Incidentally, that new ICM, Baxtered, gives the Tories a 142 seat majority, and Labour are left with 178. Not quite extinction. But it will take probably them a decade or more to recover.
Labour probably only need to get to 260 to form a minority non-Tory government.
I wonder when the polls will show CROSSOVER.....
....No, don't be silly not *that* crossover, I mean when the tory majority is larger then the number of Labour seats. I'm calling it "MAJORITY CROSSOVER".
Thank you for your comments about in this and the previous thread, which I enjoyed as being convincing, germane and Not Bloody Brexit.
However, there is one thing I need you to do please. Stop referring to "pollsters" as "statisticians". Polling, just like operational research, market research, and data science, is associated with, but not technically part of, statistics. "Pollsters" are not "statisticians" and I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd stop referring to them as such, please
I consider myself rapped across the knuckles! :-)
FWIW, I doubt if I've referred to the pollsters as statisticians around these parts before, so I doubt it'll manifest as an annoying habit in future.
Thank you. My pedantry conceals an important point: the use of statistical theory by pollsters is sometimes unjustified, for example the use of margin of error theory for nonprobability samples is deprecated. Neverthless they're still going to do it, because of cost and time issues, so the best I can do is highlight the discussion. If you have forty minutes, here's a discussion on YouTube of that issue. If you haven'y got the time, then just click on the "show more" bit for an outline of the problem.
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
The government recently purchased a fleet of trains for the Thameslink project and rolling stock upgrades to replace the intercity 125s on the east and west coast mainline.
Incidentally, that new ICM, Baxtered, gives the Tories a 142 seat majority, and Labour are left with 178. Not quite extinction. But it will take probably them a decade or more to recover.
Averaging all four today gives Con 45% Lab 30%, a majority of 104. In practice, I'd expect a bigger majority with a 15% lead.
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
I will look into the housing, I assumed that the sell offs were not raising enough to build the pub housing levels that Corbyn was mentioning, he was talking 100,000 wasn't it?
So you are saying we should cut Doctors pay to raise the nurses pay? And this would cost nothing? Do you have figures for that because that sound massively, massively unlikely and it would involve subverting current employment contracts as well as pissing off the most important group of people in the NHS.
Well so far you've not done too well.
Not *cut* doctors' pay; raise it more slowly than inflation. It vastly increased under the Labour/GPs agreement of 2004 and GPs lost responsibility for out of hours' care. They earn over £100k/y. It's a responsible job but doctors in other EU countries earn significantly less.
The trains post-privatisation were leased at somewhat rip-off rates. Buy them back; it's cheaper for the operator to own them. If it takes 15-20 years to buy back the franchises, so be it. BR was an arms-length agency which took less micro management than the franchisees do.
The pay scale for salaried GPs is £56 to £85,000 which is a fair way short of £100k. Partners, of course, typically earn more.
Which team would you most trust to negotiate Britain's exit from the European Union? Theresa May and David Davis: 44 Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer: 17
Labour probably only need to get to 260 to form a minority non-Tory government.
So long as the SNP remain dominant in Scotland, correct. But therein lies the problem, of course.
Theory: the more likely a Lab/Nat pact looks, the greater the propensity of English voters to back Conservative candidates in an effort to veto it.
This is the logical consequence of the ascent of Scottish Nationalism: push back from the other side of the border.
The 2011 census data for national identity England and Wales showed that 57.7% of respondents identified only as English, and not either as British, a combination of British and English, or any other identity. That number will only have moved in one direction since.
I also seem to recall that PB commissioned its own polling some time ago, which revealed a broad dislike of the SNP. Broken down by Leave and Remain sentiment, the Remainers gave the SNP a net approval rating of somewhere around zero. But the Leavers put them right down in the basement with Trump and Putin. Put crudely, of those expressing an opinion at least two-thirds disliked the SNP.
Scotland will continue to act as a millstone around the neck of the English Left, until one of the following conditions is met:
1. A federal constitution that creates an English Parliament with equivalent powers to that of Scotland's, along with an equitable system for determining fiscal transfers. This would lance the twin boils of the Barnett Formula and the West Lothian Question. But it is also highly unlikely: the big parties won't wear carving up the office of Prime Minister in this way. 2. Labour, a left-leaning successor, or an acceptable ally, breaks down the SNP monopoly and wins a large number of seats in Scotland again, so that the maths in the rest of the country becomes easier. 3. Labour, or a left-leaning successor, demonstrates that it can win outright without Scottish votes, so the perceived threat from the SNP is negated. 4. Scotland becomes independent.
