Howdy, Stranger!

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

A new hope is needed for Sunak – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 22 in General
imageA new hope is needed for Sunak – politicalbetting.com

?NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for @centreforlondon ?24pt Sadiq Khan lead?Lab 51 (+11)?Con 27 (-8)?LD 10 (+6)?Green 8 (=)??Reform 2 (NEW)??Other 3 (-10)1,510 Londoners, 8-12 March(chg vs 2021 result (1st prefs)) pic.twitter.com/reE8S3W6qS

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,132
    First?
  • Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,549
    edited March 22
    FPT:
    Leon said:

    Are they?

    This is a genuine question

    I've realised that my belief that Putin always wants Trump to win is based on me hearing a lot of people say this, rather than seeing actual evidence. That is probably my fault for not looking hard enough. I am hoping you may be able to show me it (I am perfectly willing to believe it: I can see arguments why Putin would favour Trump, I can also see arguments where he might favour Biden)

    As far as I know this story has not been retracted, and it claims to be evidence of Kremlin and specifically Putin support to help elect Trump. It doesn't say where the documents were obtained from but they were probably deliberately leaked by a Western intelligence agency that wants Putin's support for Trump publicised.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house
  • isamisam Posts: 40,877
    edited March 22
    According to the betting markets, Susan Hall is more likely to be Mayor of London than the Tories are of winning a majority at the next GE
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,134
    edited March 22
    I am always sceptical of posts that explain why particular polls might be wrong.

    Yes, of course they might be. And they might be wrong for exactly those reasons. In fact, they are *definitely* wrong because they aren't the actual vote.

    But there just as many reasons why they are broadly right as there are for them being broadly wrong.

    Maybe SK *won't* land >50%. But there would be something seriously awry if he didn't win on this polling, and the rest of it is kind of irrelevant - unless the polls systematically narrow.

    We're so used to seeing comparatively small differences between the parties, we continue to analyse on the same basis. While 42-34 seems like a large difference (8 points), a shift of just a few points over a campaign takes us to "too close to call" territory. We're nowhere near that today.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    He turned out to be the phantom menace for Labour.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924
    edited March 22

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    I remain doubtful of such hopes

    I'm not in the slightest doubt. I'm 100% certain.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,134
    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    Probably is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    An interesting question is what the total Con+Lab share will be. It was quite low in 2019, but nowhere near as low as 2015. (IIRC). Do we see them leak support to other parties (like LDs and RefUK), or do they gather their supporters to them more effectively?

    This suggests "something middling".
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335
    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    Question then is why do they think that?

    Is it anticipation of swingback, or things improving?

    Or is it that the hole that the Conservatives are in is so deep that we can't really imagine it? (43-31 being roughly what happened in 1997 and therefore as bad a night for the blue team as anyone can really imagine.)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    ...

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    Rishi has a plan, the plan is working, don't let Labour take you back to square one.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    I have no expectation labour will be an improvement and have no intention of voting however after 14 years I do think they deserve a chance and Rachel Reeves does strike me as somewhat competent.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    edited March 22

    ...

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    Rishi has a plan, the plan is working, don't let Labour take you back to square one.
    If 'square 1' was 2015, I don't know about you but I'd vote for going back to it.

    2010 is more marginal. No academy chains, dud exams written by incoherent drunks or foundation trusts, but also a public sector in disarray in a situation it wasn't programmed for and an economy in a shambles.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    Taz said:

    I have no expectation labour will be an improvement and have no intention of voting however after 14 years I do think they deserve a chance and Rachel Reeves does strike me as somewhat competent.

    As a champion chess player, one hopes she will keep the crisis in check.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787
    It has been apparent for a while that the Russian state is very far advanced in one particular area: political manipulation. There is a good book on this 'nothing is true and everything is possible' by Peter Pomerantsev. They find ways of manipulating discourse to turn everything that happens either domestically or globally to their advantage. Domestically this came through control of media outlets and the process of creating 'managed opposition' to the state.
    Globally the aim is to reduce the coherance of any unifying or coherant narrative about the west, promoting discord and outrage, turning people against each other making decision making impossible and ultimately weakening the power of the west which is seen by Russia as its main adversary. So when you look at anything from Scottish Independence, Brexit, Trump, BLM, Colonialism, womens safety campaigns, right through to Gaza, they find a way of manipulating them to make them more divisive and polarised to confuse people. The Russian state has no real allies other than the occasional sycophant, everything is viewed cynically and as a tool to secure its own survival.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,872
    isam said:

    According to the betting markets, Susan Hall is more likely to be Mayor of London than the Tories are of winning a majority at the next GE

    A quite remarkable factoid.

    (I don't 'agree' with the markets FWIW, but an amazing stat nevertheless)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    ydoethur said:

    ...

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    Rishi has a plan, the plan is working, don't let Labour take you back to square one.
    If 'square 1' was 2015, I don't know about you but I'd vote for going back to it.

    2010 is more marginal. No academy chains, dud exams written by incoherent drunks or foundation trusts, but also a public sector in disarray in a situation it wasn't programmed for and an economy in a shambles.
    Re:2010. " Public sector in disarray" "economy in a shambles". So can we now mark those two down as jobs well done?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,872

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    Contain your breathless excitement.

    It's not a poll.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    I have no expectation labour will be an improvement and have no intention of voting however after 14 years I do think they deserve a chance and Rachel Reeves does strike me as somewhat competent.

