn’t turn up planning to say it or with a direct quote.

    Let’s see if it is backed up by direct quote on media rounds today.

    If yesterdays slip not firmly confirmed by direct quote today, it confirms May 2nd General Election. We will 90% know in next couple of hours.
    The BBC says he did giver a direct quote. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68568448
    I simply suggest, Go view it for yourself, including the five minutes in build up to slipping it out, where he refused to be drawn, and decide for yourself if BBC are right to refer to it in those terms.
    https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2024-03-14/rishi-sunak-there-will-be-no-general-election-on-2-may

    ITV headline: "Rishi Sunak tells ITV News there won't be a general election on May 2"
    Speaking to ITV News, the prime minister said: "In several weeks time, we've got elections for police and crime commissioners, for local councils, for mayors across the country, they're important elections. That's what I'm focussed on. "There won't be a general election on that day," he added.

    I think I understand your line of reasoning on this. You're saying that when he said that "There won't be a general election on that day" he really meant that "There could be a general election on that day." And that the BBC and ITV should realise that the words "won't" and "could" have the same meaning.
    I’ve been thinking how they could row back on it if it was “misspeak”

    “The PM was merely pointing out there is no General Election on May 2nd, just local elections”.

    Let’s see what comes out the 11:30.

    And about the same time, whoever’s turn to front up the press today with the man himself - who’s probably wearing a hard hat in front a crane delivering levelling up.
    No I got that wrong, it’s some sort of tech thing they are visiting.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,057
    edited March 15
    The election is going to be in late November or the first Thursday in December with a 5 week campaign period and the "fiscal event" will be in the 2nd week of October with some kind of significant tax cut or other retail offer that people will see in their payslips.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    Ghedebrav said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    Haven't we already passed the point of no return on the government looking ridiculous? It now isn't going to be May. If the locals are as bad as they look like being then it can't be June/July, If summer is decent weather then the number of boats crossing will rule out September/October so December/January has to be it. There's going to be very little Tory activity on the streets in this campaign so make it more difficult for the opposition and have the election campaign cross Christmas, Maybe not 23rd January, but 9th or 16th are possibles.

    I don't know if the "boats" still has the totemic salience it did last year. Most people are used to it now and don't think the government either want to fix it or can fix it.

    The little shit wants to be PM as long as possible and doesn't really care if he leaves the tory party or country in a state of desolation after he's gone. However, he will want to go out at the inevitable GE loss not the indignity of being ousted as party leader in a Night of the Long Letters. With that in mind, he might want to avoid the tory conference which will be a febrile shit show if they are 20+ behind in the polls.
    Yes, so October. It's the sweet spot.
    Isn't there some reason why it won't be October, to do with royal visits or something? I seem to recall this discussion on here.

    My (figurative, in this case) money is on early December.
    Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference, 21-25 October in Samoa. The argument is it's all pretty big for the King so PM has to go, and it's a long way in an election campaign (let alone the oddity if the election is basically then).

    I've always thought that the argument was utter balls. It's the Commonwealth, Cameron or someone can go, and it's the Commonwealth.
    Indeed. But a few days out doing an international summit might actually be a help for the PM given the likely difficulties of the Tory campaign. There's no reason he can't go. It is parties we elect, not prime ministers.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,453

    Eabhal said:

    Truman said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On weight, as with so much of @Dura's output he made a truly horrific post wherein he noted the difference in calorific intake required to maintain a certain weight between his younger years and now. Something like a third less just to stay where he was and at the same, or similar levels of activity.

    I find this the same - I have to reduce my calories vs years ago just to not put on weight, let alone lose it.

    Life really is a f**cker.

    The alternative is to increase activity levels. I run 20-25 miles a week which I find does it. Weight-bearing exercise is also good for your bones as you get older and will help to combat muscle loss which also happens as you age
    You are truly a hero. And I have no idea what age you are but I can also assure you that as you get older you are not only not going to be able to increase your weekly run, but running you will find will fuck you up.

    And I speak as someone who ran every day of their lives for - let me count - nearly three decades. And am two new hips to the good.