Effectively, if we assume that condition 1 won't come to pass, then the only solutions to the English Left's Scottish problem lie in conquering the SNP, or winning so much mass support South of the Border that it can ignore the SNP, or (ideally) both. Trying to convince voters outside of Scotland that a minority Government propped up by Scottish Nationalist support is a good idea is unlikely to fly.
Which begs two questions: Does the English Left have any strategy at all for winning over Scottish Nationalist voters that doesn't involve simply accepting independence - in which case, what would be the point in Scottish voters choosing it anyway? And does the English Left have any strategy at all for winning over English Conservative voters, whose support they *MUST* secure in very large numbers if they are ever to return to power? Answers on a postcard...
The key, again, is in denying benefits. If you haven't got a job, you'll have to go home, because you won't get any welfare. Nor will you be allowed in if you've got kids, and you won't be able to bring family (unless you manage to upgrade your visa). If you're found sleeping rough: sling your hook, etc
No sneaky coming to the UK and suddenly "discovering" a pre-existing chronic condition that requires lengthly and expensive treatment on the NHS! Ideally require an upfront access fee for the NHS to be paid when the visa is requested - as we do with any visitors from pretty much every non-EU country expecting to stay more than 6 months.
Which team would you most trust to negotiate Britain's exit from the European Union? Theresa May and David Davis: 44 Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer: 17
God! We can't do better than this? The May/Davis efforts have been chaotic so far and they haven't started the live negotiations.
Thank you for your comments about in this and the previous thread, which I enjoyed as being convincing, germane and Not Bloody Brexit.
However, there is one thing I need you to do please. Stop referring to "pollsters" as "statisticians". Polling, just like operational research, market research, and data science, is associated with, but not technically part of, statistics. "Pollsters" are not "statisticians" and I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd stop referring to them as such, please
I consider myself rapped across the knuckles! :-)
FWIW, I doubt if I've referred to the pollsters as statisticians around these parts before, so I doubt it'll manifest as an annoying habit in future.
Thank you. My pedantry conceals an important point: the use of statistical theory by pollsters is sometimes unjustified, for example the use of margin of error theory for nonprobability samples is deprecated. Neverthless they're still going to do it, because of cost and time issues, so the best I can do is highlight the discussion. If you have forty minutes, here's a discussion on YouTube of that issue. If you haven'y got the time, then just click on the "show more" bit for an outline of the problem.
11:55 in is the key I think - the MoE given for a non probabilty sample is the lower bound ...
As with last time the London sample (126) had to be significantly upweighted to 193 - so the London number may not be entirely reliable - of course which London number is unreliable we don't know, and perhaps Labour 50% ahead of the Tories in London is the true picture. Or perhaps not.
I've had me a policy idea for post-Brexit migration from the EU. Forget this visa-by-sector nonsense ("you can be a waiter but not a driver" etc etc).
Instead: offer all 18-30 year old EU citizens a blanket visa. You can come in for two years and do any job you like. But you won't get any benefits. Up to you.
If, at the end of the two years, you have landed yourself a job where we need people, a more highly skilled job, then congrats, you are welcome to stay.
What's not to like? We keep the keen young Europeans coming, but we don't give them benefits, Pret will still find all its staff; it is also a warm and friendly offer to the EU, showing that we would like to remain close allies, and have a genuinely special relationship.
Isn't this exactly what various countries already have, eg Oz and NZ?
Interview with Blair in Der Spiegel. He says that the UK will be relegated to the second division if we leave the EU single market, and still hopes that the country will come to its senses.
Interview with Blair in Der Spiegel. He says that the UK will be relegated to the second division if we leave the EU single market, and still hopes that the country will come to its senses.
As with last time the London sample (126) had to be significantly upweighted to 193 - so the London number may not be entirely reliable - of course which London number is unreliable we don't know, and perhaps Labour 50% ahead of the Tories in London is the true picture. Or perhaps not.
The big shift, compared to last week, is the big fall in Labour voters from 2015 who are don't knows.
Obviously, that's good for Labour, but also means they've maximised their vote.
Interview with Blair in Der Spiegel. He says that the UK will be relegated to the second division if we leave the EU single market, and still hopes that the country will come to its senses.
Thinking about the forthcoming negociations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking? They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU - 30 They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving - 47
What surprises me is that Leave & Remain voters have very similar views - indeed there's remarkable similarity across most subsamples where I'd normally expect to see marked variation.....
