For bar chart aficionados – politicalbetting.com

System

For bar chart aficionados – politicalbetting.com

Outrageous leaflet barchartmaxxing for @MSmithsonPB and @TSEofPB to enjoy

Read the full story here

tlg86

First, like Arsenal.

Sandpit

Second like Liverpool, one point back but with a game in hand.

Who’s up for the Grand Prix?

tlg86

Sandpit said:

Second like Liverpool, one point back but with a game in hand.

Who’s up for the Grand Prix?

I'm up, but most certainly not for the grand prix. It's very sad what's happened to F1 - I'm amazed people are still tuning in.

Heathener

Wulfrun_Phil said:

NickPalmer said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

Opinium / Observer:

Lab 41%
Con 25%
Ref 11%
LD 10%
Green 8%

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/06/only-four-in-10-tory-voters-from-2019-back-sunak-poll

I would imagine without applied swingback this poll, using Opinium's earlier methodology would align with the others and be over 20%. I do agree with you that back in the real world the Cons are way closer to Labour than any poll suggests.

What do you base that on? The six-person canvass we had this morning in an area where we didn't even have council candidates last year produced a haul of Lab 19 Con 9 LD 7 DK 22 Won't vote 4. Even if we assume half the don't knows were shy Tories (and some were merely "don't know between LD and Lab"), we didn't detect any reviving Tory enthusiasm at all.

Yes Nick, I've been doing plenty of doorknocking too and the collapse in the Tory vote is absolutely palpable in a way that I've never seen for a general election, with absolutely no sign of letting up over the past week or two.

PS. Goodnight with that pleasant thought.

Ties in with what I hear too. I’ve never known anything like it.

bigjohnowls said:

Benpointer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Mexicanpete said:

bigjohnowls said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, in "the only change is that another 14 pages have fluttered off the calendar" news,

🚨 New polling with @ObserverUK

No change as Labour’s lead stays at 16 points
• Labour 41% (n/c)
• Conservatives 25% (n/c)
• Lib Dems 10% (n/c)
• SNP 3% (n/c)
• Greens 8% (n/c)
• Reform 11% (n/c)

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1776686339729080330

Yeah but @heathener says the last 5 polls are over 20% lead and therefore this proves something or other.

I say wait for more in common, Opinium, Survation and Deltapoll.

This is Opinium. Swingback has been taken into account and you know this.

That is not to say this isn't the more accurate study, but dismissing the others because they don't give you the result you want is silly.

For what it's worth I don't believe the Tories are below 30 and Labour are much above 40. This will be borne out in the locals.

@heathener said the previous 5 were a trend even though 2 were from same pollster.

I merely pointed out some of the pollsters which give smaller Labour leads ie the 4 I have just listed hadn't reported last week due to easter so wait for theirs to see if there is a trend.

He pooh pooed that and insisted there was a trend

Average Labour lead of the last 6 polls, including that Opinium, is 20.2%

Average Labour lead of all polls taken in March was also 20.2%
Average Labour lead of all polls taken in February was 19.4%
Average Labour lead of all polls taken in January was 19.5%

Why the last 6 polls?

@heathener cut and pasted the last 5 polls yesterday when on the same day as the 5th of 5 there were 2 others that he conveniently excluded. There were 7 polls in the time period he included. The 2 excluded ones didn't fit in with the

There's a trend narrative been pushed.

You had to be there yesterday to pick up what I am talking about tbh

Anyway life's too short tbh and we just need to see who is right I think Heathener was saying Lab would end up on at least 45 and Con on about 25

I forecast Lab 38/39 Con 32/33

Both end with SKSICIPM but are very different outcomes

For the third time, which you should know if you had even a modicum of respect, I’m not a man. I know it’s incredible to you but there are some women on this forum, which isn’t made any easier by someone like you being so disrespectful.

I don’t sit around on this forum so I can’t always, or even often, pick up responses especially if they appear much later than I have been on.

The 5 polls were all consecutively published and the 6th one appeared after, which I immediately posted. But I did note that at the time the mean Labour lead was stil 21%.

I did not say Labour would end up on 45. I said I thought they would probably poll 40%+ but, no, I don’t think they will exceed Blair's 43.2%. I think they will just about get 40%. Probably (60-40).

The real story of this General election isn’t support for Labour, it's the collapse in Conservative support. They dropped another 2% in March: https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

They are currently polling around 6-9% below where they were at the equivalent time in the run up to the 1997 General Election when they achieved 30.7%. They are far more unpopular this time, as is their leader, nd yet you think they are going to poll much better? That has no foundation in evidence but pure wishful thinking.

Based on the above I don’t think it likely that the Conservatives will poll above 30%. If they do, it will only be just.

I suspect they will poll between 25%-30% but at the current trajectory things could get worse for them.

Maybe instead of your infatuation with Keir Starmer you should take a look at why your party is currently so despised in this country.

Heathener

Wulfrun_Phil said:

NickPalmer said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

Opinium / Observer:

Lab 41%
Con 25%
Ref 11%
LD 10%
Green 8%

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/06/only-four-in-10-tory-voters-from-2019-back-sunak-poll

I would imagine without applied swingback this poll, using Opinium's earlier methodology would align with the others and be over 20%. I do agree with you that back in the real world the Cons are way closer to Labour than any poll suggests.

What do you base that on? The six-person canvass we had this morning in an area where we didn't even have council candidates last year produced a haul of Lab 19 Con 9 LD 7 DK 22 Won't vote 4. Even if we assume half the don't knows were shy Tories (and some were merely "don't know between LD and Lab"), we didn't detect any reviving Tory enthusiasm at all.

Yes Nick, I've been doing plenty of doorknocking too and the collapse in the Tory vote is absolutely palpable in a way that I've never seen for a general election, with absolutely no sign of letting up over the past week or two.

PS. Goodnight with that pleasant thought.

Ties in with what I pick up too. I’ve never known anything like it.

Heathener

I posted this as soon as I saw it @bigjohnowls

I have no problem with criticisms of my politics but at least tell the truth

Have a nice day everyone. xx

Heathener

tlg86 said:

First, like Arsenal.