    As a champion chess player, one hopes she will keep the crisis in check.
    Mate, I never knew she played chess.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,872

    ...

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    Rishi has a plan, the plan is working, don't let Labour take you back to square one.
    Give it a rest.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally there's something funny going on.

    It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.

    Does anyone know what this phenomenon is called?

    Climate change.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,872
    Taz said:

    I have no expectation labour will be an improvement and have no intention of voting however after 14 years I do think they deserve a chance and Rachel Reeves does strike me as somewhat competent.

    Why aren't you voting for her then?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,167
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally there's something funny going on.

    It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.

    Does anyone know what this phenomenon is called?

    Also someone has fired up a thermonuclear reactor. With no shielding, or containment.

    No paperwork either.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029

    ...

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    Rishi has a plan, the plan is working, don't let Labour take you back to square one.
    Give it a rest.
    Some of you Tories have no sense of irony.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,597
    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention. [snip]
    "...See here for award winning paper behind the method that most accurately predicted the 2010 election..."

    OK. What about the Scottish referendum (2014), GE2015, Brexit2016, GE2017 and GE2019? That's quite a lot of omissions... :)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090

    ydoethur said:

    ...

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    Rishi has a plan, the plan is working, don't let Labour take you back to square one.
    If 'square 1' was 2015, I don't know about you but I'd vote for going back to it.

    2010 is more marginal. No academy chains, dud exams written by incoherent drunks or foundation trusts, but also a public sector in disarray in a situation it wasn't programmed for and an economy in a shambles.
    Re:2010. " Public sector in disarray" "economy in a shambles". So can we now mark those two down as jobs well done?
    Well, by 2015 there were signs of improvement.

    They were not sustained for - other reasons...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,872
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    I have no expectation labour will be an improvement and have no intention of voting however after 14 years I do think they deserve a chance and Rachel Reeves does strike me as somewhat competent.

    As a champion chess player, one hopes she will keep the crisis in check.
    In chess, the Queen is deadlier than the King. Prophetic?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    I have no expectation labour will be an improvement and have no intention of voting however after 14 years I do think they deserve a chance and Rachel Reeves does strike me as somewhat competent.

    As a champion chess player, one hopes she will keep the crisis in check.
    In chess, the Queen is deadlier than the King. Prophetic?
    When you say 'Queen,' we talking about Camilla or Putin?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,872

    ...

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    Rishi has a plan, the plan is working, don't let Labour take you back to square one.
    Give it a rest.
    Some of you Tories have no sense of irony.
    Good grief. Get a life, you repetitive bore!!
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,758
    darkage said:

    It has been apparent for a while that the Russian state is very far advanced in one particular area: political manipulation. There is a good book on this 'nothing is true and everything is possible' by Peter Pomerantsev. They find ways of manipulating discourse to turn everything that happens either domestically or globally to their advantage. Domestically this came through control of media outlets and the process of creating 'managed opposition' to the state.
    Globally the aim is to reduce the coherance of any unifying or coherant narrative about the west, promoting discord and outrage, turning people against each other making decision making impossible and ultimately weakening the power of the west which is seen by Russia as its main adversary. So when you look at anything from Scottish Independence, Brexit, Trump, BLM, Colonialism, womens safety campaigns, right through to Gaza, they find a way of manipulating them to make them more divisive and polarised to confuse people. The Russian state has no real allies other than the occasional sycophant, everything is viewed cynically and as a tool to secure its own survival.

    Tiny England flags that were only put on the kit in the year 2000 too.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,872
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally there's something funny going on.

    It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.

    Does anyone know what this phenomenon is called?

    It's a rare weather event for sure.
  • The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,842
    darkage said:

    It has been apparent for a while that the Russian state is very far advanced in one particular area: political manipulation. There is a good book on this 'nothing is true and everything is possible' by Peter Pomerantsev. They find ways of manipulating discourse to turn everything that happens either domestically or globally to their advantage. Domestically this came through control of media outlets and the process of creating 'managed opposition' to the state.
    Globally the aim is to reduce the coherance of any unifying or coherant narrative about the west, promoting discord and outrage, turning people against each other making decision making impossible and ultimately weakening the power of the west which is seen by Russia as its main adversary. So when you look at anything from Scottish Independence, Brexit, Trump, BLM, Colonialism, womens safety campaigns, right through to Gaza, they find a way of manipulating them to make them more divisive and polarised to confuse people. The Russian state has no real allies other than the occasional sycophant, everything is viewed cynically and as a tool to secure its own survival.

    I was reading his Wiki entry the other day and noticed that, quite disturbingly, his personal life section is strangely not in the present tense. Does someone know something he doesn’t?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    They had 10+ years prior notice and so 10 years to prepare.

    I’m reminded of this from hitch hikers guide to the galaxy

    There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    Trump gets his way on taking Truth Social public:

    https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trumps-social-media-company-to-go-public-potentially-netting-him-3bn-13099909

    Probably too late to rescue him in his fraud case.

    Also, there is some question about whether he can be involved with its management given Engoron's ruling.
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 415

    isam said:

    The only excusable way for the Tories to change leader again, and for that leader to have any legitimacy, is to find a way of getting Boris back, then begging him to take it

    Or for young, fit Rishi to have a "health episode"...
    No need to bother with that. Leo Varadkar didn't. "Personal reasons" and GONE.

