Labour’s vote is becoming rather efficient – politicalbetting.com

System

Labour’s vote is becoming rather efficient – politicalbetting.com

New: latest polling shows Labour could barely increase its share of the vote compared to Corbyn 2017 – but win a huge majority. The party's vote is getting more "efficient", losing voters in inner cities and gaining in suburbs and towns. ??@Smyth_Chris https://t.co/eOOjrYfE9s

Read the full story here

DavidL

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

Mexicanpete

A Labour landslide in seats but an inferior vote total to 2017 is a massive loss in BJOWORLD.

Starmer fans please explain your man's failure.

Andy_JS

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

The Labour vote actually went down slightly in a lot of their safest seats in 1997 (in absolute numbers, not share), because turnout fell from 78% to 71% and the drop was bigger in those types of seats.

BatteryCorrectHorse

@TheScreamingEagles when you make a new thread, why not provide a link to it in the old thread?

Heathener

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

BartholomewRoberts

Hopefully this means that the next Labour government will consider the needs and interests of those of us who live and work and drive in suburban towns rather than just being obsessed with the much smaller percentage who cycle or take public transport, that don't determine the marginals but can make up their safe vote and membership.

DavidL

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

BartholomewRoberts

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

I'm not a bookie but I'd reckon it's about 50/50 whether they get below or above 30%.

If both were given as evens and I had a free bet to place, I'd be torn but probably just back under 30% rather than over.

Luckyguy1983

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

That's true, and I'm not a psephologist, but an election where disgusted politically-homeless Tory supporters stay at home, and one where they flood to Reform would surely be two different beasts.

DavidL

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

I'm not a bookie but I'd reckon it's about 50/50 whether they get below or above 30%.

If both were given as evens and I had a free bet to place, I'd be torn but probably just back under 30% rather than over.

I would probably go the other way but I agree its likely to be close. But @Heathener is so sure it will be under 30 I am sure she can offer something more tempting than evens!

Nigelb

Great brand the Tories have.

West Midlands mayor distances himself from Tories, urging voters to ‘distinguish between party and me’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/06/west-midlands-mayor-distances-himself-from-tories-urging-voters-to-distinguish-between-party-and-me

BartholomewRoberts

Stuartinromford said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2024/apr/06/why-has-15-minute-city-taken-off-paris-toxic-idea-uk-carlos-moreno

I've not paid much attention to the 15 minute city concept but when you read this you think what's not to like? I think it's already happening to some extent, there's a lot more work and social activity in a short walkable space in our neighbourhood than there used to be. I'd like to see this development continue. The traditional village is the ideal human settlement. It's quite a conservative idea in many ways, odd that people on the right resist it; it makes me wonder if there is a corporate AstroTurf element to the opposition.

A lot of it is AstroTurf, but it only works by tapping into a couple of genuine fears.

One is that geometry hates cars and cars kill the concept. If you have enough road and parking space for most adults to drive regularly, homes, businesses and nice things end up too far apart. Hence the doom loop that leads to most modern British developments- provide sufficient space for cars and everyone ends up depending on them. To make the sort of walkable communities (that price signals show that people want to live in), there isn't really space for lots of cars.

Similarly, the standard British nice house (detached, two stories, largeish garden, double garage) is also pretty space hungry. To make 15 minutes work, you do need more terraces, mid rise and flats. Whilst they don't have to be crummy, too many of them have been shabbily built on the past.

So it's a concept that works better on practice than in theory. It also says to the generation that went all-in on cars "you rather messed up, and the freedom you went for isn't so desirable after all." Even if you don't say that bit out loud, it's strongly implied. My experience is that boomers (for it is they) don't like that at all.

(See also the "my car is essential and doesn't hurt anyone" stuff that accompanied ULEZ.)

You cherry pick the price signals you're interested in.

The most consistent price signal of all, in basically every town, city, village etc in the country is that people prefer detached homes over semi detached and semis over terraces.

I have no qualms with 15 minute idea if it's about additions rather than barriers or subtraction.

If you want to positively say let's add extra services, and you can afford it, what's not to like. But if it's allowed to become an excuse for NIMBYs to block developments then it's just hateful nonsense.

algarkirk

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.

Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.

BartholomewRoberts

Luckyguy1983 said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

That's true, and I'm not a psephologist, but an election where disgusted politically-homeless Tory supporters stay at home, and one where they flood to Reform would surely be two different beasts.

They sound exactly the same to me.

There is no practical difference between not voting, spoiling your ballot, or voting Reform.

An election where politically homeless Tories stay at home, and one where they vote Labour or Lib Dem is two very different beasts.

DavidL

Andy_JS said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

The Labour vote actually went down slightly in a lot of their safest seats in 1997 (in absolute numbers, not share), because turnout fell from 78% to 71% and the drop was bigger in those types of seats.

Yes, its a point that is often overlooked. People focus on the voters Major got out to stop Kinnock in 1992 who didn't vote because they did not find Blair nearly as scary but there were a lot of Labour lefties, @bigjohnowls style, who also had something of an enthusiasm gap.

DecrepiterJohnL

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

@TheScreamingEagles when you make a new thread, why not provide a link to it in the old thread?

One thing about new threads is they do not show up on Vanilla until someone has made the first comment, so you have to go and look for them at the main politicalbetting.com interface.

DavidL

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

@TheScreamingEagles when you make a new thread, why not provide a link to it in the old thread?

One thing about new threads is they do not show up on Vanilla until someone has made the first comment, so you have to go and look for them at the main politicalbetting.com interface.

Excuses, excuses. I won. Let's just accept that fact 😉

DecrepiterJohnL

The trouble with Labour's vote becoming more efficient is that last time this is what convinced the Cameron-era CCHQ that Labour must somehow be cheating to elect MPs with fewer votes than Tory MPs, so it was nothing less than a democratic imperative that a blue thumb be placed on the scale with various gerrymandering schemes such as redrawn constituencies and photo ID.

Stuartinromford

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

I'm not a bookie but I'd reckon it's about 50/50 whether they get below or above 30%.

If both were given as evens and I had a free bet to place, I'd be torn but probably just back under 30% rather than over.

I would probably go the other way but I agree its likely to be close. But @Heathener is so sure it will be under 30 I am sure she can offer something more tempting than evens!

Major got 30.7 percent in 1997. Whilst the consequences of Sunak doing worse than that seem crazy, what is the mechanism by which Rishi does better?

Malmesbury

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stuartinromford said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2024/apr/06/why-has-15-minute-city-taken-off-paris-toxic-idea-uk-carlos-moreno

I've not paid much attention to the 15 minute city concept but when you read this you think what's not to like? I think it's already happening to some extent, there's a lot more work and social activity in a short walkable space in our neighbourhood than there used to be. I'd like to see this development continue. The traditional village is the ideal human settlement. It's quite a conservative idea in many ways, odd that people on the right resist it; it makes me wonder if there is a corporate AstroTurf element to the opposition.

A lot of it is AstroTurf, but it only works by tapping into a couple of genuine fears.

One is that geometry hates cars and cars kill the concept. If you have enough road and parking space for most adults to drive regularly, homes, businesses and nice things end up too far apart. Hence the doom loop that leads to most modern British developments- provide sufficient space for cars and everyone ends up depending on them. To make the sort of walkable communities (that price signals show that people want to live in), there isn't really space for lots of cars.

Similarly, the standard British nice house (detached, two stories, largeish garden, double garage) is also pretty space hungry. To make 15 minutes work, you do need more terraces, mid rise and flats. Whilst they don't have to be crummy, too many of them have been shabbily built on the past.

So it's a concept that works better on practice than in theory. It also says to the generation that went all-in on cars "you rather messed up, and the freedom you went for isn't so desirable after all." Even if you don't say that bit out loud, it's strongly implied. My experience is that boomers (for it is they) don't like that at all.

(See also the "my car is essential and doesn't hurt anyone" stuff that accompanied ULEZ.)

You cherry pick the price signals you're interested in.

The most consistent price signal of all, in basically every town, city, village etc in the country is that people prefer detached homes over semi detached and semis over terraces.

I have no qualms with 15 minute idea if it's about additions rather than barriers or subtraction.

If you want to positively say let's add extra services, and you can afford it, what's not to like. But if it's allowed to become an excuse for NIMBYs to block developments then it's just hateful nonsense.

The real problem is that it’s seen as a cost cutting measure. Get rid of car parking, cars, road maintenance. Not spend on the replacements and rework.

Abingdon council did this and then wondered why the centre collapsed as a shopping area. But then they were barking mad.