Taking my son to the Tottenham game today, so …

4th, like Tottenham

JosiasJessop

Heathener said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

NickPalmer said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

Opinium / Observer:

Lab 41%
Con 25%
Ref 11%
LD 10%
Green 8%

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/06/only-four-in-10-tory-voters-from-2019-back-sunak-poll

I would imagine without applied swingback this poll, using Opinium's earlier methodology would align with the others and be over 20%. I do agree with you that back in the real world the Cons are way closer to Labour than any poll suggests.

What do you base that on? The six-person canvass we had this morning in an area where we didn't even have council candidates last year produced a haul of Lab 19 Con 9 LD 7 DK 22 Won't vote 4. Even if we assume half the don't knows were shy Tories (and some were merely "don't know between LD and Lab"), we didn't detect any reviving Tory enthusiasm at all.

Yes Nick, I've been doing plenty of doorknocking too and the collapse in the Tory vote is absolutely palpable in a way that I've never seen for a general election, with absolutely no sign of letting up over the past week or two.

PS. Goodnight with that pleasant thought.

Ties in with what I pick up too. I’ve never known anything like it.

What does anyone expect? The Tories are not offering the electorate anything. No hope, no aspiration. They're pathetic.

ydoethur

They haven't even made it through one lap!

DecrepiterJohnL

Save the Chelsea bun, says London MP Greg Hands
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/06/save-the-chelsea-bun-says-london-minister-greg-hands/ (£££)

Conservative MPs find ever more bizarre ways to distinguish themselves from the government.

ydoethur

There was quite a good bar chart by John Harrison, the Tory candidate in Ceredigion, in 2005, showing the Lib Dems 'can't win here.'

They did, but it was quite an amusing leaflet from a candidate who clearly knew he was making up the numbers and one of the things that convinced me to vote for him.

That, and wanting that lying, stupid little twat Alun Davies to come fourth.

Foxy

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

bondegezou

Bad news out of Slovakia as populist and pro-Russian party Hlas wins the presidential election.

TimS

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

Chris

It's a one-horse race. So you can safely vote for the donkey.

LostPassword

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

noneoftheabove

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Foxy

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Tory 29% surely?

Foxy

tlg86 said:

First, like Arsenal.

First like Leicester too, after our blip, great results for us. So tight at the top of the Cjampionship.

Away at Millwall next. Fox Jr 2 going.

noneoftheabove

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Tory 29% surely?

He is the Green candidate for Eastbourne. His numbers are based off current polling and Electoral Calculus, not the last election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastbourne_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Stuartinromford

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Tory 29% surely?

Depends on your choice of starting point.

Conservatives 49 in the last election, down to 29 now in some sort of model?

Really odd bar chart in the recent Romford Rosindellgram that @pjh mentioned last night. Something like C39 L38 Ref16 in Romford, but as a squeeze message for May's Mayor and Assembly elections. Where the score in Romford alone is pretty irrelevant.

(Don't have the exact figures, my copy was recycled long ago.)

Foxy

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Tory 29% surely?

He is the Green candidate for Eastbourne. His numbers are based off current polling and Electoral Calculus, not the last election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastbourne_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Ah, in that case vote LD!

ThomasNashe

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Tory 29% surely?

He is the Green candidate for Eastbourne. His numbers are based off current polling and Electoral Calculus, not the last election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastbourne_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Yes, that’s its really dishonest aspect. The fact is the Tories hold the seat, so if you want them out you should vote LD. Voting Green will help the Tories retain the seat.

LostPassword

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Of course everyone has done this sort of thing in the past, but if politicians will be so dishonest about such a thing is it any wonder that the voters have such a low opinion of them?

This matters a lot more for politicians who are asking the voters to trust them with making large changes. Politicians who support the status quo are well-served by voters overwhelmed by cynicism, who believe that change isn't possible because lying, self-serving politicians can't be trusted.

Went should the voters trust you to make radical changes in the society and economy if they can't even trust your election leaflets? "Why are the bastard voters so cynical?" they will later complain.

You make it easy for someone like Trump to come along with his big lies about not losing an election, if you blur the line between truth and fiction beforehand. This sort of thing really pisses me off. People have to practise respecting the difference between true and false, and these sort of leaflets teach the voters to do the opposite.

Politicians are training the public not to know the difference between the truth and a lie. It creates an environment in which disinformation operations from hostile states can flourish.

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

TimS

ThomasNashe said:

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Tory 29% surely?

He is the Green candidate for Eastbourne. His numbers are based off current polling and Electoral Calculus, not the last election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastbourne_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Yes, that’s its really dishonest aspect. The fact
is the Tories hold the seat, so if you want them
out you should vote LD. Voting Green will help
the Tories retain the seat.

It’s a double edged sword for Josh Babarinde though, and I’ve seen he’s retweeted it with a twinkle of humour rather than outrage.

It establishes the Lib Dems as unquestionably the main challengers to the Tories in the seat. That forestalls any Labour shenanigans and for a lot of unengaged voters it may be the first they’ve thought about the tactical option.

Looks more credible coming from another party than a self-serving Lib Dem bar chart.

TimS

LostPassword said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Of course everyone has done this sort of thing in the past, but if politicians will be so dishonest about such a thing is it any wonder that the voters have such a low opinion of them?

This matters a lot more for politicians who are asking the voters to trust them with making large changes. Politicians who support the status quo are well-served by voters overwhelmed by cynicism, who believe that change isn't possible because lying, self-serving politicians can't be trusted.

Went should the voters trust you to make radical changes in the society and economy if they can't even trust your election leaflets? "Why are the bastard voters so cynical?" they will later complain.

You make it easy for someone like Trump to come along with his big lies about not losing an election, if you blur the line between truth and fiction beforehand. This sort of thing really pisses me off. People have to practise respecting the difference between true and false, and these sort of leaflets teach the voters to do the opposite.