    (Context of a Boris return is ridiculous though/)
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,758
    edited March 22
    Speaking of altered England/UK flags:

    "Do you remember the riots of 2010 when Joey Barton and fellow patriots took to the streets in faux outrage about the St George's cross in four different colours..."

    https://x.com/KitCrimes/status/1770919855862026673?s=20



    "Changing flag colours on sports kits really is nothing new."

    https://x.com/bowieclone/status/1770947121862074713?s=20



  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    CatMan said:

    Speaking of altered England/UK flags:

    "Do you remember the riots of 2010 when Joey Barton and fellow patriots took to the streets in faux outrage about the St George's cross in four different colours..."

    https://x.com/KitCrimes/status/1770919855862026673?s=20



    https://x.com/bowieclone/status/1770947121862074713?s=20



    If it isn't red, it isn't the St George's flag...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,914
    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    Iirc, these polls have been surprisingly accurate in the past.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    FPT

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.

    Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.

    Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
    I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
    I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
    You would think that...
    As would anyone with a functional brain.

    The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).

    I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
    Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.

    As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.

    It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.

    And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
    Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.

    On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.

    If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
    Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.

    And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.

    Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
    Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
    You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...

    As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
    "As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
    He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
    In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
    I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
    You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.

    The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
    I'm not 'moving' - I'm explaining my position as it's been pretty much since the Starmer story broke. Cases can be made for both - however inconvenient it is for you.
    If Starmer broke the rules he should have gone, but according to Durham Constabulary after investigation they decided he didn't break the rules. The Met later explained that they didn't investigate Johnson's presence at parties from which they prosecuted minions. Johnson was only innocent by dint of not being investigated.

    But your comparison of Beergate and Partygate as an equal breach is a nonsense. It's like you complaining how unfair it is my kitten has done a whoopsie in your flower bed whilst your two dozen pack-hounds are crapping all over my lawn.
    I refer you to my previous comment re. the police. But then you probably felt plebgate was fair as it was one of your hated Tories who was victim...

    Of course the comparison is not ridiculous; and as a state, I'd argue that Currygate was worse in practice, for the reasons I've given (and you ignore).
    I find Andrew Mitchell a particularly agreeable one- nation Tory, so of course if the police lied, as was proven they were wrong and he was guilty of nothing. I also mentioned earlier that I believe Sunak's prosecution was a travesty. So other than my partisan despising of the venal Johnson I have been rather balanced I believe.

    Starmer's travails were confected (by Ivo Delingpole and Ric Holden) nonsense almost a year and then six months after Partygate 1 and 2. The rules had changed. Johnson also wrote the rules he wilfully ignored. Allegra Stratten joked about the absurdity of the situation, oh and let's not forget Johnson's defence was he couldn't discriminate between a work event and a party with party poppers, balloons, a karaoke machine and suitcases full of wines and spirits.

    I don't wish to be rude, but perhaps you need training in how to avoid being taken in by charlatans.
    You say you don't mean to be rude, whilst being rude. I might suggest that you take your own 'advice'.

    Also, you fail to address my points.

    As for Mitchell, there's no 'of course, if the police lied'. They lied. It was a travesty of justice.
    I agreed with you on Mitchell. I don't believe I was equivocal.

    What points specifically have I failed to address?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,081
    This Chris Hopkins guy certainly appears to enjoy talking a lot to no particular purpose.

    Mind you, I suppose that must recommend him to a lot of people here!
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    The laughable thing about these protests is the claim of 'inequality'.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,465
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    Iirc, these polls have been surprisingly accurate in the past.
    Up to Trafalgar standard?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,954
    edited March 22

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Deserved [for the WASPI women]?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    Iirc, these polls have been surprisingly accurate in the past.
    Up to Trafalgar standard?
    Trafalgar could be bought.

    Its excellence was for sail.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally there's something funny going on.

    It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.

    Does anyone know what this phenomenon is called?

    Hallucination ?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,081
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    I have no expectation labour will be an improvement and have no intention of voting however after 14 years I do think they deserve a chance and Rachel Reeves does strike me as somewhat competent.

    As a champion chess player, one hopes she will keep the crisis in check.
    In chess, the Queen is deadlier than the King. Prophetic?
    When you say 'Queen,' we talking about Camilla or Putin?
    Now now. Private training sessions in martial arts inevitably get a bit sweaty at times.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    edited March 22
    Another appalling day on the trains today. I’ll spare you details as they’re boring but just about everything that could go wrong, did. The standing-room only carriage I was in turned into a cauldron of malcontent, some of which was aimed at the Government and the generally shambolic state of things. Certainly SWR are not fit for purpose.

    Unrelatedly I had an experience which has never happened to me before on the British network. On an earlier train this morning the driver forgot to stop at a station. This wasn’t on some chug-chug two carriage train but the high speed GWR line. After a lot of kerfuffle, the driver walked through to the other end of the train and secured permission to reverse the train back up the line to the last station.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,888
    edited March 22

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,758
    ydoethur said:

    CatMan said:

    Speaking of altered England/UK flags:

    "Do you remember the riots of 2010 when Joey Barton and fellow patriots took to the streets in faux outrage about the St George's cross in four different colours..."

