It is the first serious accident on the ride since in opened. Life is full of risk - that's why most people love life.
Indeed. For adults I'd say 'do WTF you like'. Go naked sky-diving over a cactus plantation if that floats your boat. But this was an 11 year-old. Children do not have the mental capacity to make adult decisions. It's why in law they cannot be guilty of crimes. That child needed to be protected by the law. The law covering water rides safety standards has been found wanting.
I'm sorry but as tragic as this incident was if we follow your logic to its conclusion we'd need to eliminate streets and cars and all sorts of other areas of life where fatal accidents can and do happen. If this was a child that had stepped in front of a bus we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
This is tragic, maybe more can be learnt about how to tell riders the importance of following safety instructions like stay seated during the ride. But to eliminate rides like this due to one tragedy after many decades is not necessary.
I'm not saying eliminate them. I'm saying strap in. How many rides have overturned? Ever? Zero. Clunk click is all it needs.
I don't know how many have overtuned. It is entirely possible that one or more has overturned but as every rider survived it wasn't headline news or memorable. Whereas if one had overturned and 8 riders had drowned due to being strapped in then it would be memorable.
We can't control for all eventualities and tragedies.
I don't really understand why May has brought up the issue of fox hunting.
Proposing to spend countless hours dicking about with a matter most people had presumed had been settled 15 years ago cuts across her key messages of, "Serious times... serious politician... strong and stable... detoxified/detoffified Tories... safe for ex-Labour".
For all the Crosby worship, and for all the fact that the Tories will romp home in the circumstances, I don't feel the blues have run a particularly smart campaign, and this is a case in point. None of the parties have, in fact.
I don't really understand why May has brought up the issue of fox hunting.
Proposing to spend countless hours dicking about with a matter most people had presumed had been settled 15 years ago cuts across her key messages of, "Serious times... serious politician... strong and stable... detoxified/detoffified Tories... safe for ex-Labour".
For all the Crosby worship, and for all the fact that the Tories will romp home in the circumstances, I don't feel the blues have run a particularly smart campaign, and this is a case in point. None of the parties have, in fact.
No doubt your thoughts will be vindicated next month when all the leading parties shed seats. Although the polling suggests the Tory campaign thus far has been modestly smart.
I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy
When a fox comes into your garden and kills 50 chickens and only takes one, the only thing it deservers is a bullet. The anti hunt people have it all wrong. Its the foxes that kill for pleasure.
I think many anti hunt people might agree with you on the bullet, that's the point.
Its odd how much the 'execute the evil foxes' brigade are just as keen on the thing of which they accuse the antis, anthropomorphising. Foxes aren't fluffy, cuddly toys, but nor are they homicidal psycopaths taking sadistic pleasure in chicken murder. Like most predators they're hard wired to kill as many of their prey as possible, which includes finding numbers of them in an enclosed space. In their normal environment they'd bury what they can't eat or take away, not really an option in a coop.
Off topic: An 11 year-old girl has died tragically in a water ride accident. Seems she STOOD UP to change seats with a friend when the boat bumped and knocked her into the water. WTF? How can that be possible? I recently took my 12 year-old daughter to Chessington. Every ride had us strapped in like bondage fans. Physically impossible to get up/out. How can a bumpy water ride not have the riders strapped in? They sit there holding a central ring. That can't be safe surely - as we now know the hard way. Water ride re-design / law changes coming any moment now I guess.
I'd rather not be strapped into a ride like that. The possibility is remote but if the ring flips I'd like to be able to swim out rather than be stuck drowning underwater.
Which then makes water rides inherently unsafe. They come in two varieties: 1. Wild rides in a giant ring. Bumpy, splashy. 2. Tame rides along a 'river' follwed by a lift and plunge into splash pool / runout Any ride that doesn't strap in is sooner or later going to suffer a stupid / immature / drunk rider standing up at the wrong moment and placing themselves in grave physical danger. If rollercoasters are safe enough (with wheels/ runners preventing any chance of comning off the rail) then water rides can be made safe enough that the chance of overturning is essentially zero. Relying on the common sense of Joe Public not to kill himself seems a bad way to go.
It is the first serious accident on the ride since in opened. Life is full of risk - that's why most people love life.
Indeed. For adults I'd say 'do WTF you like'. Go naked sky-diving over a cactus plantation if that floats your boat. But this was an 11 year-old. Children do not have the mental capacity to make adult decisions. It's why in law they cannot be guilty of crimes. That child needed to be protected by the law. The law covering water rides safety standards has been found wanting.
I disagree. Children need to take risks too albeit to a lesser degree. The parents will have decided to allow her on the trip as is required in law. What happened is immensely sad but we'd all be poorer if risk was artificially removed from our lives. You ought at least to await the H/S report before assuming this was anything other than a tragic accident.
I suspect you and Philip Thompson are right. I wouldn't want the nannies to take control! What a shame though.
Sir Norfolk, I broadly agree, except that May was asked on it and just reaffirmed Conservative policy.
She should simply have said, "This election isn't about foxes. And it isn't about hounds. It's about the strong and stable Government Britain needs, and the very real risk of a Coalition of Chaos led by Jeremy Corbyn".