Politicians are training the public not to know the difference between the truth and a lie. It creates an environment in which disinformation operations from hostile states can flourish.

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

Abolish FPTP and bar charts disappear, just like that.

IanB2

Mt Etna is blowing amazingly good smoke rings!

LostPassword

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Tory 29% surely?

He is the Green candidate for Eastbourne. His numbers are based off current polling and Electoral Calculus, not the last election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastbourne_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Eastbourne has changed hands in all four of the last elections. That must be quite unusual.

LostPassword

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Of course everyone has done this sort of thing in the past, but if politicians will be so dishonest about such a thing is it any wonder that the voters have such a low opinion of them?

This matters a lot more for politicians who are asking the voters to trust them with making large changes. Politicians who support the status quo are well-served by voters overwhelmed by cynicism, who believe that change isn't possible because lying, self-serving politicians can't be trusted.

Went should the voters trust you to make radical changes in the society and economy if they can't even trust your election leaflets? "Why are the bastard voters so cynical?" they will later complain.

You make it easy for someone like Trump to come along with his big lies about not losing an election, if you blur the line between truth and fiction beforehand. This sort of thing really pisses me off. People have to practise respecting the difference between true and false, and these sort of leaflets teach the voters to do the opposite.

Politicians are training the public not to know the difference between the truth and a lie. It creates an environment in which disinformation operations from hostile states can flourish.

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

Abolish FPTP and bar charts disappear, just like that.

Yes. An end to stupid tactical voting arguments, and the negative campaigning of "only x can stop y", is one of the great benefits of ditching FPTP.

Thirteen years since the lost AV referendum now.

Northern_Al

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

First, like Arsenal.

First like Leicester too, after our blip, great results for us. So tight at the top of the Cjampionship.

Away at Millwall next. Fox Jr 2 going.

Brave. Hope he (or she) gets back safely.

Foxy

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Of course everyone has done this sort of thing in the past, but if politicians will be so dishonest about such a thing is it any wonder that the voters have such a low opinion of them?

This matters a lot more for politicians who are asking the voters to trust them with making large changes. Politicians who support the status quo are well-served by voters overwhelmed by cynicism, who believe that change isn't possible because lying, self-serving politicians can't be trusted.

Went should the voters trust you to make radical changes in the society and economy if they can't even trust your election leaflets? "Why are the bastard voters so cynical?" they will later complain.

You make it easy for someone like Trump to come along with his big lies about not losing an election, if you blur the line between truth and fiction beforehand. This sort of thing really pisses me off. People have to practise respecting the difference between true and false, and these sort of leaflets teach the voters to do the opposite.

Politicians are training the public not to know the difference between the truth and a lie. It creates an environment in which disinformation operations from hostile states can flourish.

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

Abolish FPTP and bar charts disappear, just like that.

Yes. An end to stupid tactical voting arguments, and the negative campaigning of "only x can stop y", is one of the great benefits of ditching FPTP.

Thirteen years since the lost AV referendum now.

The AV referendum presaged the Brexit one.

Referendums are often not settled on their merits but rather treated as a way to kick the government. First the AV one kicked Clegg, then the Brexit one kicked Cameron.

mwadams

Heathener said:

tlg86 said:

First, like Arsenal.

Taking my son to the Tottenham game today, so …

4th, like Tottenham

Íf you could arrange for them to have a nightmare so Forest can stay up, I'd be very grateful.

Foxy

Northern_Al said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

First, like Arsenal.

First like Leicester too, after our blip, great results for us. So tight at the top of the Cjampionship.

Away at Millwall next. Fox Jr 2 going.

Brave. Hope he (or she) gets back safely.

He is at uni in London, lives just a couple of miles from the New Den. I told him to keep his colours covered until in the ground.

He is pretty streetwise.

Peter_the_Punter

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

And it actually displays a welcome sense of humour.

LostPassword

Foxy said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Of course everyone has done this sort of thing in the past, but if politicians will be so dishonest about such a thing is it any wonder that the voters have such a low opinion of them?

This matters a lot more for politicians who are asking the voters to trust them with making large changes. Politicians who support the status quo are well-served by voters overwhelmed by cynicism, who believe that change isn't possible because lying, self-serving politicians can't be trusted.

Went should the voters trust you to make radical changes in the society and economy if they can't even trust your election leaflets? "Why are the bastard voters so cynical?" they will later complain.

You make it easy for someone like Trump to come along with his big lies about not losing an election, if you blur the line between truth and fiction beforehand. This sort of thing really pisses me off. People have to practise respecting the difference between true and false, and these sort of leaflets teach the voters to do the opposite.

Politicians are training the public not to know the difference between the truth and a lie. It creates an environment in which disinformation operations from hostile states can flourish.

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

Abolish FPTP and bar charts disappear, just like that.

Yes. An end to stupid tactical voting arguments, and the negative campaigning of "only x can stop y", is one of the great benefits of ditching FPTP.

Thirteen years since the lost AV referendum now.

The AV referendum presaged the Brexit one.

Referendums are often not settled on their merits but rather treated as a way to kick the government. First the AV one kicked Clegg, then the Brexit one kicked Cameron.

You can tell the tale of Cameron's Premiership in the three referendums - shafting the Lib Dems; a narrow escape from disaster misinterpreted as a great personal triumph; hubris cruelly exposed.

Boris Johnson's story would consist of three lies - the difficulty being choosing just three.

Northern_Al

Foxy said:

Northern_Al said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

First, like Arsenal.

First like Leicester too, after our blip, great results for us. So tight at the top of the Cjampionship.

Away at Millwall next. Fox Jr 2 going.

Brave. Hope he (or she) gets back safely.

He is at uni in London, lives just a couple of miles from the New Den. I told him to keep his colours covered until in the ground.

He is pretty streetwise.

I wasn't being serious.

Foxy

It would be nice to get some constituency markets for seats like these.

The UK GE markets are a bit short of punting opportunities. Even the seat markets have poor liquidity.

Casino_Royale

The brazenness of that "barcharting" needs to win some sort of award.