Interview with Blair in Der Spiegel. He says that the UK will be relegated to the second division if we leave the EU single market, and still hopes that the country will come to its senses.
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
I will look into the housing, I assumed that the sell offs were not raising enough to build the pub housing levels that Corbyn was mentioning, he was talking 100,000 wasn't it?
So you are saying we should cut Doctors pay to raise the nurses pay? And this would cost nothing? Do you have figures for that because that sound massively, massively unlikely and it would involve subverting current employment contracts as well as pissing off the most important group of people in the NHS.
Well so far you've not done too well.
Not *cut* doctors' pay; raise it more slowly than inflation. It vastly increased under the Labour/GPs agreement of 2004 and GPs lost responsibility for out of hours' care. They earn over £100k/y. It's a responsible job but doctors in other EU countries earn significantly less.
The trains post-privatisation were leased at somewhat rip-off rates. Buy them back; it's cheaper for the operator to own them. If it takes 15-20 years to buy back the franchises, so be it. BR was an arms-length agency which took less micro management than the franchisees do.
The pay scale for salaried GPs is £56 to £85,000 which is a fair way short of £100k. Partners, of course, typically earn more.
Interview with Blair in Der Spiegel. He says that the UK will be relegated to the second division if we leave the EU single market, and still hopes that the country will come to its senses.
Mr 45 Minutes has never been known for hyperbole has he?
Blair trashed not only his reputation but also his credibility. If he announced today is Sunday, we'd all check the date. No-one believes him; few even listen.
Interview with Blair in Der Spiegel. He says that the UK will be relegated to the second division if we leave the EU single market, and still hopes that the country will come to its senses.
Interview with Blair in Der Spiegel. He says that the UK will be relegated to the second division if we leave the EU single market, and still hopes that the country will come to its senses.
Incidentally, that new ICM, Baxtered, gives the Tories a 142 seat majority, and Labour are left with 178. Not quite extinction. But it will take probably them a decade or more to recover.
Labour probably only need to get to 260 to form a minority non-Tory government.
I wonder when the polls will show CROSSOVER.....
....No, don't be silly not *that* crossover, I mean when the tory majority is larger then the number of Labour seats. I'm calling it "MAJORITY CROSSOVER".
What vote shares would that need?
I struggle to see the Tories polling over 45% in the election or Labour under 25%, there's just too much tribalism out there.
Interview with Blair in Der Spiegel. He says that the UK will be relegated to the second division if we leave the EU single market, and still hopes that the country will come to its senses.
Will he be issuing another "dossier" to try and bring us to our sense's?
One thing though, even Ali Campbell would struggle to "sex up" the EU... I mean some things in life are sexy and some things aren't... And Jean Claude Juncker is deffo NOT sexy!
There may be one or two heavily Remain and solidly Tory seats in central London ie Putney, Chelsea and Fulham, Battersea, Kensington, Cities of London and Westminster where an anti Brexit candidate may have a chance as the LDs will do in South West London but that will be dwarfed by the UKIP vote moving to the Tories in Leave voting Labour held marginal seats
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
I will look into the housing, I assumed that the sell offs were not raising enough to build the pub housing levels that Corbyn was mentioning, he was talking 100,000 wasn't it?
So you are saying we should cut Doctors pay to raise the nurses pay? And this would cost nothing? Do you have figures for that because that sound massively, massively unlikely and it would involve subverting current employment contracts as well as pissing off the most important group of people in the NHS.
Well so far you've not done too well.
Not *cut* doctors' pay; raise it more slowly than inflation. It vastly increased under the Labour/GPs agreement of 2004 and GPs lost responsibility for out of hours' care. They earn over £100k/y. It's a responsible job but doctors in other EU countries earn significantly less.
The trains post-privatisation were leased at somewhat rip-off rates. Buy them back; it's cheaper for the operator to own them. If it takes 15-20 years to buy back the franchises, so be it. BR was an arms-length agency which took less micro management than the franchisees do.
The pay scale for salaried GPs is £56 to £85,000 which is a fair way short of £100k. Partners, of course, typically earn more.
Also says Conservatoives have an 11% lead in marginals - How would that compare with 2015?
From the Gold Standard, no less
Wonder how an 11% Con lead in the marginals compare's with the Con lead in 2015?
We'd need to know which marginal seats.
Labour majorities of up to 15% if its the same as the previous ICM.