    It has to be low/non-impact sports such as cycling and swimming for me now. Except I hate swimming and refuse to do it. Oh and *****back riding in the winter.
    Rowing is interesting - met some 80+ rowers on the Tideway.

    Seeing someone that old sauntering down the boat ramp with a single balanced on one shoulder....
    Running is fine in moderation. Just dont overdo it. Twice a week combined with some gym work. Running every day is silly unless you are a pro athlete.
    Why's it silly? Literally what we are designed to do. Chase down deer.

    When I was 20 I could run 10k a day no bother. My ability to do that has diminished over the last 10 years. Time for the tribe to boot me out.
    No worries. The Tribe has a new thing. Better than flint tools. It came out of that Wheel thing (remember that mad bubble? - "Wheels will eliminate all the jobs!"). Apparently if you take a couple of those and some sticks and stuff, you can make what they call a bicycle.

    It going to eliminate all the jobs, I tell you.

    Also much lower impact on the knees than
    running. Great for the old'uns.
    Even better. You know those kids we picked up from the neighbouring tribe the other week. I reckon if we put them in a big wheel and make them run fast enough (where’s that pointy stick) then they can power the bicycle for you
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,119
    boulay said:

    Eabhal said:

    I wonder if there is any connection between the fondness on here for ready meals, Maccy D's, Gregg's and other processed shite and the inability to keep slim.

    Hmm.

    People always focus in exercise in these convos (including me) but 90% of it is diet. The amount of running you have to do to net off a packet of digestives is enormous.
    Exactly. I don't get biscuits or crisps or any of that crap in and stand on my own two feet (i.e. stand up in my kitchen for a couple of hours) and cook every meal from scratch (often in large batches, creating freezer blocks). I can make 16 servings of delicious casseroles/mouth-watering authentic curries/and luscious ragus etc in one shift, all from fresh ingredients with no artificial additives.

    I always implore people to examine the ingredients on a ready meal, or in a Maccy D's, or on a so-called 'healthy' spread like Flora. This shit is BAD for you. No wonder the French, Italians and Spanish think we are fucking barbarians.
    The French absolutely fucking love frozen ready meals. You go to Super U or Leclerc and it’s the busiest area. Their frozen meals are atrocious as well which makes it funnier. The idea that every French person is spending hours over the range cooking a boeuf bourguignon or a bouillabaisse whilst supping a glass of wine like a nation of Keith Floyd’s is bs.

    And France has more Macdonalds (1485) than the UK (1432).
    Indeed.

    The peak of this, for me, is the town of Mersault, where the Casino Shop (look it up if you dare) does a roaring trade in shite, across the road from a boulangerie and all of about 1 minutes walk to a place where they are making charcuterie on the premises....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,119

    Eabhal said:

    Truman said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On weight, as with so much of @Dura's output he made a truly horrific post wherein he noted the difference in calorific intake required to maintain a certain weight between his younger years and now. Something like a third less just to stay where he was and at the same, or similar levels of activity.

    I find this the same - I have to reduce my calories vs years ago just to not put on weight, let alone lose it.

    Life really is a f**cker.

    The alternative is to increase activity levels. I run 20-25 miles a week which I find does it. Weight-bearing exercise is also good for your bones as you get older and will help to combat muscle loss which also happens as you age
    You are truly a hero. And I have no idea what age you are but I can also assure you that as you get older you are not only not going to be able to increase your weekly run, but running you will find will fuck you up.

    And I speak as someone who ran every day of their lives for - let me count - nearly three decades. And am two new hips to the good.

    It has to be low/non-impact sports such as cycling and swimming for me now. Except I hate swimming and refuse to do it. Oh and *****back riding in the winter.
    Rowing is interesting - met some 80+ rowers on the Tideway.

    Seeing someone that old sauntering down the boat ramp with a single balanced on one shoulder....
    Running is fine in moderation. Just dont overdo it. Twice a week combined with some gym work. Running every day is silly unless you are a pro athlete.
    Why's it silly? Literally what we are designed to do. Chase down deer.