Foxy

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

Casino_Royale

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

I think she'll hang on. She starts north of 60%, has great name recognition and works the seat hard.

It's not the sort of seat filled with grads and young professionals that could flip it.

Carnyx

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

Just wait till SKS says he's going to increase defence spending.

SouthamObserver

Foxy said:

It would be nice to get some constituency markets for seats like these.

The UK GE markets are a bit short of punting opportunities. Even the seat markets have poor liquidity.

Look at Honiton and Sidmouth. That should heat up.

Casino_Royale

Off topic, managed to make £43.14 profit yesterday off two bets on the 13.30 at Kempton Park just as the horses were lining up: Auric to win plus E/W on Boudicca- both of which came in! Only bet a fiver on the first and £2 on the second - at heroically long odds - so it was quite fun. If I'd lost it was table stakes. But I didn't, so great times.

Why did I do it? It was on at Costa with subtitles and I was waiting with my kids for our toasties and drinks to be served, so I logged on and quickly mucked about.

What did I do with it? I bought a new outside jacket reduced from £79.99 to £49.99 from Mountain Warehouse in the spring sale, so it essentially paid for that.

Nice.

DecrepiterJohnL

IanB2 said:

Mt Etna is blowing amazingly good smoke rings!

BBC 30-second video of Mount Etna blowing smoke rings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-68752290

Carnyx

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Of course everyone has done this sort of thing in the past, but if politicians will be so dishonest about such a thing is it any wonder that the voters have such a low opinion of them?

This matters a lot more for politicians who are asking the voters to trust them with making large changes. Politicians who support the status quo are well-served by voters overwhelmed by cynicism, who believe that change isn't possible because lying, self-serving politicians can't be trusted.

Went should the voters trust you to make radical changes in the society and economy if they can't even trust your election leaflets? "Why are the bastard voters so cynical?" they will later complain.

You make it easy for someone like Trump to come along with his big lies about not losing an election, if you blur the line between truth and fiction beforehand. This sort of thing really pisses me off. People have to practise respecting the difference between true and false, and these sort of leaflets teach the voters to do the opposite.

Politicians are training the public not to know the difference between the truth and a lie. It creates an environment in which disinformation operations from hostile states can flourish.

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

Abolish FPTP and bar charts disappear, just like that.

Yes. An end to stupid tactical voting arguments, and the negative campaigning of "only x can stop y", is one of the great benefits of ditching FPTP.

Thirteen years since the lost AV referendum now.

I'm old enough tio remember Scottish Tories saying that only a vote for them would stop indy. In Scottish local elections. Which are not FPTP.

Benpointer

Casino_Royale said:

The brazenness of that "barcharting" needs to win some sort of award.

Oh, I don't know, it seems like it's a bit tongue-in-cheek to me. It's not as if Munson is suggesting he will win.

The Lib Dems must be pleased. Extra PR for them.

Foxy

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

I think she'll hang on. She starts north of 60%, has great name recognition and works the seat hard.

It's not the sort of seat filled with grads and young professionals that could flip it.

213 on Labour's target list, so a bit of a stretch. She should be OK as good local and national presence, but these are the sorts of seats we are looking at Con losing on current polling.

PJH

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Tory 29% surely?

Depends on your choice of starting point.

Conservatives 49 in the last election, down to 29 now in some sort of model?

Really odd bar chart in the recent Romford Rosindellgram that @pjh mentioned last night. Something like C39 L38 Ref16 in Romford, but as a squeeze message for May's Mayor and Assembly elections. Where the score in Romford alone is pretty irrelevant.

(Don't have the exact figures, my copy was recycled long ago.)

Fished out of the recycling bin just for @Stuartinromford


Oddly it says Hornchurch, which doesn't exist as an electoral unit at any level. I guess his staffer cut and replaced 'Romford' from the standard blurb once too often.

Heathener

mwadams said:

Heathener said:

tlg86 said:

First, like Arsenal.

Taking my son to the Tottenham game today, so …

4th, like Tottenham

Íf you could arrange for them to have a nightmare so Forest can stay up, I'd be very grateful.

I can’t like this but it made me smile

DecrepiterJohnL

Casino_Royale said:

Off topic, managed to make £43.14 profit yesterday off two bets on the 13.30 at Kempton Park just as the horses were lining up: Auric to win plus E/W on Boudicca- both of which came in! Only bet a fiver on the first and £2 on the second - at heroically long odds - so it was quite fun. If I'd lost it was table stakes. But I didn't, so great times.

Why did I do it? It was on at Costa with subtitles and I was waiting with my kids for our toasties and drinks to be served, so I logged on and quickly mucked about.

What did I do with it? I bought a new outside jacket reduced from £79.99 to £49.99 from Mountain Warehouse in the spring sale, so it essentially paid for that.

Nice.

Frankie Dettori wins six consecutive races at Santa Anita
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/horse-racing/68754417

nico679

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

The brazenness of that "barcharting" needs to win some sort of award.

Oh, I don't know, it seems like it's a bit tongue-in-cheek to me. It's not as if Munson is suggesting he will win.

The Lib Dems must be pleased. Extra PR for them.

If the Lib Dems don’t win here in Eastbourne then the horror of another 5 years of this cesspit government could happen . If Mr Munson ends up on my doorstep I will tell him exactly what I think .

LostPassword

Carnyx said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

Minor parties make exactly the same play in my seat where Labour have a completely unassailable majority. It’s a free hit.

Makes sense as a campaigning approach so long as the seat is actually safe from the Tories squeezing through.

On the numbers presented here, though, it's not actually true in this seat. If we generously assume there are no other parties, and so the Greens start on 13%, then if the Greens take votes directly from the Lib Dems, the Tories can win the seat with 29% with a vote split of:

LDM 28% (-14)
CON 29% (nc)
LAB 16% (nc)
GRN 27% (+14)

I've voted Green in the last five general elections, and I'm a big believer in voting for what you want. I figured that if I wanted Green policies I had to vote for them to show politicians they were important to this voter.

But it does risk splitting the vote and so every voter has to decide what is most important to them.