That corporation tax is gonna be one overworked tax when JCIPM
Corbyn is good at making it sound like someone else will pay. Corporation tax is actually paid by customers, employees, and pension funds. Focussing on "corporation" tax is designed to fool people into what will really happen.
A Corbyn Govt. would scare away the top 1% who pay 28% of income tax. Then it is inevitable that higher taxation falls on the middle class. And as John Prescott never said (but Tony Blair did): "We're all middle class now." That will prove very prescient when it comes to Labour's hungry tax-hunters.
I have been canvassed by the Tories in Hampstead. They are being very active here. Though Labour have had stalks outside the Finchley Road Waitrose and in West Hampstead in recent days.
I feel sorry for the Labour canvassers. They're doing the political equivalent of asking for a pity fuck.
Still Ms Siddique was one of the nitwits who nominated Corbyn, took a job from him then resigned and voted for Owen Whatsit, none of which gets mentioned on her leaflets. She's not a bad MP - even if she isn't as good as she seems to think she is. But the disconnect between her campaigns eg helping the Iranian woman married to a local man who has been imprisoned for no very clear reasons by the Iranian regime and her support for an MP who, even when she nominated him, had a history of being paid by that regime's propaganda arm, Press TV, shows how little some MPs know about those they support or, more likely, how little they care about the values they claim to believe in.
It is the first serious accident on the ride since in opened. Life is full of risk - that's why most people love life.
Indeed. For adults I'd say 'do WTF you like'. Go naked sky-diving over a cactus plantation if that floats your boat. But this was an 11 year-old. Children do not have the mental capacity to make adult decisions. It's why in law they cannot be guilty of crimes. That child needed to be protected by the law. The law covering water rides safety standards has been found wanting.
I'm sorry but as tragic as this incideFnt was if we follow your logic to its conclusion we'd need to eliminate streets and cars and all sorts of other areas of life where fatal accidents can and do happen. If this was a child that had stepped in front of a bus we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
This is tragic, maybe more can be learnt about how to tell riders the importance of following safety instructions like stay seated during the ride. But to eliminate rides like this due to one tragedy after many decades is not necessary.
I'm not saying eliminate them. I'm saying strap in. How many rides have overturned? Ever? Zero. Clunk click is all it needs.
I don't know how many have overtuned. It is entirely possible that one or more has overturned but as every rider survived it wasn't headline news or memorable. Whereas if one had overturned and 8 riders had drowned due to being strapped in then it would be memorable.
We can't control for all eventualities and tragedies.
Four people died in Australia when a similar ride had a different sort of accident last year
Accidents are incredibly difficult things to prevent in many cases, especially when idiotic humans get involved. You end up with layer upon layer of often redundant safety systems.
Which is why heavy rail in the UK has not had a fatal passenger accident for ten years now. But the safety systems come at a massive cost.
That corporation tax is gonna be one overworked tax when JCIPM
Well he is proposing a 50% increase...
Labour are falling into the trap exactly were Lynton Crosby needs them, they are reverting to type and will be constantly portayed as reckless spenders with uncosted and unaffordable promises. The OBR will no doubt be used to discredit Labours spending plans (as well as Diane Abbott). "Labours Tax Bombshell" will once again be the killer theme for Labour, the party of Tax and Spend. The economy & Brexit will be the deciding factor in this election and the public will not buy the magic money tree promises of Corbyn, Strong and Stable will win the day
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
I don't like the idea of fox hunting either, but, as a Londoner, I'm not sure it's anything much to do with me. If farmers and country folk say the fox is a pest and needs to be controlled, so be it. I don't see any moral difference between poisoning, shooting, trapping and hunting. Mrs May has promised a free vote - as was in the 2015 manifesto - and has told us which way she's likely to vote. Effect on general election? Helps her in the countryside marginally, upsets some voters unlikely to support her anyway, makes some switchers take another look at whether she is the woman they thought she was. i.e. plenty of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Reminds me of when the ban was first talked about in the late 1990s. A wholly disproportionate amount of time was given to the question of a ban on fox hunting. If it is deemed to be cruel - and it is - then why aren't Halal and Kosher slaughter discussed in the same terms? Could it be that fox hunters are white Tory toffs and the others aren't?
An animal does not discern whether it is ripped apart by hounds or if it has its throat cut while it is fully conscious. Either way, it dies in an act of premeditated cruelty.
'I agree although Halal and Kosher do not have the "fun" element.'
Scant consolation if you're the animal subjected to a barbaric death because of some poxy religious ideology.
Mr. Voter, effectively, the same existed in the time of Henry VIII and the Roman Empire. They both devalued coinage by decreasing silver content whilst maintaining nominal value.
This was often done, in Roman times, to afford the donative (new emperor bonus for the army) but had the side-effect of jacking up inflation and harming the economy.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
Not sure if already noted but Rugby World Cup draw means an England v NZ semi-final if both win their groups.
Which is a great shame as best two teams should meet in the final.
I think they should seed the top 4 so 1 doesn't play 2 in the semi (if both win groups) whereas they leave it completely to random chance.