In Oxford, when they started the Park & Ride, they got upset when it became clear that security was required to stop it being the Park & Steal.

Alanbrooke

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

That's true, and I'm not a psephologist, but an election where disgusted politically-homeless Tory supporters stay at home, and one where they flood to Reform would surely be two different beasts.

They sound exactly the same to me.

There is no practical difference between not voting, spoiling your ballot, or voting Reform.

An election where politically homeless Tories stay at home, and one where they vote Labour or Lib Dem is two very different beasts.

Theres no difference between voting Sunak or Starmer. Vote Starmer and cut our the middle man.

BartholomewRoberts

algarkirk said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.

Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.

Plus every voter you win over from your rival is worth two voters that you lose to apathy/extremists.

DavidL

Stuartinromford said:

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

I'm not a bookie but I'd reckon it's about 50/50 whether they get below or above 30%.

If both were given as evens and I had a free bet to place, I'd be torn but probably just back under 30% rather than over.

I would probably go the other way but I agree its likely to be close. But @Heathener is so sure it will be under 30 I am sure she can offer something more tempting than evens!

Major got 30.7 percent in 1997. Whilst the consequences of Sunak doing worse than that seem crazy, what is the mechanism by which Rishi does better?

I agree with @BartholomewRoberts that it is likely to be close either way. I think that the country has got rather more Conservative than it was in 1997. I also think that the same enthusiasm gap I mentioned to @Andy_JS is going to apply to Starmer. A proportion of his natural support just won't feel enthused about voting for him in seats that Labour are going to win comfortably and which don't have the kick the Tory barstewards out element. I think that the Reform vote is being massively overstated, as is the WNV element.

Absolutely none of this is going to stop a comfortable Starmer victory but I would be tempted to have a wee flutter on the 30% mark if @Heathener is so minded and willing to offer better than evens.

Heathener

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

I'm not a bookie but I'd reckon it's about 50/50 whether they get below or above 30%.

If both were given as evens and I had a free bet to place, I'd be torn but probably just back under 30% rather than over.

Yep.

@DavidL I’m not sure they will poll below 30% but I ‘think’ they will. Maybe 60-40 or 70-30 confident of it.

I’m working from two bases in fact.

The first is that their current polling is appalling. Far worse than in the run up to 1997: they are about 7-9% below their position then for the concomitant period, at a glance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

And the second follows on from that, which is that in the actual 1997 election they polled 30.7%. I am pretty sure they are a lot more unpopular this time.

Ergo, I’d say it’s better than Evens that they poll below 30% in the real deal.

BartholomewRoberts

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The trouble with Labour's vote becoming more efficient is that last time this is what convinced the Cameron-era CCHQ that Labour must somehow be cheating to elect MPs with fewer votes than Tory MPs, so it was nothing less than a democratic imperative that a blue thumb be placed on the scale with various gerrymandering schemes such as redrawn constituencies and photo ID.

Give over.

The constituencies were changed to being of equal size and are done by an impartial body.

As for ID, that was also first demanded not by any Party but the Electoral Commission in 2012, in response to not one but multiple electoral problems.

The greater scandal is not ID, which is required in almost every democracy on the planet, but that nothing has been done about postal electoral fraud.

Heathener

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

I'm not a bookie but I'd reckon it's about 50/50 whether they get below or above 30%.

If both were given as evens and I had a free bet to place, I'd be torn but probably just back under 30% rather than over.

I would probably go the other way but I agree its likely to be close. But @Heathener is so sure it will be under 30 I am sure she can offer something more tempting than evens!

Major got 30.7 percent in 1997. Whilst the consequences of Sunak doing worse than that seem crazy, what is the mechanism by which Rishi does better?

Absolutely none of this is going to stop a comfortable Starmer victory but I would be tempted to have a wee flutter on the 30% mark if @Heathener is so minded and willing to offer better than evens.

Sorry I’m not a bookie. And I did once have a wager on here with someone, won it, and they never paid up.

(No naming and shaming)

DavidL

Heathener said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

I'm not a bookie but I'd reckon it's about 50/50 whether they get below or above 30%.

If both were given as evens and I had a free bet to place, I'd be torn but probably just back under 30% rather than over.

Yep.

@DavidL I’m not sure they will poll below 30% but I ‘think’ they will. Maybe 60-40 or 70-30 confident of it.

I’m working from two bases in fact.

The first is that their current polling is appalling. Far worse than in the run up to 1997: they are about 7-9% below their position then for the concomitant period, at a glance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

And the second follows on from that, which is that in the actual 1997 election they polled 30.7%. I am pretty sure they are a lot more unpopular this time.

Ergo, I’d say it’s better than Evens that they poll below 30% in the real deal.

So would you offer me 2:1? Happy to have winnings to the site if you like?

noneoftheabove

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The trouble with Labour's vote becoming more efficient is that last time this is what convinced the Cameron-era CCHQ that Labour must somehow be cheating to elect MPs with fewer votes than Tory MPs, so it was nothing less than a democratic imperative that a blue thumb be placed on the scale with various gerrymandering schemes such as redrawn constituencies and photo ID.

Give over.

The constituencies were changed to being of equal size and are done by an impartial body.

As for ID, that was also first demanded not by any Party but the Electoral Commission in 2012, in response to not one but multiple electoral problems.

The greater scandal is not ID, which is required in almost every democracy on the planet, but that nothing has been done about postal electoral fraud.

Only lefties like JRM would possibly consider voter ID a mild form of gerrymandering.

Nigelb

Affordable EVs are not all that far off.

This is with current technology, and manufacturing plans.

Nissan exec says next-gen EVs will cost 30% less to make
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nissan-exec-says-next-gen-evs-will-cost-30-less-to-make-192152066.html?guccounter=1

BartholomewRoberts

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The trouble with Labour's vote becoming more efficient is that last time this is what convinced the Cameron-era CCHQ that Labour must somehow be cheating to elect MPs with fewer votes than Tory MPs, so it was nothing less than a democratic imperative that a blue thumb be placed on the scale with various gerrymandering schemes such as redrawn constituencies and photo ID.

Give over.

The constituencies were changed to being of equal size and are done by an impartial body.

As for ID, that was also first demanded not by any Party but the Electoral Commission in 2012, in response to not one but multiple electoral problems.

The greater scandal is not ID, which is required in almost every democracy on the planet, but that nothing has been done about postal electoral fraud.

Only lefties like JRM would possibly consider voter ID a mild form of gerrymandering.

Mogg is a nutter. You know that, I know that, so why use him as a baseline?

And he was on the backbenches when the Electoral Commission said ID should be introduced and the government adopted that advice after the report.

Cameron and Mogg aren't in the same century let alone the same ballpark.

Heathener

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

I'm not a bookie but I'd reckon it's about 50/50 whether they get below or above 30%.

If both were given as evens and I had a free bet to place, I'd be torn but probably just back under 30% rather than over.

Yep.

@DavidL I’m not sure they will poll below 30% but I ‘think’ they will. Maybe 60-40 or 70-30 confident of it.

I’m working from two bases in fact.

The first is that their current polling is appalling. Far worse than in the run up to 1997: they are about 7-9% below their position then for the concomitant period, at a glance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

And the second follows on from that, which is that in the actual 1997 election they polled 30.7%. I am pretty sure they are a lot more unpopular this time.

Ergo, I’d say it’s better than Evens that they poll below 30% in the real deal.

So would you offer me 2:1? Happy to have winnings to the site if you like?

See the message I posted above yours

And just so we’re clear, this isn’t cowardice on my part. I bet with proper bookies where I know my winnings will be paid.

I’d also just like, gently, to mention that simply because one proffers a point of view doesn’t mean there has to be a response to back it up with an actual bet, which feels a bit too machismo to me.

DavidL

Heathener said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

I'm not a bookie but I'd reckon it's about 50/50 whether they get below or above 30%.

If both were given as evens and I had a free bet to place, I'd be torn but probably just back under 30% rather than over.

I would probably go the other way but I agree its likely to be close. But @Heathener is so sure it will be under 30 I am sure she can offer something more tempting than evens!

Major got 30.7 percent in 1997. Whilst the consequences of Sunak doing worse than that seem crazy, what is the mechanism by which Rishi does better?

Absolutely none of this is going to stop a comfortable Starmer victory but I would be tempted to have a wee flutter on the 30% mark if @Heathener is so minded and willing to offer better than evens.

Sorry I’m not a bookie. And I did once have a wager on here with someone, won it, and they never paid up.

(No naming and shaming)

Fair enough. I think that it is a genuinely interesting question. I am not dismissing your arguments at all. I would accept your point that the Tories are doing worse but I also think that Starmer Reeves are nowhere near as effective as Blair Brown. On the other hand Major was a vastly superior politician than Sunak is. Could go either way.