I think the evidence is that UKIP-inclined voters achieved more with their 12.6% of the vote in 2015, than Green-inclined voters have with voting tactically to elect Labour MPs and keep the Tories out.

The starting point for the seat is Tories 49 LDs 41. It is absurd to say voting Green does not increase the chances of a Tory hold. (Yes of course LDs and others have done similar in the past).

Of course everyone has done this sort of thing in the past, but if politicians will be so dishonest about such a thing is it any wonder that the voters have such a low opinion of them?

This matters a lot more for politicians who are asking the voters to trust them with making large changes. Politicians who support the status quo are well-served by voters overwhelmed by cynicism, who believe that change isn't possible because lying, self-serving politicians can't be trusted.

Went should the voters trust you to make radical changes in the society and economy if they can't even trust your election leaflets? "Why are the bastard voters so cynical?" they will later complain.

You make it easy for someone like Trump to come along with his big lies about not losing an election, if you blur the line between truth and fiction beforehand. This sort of thing really pisses me off. People have to practise respecting the difference between true and false, and these sort of leaflets teach the voters to do the opposite.

Politicians are training the public not to know the difference between the truth and a lie. It creates an environment in which disinformation operations from hostile states can flourish.

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

Abolish FPTP and bar charts disappear, just like that.

Yes. An end to stupid tactical voting arguments, and the negative campaigning of "only x can stop y", is one of the great benefits of ditching FPTP.

Thirteen years since the lost AV referendum now.

I'm old enough tio remember Scottish Tories saying that only a vote for them would stop indy. In Scottish local elections. Which are not FPTP.

Okay. I should correct myself that the formulation I object to is more specifically, "only party x can stop party y".

If the y is policy-based than the construction is fine, even if you might debate whether it is accurate. For example, "only the Tories can stop public spending waste," or, "only Labour can stop poverty," or, "only the Greens can stop climate change," etc.

So the Tory claim you cite is debatable, but it's not an example of what I was complaining about.

Mexicanpete

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

I think she'll hang on. She starts north of 60%, has great name recognition and works the seat hard.

It's not the sort of seat filled with grads and young professionals that could flip it.

213 on Labour's target list, so a bit of a stretch. She should be OK as good local and national presence, but these are the sorts of seats we are looking at Con losing on current polling.

She has a great local presence. There isn't a month goes by when she doesn't open a community pantry.

Peter_the_Punter

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

That would make her a good bet to be next Tory Leader.

Heathener

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

Stuartinromford

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

I think she'll hang on. She starts north of 60%, has great name recognition and works the seat hard.

It's not the sort of seat filled with grads and young professionals that could flip it.

213 on Labour's target list, so a bit of a stretch. She should be OK as good local and national presence, but these are the sorts of seats we are looking at Con losing on current polling.

The other thing to remember is that SE Hampshire is a bit of the north that broke off and got stuck back in the wrong place. There's potential to swing a lot, especially given how unsound on patriotism Corbyn was seen as being.

At city level, the Conservatives are in a very bad way, but have mostly lost to a localist party rather than Labour.

Foxy

Peter_the_Punter said:

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

That would make her a good bet to be next Tory Leader.

Yes, my thoughts too.

Carnyx

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

Interesting. It's not so long that the Gadarene swine were rushing in the other direction. Indeed, there's a link to a previous piece at the foot of that one -

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/31/landlords-evicting-tenants-for-airbnb-and-holidays-lets-report-finds

Foxy

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

It seems to be government policy in a number of areas to clamp down on AirBnB type rentals, to try to take some of the pressure off local housing crises. There were measures in the budget for this, but one effect is indeed to send people abroad for their holidays.

It will be interesting to see if the fad for camper vans drops off too. Not from anecdotal experience so far.

Benpointer

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

"I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book"

Good grief, what are you reading - Le Grand Cyrus (13,905 pages)? https://artamene.othone.org ;-)

DecrepiterJohnL

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

What seems like nine months of solid rain concentrates the holidaymaker's mind, even if our summers have been too hot as well. Also, there are midges in the Highlands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMLona9oelM

DavidL

Foxy said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

It seems to be government policy in a number of areas to clamp down on AirBnB type rentals, to try to take some of the pressure off local housing crises. There were measures in the budget for this, but one effect is indeed to send people abroad for their holidays.

It will be interesting to see if the fad for camper vans drops off too. Not from anecdotal experience so far.

The SNP certainly seem to want theirs back!

DavidL

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

Mt Etna is blowing amazingly good smoke rings!

BBC 30-second video of Mount Etna blowing smoke rings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-68752290

Talking of weird meteorological events its not actually raining this morning and, in between the rapidly scudding clouds, there is the odd shaft of what we used to call sunlight (as I recall). Whatever next?

DecrepiterJohnL

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

Mt Etna is blowing amazingly good smoke rings!

BBC 30-second video of Mount Etna blowing smoke rings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-68752290

Talking of weird meteorological events its not actually raining this morning and, in between the rapidly scudding clouds, there is the odd shaft of what we used to call sunlight (as I recall). Whatever next?

The juxtaposition of Storm Kathleen and the start of summer is absurd.

IanB2

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

Mt Etna is blowing amazingly good smoke rings!

BBC 30-second video of Mount Etna blowing smoke rings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-68752290

Talking of weird meteorological events its not actually raining this morning and, in between the rapidly scudding clouds, there is the odd shaft of what we used to call sunlight (as I recall). Whatever next?

The juxtaposition of Storm Kathleen and the start of summer is absurd.

We have sunny but windy

Carnyx

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

What seems like nine months of solid rain concentrates the holidaymaker's mind, even if our summers have been too hot as well. Also, there are midges in the Highlands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMLona9oelM

There are midges in the Lowlands too. Got bitten early this month.

But it's usually only really the summer that is the bad season.

I'm wondering how it will be this year with the mild winter, though.

This will be useful

https://www.smidgeup.com/midge-forecast/

And not for delicate folk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-66532082

Foxy

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

I think she'll hang on. She starts north of 60%, has great name recognition and works the seat hard.