    When I was 20 I could run 10k a day no bother. My ability to do that has diminished over the last 10 years. Time for the tribe to boot me out.
    No worries. The Tribe has a new thing. Better than flint tools. It came out of that Wheel thing (remember that mad bubble? - "Wheels will eliminate all the jobs!"). Apparently if you take a couple of those and some sticks and stuff, you can make what they call a bicycle.

    It going to eliminate all the jobs, I tell you.

    Also much lower impact on the knees than
    running. Great for the old'uns.
    Even better. You know those kids we picked up from the neighbouring tribe the other week. I reckon if we put them in a big wheel and make them run fast enough (where’s that pointy stick) then they can power the bicycle for you
    {The Libyan Coastguard approves this message}
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,418
    edited March 15

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    I've given the analysis several times. And if there is no canvassing over the holiday period, it does not matter how many "left-wing teachers on holiday" there are available to do a thing that cannot be done. That is the point. And if you want to attack people for wrong predictions, start with those who said the 2nd of May.
    “If you want to attack people for wrong predictions, start with those who said the 2nd of May”

    Yeah. Especially those still saying 2nd of May in this very thread.

    Who wants some 🥊

    😁
    You think a politician might be, unintentionally no doubt, misleading the public. Has this ever happened before?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,472

    Ghedebrav said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    And on topic the election is going to be November 21st, as I said in January. Even Peston saying something compatible with that has not shaken my confidence. Stopped clocks etc.

    But what happens when we get to early October? Either the polls still won't have shifted in the Conservatives' favour, in which case why not give them another month?

    Or they will have started to shift, in which case the logic will be "Give it another month and we will be competitive".


    We only get an early (before legal expiry) election if the government collapses. Otherwise it’s Thursday 23rd January.
    Just because he ruled out May 2nd doesn’t mean it will go to January 23rd.

    A January election will be political suicide. The media would hate it. The country would hate it. It more-than-smacks of desperation. Add to that the longest month of the year for most people financially (pay day is before Christmas), the cold, dark, the idea of campaigning during Christmas and New Year … no, it’s absurd.

    It’ll be the autumn. Personally I think before the clocks go back but maybe November.
    You are right but the advantage of a January election is that it screws the opposition parties more than it hurts the government. There are 314 days to the general election, Thursday, 23 January.
    Again, you don’t know when the election will be so give over with the attention-seeking certainty. Also the idea that it “will screw the other parties more” is not fact, it’s your opinion. Why not write it as such?

    For what it’s worth, your analysis is based on shaky grounds. A January election makes the government look ridiculous. And there are lots of leftwing teachers on holiday during the campaign.
    Haven't we already passed the point of no return on the government looking ridiculous? It now isn't going to be May. If the locals are as bad as they look like being then it can't be June/July, If summer is decent weather then the number of boats crossing will rule out September/October so December/January has to be it. There's going to be very little Tory activity on the streets in this campaign so make it more difficult for the opposition and have the election campaign cross Christmas, Maybe not 23rd January, but 9th or 16th are possibles.

    I don't know if the "boats" still has the totemic salience it did last year. Most people are used to it now and don't think the government either want to fix it or can fix it.

    The little shit wants to be PM as long as possible and doesn't really care if he leaves the tory party or country in a state of desolation after he's gone. However, he will want to go out at the inevitable GE loss not the indignity of being ousted as party leader in a Night of the Long Letters. With that in mind, he might want to avoid the tory conference which will be a febrile shit show if they are 20+ behind in the polls.
    Yes, so October. It's the sweet spot.
    Isn't there some reason why it won't be October, to do with royal visits or something? I seem to recall this discussion on here.

    My (figurative, in this case) money is on early December.
    Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference, 21-25 October in Samoa. The argument is it's all pretty big for the King so PM has to go, and it's a long way in an election campaign (let alone the oddity if the election is basically then).

    I've always thought that the argument was utter balls. It's the Commonwealth, Cameron or someone can go, and it's the Commonwealth.
    Or the King can go and they can schedule a Teams call with Starmer when he wins the election. Or if the media want to see Starmer in a car going to Buckingham Palace, Prince William or Princess Eugenie can meet him.
This discussion has been closed.