BartholomewRoberts

Nigelb said:

Affordable EVs are not all that far off.

This is with current technology, and manufacturing plans.

Nissan exec says next-gen EVs will cost 30% less to make
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nissan-exec-says-next-gen-evs-will-cost-30-less-to-make-192152066.html?guccounter=1

The problem is they need to be OTR 50% cheaper to eliminate petrol.

I bought my new car, brand new from a showroom, for £13k OTR. Petrol self charging hybrid, I'm getting close to 60 mpg from it so it's not costing much to run either.

I would be delighted to see EVs that cheap, but w aren't there yet.

Nigelb

It’s not just MTG.
Seems to be a new MAGA meme.

Rudy says God is sending a message by causing earthquakes in communist states like NY and CA.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1776425337590587725

Carnyx

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/06/west-midlands-mayor-distances-himself-from-tories-urging-voters-to-distinguish-between-party-and-me

'In an interview with the Observer, Street said he was busy promoting what he calls “Brand Andy, the individual” rather than operating under his party’s colours, in a contest which could affect whether Rishi Sunak survives as prime minister and leads the Tories into the next general election.

“I am proud to be a Conservative but it has always been what I call ‘brand Andy’ – one individual,” he said during a day of campaigning before the 2 May poll.'

West Mids equivalent of the Ruth Davidson Party.

DecrepiterJohnL

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The trouble with Labour's vote becoming more efficient is that last time this is what convinced the Cameron-era CCHQ that Labour must somehow be cheating to elect MPs with fewer votes than Tory MPs, so it was nothing less than a democratic imperative that a blue thumb be placed on the scale with various gerrymandering schemes such as redrawn constituencies and photo ID.

Give over.

The constituencies were changed to being of equal size and are done by an impartial body.

As for ID, that was also first demanded not by any Party but the Electoral Commission in 2012, in response to not one but multiple electoral problems.

The greater scandal is not ID, which is required in almost every democracy on the planet, but that nothing has been done about postal electoral fraud.

The constituencies were changed to equal size but you have to admire the craft that went before it and that has been adopted by the American Republican Party, no shrinking violets on the gerrymandering front.

Step 1, purge rolls and make registration more difficult. This makes urban populations seem smaller and suburban and rural populations seem bigger because the latter are more stable with less churn.

Step 2, now have a strictly impartial body redraw constituencies to equal electoral roll (not population) size, which after step 1 means rural and suburban areas get more seats and urban areas fewer. By happy coincidence, this means more seats in Conservative-leaning areas and fewer seats in Labour-leaning areas.

Step 3, the cherry on the cake is to reduce the number of seats by 50. This means that *every* constituency has to be redrawn (see step 2).

Now, in practice, things did not quite go according to plan with the seat reduction being dropped and the registration kerfuffle probably costing Cameron the Brexit referendum and his premiership.

On photo ID, it has been confirmed this was intended as a Tory gerrymander.

On postal votes, government inactivity tells us that by-and-large, Conservatives are top granny farmers (as it is known in the trade).

Carnyx

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The trouble with Labour's vote becoming more efficient is that last time this is what convinced the Cameron-era CCHQ that Labour must somehow be cheating to elect MPs with fewer votes than Tory MPs, so it was nothing less than a democratic imperative that a blue thumb be placed on the scale with various gerrymandering schemes such as redrawn constituencies and photo ID.

Give over.

The constituencies were changed to being of equal size and are done by an impartial body.

As for ID, that was also first demanded not by any Party but the Electoral Commission in 2012, in response to not one but multiple electoral problems.

The greater scandal is not ID, which is required in almost every democracy on the planet, but that nothing has been done about postal electoral fraud.

The constituencies were changed to equal size but you have to admire the craft that went before it and that has been adopted by the American Republican Party, no shrinking violets on the gerrymandering front.

Step 1, purge rolls and make registration more difficult. This makes urban populations seem smaller and suburban and rural populations seem bigger because the latter are more stable with less churn.

Step 2, now have a strictly impartial body redraw constituencies to equal electoral roll (not population) size, which after step 1 means rural and suburban areas get more seats and urban areas fewer. By happy coincidence, this means more seats in Conservative-leaning areas and fewer seats in Labour-leaning areas.

Step 3, the cherry on the cake is to reduce the number of seats by 50. This means that *every* constituency has to be redrawn (see step 2).

Now, in practice, things did not quite go according to plan with the seat reduction being dropped and the registration kerfuffle probably costing Cameron the Brexit referendum and his premiership.

On photo ID, it has been confirmed this was intended as a Tory gerrymander.

On postal votes, government inactivity tells us that by-and-large, Conservatives are top granny farmers (as it is known in the trade).

Not quite inactivity on postal votes, surely? The giving the vote to people who don't live here, and the proposals for party activists to do postal voting for these immigrants into other countries, is another form of granny farming, and granddad farming too, insofar as many are retirees.

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/06/west-midlands-mayor-distances-himself-from-tories-urging-voters-to-distinguish-between-party-and-me

'In an interview with the Observer, Street said he was busy promoting what he calls “Brand Andy, the individual” rather than operating under his party’s colours, in a contest which could affect whether Rishi Sunak survives as prime minister and leads the Tories into the next general election.

“I am proud to be a Conservative but it has always been what I call ‘brand Andy’ – one individual,” he said during a day of campaigning before the 2 May poll.'

West Mids equivalent of the Ruth Davidson Party.

CoughAndyBurnhamcough.

ydoethur

Competition in the airline industry seems to be getting vicious.

Heathrow Airport: Two planes collide
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68749072

williamglenn

Nigelb said:

It’s not just MTG.
Seems to be a new MAGA meme.

Rudy says God is sending a message by causing earthquakes in communist states like NY and CA.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1776425337590587725

Make America God-fearing Again

BartholomewRoberts

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The trouble with Labour's vote becoming more efficient is that last time this is what convinced the Cameron-era CCHQ that Labour must somehow be cheating to elect MPs with fewer votes than Tory MPs, so it was nothing less than a democratic imperative that a blue thumb be placed on the scale with various gerrymandering schemes such as redrawn constituencies and photo ID.

Give over.

The constituencies were changed to being of equal size and are done by an impartial body.

As for ID, that was also first demanded not by any Party but the Electoral Commission in 2012, in response to not one but multiple electoral problems.

The greater scandal is not ID, which is required in almost every democracy on the planet, but that nothing has been done about postal electoral fraud.

The constituencies were changed to equal size but you have to admire the craft that went before it and that has been adopted by the American Republican Party, no shrinking violets on the gerrymandering front.

Step 1, purge rolls and make registration more difficult. This makes urban populations seem smaller and suburban and rural populations seem bigger because the latter are more stable with less churn.

Step 2, now have a strictly impartial body redraw constituencies to equal electoral roll (not population) size, which after step 1 means rural and suburban areas get more seats and urban areas fewer. By happy coincidence, this means more seats in Conservative-leaning areas and fewer seats in Labour-leaning areas.

Step 3, the cherry on the cake is to reduce the number of seats by 50. This means that *every* constituency has to be redrawn (see step 2).

Now, in practice, things did not quite go according to plan with the seat reduction being dropped and the registration kerfuffle probably costing Cameron the Brexit referendum and his premiership.

On photo ID, it has been confirmed this was intended as a Tory gerrymander.

On postal votes, government inactivity tells us that by-and-large, Conservatives are top granny farmers (as it is known in the trade).

1. Purging rolls removed duplicates, it didn't purge people who were real. I was in the people who were purged myself, but only at my old address, at my new address I wasn't purged. Why should people who've moved, be counted twice?

2. What's wrong with this? The electoral roll is the only up to date information about electoral size.

3. Again what's wrong with this? Not that it happened.

On photo ID no that has not been confirmed. Nobody has confirmed Cameron intended it as a gerrymander. Cameron adopted it following Electoral Commission advice that was publicly posted by the independent Electoral Commission.

Criticising Cameron based upon the ravings of JRM is like criticising Starmer or Blair based upon the ravings of Corbyn, McDonnell, Abott or Long-Bailey.

Malmesbury

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

williamglenn

Malmesbury said:

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

Couldn't you pose for him outside the ULEZ zone?

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/06/west-midlands-mayor-distances-himself-from-tories-urging-voters-to-distinguish-between-party-and-me

'In an interview with the Observer, Street said he was busy promoting what he calls “Brand Andy, the individual” rather than operating under his party’s colours, in a contest which could affect whether Rishi Sunak survives as prime minister and leads the Tories into the next general election.