It's not the sort of seat filled with grads and young professionals that could flip it.

213 on Labour's target list, so a bit of a stretch. She should be OK as good local and national presence, but these are the sorts of seats we are looking at Con losing on current polling.

The other thing to remember is that SE Hampshire is a bit of the north that broke off and got stuck back in the wrong place. There's potential to swing a lot, especially given how unsound on patriotism Corbyn was seen as being.

At city level, the Conservatives are in a very bad way, but have mostly lost to a localist party rather than Labour.

I know Hampshire reasonably well as went to school there, and my folks still live there, so get down there fairly often, as well as passing through on the way to the Island. I tend to favour the Southampton over Porstmouth route.

I wouldn't say that SE Hampshire is a bit of the North, but rather more like other coastal cities in the South, with added Naval tradition. Its only since the Blue vote became so concentrated amongst the retired that these became solidly Tory, having had much more diverse politics before.

If we look at the polling tables even the 65+ demographic is more evenly split between Lab and Tory now being 22/34 now in the latest YouGov. I think this in part explains the differential larger swing to Lab in the seats outside Labour safe seats. That and the ceiling effect.

If the oldies stop voting Con, they don't have much left.

DecrepiterJohnL

Foxy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

That would make her a good bet to be next Tory Leader.

Yes, my thoughts too.

Penny for PM or LotO: Even if the matelots do return her to Parliament, we need to factor in that the Conservative Party in the country will determine its next leader, and they gave us Liz Truss.

NickPalmer

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

I think that's right. The difficulty is with current polling deciding what a safe seat is.

Heathener

Benpointer said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

"I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book"

Good grief, what are you reading - Le Grand Cyrus (13,905 pages)? https://artamene.othone.org ;-)

Stuartinromford

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

That would make her a good bet to be next Tory Leader.

Yes, my thoughts too.

Penny for PM or LotO: Even if the matelots do return her to Parliament, we need to factor in that the Conservative Party in the country will determine its next leader, and they gave us Liz Truss.

And IDS. PM for LotO would be sensible - she has oomph and can say something to all the people not voting Conservative right now. I don't think she wins in 2028, but she might groom a successor who has a chance in 2032.

But if the alternative is (say) Suella B, she loses.

Cookie

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

Even the Observer is now using 'Staycation' to mean 'a holiday in tge same country that you live'? A shame. Almost all my holidays have been in tge UK and I don't consider them somehow any less of a holiday.
If we lived in a tiny country like Luxembourg I could get on board with the term. Or if it were used to mean a holiday within, say, 20 miles of where you live. But the UK is huge. It takes at least five hours for me to get to Cornwall or the Highlands. That's not staying at home in any sense.

DecrepiterJohnL

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

That would make her a good bet to be next Tory Leader.

Yes, my thoughts too.

Penny for PM or LotO: Even if the matelots do return her to Parliament, we need to factor in that the Conservative Party in the country will determine its next leader, and they gave us Liz Truss.

If Penny is to be Prime Minister, it would need to be a coronation before the election. Can that be arranged or are there too many rival factions already throwing their candidates' hats into the ring?

Heathener

p.s. ^^^ sorry ^^^, I increasingly feel it’s pretentious to say you’re a writer but I have been lucky enough to be a bestseller.

Heathener

Cookie said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

Even the Observer is now using 'Staycation' to mean 'a holiday in tge same country that you live'? A shame. Almost all my holidays have been in tge UK and I don't consider them somehow any less of a holiday.
If we lived in a tiny country like Luxembourg I could get on board with the term. Or if it were used to mean a holiday within, say, 20 miles of where you live. But the UK is huge. It takes at least five hours for me to get to Cornwall or the Highlands. That's not staying at home in any sense.

We had this discussion a while back, perhaps a year or so.

I’m very happy with the idea that staycation = a UK based holiday.

Carnyx

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

What seems like nine months of solid rain concentrates the holidaymaker's mind, even if our summers have been too hot as well. Also, there are midges in the Highlands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMLona9oelM

There are midges in the Lowlands too. Got bitten early this month.

But it's usually only really the summer that is the bad season.

I'm wondering how it will be this year with the mild winter, though.

This will be useful

https://www.smidgeup.com/midge-forecast/

And not for delicate folk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-66532082

And just to cheer us up some more about the weird weather, I find this on the Graun:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/apr/07/id-never-been-bitten-by-a-tick-before-why-the-little-blood-sucking-pest-is-getting-us-into-a-panic

Tick-borne Lyme disease aka borreliosis is on the up.

At least you don't catch anything from a Highland midge.

MJW

NickPalmer said:

Foxy said:

I don't know this seat, but there is a logic to it that I like.

In a safe seat (not sure these exist still for the Tories!) It is safe for the party that you really want, whether Green, Reform or Count Binface. That way you make your point and get whatever policy you like some attention, and perhaps even into a position to squeeze votes tactically down the line.

In safe seats we are nor subject to the tactical squeeze.

I think that's right. The difficulty is with current polling deciding what a safe seat is.

Or indeed given the atomisation and changes to the electorate. Depending on the extent to which the 'Blue Wall' falls/almost does, it'll pretty much leave leave Labour's inner city strongholds and a tiny number of super rural Tory seats as the only places where there hasn't been a serious challenge to the traditionally dominant party in recent memory.

Heathener

Foxy said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

It will be interesting to see if the fad for camper vans drops off too. Not from anecdotal experience so far.

I also think ‘van life,’ as in living in a vehicle, will continue to be a thing for as long accommodation is so expensive here.

another_richard

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

A staycation has trivial costs as it involves staying at your own home.

But the UK has become a country where having a holiday in your own country no longer counts as having a holiday.

And where the government is borrowing about £40bn from foreigners each year so that Britain can run a tourism deficit of about £40bn.

BatteryCorrectHorse

Very worrying signs coming out of Iran

Heathener

another_richard said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

A staycation has trivial costs as it involves staying at your own home.