Of course entirely possible everything doesn't go to plan - but it looks 100% certain that England will face a Southern Hemisphere semi if win group (NZ or SA). And possibly Aus in the QF.
The five seats Labour is projected to lose in this poll were gains from the Tories/LibDems in 2015 – with the exception of Hampstead & Kilburn which had a new Labour MP following Glenda Jackson’s retirement. An adverse swing of 2% could quite easily be offset by a first term bonus for these new MPs so it is entirely possible that Labour could retain them all – in the same way that Tory MPs elected in marginal seats in 2010 were able to withstand the pro- Labour swing in England in 2015.
Is that correct ?
England vote share change 2010 to 2015 -%+% UKIP + 10.7% LAB + 3.6% GRN + 3.2% CON + 1.4% TUSC+ 0.1% LD -16.0%
Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, risked an interview with LBC’s Nick Ferrari this morning, and it wasn’t her finest hour. She did not suffer a full Diane Abbott-style meltdown, but Ferrari performed his numbers interrogation shtick and left Rayner floundering when she could not say how many pupils would be affected by the Labour promise to reduce class sizes to under 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds.
The Conservative have put a press notice out about the LBC Angela Rayner interview. Schools minister Nick Gibb said:
It’s extremely worrying that the person Jeremy Corbyn wants to put in charge of our children’s futures clearly hasn’t done her homework. Corbyn and his top team repeatedly show they cannot cope with basic facts, so just imagine what a mess they would make of negotiating Brexit and running the country.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
Now that Comey has gone what are the chances that the FBI will resume its investigation of Clinton? That might be a very interesting political bet. Who remembers 'you'd be in jail'?
The five seats Labour is projected to lose in this poll were gains from the Tories/LibDems in 2015 – with the exception of Hampstead & Kilburn which had a new Labour MP following Glenda Jackson’s retirement. An adverse swing of 2% could quite easily be offset by a first term bonus for these new MPs so it is entirely possible that Labour could retain them all – in the same way that Tory MPs elected in marginal seats in 2010 were able to withstand the pro- Labour swing in England in 2015.
Is that correct ?
England vote share change 2010 to 2015 -%+% UKIP + 10.7% LAB + 3.6% GRN + 3.2% CON + 1.4% TUSC+ 0.1% LD -16.0%
Interesting. What did that give on UNS vs actual 2010-2015 ?
Mr. B, what I usually do is check the last 5-6 races or so. However, the VSC is quite new and used a lot, so that must be considered.
Off the top of my head, I'd say a safety car will probably be 1.6-1.7, something like that. Spain's tight. Not Monaco/Singapore tight, but still tight. Not checked the weather forecast yet, either.
I'd probably avoid such a bet. Reliability seems to be improving, and if a car breaks it depends where. Of course, if silly bugger odds are available, that's a different matter.
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
Oh come on Nick. It gave you endless chances to emote about the people you love to hate. And as I have made clear in this thread I actually agree with you on the ban.
Off topic: An 11 year-old girl has died tragically in a water ride accident. Seems she STOOD UP to change seats with a friend when the boat bumped and knocked her into the water. WTF? How can that be possible? I recently took my 12 year-old daughter to Chessington. Every ride had us strapped in like bondage fans. Physically impossible to get up/out. How can a bumpy water ride not have the riders strapped in? They sit there holding a central ring. That can't be safe surely - as we now know the hard way. Water ride re-design / law changes coming any moment now I guess.
I'd rather not be strapped into a ride like that. The possibility is remote but if the ring flips I'd like to be able to swim out rather than be stuck drowning underwater.
Which then makes water rides inherently unsafe. They come in two varieties: 1. Wild rides in a giant ring. Bumpy, splashy. 2. Tame rides along a 'river' follwed by a lift and plunge into splash pool / runout Any ride that doesn't strap in is sooner or later going to suffer a stupid / immature / drunk rider standing up at the wrong moment and placing themselves in grave physical danger. If rollercoasters are safe enough (with wheels/ runners preventing any chance of comning off the rail) then water rides can be made safe enough that the chance of overturning is essentially zero. Relying on the common sense of Joe Public not to kill himself seems a bad way to go.
It is the first serious accident on the ride since in opened. Life is full of risk - that's why most people love life.
Indeed. For adults I'd say 'do WTF you like'. Go naked sky-diving over a cactus plantation if that floats your boat. But this was an 11 year-old. Children do not have the mental capacity to make adult decisions. It's why in law they cannot be guilty of crimes. That child needed to be protected by the law. The law covering water rides safety standards has been found wanting.
I disagree. Children need to take risks too albeit to a lesser degree. The parents will have decided to allow her on the trip as is required in law. What happened is immensely sad but we'd all be poorer if risk was artificially removed from our lives. You ought at least to await the H/S report before assuming this was anything other than a tragic accident.
I suspect you and Philip Thompson are right. I wouldn't want the nannies to take control! What a shame though.
It is all so very sad. Very big of you to acknowledge.
Now that Comey has gone what are the chances that the FBI will resume its investigation of Clinton? That might be a very interesting political bet. Who remembers 'you'd be in jail'?