“I am proud to be a Conservative but it has always been what I call ‘brand Andy’ – one individual,” he said during a day of campaigning before the 2 May poll.'

West Mids equivalent of the Ruth Davidson Party.

CoughAndyBurnhamcough.

Well, they get extra votes off each other's campaign ...

TimS

Malmesbury said:

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

4) get a car that doesn’t emit dangerous levels of toxic fumes?

rottenborough

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

BartholomewRoberts

rottenborough said:

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

A deal between Sunak and Tice/Farage will make no difference at all to the next election result and may even be counterproductive.

Malmesbury

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Affordable EVs are not all that far off.

This is with current technology, and manufacturing plans.

Nissan exec says next-gen EVs will cost 30% less to make
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nissan-exec-says-next-gen-evs-will-cost-30-less-to-make-192152066.html?guccounter=1

The problem is they need to be OTR 50% cheaper to eliminate petrol.

I bought my new car, brand new from a showroom, for £13k OTR. Petrol self charging hybrid, I'm getting close to 60 mpg from it so it's not costing much to run either.

I would be delighted to see EVs that cheap, but w aren't there yet.

We are very early in the ZEV story. By comparison the ICE technology space has been heavily mined out for lower cost and higher efficiency.

So we can expect ZEV costs to continue to fall. The ultimate floor to their price will be somewhere below ICE - mechanically simpler. It’s pretty much all battery costs at the moment that makes the price.

One reason that higher priced EVs have been pushed is that is where the profit is, per unit of battery capacity. Using the same batteries to make small cars or large lorries would mean less profit.

TimS

rottenborough said:

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

The glorious part of that is it helps to lose the blue wall. In any case I sense Farage scents blood. What influence would he have if the Tories struggle over the line to form a government (or lose narrowly) and Reform have no seats?

OldKingCole

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The trouble with Labour's vote becoming more efficient is that last time this is what convinced the Cameron-era CCHQ that Labour must somehow be cheating to elect MPs with fewer votes than Tory MPs, so it was nothing less than a democratic imperative that a blue thumb be placed on the scale with various gerrymandering schemes such as redrawn constituencies and photo ID.

Give over.

The constituencies were changed to being of equal size and are done by an impartial body.

As for ID, that was also first demanded not by any Party but the Electoral Commission in 2012, in response to not one but multiple electoral problems.

The greater scandal is not ID, which is required in almost every democracy on the planet, but that nothing has been done about postal electoral fraud.

Only lefties like JRM would possibly consider voter ID a mild form of gerrymandering.

Mogg is a nutter. You know that, I know that, so why use him as a baseline?

And he was on the backbenches when the Electoral Commission said ID should be introduced and the government adopted that advice after the report.

Cameron and Mogg aren't in the same century let alone the same ballpark.

I’ve no ‘in principle’ problem with voter ID, or with constituencies of, more or less, equal sizes. What I do have a problem with is voter ID systems which are loaded against one sector of the community…… in this case the young. And equal-sized constituencies should be based on population, not on those who voted last time.
And anyway I think that FPTP is a primitive system, inappropriate for a modern democracy.

BartholomewRoberts

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Affordable EVs are not all that far off.

This is with current technology, and manufacturing plans.

Nissan exec says next-gen EVs will cost 30% less to make
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nissan-exec-says-next-gen-evs-will-cost-30-less-to-make-192152066.html?guccounter=1

The problem is they need to be OTR 50% cheaper to eliminate petrol.

I bought my new car, brand new from a showroom, for £13k OTR. Petrol self charging hybrid, I'm getting close to 60 mpg from it so it's not costing much to run either.

I would be delighted to see EVs that cheap, but w aren't there yet.

We are very early in the ZEV story. By comparison the ICE technology space has been heavily mined out for lower cost and higher efficiency.

So we can expect ZEV costs to continue to fall. The ultimate floor to their price will be somewhere below ICE - mechanically simpler. It’s pretty much all battery costs at the moment that makes the price.

One reason that higher priced EVs have been pushed is that is where the profit is, per unit of battery capacity. Using the same batteries to make small cars or large lorries would mean less profit.

Indeed I agree that long term I am pretty certain that ICE is future history already.

But we aren't there yet cost-wise and people who want to act like we are aren't in touch with the real world. We will be, but we aren't there yet.

We need to reach a state whereby inflation-adjusted a new EV is available from about £12-13k OTR, like new ICE vehicles are.

We'll get there, but it'll take some time.

Future planning by ensuring eg new builds have off road parking wherever possible so can charge at home rather than at a station is a good idea.

SeaShantyIrish2

Nigelb said:

It’s not just MTG.
Seems to be a new MAGA meme.

Rudy says God is sending a message by causing earthquakes in communist states like NY and CA.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1776425337590587725

Used to be that such blasphemies were in province of RELIGIOUS nutbags/hypocrites such as Jerry Falwell the Elder, though there WAS strong political dimension to his God-bothering.

NOW they are fodder for (im)purely POLITICAL nutbags/hypocrites like Trump & Giuliani, whose "religion" consist of worshiping their own withered weenies.

With Jerry Falwell the Younger, occupying middle-ground (in one sense anyway) as a Trump-sucking pseudo moralists who is (allegedly) into what is (reportedly) the active "cuck" lifestyle.

boulay

Malmesbury said:

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

Does he drive an old Citroen Picasso?

Malmesbury

TimS said:

Malmesbury said:

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

4) get a car that doesn’t emit dangerous levels of toxic fumes?

5) buy a much bigger vehicle


Buses, coaches and minibuses over 5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) do not need to pay the ULEZ charge. The vehicle types listed below over 3.5 tonnes GVW also do not need to pay the ULEZ charge. These vehicle will need to pay the London-wide LEZ charge if they do not meet the LEZ emissions standards.

HGVs
Lorries
Vans
Motor caravans
Motorised horseboxes
Breakdown and recovery vehicles
Snow ploughs
Gritters
Refuse collection vehicles
Road sweepers
Concrete mixers
Fire engines
Tippers
Removal lorries
Other specialist vehicles


I wonder if you don’t pay ULEZ in a Saracen APC?

IIRC there were studies that suggested that large vehicles emitted a larger proportion of pollution than their number of fuel consumption would suggest.

Think big truck with an ancient diesel engine that’s been flogged hard by its drivers.

Malmesbury

boulay said:

Malmesbury said:

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

Does he drive an old Citroen Picasso?

Dunno. If he is like most tradesmen, he has an ancient banger.

ydoethur

Malmesbury said:

TimS said:

Malmesbury said:

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

4) get a car that doesn’t emit dangerous levels of toxic fumes?

5) buy a much bigger vehicle


Buses, coaches and minibuses over 5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) do not need to pay the ULEZ charge. The vehicle types listed below over 3.5 tonnes GVW also do not need to pay the ULEZ charge. These vehicle will need to pay the London-wide LEZ charge if they do not meet the LEZ emissions standards.

HGVs
Lorries
Vans
Motor caravans
Motorised horseboxes
Breakdown and recovery vehicles
Snow ploughs
Gritters
Refuse collection vehicles
Road sweepers
Concrete mixers
Fire engines
Tippers
Removal lorries
Other specialist vehicles


I wonder if you haven’t pay ULEZ in a Saracen APC?

IIRC there were studies that suggested that large vehicles emitted a larger proportion of pollution than their number of fuel consumption would suggest.

Think big truck with an ancient diesel engine that’s been flogged hard by its drivers.

He's not that bi...oh,you said *truck*.

viewcode

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

@TheScreamingEagles when you make a new thread, why not provide a link to it in the old thread?

If you read the site on https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/06/labours-vote-is-becoming-rather-efficient/

- instead of
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/12067/labour-s-vote-is-becoming-rather-efficient-politicalbetting-com

- then you see a link to the previous and next is provided

Malmesbury

BartholomewRoberts said:

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Affordable EVs are not all that far off.

This is with current technology, and manufacturing plans.

Nissan exec says next-gen EVs will cost 30% less to make
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nissan-exec-says-next-gen-evs-will-cost-30-less-to-make-192152066.html?guccounter=1

The problem is they need to be OTR 50% cheaper to eliminate petrol.

I bought my new car, brand new from a showroom, for £13k OTR. Petrol self charging hybrid, I'm getting close to 60 mpg from it so it's not costing much to run either.

I would be delighted to see EVs that cheap, but w aren't there yet.

We are very early in the ZEV story. By comparison the ICE technology space has been heavily mined out for lower cost and higher efficiency.