But the UK has become a country where having a holiday in your own country no longer counts as having a holiday.

I kind-of think those banging this drum are showing their age if I may say.

The world shrank. People travel globally now. Over 50% of Brits will go abroad this year, with over 60% of younger Brits:
https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/tourism/half-of-britons-plan-to-travel-abroad-this-year-despite-rising-holiday-cost-concerns-research-reveals

A holiday in the UK = staying at home = staycation.

darkage

Heathener said:

Foxy said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

It will be interesting to see if the fad for camper vans drops off too. Not from anecdotal experience so far.

I also think ‘van life,’ as in living in a vehicle, will continue to be a thing for as long accommodation is so expensive here.

Isn't the point though that because the market for airbnb's have got saturated the cost of renting them out has fallen? If you search for an airbnb apartment on the south coast they rent out for about £65 a night out of season.

Heathener

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Foxy said:

Interesting review of Portsmouth North. Sounds like Penny will hang on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/07/pompey-penny-mordaunt-is-at-risk-but-theres-little-love-for-labour-either-on-portsmouth-north-seat

That would make her a good bet to be next Tory Leader.

Yes, my thoughts too.

Penny for PM or LotO: Even if the matelots do return her to Parliament, we need to factor in that the Conservative Party in the country will determine its next leader, and they gave us Liz Truss.

Indeed. I can’t see the remaining Party rump being sensible. It usually takes one, or even two, more heavy defeats for them to come to their senses and pitch for the middle ground.

If Penny isn’t in place before the GE then the Party will surely lurch even further to the right?

Not that I think she’s safe then even if they do install her before the election. There seems to be quite a bit of fuel left in the right-wing tank.

darkage

I would comment that Britain is pretty much on the same level now with Finland in terms of cost of living. The only really noticeable expense that is cheaper in england is beer from the supermarket. Everything else is pretty similar.

Barnesian

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

Mt Etna is blowing amazingly good smoke rings!

BBC 30-second video of Mount Etna blowing smoke rings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-68752290

Talking of weird meteorological events its not actually raining this morning and, in between the rapidly scudding clouds, there is the odd shaft of what we used to call sunlight (as I recall). Whatever next?

The juxtaposition of Storm Kathleen and the start of summer is absurd.

We have sunny but windy

Same here in Cadiz. Dust from the Sahara. Enormous waves. Very hot.

Heathener

darkage said:

Heathener said:

Foxy said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

It will be interesting to see if the fad for camper vans drops off too. Not from anecdotal experience so far.

I also think ‘van life,’ as in living in a vehicle, will continue to be a thing for as long accommodation is so expensive here.

Isn't the point though that because the market for airbnb's have got saturated the cost of renting them out has fallen? If you search for an airbnb apartment on the south coast they rent out for about £65 a night out of season.

I know that when searching for a shoulder season apartment in the south-west I was looking at over £2000 pcm. The Highlands you can easily double that. And we’re not talking particularly amazing accommodation either.

I can rent something, and indeed have, for half that price in Norway. That’s Norway which is supposed to be really expensive [as @darkage mentions it’s really the alcohol which promotes this theory now & I don’t drink booze]

If I went as a digital nomad to, say, Thailand or Malaysia I could rent a fabulous apartment for £500 pcm.

another_richard

Heathener said:

another_richard said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

A staycation has trivial costs as it involves staying at your own home.

But the UK has become a country where having a holiday in your own country no longer counts as having a holiday.

I kind-of think those banging this drum are showing their age if I may say.

The world shrank. People travel globally now. Over 50% of Brits will go abroad this year, with over 60% of younger Brits:
https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/tourism/half-of-britons-plan-to-travel-abroad-this-year-despite-rising-holiday-cost-concerns-research-reveals

A holiday in the UK = staying at home = staycation.

No, a staycation is a specific thing where you have time off work but stay at your own home.

Spending the time relaxing, catching up on jobs, pottering about the garden, visiting local museums/parks/restaurants, going on a day trip or two. All likely at minimal cost and stress.

Whereas a holiday is a period of time during which you relax and enjoy yourself away from home - Collins definition.

If someone had two weeks in Devon, a week in Norfolk and a week in the Lake district but claimed not to have had a holiday that year they would be as ridiculous as they were self-entitled.

Heathener

another_richard said:

Heathener said:

another_richard said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

A staycation has trivial costs as it involves staying at your own home.

But the UK has become a country where having a holiday in your own country no longer counts as having a holiday.

I kind-of think those banging this drum are showing their age if I may say.

The world shrank. People travel globally now. Over 50% of Brits will go abroad this year, with over 60% of younger Brits:
https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/tourism/half-of-britons-plan-to-travel-abroad-this-year-despite-rising-holiday-cost-concerns-research-reveals

A holiday in the UK = staying at home = staycation.

No, a staycation is a specific thing where you have time off work but stay at your own home.

You’re very entitled to your view but you’re on a loser with this one I’m afraid. Pushing water uphill etc.

Staycation is now accepted as UK.

Language & definitions change and we, sometimes, just have to shrug our shoulders, accept it, and move on.

Barnesian

Barnesian said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

Mt Etna is blowing amazingly good smoke rings!

BBC 30-second video of Mount Etna blowing smoke rings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-68752290

Talking of weird meteorological events its not actually raining this morning and, in between the rapidly scudding clouds, there is the odd shaft of what we used to call sunlight (as I recall). Whatever next?

The juxtaposition of Storm Kathleen and the start of summer is absurd.

We have sunny but windy

Same here in Cadiz. Dust from the Sahara. Enormous waves. Very hot.

AirBnb three bedrooms, sleep 8. 130 Euros a night. A decent glass of wine at the bar/cafe round the corner is 2.70 euro.

Scott_xP

@REWearmouth

Asked whether Rishi Sunak is exasperated by poll after poll showing the Tories are on course for defeat, Oliver Dowden says: “The PM is full of vim and vigour.”