A swing of 9% from 2015.
Which would back up the view that Labour will do worst where it hurts them most, like the Conservatives did in 1997. A pro-Labour swing in places like Kensington doesn't help them at all, whereas a big swing in Leave areas puts seats like Ashfield in play.
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
Thatcher got 10 seats in Scotland in 1987 and won a majority of 102, that should be a target for May to aim for to get to her 100+ majority, every seat gained from the SNP is one less she has to win from Labour in England and Wales plus it also provides a cushion for any seats lost to the LDs
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
Thatcher got 10 seats in Scotland in 1987 and won a majority of 102, that should be a target for May to aim for to get to her 100+ majority, every seat gained from the SNP is one less she has to win from Labour in England and Wales plus it also provides a cushion for any seats lost to the LDs
If they're getting a 100+ majority I cannot imagine too many seats will be lost to the LDs.
Just to prove how utterly ridiculous those figures are, the Liberal Democrats would lose Orkney...
...to the Conservatives.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
Incidentally, that new ICM, Baxtered, gives the Tories a 142 seat majority, and Labour are left with 178. Not quite extinction. But it will take probably them a decade or more to recover.
Labour probably only need to get to 260 to form a minority non-Tory government.
I wonder when the polls will show CROSSOVER.....
....No, don't be silly not *that* crossover, I mean when the tory majority is larger then the number of Labour seats. I'm calling it "MAJORITY CROSSOVER".
What vote shares would that need?
I struggle to see the Tories polling over 45% in the election or Labour under 25%, there's just too much tribalism out there.
Agreed, the recent uptick for Labour would support that theory.
You would have thought given she has not met any public so far that she might have brought this up some time ago. Obviously just party propaganda to try and deflect from fact that she is hiding from the public.
Just to prove how utterly ridiculous those figures are, the Liberal Democrats would lose Orkney...
...to the Conservatives.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
If Yes lose another referendum, especially if there is a swing to No, it would kill off independence for a generation or more
You would have thought given she has not met any public so far that she might have brought this up some time ago. Obviously just party propaganda to try and deflect from fact that she is hiding from the public.
Doesn't May have a reputation as being a strong local campaigner in Maidenhead though?
Just to prove how utterly ridiculous those figures are, the Liberal Democrats would lose Orkney...
...to the Conservatives.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
If Yes lose another referendum, especially if there is a swing to No, it would kill off independence for a generation or more
Only another five years? You would have thought it would be put to bed for longer than that...
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
Thatcher got 10 seats in Scotland in 1987 and won a majority of 102, that should be a target for May to aim for to get to her 100+ majority, every seat gained from the SNP is one less she has to win from Labour in England and Wales plus it also provides a cushion for any seats lost to the LDs
If they're getting a 100+ majority I cannot imagine too many seats will be lost to the LDs.
I think the LDs could gain a few affluent Tory Remain seats they held until 2015 like Kingston and Surbiton, Twickenham, Richmond Park, Bath, Lewes and Cheltenham even if May gets a majority of 100+. Of course the LDs won 22 seats in 1987 and 23 in 1983 even when Thatcher won majorities of more than 100 and there are currently only 8 LD MPs
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
Thatcher got 10 seats in Scotland in 1987 and won a majority of 102, that should be a target for May to aim for to get to her 100+ majority, every seat gained from the SNP is one less she has to win from Labour in England and Wales plus it also provides a cushion for any seats lost to the LDs
If they're getting a 100+ majority I cannot imagine too many seats will be lost to the LDs.
I think the LDs could gain a few affluent Tory Remain seats they held until 2015 like Kingston Upon Thames, Twickenham, Richmond Park, Bath and Cheltenham even if May gets a majority of 100+
Right, so 5-10 maybe, if the LDs are doing bettre than predicted, not really that many under threat.
Also says Conservatoives have an 11% lead in marginals - How would that compare with 2015?
From the Gold Standard, no less
Wonder how an 11% Con lead in the marginals compare's with the Con lead in 2015?
We'd need to know which marginal seats.
Labour majorities of up to 15% if its the same as the previous ICM.
A swing of 9% from 2015.
Which would back up the view that Labour will do worst where it hurts them most, like the Conservatives did in 1997. A pro-Labour swing in places like Kensington doesn't help them at all, whereas a big swing in Leave areas puts seats like Ashfield in play.