So we can expect ZEV costs to continue to fall. The ultimate floor to their price will be somewhere below ICE - mechanically simpler. It’s pretty much all battery costs at the moment that makes the price.

One reason that higher priced EVs have been pushed is that is where the profit is, per unit of battery capacity. Using the same batteries to make small cars or large lorries would mean less profit.

Indeed I agree that long term I am pretty certain that ICE is future history already.

But we aren't there yet cost-wise and people who want to act like we are aren't in touch with the real world. We will be, but we aren't there yet.

We need to reach a state whereby inflation-adjusted a new EV is available from about £12-13k OTR, like new ICE vehicles are.

We'll get there, but it'll take some time.

Future planning by ensuring eg new builds have off road parking wherever possible so can charge at home rather than at a station is a good idea.

It also requires the manufacturers to stop being precious and build some vast battery factories.

Saying “It’s not fair I have to invest and why can’t I just buy Chinese batteries?” is a 0/10 answer.

BartholomewRoberts

Malmesbury said:

TimS said:

Malmesbury said:

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

4) get a car that doesn’t emit dangerous levels of toxic fumes?

5) buy a much bigger vehicle


Buses, coaches and minibuses over 5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) do not need to pay the ULEZ charge. The vehicle types listed below over 3.5 tonnes GVW also do not need to pay the ULEZ charge. These vehicle will need to pay the London-wide LEZ charge if they do not meet the LEZ emissions standards.

HGVs
Lorries
Vans
Motor caravans
Motorised horseboxes
Breakdown and recovery vehicles
Snow ploughs
Gritters
Refuse collection vehicles
Road sweepers
Concrete mixers
Fire engines
Tippers
Removal lorries
Other specialist vehicles


I wonder if you don’t pay ULEZ in a Saracen APC?

IIRC there were studies that suggested that large vehicles emitted a larger proportion of pollution than their number of fuel consumption would suggest.

Think big truck with an ancient diesel engine that’s been flogged hard by its drivers.

Indeed.

Greater Manchester to its credit scrapped it's nonsense zone after realising they could get better results by getting fewer vehicles to change but changing the priority.

A polluting bus or taxi driving hard all day every day emits a lot of emissions compared to a private vehicle that drives only a small distance.

If you want to tackle emissions, a good starting point is public not private transport.

bigjohnowls

On Topic.

Interesting thread thanks to TSE for his hard work in keeping PB going after Mike's health deteriorated.

BartholomewRoberts

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Affordable EVs are not all that far off.

This is with current technology, and manufacturing plans.

Nissan exec says next-gen EVs will cost 30% less to make
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nissan-exec-says-next-gen-evs-will-cost-30-less-to-make-192152066.html?guccounter=1

The problem is they need to be OTR 50% cheaper to eliminate petrol.

I bought my new car, brand new from a showroom, for £13k OTR. Petrol self charging hybrid, I'm getting close to 60 mpg from it so it's not costing much to run either.

I would be delighted to see EVs that cheap, but w aren't there yet.

We are very early in the ZEV story. By comparison the ICE technology space has been heavily mined out for lower cost and higher efficiency.

So we can expect ZEV costs to continue to fall. The ultimate floor to their price will be somewhere below ICE - mechanically simpler. It’s pretty much all battery costs at the moment that makes the price.

One reason that higher priced EVs have been pushed is that is where the profit is, per unit of battery capacity. Using the same batteries to make small cars or large lorries would mean less profit.

Indeed I agree that long term I am pretty certain that ICE is future history already.

But we aren't there yet cost-wise and people who want to act like we are aren't in touch with the real world. We will be, but we aren't there yet.

We need to reach a state whereby inflation-adjusted a new EV is available from about £12-13k OTR, like new ICE vehicles are.

We'll get there, but it'll take some time.

Future planning by ensuring eg new builds have off road parking wherever possible so can charge at home rather than at a station is a good idea.

It also requires the manufacturers to stop being precious and build some vast battery factories.

Saying “It’s not fair I have to invest and why can’t I just buy Chinese batteries?” is a 0/10 answer.

Any manufacturer that doesn't invest will go out of business.

Business failures is part of a healthy free market.

BatteryCorrectHorse

bigjohnowls said:

On Topic.

Interesting thread thanks to TSE for his hard work in keeping PB going after Mike's health deteriorated.

What would be a "good" result for SKS in your mind?

Andy_JS

DavidL said:

Andy_JS said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

The Labour vote actually went down slightly in a lot of their safest seats in 1997 (in absolute numbers, not share), because turnout fell from 78% to 71% and the drop was bigger in those types of seats.

Yes, its a point that is often overlooked. People focus on the voters Major got out to stop Kinnock in 1992 who didn't vote because they did not find Blair nearly as scary but there were a lot of Labour lefties, @bigjohnowls style, who also had something of an enthusiasm gap.

Yes, and also I remember a report during the 2001 election night show where Michael Crick interviewed a family in St Helens who had always voted Labour and this time all of them were not bothering to vote because they were so disappointed in Blair's New Labour policies. Of course it didn't stop Labour winning a big majorities in places like St Helens.

BartholomewRoberts

boulay said:

Malmesbury said:

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

Does he drive an old Citroen Picasso?

If he did, he'd probably Dodge the fee.

BatteryCorrectHorse

Interesting graphic here suggesting that Labour's vote efficiency (according to the YouGov MRP) is now identical to Blair's 3 wins.

One of which included a 60 seat majority on a 3 pt national lead, by the way...

That said - this assumes Greens will win 7%. I'm skeptical.

https://x.com/Beyond_Topline/status/1776589973937905823

BatteryCorrectHorse

BartholomewRoberts said:

boulay said:

Malmesbury said:

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

Does he drive an old Citroen Picasso?

If he did, he'd probably Dodge the fee.

Don't you know who HE IS

MJW

algarkirk said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.

Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.

I think from 2015 onwards, both Labour and the Tories, in different ways, switched from the traditional, low risk, proven electoral strategy of trying to sell yourself to the centre - even when being more radical in practice. To a high risk, high reward one of trying to activate the perennially disillusioned either among non-voters or traditionally on the other side.

The reward is that if you are successful you get your fabled 'realignment', win a big majority, leave your opponents electorally adrift by winning in places you shouldn't and have a mandate for big changes.

The problems being, it relies on you not losing your centre flank and becoming disillusioned but even more dangerous, given are often effectively distributed, and the disillusioned buying what you're selling. Get those wrong and you end up losing both and imploding or coming close to it.

The Tories appeared to have done that with Johnson and Brexit. But the former relied on lots of moderate Tory or centrist voters thinking Corbyn was a fate worse than that (its own failed high risk/reward strategy), and the latter its new Ukippy or ex-Labour leave voters not feeling they'd been missold to because nothing has changed for the better.

Labour are now fighting on the traditional low risk strategy, meaning they might not maximise gains - which they could do by promising lots of flourishy stuff in all directions - but maximise chances of a handy majority.

While the Tories are stuck having gambled and lost, having effectively written off a load of more liberal working age voters they now need, because the illiberal ones who were supposed to add to or replace them are as disillusioned with them as were all politicians before.

isam

Heathener said:

DavidL said:

Stuartinromford said:

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

What odds would you offer on the Tories getting less than 30% at the next GE?

I'm not a bookie but I'd reckon it's about 50/50 whether they get below or above 30%.

If both were given as evens and I had a free bet to place, I'd be torn but probably just back under 30% rather than over.

I would probably go the other way but I agree its likely to be close. But @Heathener is so sure it will be under 30 I am sure she can offer something more tempting than evens!

Major got 30.7 percent in 1997. Whilst the consequences of Sunak doing worse than that seem crazy, what is the mechanism by which Rishi does better?

Absolutely none of this is going to stop a comfortable Starmer victory but I would be tempted to have a wee flutter on the 30% mark if @Heathener is so minded and willing to offer better than evens.

Sorry I’m not a bookie. And I did once have a wager on here with someone, won it, and they never paid up.

(No naming and shaming)

I wouldn’t trust people on here to play a straight bat when it comes to betting anymore

No_Offence_Alan

rottenborough said:

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

How could any deal be enforced? Sunak is toast the day after the election.

noneoftheabove

rottenborough said:

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

Think its virtually inevitable rather than risk but more likely post election. And as much as I have no time for them, it is perfectly reasonable, and indeed the right tactics, for them to join forces, as disappointing as that will be to the remaining "sensible" conservatives sticking with their party.

bondegezou

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Heathener said:

The really key point at the next General Election isn’t Labour at all. They’re doing well enough i.e. 40%+ But that’s not the story which is this: "The size of Labour’s predicted majority is aided by a collapse in Conservative support.”