    https://x.com/KitCrimes/status/1770919855862026673?s=20



    https://x.com/bowieclone/status/1770947121862074713?s=20



    If it isn't red, it isn't the St George's flag...
    "As an aside, keen observers of England football kit designs might note that previous iterations that featured variations on the design of the cross of St George (For example 2018 Nike away kit with dark red cross on light red background, 2011 Umbro goalkeeper kit with cross in several shades of green, 2008 Umbro home with cross rendered in lozenge design, and 2006 Umbro home with distorted cross on the sleeve) did not spark similar political interventions. It is just possible that it is the culture war around politics that has changed in the last couple of years to make this a story today, rather than the approach to designing football kits that has changed. I promise not to write another word on the subject."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/mar/22/rishi-sunak-tory-local-election-campaign-waspi-women-pension-row-uk-politics-live-latest-news-updates
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    ydoethur said:

    CatMan said:

    Speaking of altered England/UK flags:

    "Do you remember the riots of 2010 when Joey Barton and fellow patriots took to the streets in faux outrage about the St George's cross in four different colours..."

    https://x.com/KitCrimes/status/1770919855862026673?s=20



    https://x.com/bowieclone/status/1770947121862074713?s=20



    If it isn't red, it isn't the St George's flag...
    And that's the issue. If Nike hadn't put out that tweet, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, but they've made themselves look stupid by suggesting that it's possible to change something and it still be what it was originally.

    No one cares if they incorporate elements of a flag into a shirt design (e.g. USA 94 with stars on their shirt).
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    Iirc, these polls have been surprisingly accurate in the past.
    Isn’t that just wisdom of crowds - the average from the estimates of a lot of people removed bias.

    Given the current polling I wouldn’t use this crowd estimate for betting purposes - I suspect the wisdom is still biased on history rather than current reality
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,954
    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    Don't they always say that ignorance is no excuse for the law. It's individual responsibility to be aware of what your rights are, and what changes are coming.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236
    Here we go again.

    They will have had more Speakers than we've had PMs at this rate.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene: “I do not wish to inflict pain on our conference and throw the House in chaos. But this is basically a warning, and it's time for us…To find a new Speaker of the House.”
    ..

    https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1771210563432927305

    And all because they agreed not to defund the government.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    edited March 22
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    Iirc, these polls have been surprisingly accurate in the past.
    They have at times, and I think what they capture well is people's assumptions about swingback and minor party performance which may also give a little insight into their own subconscious.

    One thing strongly stands out from this, and it's not the Lab-Con lead. It's "Minor parties: 13%". Bear in mind the SNP and Plaid account for at least 3, probably 4% of that 13. That leaves 8-9% for the Greens and Reform.

    People are, to coin a @MoonRabbit term, Dutch saluting the pollsters at the moment when it comes to Reform. They're expressing their outrage at the government by stating in no uncertain terms that they're going to vote for the loons instead and have no intention of coming back. Except they know deep down, when push comes to shove and they face the realities of FPTP, that they'll come back home. Likewise a not insignificant number of lefties are likely to be flashing their fronts about voting Green, but they should admit to themselves that when faced with Lab or Con in their seat they'll vote Labour.

    Whereas look at Lib Dem. Higher than the polls. That's because it's not being used as a protest statement to pollsters. And people also know that they and their fellow voters will vote tactically come the day.

    So Labour gains a couple of percent from Green and loses it to the Lib Dems but stays roughly neutral vs the polls, and Conservatives bag a bumper tally of pretend Reform votes adding around 6% to their total. Seems pretty plausible to me.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    I think Khan could well struggle to win. Hall is an unknown candidate to most Londoners while there is a large and highly motivated anti-Khan vote that will come out disproportionately on 2nd May. Many anti-Tory voters will stay at home believing it is impossible the Tory candidate can win.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    Nigelb said:

    Here we go again.

    They will have had more Speakers than we've had PMs at this rate.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene: “I do not wish to inflict pain on our conference and throw the House in chaos. But this is basically a warning, and it's time for us…To find a new Speaker of the House.”
    ..

    https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1771210563432927305

    And all because they agreed not to defund the government.

    It's high time for the Republicans to find a new representative for the 14th District of Georgia.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    Many of those affected do think the WASPI women have been treated as badly as the Post Office staff. Whether they have or not (not, obviously) doesn't affect their thinking.

    One of the reasons an ex-Yorkshire Party councillor defected to Reform (other than his complete unreliability) was my opposition to campaigning on WASPI compensation (I think his wife is potentially a beneficiary; he's the right age). But he was adamant they'd lost out as badly.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    TimS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    Iirc, these polls have been surprisingly accurate in the past.
    They have at times, and I think what they capture well is people's assumptions about swingback and minor party performance which may also give a little insight into their own subconscious.

    One thing strongly stands out from this, and it's not the Lab-Con lead. It's "Minor parties: 13%". Bear in mind the SNP and Plaid account for at least 3, probably 4% of that 13. That leaves 8-9% for the Greens and Reform.

    People are, to coin a @MoonRabbit term, Dutch saluting the pollsters at the moment when it comes to Reform. They're expressing their outrage at the government by stating in no uncertain terms that they're going to vote for the loons instead and have no intention of coming back. Except they know deep down, when push comes to shove and they face the realities of FPTP, that they'll come back home. Likewise a not insignificant number of lefties are likely to be flashing their fronts about voting Green, but they should admit to themselves that when faced with Lab or Con in their seat they'll vote Labour.

    Whereas look at Lib Dem. Higher than the polls. That's because it's not being used as a protest statement to pollsters. And people also know that they and their fellow voters will vote tactically come the day.

    So Labour gains a couple of percent from Green and loses it to the Lib Dems but stays roughly neutral vs the polls, and Conservatives bag a bumper tally of pretend Reform votes adding around 6% to their total. Seems pretty plausible to me.