The Conservatives are fortunate that most of their London targets require a small swing:
Ealing Acton 0.3% Brentford 0.5% Ilford N 0.7% Hampstead 1.1% Enfield N 1.2% Carshalton 1.7% (from LibDems) Harrow W 2.5% Westminster N 2.6% Tooting 2.7% Eltham 3.2% ... big gap ... Hammersmith 6.9% Dagenham 8.6%
So even a London swing of under half that of the national swing is still very profitable for the Conservatives.
Just to prove how utterly ridiculous those figures are, the Liberal Democrats would lose Orkney...
...to the Conservatives.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
If Yes lose another referendum, especially if there is a swing to No, it would kill off independence for a generation or more
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
Thatcher got 10 seats in Scotland in 1987 and won a majority of 102, that should be a target for May to aim for to get to her 100+ majority, every seat gained from the SNP is one less she has to win from Labour in England and Wales plus it also provides a cushion for any seats lost to the LDs
That 10 seats was based on 72 available in Scotland.
Just to prove how utterly ridiculous those figures are, the Liberal Democrats would lose Orkney...
...to the Conservatives.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
If Yes lose another referendum, especially if there is a swing to No, it would kill off independence for a generation or more
Only another five years? You would have thought it would be put to bed for longer than that...
Just to prove how utterly ridiculous those figures are, the Liberal Democrats would lose Orkney...
...to the Conservatives.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
If Yes lose another referendum, especially if there is a swing to No, it would kill off independence for a generation or more
That must be why Mummy May & Rape Clause Ruth are so desperate to have one then.
What's that, Skip?
Now is not the time?
Divisive?
We don't know what Brexit will look like?
A distraction from our delicate Brexit negotiations?
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
Thatcher got 10 seats in Scotland in 1987 and won a majority of 102, that should be a target for May to aim for to get to her 100+ majority, every seat gained from the SNP is one less she has to win from Labour in England and Wales plus it also provides a cushion for any seats lost to the LDs
If they're getting a 100+ majority I cannot imagine too many seats will be lost to the LDs.
I think the LDs could gain a few affluent Tory Remain seats they held until 2015 like Kingston Upon Thames, Twickenham, Richmond Park, Bath and Cheltenham even if May gets a majority of 100+
Right, so 5-10 maybe, if the LDs are doing bettre than predicted, not really that many under threat.
No and most concentrated in London and the South East, most of the seats the Tories gained from the LDs in 2015 were in the South West and most of them voted Leave
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
There's no method, or indeed madness. The SNP exists purely to gain independence for Scotland. They will push for it at every opportunity. They might delay tactically for a while, but that's it. They will claim a mandate for a second referendum on a majority of Scottish Westminster seats. Whether they and the Greens make 50% of the vote will be ignored.
The Scottish Greens know that half their votes come from would be SNP supporters who like a bit of choice, so they are not going to challenge the SNP on anything much. In principle independence is incidental to their core beliefs. It's perfectly possible to sign up to the Greens' agenda and think the Union is the way to go.
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
Thatcher got 10 seats in Scotland in 1987 and won a majority of 102, that should be a target for May to aim for to get to her 100+ majority, every seat gained from the SNP is one less she has to win from Labour in England and Wales plus it also provides a cushion for any seats lost to the LDs
That 10 seats was based on 72 available in Scotland.
There are still 59 available in Scotland so 8-10 is a realistic target
Once in power [in Glasgow] the SNP would open up the books on decades of SLAB nepotism and industrial scale corruption.
So not just patriotic dawn at last, but CLEANLINESS at last! The cleanies replace the fiddlers! The property developers and backhander-payers are shown the door. No more percentages for licences. No more corruption in the town hall, as "Nationalism Forever" becomes the city's new slogan.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
There's no method, or indeed madness. The SNP exists purely to gain independence for Scotland. They will push for it at every opportunity. They might delay tactically for a while, but that's it. They will claim a mandate for a second referendum on a majority of Scottish Westminster seats. Whether they and the Greens make 50% of the vote will be ignored.
The Scottish Greens know that half their votes come from would be SNP supporters who like a bit of choice, so they are not going to challenge the SNP on anything much. In principle independence is incidental to their core beliefs. It's perfectly possible to sign up to the Greens' agenda and think the Union is the way to go.
Voteshare is key though, Yes got 45% in 2014 and the SNP 50% in 2015 so they could claim further progress but if the SNP fall to say 43% that means Yes support has now gone backwards
Just to prove how utterly ridiculous those figures are, the Liberal Democrats would lose Orkney...