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
A Corbyn Govt. would scare away the top 1% who pay 28% of income tax. Then it is inevitable that higher taxation falls on the middle class. And as John Prescott never said (but Tony Blair did): "We're all middle class now." That will prove very prescient when it comes to Labour's hungry tax-hunters.
Corbyn doesn't care. For him, the purpose of tax is not to raise money, it's to settle scores.
Colbert said it best "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing"
I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy
Same.
Ditto.
May's stance is disappointing and at odds with where the country is. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but she has had her finger right on the public pulse to date.
It is going to be a free vote though. Most MPs represent urban constituencies and I wouldn't have thought that the chance of a repeal going through are very high, even with a Tory majority of 150+.
Why bring it up as an issue? Surely she has the rural wealthy vote locked up? Or is it just that she'd rather the campaign focused on a total non issue to most people - the equivalent of time wasting in a football match when you're 3-0 up....
I've not seen how it was brought up. If she (or some CCHQ grid) did it then it's utterly nuts. I'd assume that it was a question put to her.
All the same, I don't think it's time-wasting at 3-0 up as showboating. It's unnecessarily risky and of no electoral advantage at all.
Yes she was asked... She said:
"As it happens, personally, I've always been in favour of fox hunting and we maintain our commitment - we had a commitment previously - as a Conservative Party to allow a free vote and that would allow Parliament to take a decision on this,"
It would be interesting to know why two of Europe's major capitol cities reject the fascist option so decisively when both country's small towns embrace it so readily.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
The five seats Labour is projected to lose in this poll were gains from the Tories/LibDems in 2015 – with the exception of Hampstead & Kilburn which had a new Labour MP following Glenda Jackson’s retirement. An adverse swing of 2% could quite easily be offset by a first term bonus for these new MPs so it is entirely possible that Labour could retain them all – in the same way that Tory MPs elected in marginal seats in 2010 were able to withstand the pro- Labour swing in England in 2015.
Is that correct ?
England vote share change 2010 to 2015 -%+% UKIP + 10.7% LAB + 3.6% GRN + 3.2% CON + 1.4% TUSC+ 0.1% LD -16.0%
Interesting. What did that give on UNS vs actual 2010-2015 ?
That's a 1.1% Con to Lab swing, which you'd have expected to yield 13 Labour gains from Tories on UNS. In fact, they picked up ten, but lost six so only four net.
People slightly forget that there were only two huge developments in 2015. Firstly, LibDemaggeddon, and secondly SNP surge. The former is entirely what gave the Tories their majority. The latter is what made it a disaster for Labour.
Tories basically holding their own against Labour was an achievement for them (and made the rest possible), but it was a sideshow in one sense.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.
I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.
I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.
While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?
I think this is only justifiable if you're happy to accept the probability of being wrong most of the time, in the belief that the rest of the time will pay you handsomely.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
The five seats Labour is projected to lose in this poll were gains from the Tories/LibDems in 2015 – with the exception of Hampstead & Kilburn which had a new Labour MP following Glenda Jackson’s retirement. An adverse swing of 2% could quite easily be offset by a first term bonus for these new MPs so it is entirely possible that Labour could retain them all – in the same way that Tory MPs elected in marginal seats in 2010 were able to withstand the pro- Labour swing in England in 2015.
Is that correct ?
England vote share change 2010 to 2015 -%+% UKIP + 10.7% LAB + 3.6% GRN + 3.2% CON + 1.4% TUSC+ 0.1% LD -16.0%
Interesting. What did that give on UNS vs actual 2010-2015 ?
That's a 1.1% Con to Lab swing, which you'd have expected to yield 13 Labour gains from Tories on UNS. In fact, they picked up ten, but lost six so only four net.
People slightly forget that there were only two huge developments in 2015. Firstly, LibDemaggeddon, and secondly SNP surge. The former is entirely what gave the Tories their majority. The latter is what made it a disaster for Labour.
Tories basically holding their own against Labour was an achievement for them (and made the rest possible), but it was a sideshow in one sense.
did the ukip surge have little effect then in terms of Lab vs. troy number of seats?
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.
I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.
I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.
While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?
Well everyone is surging in Scotland except the SNP if you listen to the hype.
Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.
Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.
Pushing the SNP down to 36.
I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.
I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.
If tactical unionist voting was happening - and you believe that Labour voters in Scotland would support and vote for a Tory over the SNP, wouldn't there be evidence in the council election STV transfers ? is there evidence of Labour voters ranking the Tories above the SNP from the transfer tallies ?
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
The five seats Labour is projected to lose in this poll were gains from the Tories/LibDems in 2015 – with the exception of Hampstead & Kilburn which had a new Labour MP following Glenda Jackson’s retirement. An adverse swing of 2% could quite easily be offset by a first term bonus for these new MPs so it is entirely possible that Labour could retain them all – in the same way that Tory MPs elected in marginal seats in 2010 were able to withstand the pro- Labour swing in England in 2015.
Is that correct ?
England vote share change 2010 to 2015 -%+% UKIP + 10.7% LAB + 3.6% GRN + 3.2% CON + 1.4% TUSC+ 0.1% LD -16.0%
Interesting. What did that give on UNS vs actual 2010-2015 ?