    The combined Lab+LD number in this poll is actually higher than the YouGov one that gave Labour a 25 point lead earlier this week. Overall, the vote shares look pretty similar to the ones that were secured in 1997. If it does end up 43; 31; 13 I would expect a very similar result to back then.

  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 415
    edited March 22
    glw said:

    FPT:

    Leon said:

    Are they?

    This is a genuine question

    I've realised that my belief that Putin always wants Trump to win is based on me hearing a lot of people say this, rather than seeing actual evidence. That is probably my fault for not looking hard enough. I am hoping you may be able to show me it (I am perfectly willing to believe it: I can see arguments why Putin would favour Trump, I can also see arguments where he might favour Biden)

    As far as I know this story has not been retracted, and it claims to be evidence of Kremlin and specifically Putin support to help elect Trump. It doesn't say where the documents were obtained from but they were probably deliberately leaked by a Western intelligence agency that wants Putin's support for Trump publicised.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house
    That's about Putin supporting Trump in 2016.

    Bullies tend to be cowards. Trump's positive thinking is unlikely to convince him for more than a few days that his jail cell isn't a jail cell. He couldn't cope with jail and he knows it.

    Conclusion: he might flee to another country. But which one?

    The biggest lolz would be if it's Russia.
    Brazil is off the list of possibles now.
    How about EL SALVADOR? He could live in Bitcoin City. He has already begun to "soften his stance" on cryptocurrency.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/11/trump-suggests-he-would-not-oppose-bitcoin.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_City

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68377406

    "The president of El Salvador told American conservatives to "put up a fight" against the "global elites" in order to get their country back."
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,557
    ydoethur said:

    CatMan said:

    Speaking of altered England/UK flags:

    "Do you remember the riots of 2010 when Joey Barton and fellow patriots took to the streets in faux outrage about the St George's cross in four different colours..."

    https://x.com/KitCrimes/status/1770919855862026673?s=20



    https://x.com/bowieclone/status/1770947121862074713?s=20



    If it isn't red, it isn't the St George's flag...
    Is it the St G's fleg if a colour-blind fan wears it, ideally when doing something else at the same time that the tabloids love?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,557

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally there's something funny going on.

    It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.

    Does anyone know what this phenomenon is called?

    It's a rare weather event for sure.
    Was nice seeing our kingfishers in the sun this morning (turn out to be a pair who are nesting).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    CatMan said:

    Speaking of altered England/UK flags:

    "Do you remember the riots of 2010 when Joey Barton and fellow patriots took to the streets in faux outrage about the St George's cross in four different colours..."

    https://x.com/KitCrimes/status/1770919855862026673?s=20



    https://x.com/bowieclone/status/1770947121862074713?s=20



    If it isn't red, it isn't the St George's flag...
    Is it the St G's fleg if a colour-blind fan wears it, ideally when doing something else at the same time that the tabloids love?
    That post is beyond saltire.
  • The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    The victims of tainted blood and Post Office scandals are victims who deserve compensation.

    Women who got their state pension at the same age as a man would should be given nothing more than a dictionary if they think they are victims of inequality.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,052

    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    Question then is why do they think that?

    Is it anticipation of swingback, or things improving?

    Or is it that the hole that the Conservatives are in is so deep that we can't really imagine it? (43-31 being roughly what happened in 1997 and therefore as bad a night for the blue team as anyone can really imagine.)
    The Labour landslide in 97 came as a surprise to most people despite the polling evidence.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,081

    I think Khan could well struggle to win. Hall is an unknown candidate to most Londoners while there is a large and highly motivated anti-Khan vote that will come out disproportionately on 2nd May. Many anti-Tory voters will stay at home believing it is impossible the Tory candidate can win.

    I think anti-Tory voters are pretty highly motivated just now.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Here we go again.

    They will have had more Speakers than we've had PMs at this rate.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene: “I do not wish to inflict pain on our conference and throw the House in chaos. But this is basically a warning, and it's time for us…To find a new Speaker of the House.”
    ..

    https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1771210563432927305

    And all because they agreed not to defund the government.

    It's high time for the Republicans to find a new representative for the 14th District of Georgia.
    It does, though, present a possible opportunity.
    The Democrats might offer him a reprieve, in return for a vote on Ukraine aid.

    https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/03/22/congress/dems-could-back-mike-johnson-motion-vacate-house-00148564
    ..House Democrats say Mike Johnson has an option to control his future over a motion to vacate from Marjorie Taylor Green: putting a Ukraine aid package on the floor.

    Several Democrats from across the ideological spectrum said in interviews with POLITICO they would motion to table Greene’s resolution — if it came to a vote — if Johnson put a Ukraine aid package on the House floor for a vote...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally there's something funny going on.

    It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.

    Does anyone know what this phenomenon is called?

    A lie.

    Was the same here, I went out for a short walk, found myself caught in a brisk shower of incredibly cold rain.

    Don't risk it and stay inside providing puns for PB.com is my advice.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236
    This is pretty feeble.