...to the Conservatives.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
If Yes lose another referendum, especially if there is a swing to No, it would kill off independence for a generation or more
That must be why Mummy May & Rape Clause Ruth are so desperate to have one then.
What's that, Skip?
Now is not the time?
Divisive?
We don't know what Brexit will look like?
A distraction from our delicate Brexit negotiations?
They don't want them as they have other things to focus on but if the SNP voteshare did fall by 7% to 43% or so I expect Sturgeon would have to start to tone down the indyref2 rhetoric
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
I will look into the housing, I assumed that the sell offs were not raising enough to build the pub housing levels that Corbyn was mentioning, he was talking 100,000 wasn't it?
So you are saying we should cut Doctors pay to raise the nurses pay? And this would cost nothing? Do you have figures for that because that sound massively, massively unlikely and it would involve subverting current employment contracts as well as pissing off the most important group of people in the NHS.
Well so far you've not done too well.
Not *cut* doctors' pay; raise it more slowly than inflation. It vastly increased under the Labour/GPs agreement of 2004 and GPs lost responsibility for out of hours' care. They earn over £100k/y. It's a responsible job but doctors in other EU countries earn significantly less.
The trains post-privatisation were leased at somewhat rip-off rates. Buy them back; it's cheaper for the operator to own them. If it takes 15-20 years to buy back the franchises, so be it. BR was an arms-length agency which took less micro management than the franchisees do.
The pay scale for salaried GPs is £56 to £85,000 which is a fair way short of £100k. Partners, of course, typically earn more.
£56 to £85 000 still puts GPs comfortably in the top 10% of earners
It appears that the majority of GPs are partners, certainly the more middle-aged and elderly ones http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20001005 I was with a practice pre-2012 which had six partners. I'm now with one which has three partners and one salaried doctor.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
There's no method, or indeed madness. The SNP exists purely to gain independence for Scotland. They will push for it at every opportunity. They might delay tactically for a while, but that's it. They will claim a mandate for a second referendum on a majority of Scottish Westminster seats. Whether they and the Greens make 50% of the vote will be ignored.
Strategically, having the unionist vote consolidate around the Tory party is the best thing that could happen to the cause of independence in this election. That and gaining the European Commission as an ally changes the likely evolution of opinion considerably.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
There's no method, or indeed madness. The SNP exists purely to gain independence for Scotland. They will push for it at every opportunity. They might delay tactically for a while, but that's it. They will claim a mandate for a second referendum on a majority of Scottish Westminster seats. Whether they and the Greens make 50% of the vote will be ignored.
The Scottish Greens know that half their votes come from would be SNP supporters who like a bit of choice, so they are not going to challenge the SNP on anything much. In principle independence is incidental to their core beliefs. It's perfectly possible to sign up to the Greens' agenda and think the Union is the way to go.
Voteshare is key though, Yes got 45% in 2014 and the SNP 50% in 2015 so they could claim further progress but if the SNP fall to say 43% that means Yes support has now gone backwards
That's not how the SNP will claim it and to be fair Mrs May's strong and stable leadership and her discretion to do anything at her whim will come from her 400 MPs, not her 42% vote share
Just to prove how utterly ridiculous those figures are, the Liberal Democrats would lose Orkney...
...to the Conservatives.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
If Yes lose another referendum, especially if there is a swing to No, it would kill off independence for a generation or more
That must be why Mummy May & Rape Clause Ruth are so desperate to have one then.
What's that, Skip?
Now is not the time?
Divisive?
We don't know what Brexit will look like?
A distraction from our delicate Brexit negotiations?
They don't want them as they have other things to focus on but if the SNP voteshare did fall by 7% to 43% or so I expect Sturgeon would have to start to tone down the indyref2 rhetoric
But then she'd be ignoring the will of the people.
'SNP election success would entitle them to new independence vote, poll finds
A majority of voters north of the border believe the SNP would have the right to hold a second independence referendum if the party wins more than half of the Scottish seats in the General Election, a poll has found.'
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
There's no method, or indeed madness. The SNP exists purely to gain independence for Scotland. They will push for it at every opportunity. They might delay tactically for a while, but that's it. They will claim a mandate for a second referendum on a majority of Scottish Westminster seats. Whether they and the Greens make 50% of the vote will be ignored.
The Scottish Greens know that half their votes come from would be SNP supporters who like a bit of choice, so they are not going to challenge the SNP on anything much. In principle independence is incidental to their core beliefs. It's perfectly possible to sign up to the Greens' agenda and think the Union is the way to go.