That's a 1.1% Con to Lab swing, which you'd have expected to yield 13 Labour gains from Tories on UNS. In fact, they picked up ten, but lost six so only four net.
People slightly forget that there were only two huge developments in 2015. Firstly, LibDemaggeddon, and secondly SNP surge. The former is entirely what gave the Tories their majority. The latter is what made it a disaster for Labour.
Tories basically holding their own against Labour was an achievement for them (and made the rest possible), but it was a sideshow in one sense.
did the ukip surge have little effect then in terms of Lab vs. troy number of seats?
I suspect that there was a high degree of churn showing as LD To UKIP net. Some would be Con to UKIP, and Lab to UKIP, but with LD flows to each of those parties masking the effect.
By the way I am seeing Libdem ads on youtube and PB.com. Very bad targetting resources since I voted LEAVE, Voted tory last time am in a marginal labour-tory seat (majority of only 12,000+) and will be voting tory again. Any other PB tories seeing this. Really a waste of their limited resources, sell Libdems. Theonly reason to advertise to me is that i live in a council that was 60% REMAIN.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.
I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.
I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.
While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?
Well everyone is surging in Scotland except the SNP if you listen to the hype.
Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.
Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.
Pushing the SNP down to 36.
I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.
I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.
If tactical unionist voting was happening - and you believe that Labour voters in Scotland would support and vote for a Tory over the SNP, wouldn't there be evidence in the council election STV transfers ? is there evidence of Labour voters ranking the Tories above the SNP from the transfer tallies ?
I saw some evidence of it last year at the Holyrood elections.
FN in France and UKIP in England. The parties rejected by London and Paris. I could have added Edinburgh and Central Amsterdam.
The kippers are not fascist (apart from ideology they are simply not that well organised!)
The French results are more positive. Macron won in all but 2 departments, and when zooming in on this map, clearly had support across vast areas of rural and small town France:
London: ABC1 – Lab 33 Con 25 Lib 14 National: ABC1 – Con 37 Lab 23 LD 12 London: C2DE – Lab 29 Con 27 UKIP 7 LD 5 National: C2DE – Con 31 Lab 22 UKIP 7 LD 4
The numbers imply that:
a) London Lib Dems are going Labour, national Lib Dems are going Tory b) Tory retention is poorer v the Lib Dems and they are securing fewer UKIP switchers. c) Lib Dems are gaining from the Tories at twice the national rate;
Forecast: no Lib Dem gains in London, perhaps one only in Scotland. Have bet on Lib Dems getting 3-6 seats only. Reckon overall result, Cons 346, Labour 235, Lib Dem 5, Green 0, UKIP 0, SNP / PC 46, Others 18
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
Oh come on Nick. It gave you endless chances to emote about the people you love to hate. And as I have made clear in this thread I actually agree with you on the ban.
It gave you endless chances to emote about the people you were paid to hate."
Nick, are you still paid on this subject or has that stopped now?
Forecast: no Lib Dem gains in London, perhaps one only in Scotland. Have bet on Lib Dems getting 3-6 seats only. Reckon overall result, Cons 346, Labour 235, Lib Dem 5, Green 0, UKIP 0, SNP / PC 46, Others 18
It would be interesting to know why two of Europe's major capitol cities reject the fascist option so decisively when both country's small towns embrace it so readily.
France and Holland basically aren't as nice as the UK?
Forecast: no Lib Dem gains in London, perhaps one only in Scotland. Have bet on Lib Dems getting 3-6 seats only. Reckon overall result, Cons 346, Labour 235, Lib Dem 5, Green 0, UKIP 0, SNP / PC 46, Others 18
Net gain for Lab seems optomistic!
optimistic/impossible. Unless of course the polls are wrong and its actually a 7 point Tory lead rather than a 17 point one
London: ABC1 – Lab 33 Con 25 Lib 14 National: ABC1 – Con 37 Lab 23 LD 12 London: C2DE – Lab 29 Con 27 UKIP 7 LD 5 National: C2DE – Con 31 Lab 22 UKIP 7 LD 4
The numbers imply that:
a) London Lib Dems are going Labour, national Lib Dems are going Tory b) Tory retention is poorer v the Lib Dems and they are securing fewer UKIP switchers. c) Lib Dems are gaining from the Tories at twice the national rate;
For those of us concerned about Brexit's possible effects on the UK's motor industry, this report makes sober reading: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/t/590a650de4fcb5f1d7b6d96b/1493853480288/Rethinking+Transportation_May_FINAL.pdf Demand for new vehicles will plummet: 70% fewer passenger cars and trucks will be manufactured each year. This could result in total disruption of the car value chain, with car dealers, maintenance and insurance companies suffering almost complete destruction. Car manufacturers will have options to adapt, either as low-margin, high- volume assemblers of A-EVs, or by becoming TaaS providers. Both strategies will be characterized by high levels of competition, with new entrants from other industries. The value in the sector will be mainly in the vehicle operating systems, computing platforms and the TaaS platforms.
For any Germans, probably best read with a stiff drink at hand.