    The cruelest moments for Hur were when the House Democrats made him read the transcript of his own interview out loud.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4549869-hur-biden-special-counsel-report-vitriol/
    Special counsel Robert Hur said that he didn’t expect how cruel critics would be after he released his report on President Biden’s handling of classified documents.
    “I knew it was going to be unpleasant,” he said in an interview with The New Yorker. “But the level of vitriol — it’s hard to know exactly how intense that’s going to be until the rotten fruit is being thrown at you.”
    Hur, who testified before Congress last week, has infuriated both sides of the aisle with his report. Republicans have criticized him for declining to prosecute Biden in his report and Democrats, including Biden, have criticized him for claiming in his report that the president is an elderly man with memory problems based on their interviews.
    Hur told The New Yorker in the piece entitled, “Why Robert Hur Called Biden an ‘Elderly Man with a Poor Memory,’“ that he wrote his report only for Attorney General Merrick Garland, who appointed him to the special counsel position...


    That bolded claim is more than a little disingenuous, since everyone knew the report would be made public.
  • ydoethur said:

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    He turned out to be the phantom menace for Labour.
    The farce awakens would be a good title for this Tory party.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090

    ydoethur said:

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    He turned out to be the phantom menace for Labour.
    The farce awakens would be a good title for this Tory party.
    They seem to be more going Solo.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335

    TimS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    Iirc, these polls have been surprisingly accurate in the past.
    They have at times, and I think what they capture well is people's assumptions about swingback and minor party performance which may also give a little insight into their own subconscious.

    One thing strongly stands out from this, and it's not the Lab-Con lead. It's "Minor parties: 13%". Bear in mind the SNP and Plaid account for at least 3, probably 4% of that 13. That leaves 8-9% for the Greens and Reform.

    People are, to coin a @MoonRabbit term, Dutch saluting the pollsters at the moment when it comes to Reform. They're expressing their outrage at the government by stating in no uncertain terms that they're going to vote for the loons instead and have no intention of coming back. Except they know deep down, when push comes to shove and they face the realities of FPTP, that they'll come back home. Likewise a not insignificant number of lefties are likely to be flashing their fronts about voting Green, but they should admit to themselves that when faced with Lab or Con in their seat they'll vote Labour.

    Whereas look at Lib Dem. Higher than the polls. That's because it's not being used as a protest statement to pollsters. And people also know that they and their fellow voters will vote tactically come the day.

    So Labour gains a couple of percent from Green and loses it to the Lib Dems but stays roughly neutral vs the polls, and Conservatives bag a bumper tally of pretend Reform votes adding around 6% to their total. Seems pretty plausible to me.

    The combined Lab+LD number in this poll is actually higher than the YouGov one that gave Labour a 25 point lead earlier this week. Overall, the vote shares look pretty similar to the ones that were secured in 1997. If it does end up 43; 31; 13 I would expect a very similar result to back then.

    That would leave most parties happy/relieved.

    Labour would have the sort of majority that lets them just get on with it, probably for two terms if they don't stuff it up.

    Conservatives would be badly bloodied, but not fatally so. They have come back from 150-175, and could do so again.

    Lib Dems would (if the distribution of their votes were efficient) be clearly back in the game.

    Someone has to have got the end of the stick with poo on it. Reform? SNP? Oh well, never mind.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019

    isam said:

    According to the betting markets, Susan Hall is more likely to be Mayor of London than the Tories are of winning a majority at the next GE

    A quite remarkable factoid.

    (I don't 'agree' with the markets FWIW, but an amazing stat nevertheless)
    I think it's generally considered to be particularly difficult to estimate the probability of unlikely events.

    They do happen from time to time - consider 2017 UKGE, Denmark winning Euro '92, Headingley 2019 - but is the unlikely event a 1-in-5 or a 1-in-20 kind of unlikely? How do you tell?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,677
    glw said:

    FPT:

    Leon said:

    Are they?

    This is a genuine question

    I've realised that my belief that Putin always wants Trump to win is based on me hearing a lot of people say this, rather than seeing actual evidence. That is probably my fault for not looking hard enough. I am hoping you may be able to show me it (I am perfectly willing to believe it: I can see arguments why Putin would favour Trump, I can also see arguments where he might favour Biden)

    As far as I know this story has not been retracted, and it claims to be evidence of Kremlin and specifically Putin support to help elect Trump. It doesn't say where the documents were obtained from but they were probably deliberately leaked by a Western intelligence agency that wants Putin's support for Trump publicised.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house
    The famous interview with Tucker Carlson showed Putin holds Trump and his followers in considerable contempt. Unlike Elon Musk whom he is very keen to cultivate. But obviously he wants the president to be the guy thwarting US support for Ukraine rather the one who has provided a lot of support.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 478
    TimS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    What was that explosive Deltapoll that Scott just posted with the Conservatives merely 12 points behind Labour?

    It’s not a poll

    https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/1771192248241197248

    In short, respondents are asked what they think the result will be i.e guessing each party share, rather than giving their own vote intention.

    Which means that a lot of people are expecting the Tories to do better than polling.

    problem is that that will encourage Labour voters to go and vote while allowing Tory voters to take the day off and not waste time voting
    Iirc, these polls have been surprisingly accurate in the past.
    They have at times, and I think what they capture well is people's assumptions about swingback and minor party performance which may also give a little insight into their own subconscious.

    One thing strongly stands out from this, and it's not the Lab-Con lead. It's "Minor parties: 13%". Bear in mind the SNP and Plaid account for at least 3, probably 4% of that 13. That leaves 8-9% for the Greens and Reform.