It’s not because of Reform. It’s because they’re shit and a huge majority of people in this country are not only aware of it, they’re exceedingly angry with them.

They are in for a kicking. Sub 30% poll share. And that is what will cook their goose regardless of Reform.

That's true, and I'm not a psephologist, but an election where disgusted politically-homeless Tory supporters stay at home, and one where they flood to Reform would surely be two different beasts.

They sound exactly the same to me.

There is no practical difference between not voting, spoiling your ballot, or voting Reform.

An election where politically homeless Tories stay at home, and one where they vote Labour or Lib Dem is two very different beasts.

Not voting, spoiling or voting Reform makes no difference to who wins, which is what matters, but there is a difference to vote share achieved. Reform UK votes will reduce Labour’s (and everyone else’s) vote share compared to staying at home.

Luckyguy1983

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Affordable EVs are not all that far off.

This is with current technology, and manufacturing plans.

Nissan exec says next-gen EVs will cost 30% less to make
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nissan-exec-says-next-gen-evs-will-cost-30-less-to-make-192152066.html?guccounter=1

The problem is they need to be OTR 50% cheaper to eliminate petrol.

I bought my new car, brand new from a showroom, for £13k OTR. Petrol self charging hybrid, I'm getting close to 60 mpg from it so it's not costing much to run either.

I would be delighted to see EVs that cheap, but w aren't there yet.

It's not just the cheapness of the silly hulks, it's charging infrastructure. There isn't any. And to move away from petrol and diesel cars we need up to 661,000 charging points. At present I think there are 41,000. And that's without even thinking about the grid upgrades needed to support this charging.

It's a complete farce - a fantasy religion that political 'moderates' are balls deep in whilst those on the political margins are left to point out the emperor's lack of clothes.

If we need to get to Net Zero, we need a different way to get to it than electrifying personal automation and greening energy production, because together they spell utter disaster for the UK, with coal-guzzling India and China laughing at us.

bondegezou

DavidL said:

Andy_JS said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

The Labour vote actually went down slightly in a lot of their safest seats in 1997 (in absolute numbers, not share), because turnout fell from 78% to 71% and the drop was bigger in those types of seats.

Yes, its a point that is often overlooked. People focus on the voters Major got out to stop Kinnock in 1992 who didn't vote because they did not find Blair nearly as scary but there were a lot of Labour lefties, @bigjohnowls style, who also had something of an enthusiasm gap.

I remember the Tories being despised in 1997, but I don’t think Major was. Pitied, rather. The attitude to the Tories feels the same today, but Sunak feels less liked than Major.

bondegezou

noneoftheabove said:

rottenborough said:

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

Think its virtually inevitable rather than risk but more likely post election. And as much as I have no time for them, it is perfectly reasonable, and indeed the right tactics, for them to join forces, as disappointing as that will be to the remaining "sensible" conservatives sticking with their party.

Reform UK are popular because the Tories are unpopular. Joining forces with the Tories contaminates RefUK with the Tories’ unpopularity more than it popularises the Tories with RefUK’s better popularity.

OldKingCole

No_Offence_Alan said:

rottenborough said:

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

How could any deal be enforced? Sunak is toast the day after the election.

Resignation honours?
Shouldn’t happen, but will.

carnforth

OldKingCole said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

rottenborough said:

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

How could any deal be enforced? Sunak is toast the day after the election.

Resignation honours?
Shouldn’t happen, but will.

Farage is elevated to the Lords then he inmediately begins a campaign to abolish the House of Lords. For the bants.

Foxy

Isn't at least part of the differential bigger swing in marginals a ceiling effect?

If a party has 60% of the vote already, then getting some of the remaining 40% is harder than getting some of the 70% if you start on 30%. There are simply more people who can switch.

So similar to the Tory swing in 2019 in the Red Wall, which was larger than in true blue seats.

logical_song

bondegezou said:

DavidL said:

Andy_JS said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

The Labour vote actually went down slightly in a lot of their safest seats in 1997 (in absolute numbers, not share), because turnout fell from 78% to 71% and the drop was bigger in those types of seats.

Yes, its a point that is often overlooked. People focus on the voters Major got out to stop Kinnock in 1992 who didn't vote because they did not find Blair nearly as scary but there were a lot of Labour lefties, @bigjohnowls style, who also had something of an enthusiasm gap.

I remember the Tories being despised in 1997, but I don’t think Major was. Pitied, rather. The attitude to the Tories feels the same today, but Sunak feels less liked than Major.

Maybe he needs a soapbox?

BartholomewRoberts

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's not just the cheapness of the silly hulks, it's charging infrastructure. There isn't any. And to move away from petrol and diesel cars we need up to 661,000 charging points. At present I think there are 41,000. And that's without even thinking about the grid upgrades needed to support this charging.

It's a complete farce - a fantasy religion that political 'moderates' are balls deep in whilst those on the political margins are left to point out the emperor's lack of clothes.

If we need to get to Net Zero, we need a different way to get to it than electrifying personal automation and greening energy production, because together they spell utter disaster for the UK, with coal-guzzling India and China laughing at us.

Charging infrastructure does need rolling out, and is being rolled out. The problem is that the vehicles are so expensive new they can predominantly only be afforded by people who happen to have off-road parking anyway, so don't need or want the infrastructure unless they're going a long distance rather than relying upon it as millions will in the future.

There's a chicken and egg issue there to break, but its entirely doable.

As for the Grid, that again is entirely solvable, indeed the electrification of vehicles provides a distributed battery network to consume cheap wind when it blows. 30 million vehicles on the road at an average of 60 kWh battery each would be a distributed battery network of roughly 1.8 TWh. That utterly dwarfs all batteries potential for electoral storage that currently exists.

The idea of refilling your vehicle for close to free as nothing is being physically consumed, just natural wind being harnessed, may fill zealots who hate private transportation with rage but should be welcomed by anyone rational.

Stuartinromford

logical_song said:

bondegezou said:

DavidL said:

Andy_JS said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

The Labour vote actually went down slightly in a lot of their safest seats in 1997 (in absolute numbers, not share), because turnout fell from 78% to 71% and the drop was bigger in those types of seats.

Yes, its a point that is often overlooked. People focus on the voters Major got out to stop Kinnock in 1992 who didn't vote because they did not find Blair nearly as scary but there were a lot of Labour lefties, @bigjohnowls style, who also had something of an enthusiasm gap.

I remember the Tories being despised in 1997, but I don’t think Major was. Pitied, rather. The attitude to the Tories feels the same today, but Sunak feels less liked than Major.

Maybe he needs a soapbox?

Except Major knew how to use a soapbox. He'd been doing it since the sixties. Sunak wouldn't have a clue.

Luckyguy1983

There will be no deal between Sunak's Tories and RefUK, and I doubt even if a highly RefUK-friendly leader like Mogg unseated Sunak as PM, that there would be.

There is a deal to be done with Farage, and that's to make him Ambassador to the USA. He has as good as asked for it. It gets him out of UK politics and would work with Trump. It would be awful as far as a Democrat victory is concerned. I have no idea why Farage wants it - why be a powerless diplomat responsible handing out the Fererro Rocher? But it seems he does.

Farage away in America seriously limits the electoral chances of RefUK

BatteryCorrectHorse

Indeed.

noneoftheabove

bondegezou said:

noneoftheabove said:

rottenborough said:

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

Think its virtually inevitable rather than risk but more likely post election. And as much as I have no time for them, it is perfectly reasonable, and indeed the right tactics, for them to join forces, as disappointing as that will be to the remaining "sensible" conservatives sticking with their party.

Reform UK are popular because the Tories are unpopular. Joining forces with the Tories contaminates RefUK with the Tories’ unpopularity more than it popularises the Tories with RefUK’s better popularity.

Lets not kid ourselves that the UK electorate is suddenly centre left. It generally returns a right of centre government and has done for decades, with gaps only when the main right wing party becomes completely unpalatable to the centre, and centre right as it is now.

When the Labour government start to become unpopular, and the "left a terrible Tory legacy" explanation starts to wear thin, which will probably happen somewhere between 3-8 years in, the right are better off with Farage in the tent rather than outside it. It is fairly absurd and unsustainable that the most popular politician at your annual party conference is a rival party leader (effective leader even if not officially).

BartholomewRoberts

MJW said:

algarkirk said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

And on the whole you win those votes from the centre, because voters who will vote over time for both Tory and Labour are centrists, rather than 'Never kissed a Tory' or 'Labour are all communists' types.