London: ABC1 – Lab 33 Con 25 Lib 14 National: ABC1 – Con 37 Lab 23 LD 12 London: C2DE – Lab 29 Con 27 UKIP 7 LD 5 National: C2DE – Con 31 Lab 22 UKIP 7 LD 4
The numbers imply that:
a) London Lib Dems are going Labour, national Lib Dems are going Tory b) Tory retention is poorer v the Lib Dems and they are securing fewer UKIP switchers. c) Lib Dems are gaining from the Tories at twice the national rate;
Implications for seat changes in London? Minimal?
If the poll is accurate, the Lib Dems are going nowhere against Labour but might get somewhere against the Tories.
Also, places like Dagenham and Rainham, Eltham and Erith and Thamesmead are not yet showing the same susceptibility to a mass movement of UKIP to the Tories.
Labour's main vulnerability appears to be turnout. The Tories lead on 50+ while Labour are strongest at 18-24.
I don't like the idea of fox hunting either, but, as a Londoner, I'm not sure it's anything much to do with me. If farmers and country folk say the fox is a pest and needs to be controlled, so be it. I don't see any moral difference between poisoning, shooting, trapping and hunting. Mrs May has promised a free vote - as was in the 2015 manifesto - and has told us which way she's likely to vote. Effect on general election? Helps her in the countryside marginally, upsets some voters unlikely to support her anyway, makes some switchers take another look at whether she is the woman they thought she was. i.e. plenty of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Reminds me of when the ban was first talked about in the late 1990s. A wholly disproportionate amount of time was given to the question of a ban on fox hunting. If it is deemed to be cruel - and it is - then why aren't Halal and Kosher slaughter discussed in the same terms? Could it be that fox hunters are white Tory toffs and the others aren't?
An animal does not discern whether it is ripped apart by hounds or if it has its throat cut while it is fully conscious. Either way, it dies in an act of premeditated cruelty.
I agree although Halal and Kosher do not have the "fun" element.
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
Foxhunting became a totemic issue because it was an activity undertaken by the type of people who many on the Left don't like very much and, worse, took pleasure in, and it was politically feasible to ban it.
Also, for those who believe all Tories are secretly evil and, at best, guilty of moral turpitude, it was sufficiently ethically ambiguous to validate their innermost prejudices.
It would be interesting to know why two of Europe's major capitol cities reject the fascist option so decisively when both country's small towns embrace it so readily.
In cities, people live and work among different types of people, and know them as human beings. In backwaters, people live in monocultural areas and fear outsiders. Hence why opposition to immigration is often higher in areas where there are no immigrants.
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
Oh come on Nick. It gave you endless chances to emote about the people you love to hate. And as I have made clear in this thread I actually agree with you on the ban.
It gave you endless chances to emote about the people you were paid to hate."
Nick, are you still paid on this subject or has that stopped now?
{edit for clarity]
You only have to look at Mr Palmer's Commons voting record on inquiries into the Iraq war to judge his views on establishing the truth about things, and the proper use of parliamentary time.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if Corbyn announced tomorrow morning that he had had a radical change of heart and would be hunting with the Beaufort next season, by lunch time Nick would have bought a string of horses and booked a course of riding lessons.
I don't like the idea of fox hunting either, but, as a Londoner, I'm not sure it's anything much to do with me. If farmers and country folk say the fox is a pest and needs to be controlled, so be it. I don't see any moral difference between poisoning, shooting, trapping and hunting. Mrs May has promised a free vote - as was in the 2015 manifesto - and has told us which way she's likely to vote. Effect on general election? Helps her in the countryside marginally, upsets some voters unlikely to support her anyway, makes some switchers take another look at whether she is the woman they thought she was. i.e. plenty of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Reminds me of when the ban was first talked about in the late 1990s. A wholly disproportionate amount of time was given to the question of a ban on fox hunting. If it is deemed to be cruel - and it is - then why aren't Halal and Kosher slaughter discussed in the same terms? Could it be that fox hunters are white Tory toffs and the others aren't?
An animal does not discern whether it is ripped apart by hounds or if it has its throat cut while it is fully conscious. Either way, it dies in an act of premeditated cruelty.
Then why bother wasting any more ?
This argument is one that was used by the pro hunt brigade but its just as good to use now by the antis. A waste of parliamentary time imo to change the law.
I think there is a case to qualify the ban, which is too restrictive, in my view, in line with the law in Scotland, as Cameron suggested, and to remove the criminal aspect, as Sean Fear suggested.
Unfortunately, and I say this as a strong pro-hunt supporter, I think the political battle to repeal it outright has been lost, now: just look at how many Tories support keeping it.
Perversely enough, I am much more sympathetic to animal welfare reforms in rearing animals, and slaughterhouses, and also increasing sentences for wilful animal cruelty.
But, I detest the way an English tradition has become such a target for the fanatic zealots of the anti-lobby and the RSPCA, for something that is - in my view - very far from being an unambiguous ethical or moral issue.
One of the pro-independence campaign groups was though
Which presumably explains the reference to "Scottish Nationalists" rather than the SNP. I don't know if that is fortuitous or Mrs May choosing her words very carefully.
Edit: I see it's actually Scottish nationalists (lower case). That may be significant.