    People are, to coin a @MoonRabbit term, Dutch saluting the pollsters at the moment when it comes to Reform. They're expressing their outrage at the government by stating in no uncertain terms that they're going to vote for the loons instead and have no intention of coming back. Except they know deep down, when push comes to shove and they face the realities of FPTP, that they'll come back home. Likewise a not insignificant number of lefties are likely to be flashing their fronts about voting Green, but they should admit to themselves that when faced with Lab or Con in their seat they'll vote Labour.

    Whereas look at Lib Dem. Higher than the polls. That's because it's not being used as a protest statement to pollsters. And people also know that they and their fellow voters will vote tactically come the day.

    So Labour gains a couple of percent from Green and loses it to the Lib Dems but stays roughly neutral vs the polls, and Conservatives bag a bumper tally of pretend Reform votes adding around 6% to their total. Seems pretty plausible to me.
    I agree with this broadly, but I think it's likely that the Green vote will stay roughly where it is, as their vote is largely concentrated in Labour held seats and there is no risk of letting the Tories in - I think their squeeze is already reflected in the polls, unlike Reform.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anyone claiming any hope for Sunak is a rogue one.

    He turned out to be the phantom menace for Labour.
    The farce awakens would be a good title for this Tory party.
    They seem to be more going Solo.
    Anyone thinking of replacing the Prime Minister needs to do, or do not, there is no try.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,606
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    CatMan said:

    Speaking of altered England/UK flags:

    "Do you remember the riots of 2010 when Joey Barton and fellow patriots took to the streets in faux outrage about the St George's cross in four different colours..."

    https://x.com/KitCrimes/status/1770919855862026673?s=20



    https://x.com/bowieclone/status/1770947121862074713?s=20



    If it isn't red, it isn't the St George's flag...
    Is it the St G's fleg if a colour-blind fan wears it, ideally when doing something else at the same time that the tabloids love?
    That post is beyond saltire.
    That post needs flagging.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,159
    Heathener said:

    Another appalling day on the trains today. I’ll spare you details as they’re boring but just about everything that could go wrong, did. The standing-room only carriage I was in turned into a cauldron of malcontent, some of which was aimed at the Government and the generally shambolic state of things. Certainly SWR are not fit for purpose.

    Unrelatedly I had an experience which has never happened to me before on the British network. On an earlier train this morning the driver forgot to stop at a station. This wasn’t on some chug-chug two carriage train but the high speed GWR line. After a lot of kerfuffle, the driver walked through to the other end of the train and secured permission to reverse the train back up the line to the last station.

    New theory: the same person who writes RSArcher writes Heathener.
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 174
    TimS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
    Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise.
    Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019

    TimS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
    Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise.
    Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
    It does seem bizarre that anyone would think it was a good idea to have such a cliff edge in entitlement, rather than to phase it in, but we have all sorts of similar ugly artifacts all around the tax code and public policy. Does no-one involved in creating public policy give a damn about such arbitrary impacts?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,606

    TimS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
    Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise.
    Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
    I am in my fifties and suspect state pension rules will change adversely at least a couple more times before/if I get any. It may well be means tested away by then. So it is hard to have sympathy on the basis of only one major change per lifetime is plausibly allowed. That has come from nowhere particularly as no parliament can bind its successors.

    The justified complaint is on lack of communication. At a minimum a letter should have been sent out. The fair compensation range for that I would say is in the £250-£2k type range. I think £500 flat compensation and apology for mis communication is about right.
  • TimS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
    Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise.
    Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
    She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.

    How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.

    Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    Do we have any arboretologiati - tree-experts in the house?

    From my balcony I can see two beautiful and unusual trees (amongst many others). Decidedly tall, slender grey elegant trunks, with pendulous hard brown fruit. I’ve tried Google Lens and ChatGPT and a couple of apps and none gets it right (AFAICT)

    It’s NOT a ceiba tree nor a cannonball fruit tree nor a kapok tree nor a calabash

    So, what is it? Maybe PB - unlike all other sources of great wisdom - can pin it down

    Full length




    Close up of the unusual fruit


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,557

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    CatMan said:

    Speaking of altered England/UK flags:

    "Do you remember the riots of 2010 when Joey Barton and fellow patriots took to the streets in faux outrage about the St George's cross in four different colours..."

    https://x.com/KitCrimes/status/1770919855862026673?s=20



    https://x.com/bowieclone/status/1770947121862074713?s=20



    If it isn't red, it isn't the St George's flag...
    Is it the St G's fleg if a colour-blind fan wears it, ideally when doing something else at the same time that the tabloids love?
    That post is beyond saltire.
    That post needs flagging.
    The cross we all have to bear at times.
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 174
    On WASPI women, I blame Lloyd George. When the old age pension was introduced in 1905, the pension age was 70, and hardly anyone qualified. Then it was reduced, and I can remember in the 1960s and 1970s that the Labour Party campaigned to lower the pension age to 65 (and 60 for women). It remains a classic example of bribing voters with their own money.

    Where Lloyd George went wrong was in failing to get cross-party agreement on the percentage of the population who should be entitled to a pension. Whether that might be 3% or 8% or 10% or whatever, I really don't care. But that would have meant that the pension age could have been raised or lowered once a decade or so in order to keep the same proportion of the population covered, without swingeing changes similar to the ones we have seen. How big each pension payment should be is, of course, another problem, but at least the cohort would have been identified and agreed.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,597

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    CatMan said:

    Speaking of altered England/UK flags:

    "Do you remember the riots of 2010 when Joey Barton and fellow patriots took to the streets in faux outrage about the St George's cross in four different colours..."

    https://x.com/KitCrimes/status/1770919855862026673?s=20



    https://x.com/bowieclone/status/1770947121862074713?s=20



    If it isn't red, it isn't the St George's flag...
    Is it the St G's fleg if a colour-blind fan wears it, ideally when doing something else at the same time that the tabloids love?
    That post is beyond saltire.
    That post needs flagging.
    Did it make you cross?
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 174

    TimS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
    Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise.
    Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
    She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.