Voteshare is key though, Yes got 45% in 2014 and the SNP 50% in 2015 so they could claim further progress but if the SNP fall to say 43% that means Yes support has now gone backwards
That's not how the SNP will claim it and to be fair Mrs May's strong and stable leadership and her discretion to do anything at her whim will come from her 400 MPs, not her 42% vote share
Such a voteshare will probably see Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, lose his seat to the Tories with the Tories on 28% or so, the SNP would not be in a position to claim anything and May could easily ignore them for the rest of the Parliament which she would
You would have thought given she has not met any public so far that she might have brought this up some time ago. Obviously just party propaganda to try and deflect from fact that she is hiding from the public.
I think the tory vote would benefit greatly from May having some mouth frothing nationalist or socialist getting into her face and abusing her in the street in a way that it would not have benefitted Cameron,
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
There's no method, or indeed madness. The SNP exists purely to gain independence for Scotland. They will push for it at every opportunity. They might delay tactically for a while, but that's it. They will claim a mandate for a second referendum on a majority of Scottish Westminster seats. Whether they and the Greens make 50% of the vote will be ignored.
Strategically, having the unionist vote consolidate around the Tory party is the best thing that could happen to the cause of independence in this election. That and gaining the European Commission as an ally changes the likely evolution of opinion considerably.
Wrong, the Tory rise at least ensures there is a viable unionist opposition to the SNP other than the hapless SLAB and I also expect the Scottish LDs to gain 2 or 3 SNP seats too so it will not just be the Tories advancing in Scotland. The European Commission's opinion is irrelevant unless the SNP continue to advance
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
I will look into the housing, I assumed that the sell offs were not raising enough to build the pub housing levels that Corbyn was mentioning, he was talking 100,000 wasn't it?
So you are saying we should cut Doctors pay to raise the nurses pay? And this would cost nothing? Do you have figures for that because that sound massively, massively unlikely and it would involve subverting current employment contracts as well as pissing off the most important group of people in the NHS.
Well so far you've not done too well.
Not *cut* doctors' pay; raise it more slowly than inflation. It vastly increased under the Labour/GPs agreement of 2004 and GPs lost responsibility for .
The pay scale for salaried GPs is £56 to £85,000 which is a fair way short of £100k. Partners, of course, typically earn more.
£56 to £85 000 still puts GPs comfortably in the top 10% of earners
It appears that the majority of GPs are partners, certainly the more middle-aged and elderly ones http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20001005 I was with a practice pre-2012 which had six partners. I'm now with one which has three partners and one salaried doctor.
Yes and it is partnership which takes GPs to six figures
Comments
....No, don't be silly not *that* crossover, I mean when the tory majority is larger then the number of Labour seats. I'm calling it "MAJORITY CROSSOVER".
I think that the new crossrail/Elizabeth line trains are owned direct by TFL.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/boih7flikl/SundayTimesResults_170428.pdf
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/pay/general-practitioners-pay
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/russia-post-race-analysis.html
Con: 32
Lab: 25
SNP: 36
LibD: 5
Grn: 2
Theresa May and David Davis: 44
Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer: 17
Theory: the more likely a Lab/Nat pact looks, the greater the propensity of English voters to back Conservative candidates in an effort to veto it.
This is the logical consequence of the ascent of Scottish Nationalism: push back from the other side of the border.
The 2011 census data for national identity England and Wales showed that 57.7% of respondents identified only as English, and not either as British, a combination of British and English, or any other identity. That number will only have moved in one direction since.
I also seem to recall that PB commissioned its own polling some time ago, which revealed a broad dislike of the SNP. Broken down by Leave and Remain sentiment, the Remainers gave the SNP a net approval rating of somewhere around zero. But the Leavers put them right down in the basement with Trump and Putin. Put crudely, of those expressing an opinion at least two-thirds disliked the SNP.
Scotland will continue to act as a millstone around the neck of the English Left, until one of the following conditions is met:
1. A federal constitution that creates an English Parliament with equivalent powers to that of Scotland's, along with an equitable system for determining fiscal transfers. This would lance the twin boils of the Barnett Formula and the West Lothian Question. But it is also highly unlikely: the big parties won't wear carving up the office of Prime Minister in this way.
2. Labour, a left-leaning successor, or an acceptable ally, breaks down the SNP monopoly and wins a large number of seats in Scotland again, so that the maths in the rest of the country becomes easier.