DavidL

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Very worrying signs coming out of Iran

The attack on their diplomatic mission in Syria killing 7 of their people and 2 generals was a deliberately provocative act by Israel designed to get a response and, presumably widen the war in the hope that the Americans will then have to stay on board. The Israelis in general and Netanyahu in particular seem to be losing it.

another_richard

Heathener said:

another_richard said:

Heathener said:

another_richard said:

Heathener said:

Also on that Observer Portsmouth link, I noticed this:

'Is the British staycation boom over? Short-term holiday rentals experienced a surge in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when Britons stayed at home in the UK, leading to a spike in rates.

However, holiday-let owners across the UK are reporting a significant fall in bookings so far this year as the sector feels the effects of the cost of living crisis, poor weather and an increasingly saturated market.’

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/07/britains-staycation-boom-may-be-over-as-bookings-dry-up

The main reason imho that Britain’s staycation is over is that this country is stupidly expensive. I’m about to take a couple of months out to finish a book and I looked at somewhere in the UK to base myself. It would cost me literally at least twice the rental on airbnb compared to other European countries, including one (Norway) which is notorious for being pricey. If I wanted to park myself in the Scottish Highlands, which was tempting, it would be 3x or even 4x the cost of staying in an equally stunning property in Scandinavia.

My brother is about to spend four nights in the Wye valley. For the same price as he’s paying for the room only he could have a week’s half-board in mainland Europe including the flights.

From trains to accommodation, Britain has become a rip-off.

A staycation has trivial costs as it involves staying at your own home.

But the UK has become a country where having a holiday in your own country no longer counts as having a holiday.

I kind-of think those banging this drum are showing their age if I may say.

The world shrank. People travel globally now. Over 50% of Brits will go abroad this year, with over 60% of younger Brits:
https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/tourism/half-of-britons-plan-to-travel-abroad-this-year-despite-rising-holiday-cost-concerns-research-reveals

A holiday in the UK = staying at home = staycation.

No, a staycation is a specific thing where you have time off work but stay at your own home.

You’re very entitled to your view but you’re on a loser with this one I’m afraid. Pushing water uphill etc.

Staycation is now accepted as UK.

Language & definitions change and we, sometimes, just have to shrug our shoulders, accept it, and move on.

If I say the sun rises in the east and the rest of the world says it rises in the west I may be outnumbered but I am still correct.

Except I doubt the rest of the world calls having a holiday in their own country as not having a holiday.

And if you insist that having a UK holiday is a staycation then what word do you use for actually having a staycation ie staying at your home during time off work.

All this discussion highlights is the rather whiny self-entitlement many have in this country that only a foreign holiday counts as a 'proper' holiday and it being somehow their 'right' to have one.

SandyRentool

Mention of Millwall down thread reminds me of an anecdote from back in the day...

Bloke from the North East decides to go to a Millwall game. Buys himself a Millwall scarf and strolls into a pub full of Millwall fans. Immediately, one of them turns to him and says "You're not Millwall." The reason being that none of them wore colours. However, they admired his approach, and let him join them for a pint rather than giving him a kicking.

Scott_xP

@Dylan_Difford

An alternative way of visualising the change in Conservative support since 2019.

Biggest losses among Leavers (-36), over 65s (-29) and in the Midlands (-28), with damage among homeowners, those without a degree and in the South also substantial.

another_richard

DavidL said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Very worrying signs coming out of Iran

The attack on their diplomatic mission in Syria killing 7 of their people and 2 generals was a deliberately provocative act by Israel designed to get a response and, presumably widen the war in the hope that the Americans will then have to stay on board. The Israelis in general and Netanyahu in particular seem to be losing it.

Makes political sense for Bibi and strategic sense for Israel.

A full scale war with Iran would be better sooner than later for Israel.

Every year onwards brings Iran closer to having nuclear weapons.

FF43

I find self catering to be broadly similar in cost between the UK and rest of Europe. In any case not big enough a difference in price to force you to go somewhere else. But I guess it depends on area, property and when you decide to go.

Property owners will often give you better rates on their own websites. Check out reviews on Airbnb etc first to make sure they're bona fide.

DavidL

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Very worrying signs coming out of Iran

The attack on their diplomatic mission in Syria killing 7 of their people and 2 generals was a deliberately provocative act by Israel designed to get a response and, presumably widen the war in the hope that the Americans will then have to stay on board. The Israelis in general and Netanyahu in particular seem to be losing it.

Makes political sense for Bibi and strategic sense for Israel.

A full scale war with Iran would be better sooner than later for Israel.

Every year onwards brings Iran closer to having nuclear weapons.

I agree about the political sense for Bibi. The rest I am not nearly so sure about.

another_richard

SandyRentool said:

Mention of Millwall down thread reminds me of an anecdote from back in the day...

Bloke from the North East decides to go to a Millwall game. Buys himself a Millwall scarf and strolls into a pub full of Millwall fans. Immediately, one of them turns to him and says "You're not Millwall." The reason being that none of them wore colours. However, they admired his approach, and let him join them for a pint rather than giving him a kicking.

Was it Rod Liddle ?

Donkeys

Great bar chart. Message: "The LibDems are going to win, and nobody likes them, so you might as well piss your vote away on a pretty colour as a heroic gesture?"

DavidL

FF43 said:

I find self catering to be broadly similar in cost between the UK and rest of Europe. In any case not big enough a difference in price to force you to go somewhere else. But I guess it depends on area, property and when you decide to go.

Property owners will often give you better rates on their own websites. Check out reviews on Airbnb etc first to make sure they're bona fide.

What I have found over the last several years is that European countries, particularly Mediterranean countries, costs have risen sharply and are now much more equivalent to what you would pay in this country. The fantastic meals of seafood and Sangria that we used to have in Albufeira, for example, are now every bit as expensive as going to a decent restaurant in this country.

This has acted as a bit of a disincentive to going abroad and we have had staycations in the UK (I am in the @Heathener camp on this one) the last 3 years and very enjoyable it has been too. I think, for me, the experience of flying and dealing with airports and their so called security has become so unpleasant that I would only do it if there was something very specific that I wanted to go and see.