    How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.

    Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
    Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019

    On WASPI women, I blame Lloyd George. When the old age pension was introduced in 1905, the pension age was 70, and hardly anyone qualified. Then it was reduced, and I can remember in the 1960s and 1970s that the Labour Party campaigned to lower the pension age to 65 (and 60 for women). It remains a classic example of bribing voters with their own money.

    Where Lloyd George went wrong was in failing to get cross-party agreement on the percentage of the population who should be entitled to a pension. Whether that might be 3% or 8% or 10% or whatever, I really don't care. But that would have meant that the pension age could have been raised or lowered once a decade or so in order to keep the same proportion of the population covered, without swingeing changes similar to the ones we have seen. How big each pension payment should be is, of course, another problem, but at least the cohort would have been identified and agreed.

    The obvious thing to do is to tie it to life expectancy. But if we're talking about radical changes I'd also bring in the entitlement to a pension gradually so that you support people to work a bit less intensively when they are older, but not to completely stop working at a specific age.
  • TimS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
    Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise.
    Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
    She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.

    How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.

    Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
    Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
    You had a retirement age of 66.
    She had a retirement age of 66.

    She was treated the same as you.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019

    TimS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
    Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise.
    Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
    She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.

    How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.

    Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
    Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
    You had a retirement age of 66.
    She had a retirement age of 66.

    She was treated the same as you.
    There will have been people who, if they had been born just a few hours earlier, they would have received an extra six years of state pension.

    Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
  • On WASPI women, I blame Lloyd George. When the old age pension was introduced in 1905, the pension age was 70, and hardly anyone qualified. Then it was reduced, and I can remember in the 1960s and 1970s that the Labour Party campaigned to lower the pension age to 65 (and 60 for women). It remains a classic example of bribing voters with their own money.

    Where Lloyd George went wrong was in failing to get cross-party agreement on the percentage of the population who should be entitled to a pension. Whether that might be 3% or 8% or 10% or whatever, I really don't care. But that would have meant that the pension age could have been raised or lowered once a decade or so in order to keep the same proportion of the population covered, without swingeing changes similar to the ones we have seen. How big each pension payment should be is, of course, another problem, but at least the cohort would have been identified and agreed.

    The obvious thing to do is to tie it to life expectancy. But if we're talking about radical changes I'd also bring in the entitlement to a pension gradually so that you support people to work a bit less intensively when they are older, but not to completely stop working at a specific age.
    The irony is that if it were tied to life expectancy then men would retire before women.

    There's certainly no reason why retiring at the same age should be objectionable.
  • TimS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
    Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise.
    Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
    She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.

    How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.

    Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
    Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
    You had a retirement age of 66.
    She had a retirement age of 66.

    She was treated the same as you.
    There will have been people who, if they had been born just a few hours earlier, they would have received an extra six years of state pension.

    Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
    Yes, the people who got an extra six years got something they shouldn't have got, but there's always going to be a cut-off when inequalities are abolished.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    These women might get some money eventually, but it'll almost certainly involve a glacially slow series of court cases. It doesn't look like the current Government has any intention of paying up, and nor, I suspect, will the next one. The cost looks very steep and there's only so many times over they can spend the VAT on private school fees.
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 174

    TimS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.

    I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.

    Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
    To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
    Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise.
    Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
    She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.

    How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.

    Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
    Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
    You had a retirement age of 66.
    She had a retirement age of 66.

    She was treated the same as you.
    No. She made reasonable plans to draw her pension at 60, as she had been told she could do. Then her entitlement changed. Then it changed again. That's harsh. I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened, but the way it has been implemented has been unreasonable. Obviously, "Put not your faith in Princes" and all that, but if the State says that something is going to happen, then they might be allowed to change their mind once, but not twice.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,597

    On WASPI women, I blame Lloyd George. When the old age pension was introduced in 1905, the pension age was 70, and hardly anyone qualified. Then it was reduced, and I can remember in the 1960s and 1970s that the Labour Party campaigned to lower the pension age to 65 (and 60 for women). It remains a classic example of bribing voters with their own money.

    Where Lloyd George went wrong was in failing to get cross-party agreement on the percentage of the population who should be entitled to a pension. Whether that might be 3% or 8% or 10% or whatever, I really don't care. But that would have meant that the pension age could have been raised or lowered once a decade or so in order to keep the same proportion of the population covered, without swingeing changes similar to the ones we have seen. How big each pension payment should be is, of course, another problem, but at least the cohort would have been identified and agreed.

    The obvious thing to do is to tie it to life expectancy. But if we're talking about radical changes I'd also bring in the entitlement to a pension gradually so that you support people to work a bit less intensively when they are older, but not to completely stop working at a specific age.
    Longer holiday entitlements. Instead of pootling about with UBI, give people, say, 50-60 days holiday per year.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    The fruit is identical to that of Aspidosperma Spruceanum found in Colombia



    But Wiki insists this is a flowering plant not a tree. Can a tree be a flowering plant?

    Come on, this is exciting
Sign In or Register to comment.