3. Labour, or a left-leaning successor, demonstrates that it can win outright without Scottish votes, so the perceived threat from the SNP is negated.
4. Scotland becomes independent.
Effectively, if we assume that condition 1 won't come to pass, then the only solutions to the English Left's Scottish problem lie in conquering the SNP, or winning so much mass support South of the Border that it can ignore the SNP, or (ideally) both. Trying to convince voters outside of Scotland that a minority Government propped up by Scottish Nationalist support is a good idea is unlikely to fly.
Which begs two questions: Does the English Left have any strategy at all for winning over Scottish Nationalist voters that doesn't involve simply accepting independence - in which case, what would be the point in Scottish voters choosing it anyway? And does the English Left have any strategy at all for winning over English Conservative voters, whose support they *MUST* secure in very large numbers if they are ever to return to power? Answers on a postcard...
https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application/overview
Some obvious implications for polling there.
Laughable.
Con: 30 (-6)
Lab: 45 (+9)
As with last time the London sample (126) had to be significantly upweighted to 193 - so the London number may not be entirely reliable - of course which London number is unreliable we don't know, and perhaps Labour 50% ahead of the Tories in London is the true picture. Or perhaps not.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/tony-blair-warnt-briten-im-interview-vor-brexit-folgen-a-1145373.html
Con: 0 - Con voters +69
Lab: -46 - Lab voters -8
Obviously, that's good for Labour, but also means they've maximised their vote.
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a
deal that works for both Britain and the EU - 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish
Britain and discourage other countries from leaving - 47
What surprises me is that Leave & Remain voters have very similar views - indeed there's remarkable similarity across most subsamples where I'd normally expect to see marked variation.....
Con share = http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4jbuk8Bes1rwkg8yo1_500.gif
http://mobile.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2017/04/30/tony-blair-lorsque-les-britanniques-comprendront-ou-les-mene-le-brexit-ils-hesiteront_5120216_3214.html
I struggle to see the Tories polling over 45% in the election or Labour under 25%, there's just too much tribalism out there.
One thing though, even Ali Campbell would struggle to "sex up" the EU... I mean some things in life are sexy and some things aren't... And Jean Claude Juncker is deffo NOT sexy!
A swing of 9% from 2015.
...to the Conservatives.
@Alistair thanks for the further info about the Greens poised to pull out of Moray and Stirling. That is in itself a strategy that carries risks though. If the greens stand down candidates where they have a substantial vote - and then their voters don't turn out - there will be the unfortunate side-effect of depressing the vote in favour of another referendum.
Green + SNP = 50% has to be the target if Nicola's referendum is to materialise.
Although come to think of it, since it would almost certainly be another 'no' vote but demographics are on their side, there may be method in the madness!
Ealing Acton 0.3%
Brentford 0.5%
Ilford N 0.7%
Hampstead 1.1%
Enfield N 1.2%
Carshalton 1.7% (from LibDems)
Harrow W 2.5%
Westminster N 2.6%
Tooting 2.7%
Eltham 3.2%
...
big gap
...
Hammersmith 6.9%
Dagenham 8.6%
So even a London swing of under half that of the national swing is still very profitable for the Conservatives.
How political activists can be just like religious zealots https://t.co/FnxTEMtjK7
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3449391/tim-farron-admits-he-did-meet-tony-blair-to-talk-about-working-together-in-an-anti-brexit-alliance/
What's that, Skip?
Now is not the time?
Divisive?
We don't know what Brexit will look like?
A distraction from our delicate Brexit negotiations?
Lab 4/6
Con 11/10
LD 40/1
UKIP 200/1
Green 500/1
7000 majority, but I'd think on recent history Bradshaw would be safe? Tories were static in 2015 even with third placed LDs disintegrating.
The Scottish Greens know that half their votes come from would be SNP supporters who like a bit of choice, so they are not going to challenge the SNP on anything much. In principle independence is incidental to their core beliefs. It's perfectly possible to sign up to the Greens' agenda and think the Union is the way to go.
You Tories do like to spin everything, don`t you?
https://twitter.com/hrtbps/status/858582681566801921
http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20001005
I was with a practice pre-2012 which had six partners. I'm now with one which has three partners and one salaried doctor.
'SNP election success would entitle them to new independence vote, poll finds
A majority of voters north of the border believe the SNP would have the right to hold a second independence referendum if the party wins more than half of the Scottish seats in the General Election, a poll has found.'
https://tinyurl.com/m2lkf4b