I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy
When a fox comes into your garden and kills 50 chickens and only takes one, the only thing it deservers is a bullet. The anti hunt people have it all wrong. Its the foxes that kill for pleasure.
I believe in shooting foxes, I believe hoese back hunting foxes with hounds is a twat activity for twats.
It would be interesting to know why two of Europe's major capitol cities reject the fascist option so decisively when both country's small towns embrace it so readily.
In cities, people live and work among different types of people, and know them as human beings. In backwaters, people live in monocultural areas and fear outsiders. Hence why opposition to immigration is often higher in areas where there are no immigrants.
Those of us who live in caves outside the M25 are just naturally suspicious of people who don't daub themselves with woad.
I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy
When a fox comes into your garden and kills 50 chickens and only takes one, the only thing it deservers is a bullet. The anti hunt people have it all wrong. Its the foxes that kill for pleasure.
I believe in shooting foxes, I believe hoese back hunting foxes with hounds is a twat activity for twats.
So if the people on horses used firearms that would be alright?
I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy
When a fox comes into your garden and kills 50 chickens and only takes one, the only thing it deservers is a bullet. The anti hunt people have it all wrong. Its the foxes that kill for pleasure.
I believe in shooting foxes, I believe hoese back hunting foxes with hounds is a twat activity for twats.
So if the people on horses used firearms that would be alright?
Or hunting foxes on foot with hounds (a popular activity in some parts, such as the Lake District)?
One of the pro-independence campaign groups was though
Which presumably explains the reference to "Scottish Nationalists" rather than the SNP. I don't know if that is fortuitous or Mrs May choosing her words very carefully.
Edit: I see it's actually Scottish nationalists (lower case). That may be significant.
But 'the' Scottish nationalists can only mean the SNP in most people's minds.
I guess we'll find out for sure tomorrow, but I've a hunch that UKIP are only standing in a few dozen seats. That quite royally screws up the polling, 50% in GB could well be do-able.
Comments
We can't control for all eventualities and tragedies.
Proposing to spend countless hours dicking about with a matter most people had presumed had been settled 15 years ago cuts across her key messages of, "Serious times... serious politician... strong and stable... detoxified/detoffified Tories... safe for ex-Labour".
For all the Crosby worship, and for all the fact that the Tories will romp home in the circumstances, I don't feel the blues have run a particularly smart campaign, and this is a case in point. None of the parties have, in fact.
The energy price cap was daft.
Mr. L, not very culturally sensitive of you...
Although the polling suggests the Tory campaign thus far has been modestly smart.
She can have that line for free - my gift to her.
Corbyn is good at making it sound like someone else will pay. Corporation tax is actually paid by customers, employees, and pension funds. Focussing on "corporation" tax is designed to fool people into what will really happen.
A Corbyn Govt. would scare away the top 1% who pay 28% of income tax. Then it is inevitable that higher taxation falls on the middle class. And as John Prescott never said (but Tony Blair did): "We're all middle class now." That will prove very prescient when it comes to Labour's hungry tax-hunters.
I feel sorry for the Labour canvassers. They're doing the political equivalent of asking for a pity fuck.
Still Ms Siddique was one of the nitwits who nominated Corbyn, took a job from him then resigned and voted for Owen Whatsit, none of which gets mentioned on her leaflets. She's not a bad MP - even if she isn't as good as she seems to think she is. But the disconnect between her campaigns eg helping the Iranian woman married to a local man who has been imprisoned for no very clear reasons by the Iranian regime and her support for an MP who, even when she nominated him, had a history of being paid by that regime's propaganda arm, Press TV, shows how little some MPs know about those they support or, more likely, how little they care about the values they claim to believe in.
Governments and private banks can print money; housewives can't. Thatcher spouted utter nonsense on the subject and a lot of people believed her.
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/862081241373454340
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_River_Rapids_Ride#2016_incident_and_closure
Accidents are incredibly difficult things to prevent in many cases, especially when idiotic humans get involved. You end up with layer upon layer of often redundant safety systems.
Which is why heavy rail in the UK has not had a fatal passenger accident for ten years now. But the safety systems come at a massive cost.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
This was often done, in Roman times, to afford the donative (new emperor bonus for the army) but had the side-effect of jacking up inflation and harming the economy.
Which is a great shame as best two teams should meet in the final.
I think they should seed the top 4 so 1 doesn't play 2 in the semi (if both win groups) whereas they leave it completely to random chance.
Of course entirely possible everything doesn't go to plan - but it looks 100% certain that England will face a Southern Hemisphere semi if win group (NZ or SA). And possibly Aus in the QF.
-%+%
UKIP + 10.7%
LAB + 3.6%
GRN + 3.2%
CON + 1.4%
TUSC+ 0.1%
LD -16.0%
The Conservative have put a press notice out about the LBC Angela Rayner interview. Schools minister Nick Gibb said:
It’s extremely worrying that the person Jeremy Corbyn wants to put in charge of our children’s futures clearly hasn’t done her homework. Corbyn and his top team repeatedly show they cannot cope with basic facts, so just imagine what a mess they would make of negotiating Brexit and running the country.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/10/general-election-2017-tory-mps-expenses-one-show-politics-live
"7.....four hundred and eight million.....ninety seven.....am I close?
https://twitter.com/MammothWhale/status/862315511199277058
Off the top of my head, I'd say a safety car will probably be 1.6-1.7, something like that. Spain's tight. Not Monaco/Singapore tight, but still tight. Not checked the weather forecast yet, either.