Under Starmer Labour have made a start on shifting from being a party whose voters are separate interest groups (BAME, payroll vote, ultra urban, public sector, unions) to more like the spread of voters the Tories had before they went populist.

I think from 2015 onwards, both Labour and the Tories, in different ways, switched from the traditional, low risk, proven electoral strategy of trying to sell yourself to the centre - even when being more radical in practice. To a high risk, high reward one of trying to activate the perennially disillusioned either among non-voters or traditionally on the other side.

The reward is that if you are successful you get your fabled 'realignment', win a big majority, leave your opponents electorally adrift by winning in places you shouldn't and have a mandate for big changes.

The problems being, it relies on you not losing your centre flank and becoming disillusioned but even more dangerous, given are often effectively distributed, and the disillusioned buying what you're selling. Get those wrong and you end up losing both and imploding or coming close to it.

The Tories appeared to have done that with Johnson and Brexit. But the former relied on lots of moderate Tory or centrist voters thinking Corbyn was a fate worse than that (its own failed high risk/reward strategy), and the latter its new Ukippy or ex-Labour leave voters not feeling they'd been missold to because nothing has changed for the better.

Labour are now fighting on the traditional low risk strategy, meaning they might not maximise gains - which they could do by promising lots of flourishy stuff in all directions - but maximise chances of a handy majority.

While the Tories are stuck having gambled and lost, having effectively written off a load of more liberal working age voters they now need, because the illiberal ones who were supposed to add to or replace them are as disillusioned with them as were all politicians before.

I disagree with that. Cameron in 2015, May in 2017, Johnson in 2019 and Starmer in 2024/25 have all appealed to the centre. Just each persons version of the centre changes over time.

The problem is that some people cloaked themselves in the name "centrist" in 2017-2019 while being nothing of the sort.

The central position of the British electorate is to respect democracy. Having had a majority vote for Brexit in 2016, implementing Brexit went from being an extreme position to the centrist one overnight, which 52% who voted for it and millions more who didn't vote for it but respected democracy anyway could support.

Staying in Europe despite the referendum result was anything but a centrist position.

Luckyguy1983

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's not just the cheapness of the silly hulks, it's charging infrastructure. There isn't any. And to move away from petrol and diesel cars we need up to 661,000 charging points. At present I think there are 41,000. And that's without even thinking about the grid upgrades needed to support this charging.

It's a complete farce - a fantasy religion that political 'moderates' are balls deep in whilst those on the political margins are left to point out the emperor's lack of clothes.

If we need to get to Net Zero, we need a different way to get to it than electrifying personal automation and greening energy production, because together they spell utter disaster for the UK, with coal-guzzling India and China laughing at us.

Charging infrastructure does need rolling out, and is being rolled out. The problem is that the vehicles are so expensive new they can predominantly only be afforded by people who happen to have off-road parking anyway, so don't need or want the infrastructure unless they're going a long distance rather than relying upon it as millions will in the future.

There's a chicken and egg issue there to break, but its entirely doable.

As for the Grid, that again is entirely solvable, indeed the electrification of vehicles provides a distributed battery network to consume cheap wind when it blows. 30 million vehicles on the road at an average of 60 kWh battery each would be a distributed battery network of roughly 1.8 TWh. That utterly dwarfs all batteries potential for electoral storage that currently exists.

The idea of refilling your vehicle for close to free as nothing is being physically consumed, just natural wind being harnessed, may fill zealots who hate private transportation with rage but should be welcomed by anyone rational.

You're 100% ignorant of the issues and talking about it as if you've just been introduced to the concept. That level of reality-free religious faith sadly extends to much of our political class, where it's a good deal more damaging than someone debating on a web forum.

MJW

OldKingCole said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

rottenborough said:

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

How could any deal be enforced? Sunak is toast the day after the election.

Resignation honours?
Shouldn’t happen, but will.

Surely that's a fairly empty offer? Farage and Tice know that barring some unlikely results either way (total wipeout, or Sunak doing unexpectedly well) they're liable to emerge after the election a more powerful figures on the right.

BartholomewRoberts

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Indeed.

Why would it be the regulators responsibility to stop a badly managed firm from going bust? If it goes bust, it goes bust, and its shareholders and creditors should take responsibility for that.

The regulators responsibility should be to enforce regulations, not to ensure private firms are profitable. That's a conflict of interest.

Stuartinromford

noneoftheabove said:

rottenborough said:

Massive risk that somehow a deal on the Right is done between Tice/Farage and Sunak?

It will no doubt be grubby, dirty, outrageous even. And probably involve knighthoods and promises of Cabinet seats and peerages all around.

Think its virtually inevitable rather than risk but more likely post election. And as much as I have no time for them, it is perfectly reasonable, and indeed the right tactics, for them to join forces, as disappointing as that will be to the remaining "sensible" conservatives sticking with their party.

Torn on this one. Part of me thinks twere well it were done quickly. The Conservatives probably have to go full-on batso, waking up in the gutter, before any trudge towards the voters can happen.

Recent tradition has been that parties delay it a bit, picking someone like Hague or MiliEd (Cleverly?) first, then deciding to indulge themselves with an IDS or a Corbyn. On that basis, the Conservatives might choose their next electable leader after their 2032 defeat. That's a loooong way away.

BartholomewRoberts

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's not just the cheapness of the silly hulks, it's charging infrastructure. There isn't any. And to move away from petrol and diesel cars we need up to 661,000 charging points. At present I think there are 41,000. And that's without even thinking about the grid upgrades needed to support this charging.

It's a complete farce - a fantasy religion that political 'moderates' are balls deep in whilst those on the political margins are left to point out the emperor's lack of clothes.

If we need to get to Net Zero, we need a different way to get to it than electrifying personal automation and greening energy production, because together they spell utter disaster for the UK, with coal-guzzling India and China laughing at us.

Charging infrastructure does need rolling out, and is being rolled out. The problem is that the vehicles are so expensive new they can predominantly only be afforded by people who happen to have off-road parking anyway, so don't need or want the infrastructure unless they're going a long distance rather than relying upon it as millions will in the future.

There's a chicken and egg issue there to break, but its entirely doable.

As for the Grid, that again is entirely solvable, indeed the electrification of vehicles provides a distributed battery network to consume cheap wind when it blows. 30 million vehicles on the road at an average of 60 kWh battery each would be a distributed battery network of roughly 1.8 TWh. That utterly dwarfs all batteries potential for electoral storage that currently exists.

The idea of refilling your vehicle for close to free as nothing is being physically consumed, just natural wind being harnessed, may fill zealots who hate private transportation with rage but should be welcomed by anyone rational.

You're 100% ignorant of the issues and talking about it as if you've just been introduced to the concept. That level of reality-free religious faith sadly extends to much of our political class, where it's a good deal more damaging than someone debating on a web forum.

Sorry but you're the one ignorant of the issues, wanting pixie dust to address everything instead of investing in clean technologies.

There is nothing wrong with investing in clean technologies which work. There is no reason to pay Saudi Arabia to import their commodities, when we can instead harness our own natural resources of which we have plenty - and wind is a very useful commodity we have plenty of.

JosiasJessop

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's not just the cheapness of the silly hulks, it's charging infrastructure. There isn't any. And to move away from petrol and diesel cars we need up to 661,000 charging points. At present I think there are 41,000. And that's without even thinking about the grid upgrades needed to support this charging.

It's a complete farce - a fantasy religion that political 'moderates' are balls deep in whilst those on the political margins are left to point out the emperor's lack of clothes.

If we need to get to Net Zero, we need a different way to get to it than electrifying personal automation and greening energy production, because together they spell utter disaster for the UK, with coal-guzzling India and China laughing at us.

Charging infrastructure does need rolling out, and is being rolled out. The problem is that the vehicles are so expensive new they can predominantly only be afforded by people who happen to have off-road parking anyway, so don't need or want the infrastructure unless they're going a long distance rather than relying upon it as millions will in the future.

There's a chicken and egg issue there to break, but its entirely doable.

As for the Grid, that again is entirely solvable, indeed the electrification of vehicles provides a distributed battery network to consume cheap wind when it blows. 30 million vehicles on the road at an average of 60 kWh battery each would be a distributed battery network of roughly 1.8 TWh. That utterly dwarfs all batteries potential for electoral storage that currently exists.

The idea of refilling your vehicle for close to free as nothing is being physically consumed, just natural wind being harnessed, may fill zealots who hate private transportation with rage but should be welcomed by anyone rational.

You're 100% ignorant of the issues and talking about it as if you've just been introduced to the concept. That level of reality-free religious faith sadly extends to much of our political class, where it's a good deal more damaging than someone debating on a web forum.

Where have you indicated that you have less ignorance on this topic that Barty? What is your expertise?

We have massively decarbonised the country over the last two or three decades. This has been done without the public noticing much - not even cost can perhaps be put solely down to the change. If we were to suddenly say "we must all be electric" tomorrow then we may have problems . An incremental, planned movement - as is happening with power generation - may well work seamlessly, without the public noticing much.

Or it could all be disastrous...

boulay

…

Stuartinromford said:

logical_song said:

bondegezou said:

DavidL said:

Andy_JS said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

The Labour vote actually went down slightly in a lot of their safest seats in 1997 (in absolute numbers, not share), because turnout fell from 78% to 71% and the drop was bigger in those types of seats.

Yes, its a point that is often overlooked. People focus on the voters Major got out to stop Kinnock in 1992 who didn't vote because they did not find Blair nearly as scary but there were a lot of Labour lefties, @bigjohnowls style, who also had something of an enthusiasm gap.

I remember the Tories being despised in 1997, but I don’t think Major was. Pitied, rather. The attitude to the Tories feels the same today, but Sunak feels less liked than Major.

Maybe he needs a soapbox?

Except Major knew how to use a soapbox. He'd been doing it since the sixties. Sunak wouldn't have a clue.

Bless him, he would go into the bathroom and grab a new unopened bar of Clé de Peau Beauté from his wife’s cupboard and spend a few hours trying to work out how the hell you stand on it yet alone why people would vote for you for trashing a hundred quid bar of soap.

williamglenn

boulay said:

…

Stuartinromford said:

logical_song said:

bondegezou said:

DavidL said:

Andy_JS said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

The Labour vote actually went down slightly in a lot of their safest seats in 1997 (in absolute numbers, not share), because turnout fell from 78% to 71% and the drop was bigger in those types of seats.

Yes, its a point that is often overlooked. People focus on the voters Major got out to stop Kinnock in 1992 who didn't vote because they did not find Blair nearly as scary but there were a lot of Labour lefties, @bigjohnowls style, who also had something of an enthusiasm gap.

I remember the Tories being despised in 1997, but I don’t think Major was. Pitied, rather. The attitude to the Tories feels the same today, but Sunak feels less liked than Major.

Maybe he needs a soapbox?

Except Major knew how to use a soapbox. He'd been doing it since the sixties. Sunak wouldn't have a clue.

Bless him, he would go into the bathroom and grab a new unopened bar of Clé de Peau Beauté from his wife’s cupboard and spend a few hours trying to work out how the hell you stand on it yet alone why people would vote for you for trashing a hundred quid bar of soap.

He could use a champagne crate instead.

logical_song

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Affordable EVs are not all that far off.

This is with current technology, and manufacturing plans.

Nissan exec says next-gen EVs will cost 30% less to make
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nissan-exec-says-next-gen-evs-will-cost-30-less-to-make-192152066.html?guccounter=1

The problem is they need to be OTR 50% cheaper to eliminate petrol.

I bought my new car, brand new from a showroom, for £13k OTR. Petrol self charging hybrid, I'm getting close to 60 mpg from it so it's not costing much to run either.

I would be delighted to see EVs that cheap, but w aren't there yet.

It's not just the cheapness of the silly hulks, it's charging infrastructure. There isn't any. And to move away from petrol and diesel cars we need up to 661,000 charging points. At present I think there are 41,000. And that's without even thinking about the grid upgrades needed to support this charging.

It's a complete farce - a fantasy religion that political 'moderates' are balls deep in whilst those on the political margins are left to point out the emperor's lack of clothes.

If we need to get to Net Zero, we need a different way to get to it than electrifying personal automation and greening energy production, because together they spell utter disaster for the UK, with coal-guzzling India and China laughing at us.

41,000 was true about a year ago, now about 55,000. Still pitiful, but alongside that the cars are getting longer range and many people have home chargers.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electric-vehicle-charging-device-statistics-january-2024/electric-vehicle-public-charging-infrastructure-statistics-january-2024

Electrification is unstoppable, we're approaching the rapid change part of the 'S' curve. But we're not there yet, the MG4 looks interesting, the new Renault 5 too, but I'm holding off probably for another year.

"Electric Vehicles are not considered to be a problem by National Grid, in fact, some nights those charging are actually paid to take the electricity from the grid, known as Negative pricing."
https://www.ev-chargingandrange.co.uk/electric-cars-uk-national-grid-manage-2/

"China Is Racing to Electrify Its Future"
https://www.wired.com/story/china-ev-infrastructure-charging/

It looks like you have a few of you 'facts' wrong - so no change there.

Carnyx

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

…

Stuartinromford said:

logical_song said:

bondegezou said:

DavidL said:

Andy_JS said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

The Labour vote actually went down slightly in a lot of their safest seats in 1997 (in absolute numbers, not share), because turnout fell from 78% to 71% and the drop was bigger in those types of seats.

Yes, its a point that is often overlooked. People focus on the voters Major got out to stop Kinnock in 1992 who didn't vote because they did not find Blair nearly as scary but there were a lot of Labour lefties, @bigjohnowls style, who also had something of an enthusiasm gap.

I remember the Tories being despised in 1997, but I don’t think Major was. Pitied, rather. The attitude to the Tories feels the same today, but Sunak feels less liked than Major.

Maybe he needs a soapbox?

Except Major knew how to use a soapbox. He'd been doing it since the sixties. Sunak wouldn't have a clue.

Bless him, he would go into the bathroom and grab a new unopened bar of Clé de Peau Beauté from his wife’s cupboard and spend a few hours trying to work out how the hell you stand on it yet alone why people would vote for you for trashing a hundred quid bar of soap.

He could use a champagne crate instead.

Doiesn't drink. Would have to be a carton of Coca-Cola, which doesn't resist rain.

BatteryCorrectHorse

Proof that Angela Rayner 'lied about home at centre of tax row'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13278809/proof-Angela-Rayner-lying-tax-row.html

[Apologies for linking the worst designed website in the world that looks like herpes]

BatteryCorrectHorse

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Proof that Angela Rayner 'lied about home at centre of tax row'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13278809/proof-Angela-Rayner-lying-tax-row.html

[Apologies for linking the worst designed website in the world that looks like herpes]

Of course the irony that Lord Ashcroft who as a non-dom avoided millions in tax, is not lost on me.

rottenborough

Biden has nearly $100m more campaign cash than Trumpski.

Mexicanpete

...

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

…

Stuartinromford said:

logical_song said:

bondegezou said:

DavidL said:

Andy_JS said:

DavidL said:

The efficiency of the vote under Blair was incredible. Comfortable majorities on 30 odd per cent of the vote. And for the same reasons. You win elections by winning these volatile voters in the marginal seats.

The Labour vote actually went down slightly in a lot of their safest seats in 1997 (in absolute numbers, not share), because turnout fell from 78% to 71% and the drop was bigger in those types of seats.

Yes, its a point that is often overlooked. People focus on the voters Major got out to stop Kinnock in 1992 who didn't vote because they did not find Blair nearly as scary but there were a lot of Labour lefties, @bigjohnowls style, who also had something of an enthusiasm gap.

I remember the Tories being despised in 1997, but I don’t think Major was. Pitied, rather. The attitude to the Tories feels the same today, but Sunak feels less liked than Major.

Maybe he needs a soapbox?

Except Major knew how to use a soapbox. He'd been doing it since the sixties. Sunak wouldn't have a clue.

Bless him, he would go into the bathroom and grab a new unopened bar of Clé de Peau Beauté from his wife’s cupboard and spend a few hours trying to work out how the hell you stand on it yet alone why people would vote for you for trashing a hundred quid bar of soap.

He could use a champagne crate instead.

For maximum effect he could stand it on its end.

JosiasJessop

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Proof that Angela Rayner 'lied about home at centre of tax row'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13278809/proof-Angela-Rayner-lying-tax-row.html

[Apologies for linking the worst designed website in the world that looks like herpes]

Of course the irony that Lord Ashcroft who as a non-dom avoided millions in tax, is not lost on me.

AIUI the question is whether the tax was legally avoided or illegally evaded. If you are claiming the good lord did the latter, then I fear you might be troubling OGH's lawyers.

Foxy

Malmesbury said:

A painter, of Moroccan extraction, is telling me that he doesn’t want to do a job because it means going into the ULEZ zone.

Should I tell him that

1) He is a Gammon Fascist
2) That he doesn’t exist
3) Both

?

Why not just pay his ULEZ charge for the period? It's only £12 a day isn't it? and a fairly negligible part of the cost of having painting done.