I'd probably avoid such a bet. Reliability seems to be improving, and if a car breaks it depends where. Of course, if silly bugger odds are available, that's a different matter.
I'd have said relatively likely.
Colbert said it best "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing"
It's taxation by vindictiveness. But if you kick the goose, it'll simply fly off.
"As it happens, personally, I've always been in favour of fox hunting and we maintain our commitment - we had a commitment previously - as a Conservative Party to allow a free vote and that would allow Parliament to take a decision on this,"
https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/862326286135554051
I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.
People slightly forget that there were only two huge developments in 2015. Firstly, LibDemaggeddon, and secondly SNP surge. The former is entirely what gave the Tories their majority. The latter is what made it a disaster for Labour.
Tories basically holding their own against Labour was an achievement for them (and made the rest possible), but it was a sideshow in one sense.
Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.
Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.
Pushing the SNP down to 36.
I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.
I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.
https://twitter.com/camusson/status/862329930931212290
I'm struggling to see how that is value.
I suspect we'll see some unionist gains regardless. I think the Tories will pick up the Borders and the Lib Dems a few too.
So my lossss realistically are capped around 7.
How much this unwinds is yet to be clear.
They're also disintegrating, so I'm not sure it's worth your time worrying about them.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/16/12/3559398900000578-0-image-a-1_1466076152222.jpg
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/860028250181054464
TM in hot water.
The French results are more positive. Macron won in all but 2 departments, and when zooming in on this map, clearly had support across vast areas of rural and small town France:
http://graphics.france24.com/results-second-round-french-presidential-election-2017/
London Remainers
Lib Dem Remain: 18% (nationally 17%)
Labour Remain: 44% (nationally 36%)
London Retention
Tory: 67% (nationally 80%)
Lab: 63% (nationally 62%)
LD: 52% (nationally 49%)
UKIP: 42% (nationally 29%)
London Switchers
LD > Con: 11% (nationally 22%)
LD > Lab: 16% (nationally 13%)
Con > LD: 9% (nationally 4%)
UKIP > Con: 38% (nationally 45%)
London Undecideds
Con: 15% (nationally 10%)
LD: 21% (nationally 12%)
UKIP: 12% (nationally 15%)
Office Workers/Other Workers
London: ABC1 – Lab 33 Con 25 Lib 14
National: ABC1 – Con 37 Lab 23 LD 12
London: C2DE – Lab 29 Con 27 UKIP 7 LD 5
National: C2DE – Con 31 Lab 22 UKIP 7 LD 4
The numbers imply that:
a) London Lib Dems are going Labour, national Lib Dems are going Tory
b) Tory retention is poorer v the Lib Dems and they are securing fewer UKIP switchers.
c) Lib Dems are gaining from the Tories at twice the national rate;
Nick, are you still paid on this subject or has that stopped now?
{edit for clarity]
Proper fascists always get a really smart uniform.
Not that the BNP manifesto ever put in writing their real aims.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/t/590a650de4fcb5f1d7b6d96b/1493853480288/Rethinking+Transportation_May_FINAL.pdf
Demand for new vehicles will plummet: 70% fewer passenger cars and trucks will be manufactured each year. This could result in total disruption of the car value chain, with car dealers, maintenance and insurance companies suffering almost complete destruction. Car manufacturers will have options to adapt, either as low-margin, high- volume assemblers of A-EVs, or by becoming TaaS providers. Both strategies will be characterized by high levels of competition, with new entrants from other industries. The value in the sector will be mainly in the vehicle operating systems, computing platforms and the TaaS platforms.
For any Germans, probably best read with a stiff drink at hand.
Also, places like Dagenham and Rainham, Eltham and Erith and Thamesmead are not yet showing the same susceptibility to a mass movement of UKIP to the Tories.
Labour's main vulnerability appears to be turnout. The Tories lead on 50+ while Labour are strongest at 18-24.
Also, for those who believe all Tories are secretly evil and, at best, guilty of moral turpitude, it was sufficiently ethically ambiguous to validate their innermost prejudices.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if Corbyn announced tomorrow morning that he had had a radical change of heart and would be hunting with the Beaufort next season, by lunch time Nick would have bought a string of horses and booked a course of riding lessons.
Unfortunately, and I say this as a strong pro-hunt supporter, I think the political battle to repeal it outright has been lost, now: just look at how many Tories support keeping it.
Perversely enough, I am much more sympathetic to animal welfare reforms in rearing animals, and slaughterhouses, and also increasing sentences for wilful animal cruelty.
But, I detest the way an English tradition has become such a target for the fanatic zealots of the anti-lobby and the RSPCA, for something that is - in my view - very far from being an unambiguous ethical or moral issue.
Edit: I see it's actually Scottish nationalists (lower case). That may be significant.
UK Independence Party
5.3–11.0%