@ThreeQuidder Linking to Guido? I may as well start linking to the Canary then.
Sure, for comment, when it's as accurate as this:
Remainers and their media allies need to be honest about what they mean when they talk about “soft Brexit”. If “soft Brexit” means staying inside the single market (not taking back control of borders), staying inside the customs union (not taking back control of trade), and staying inside the ECJ (not taking back control of laws), then that is not Brexit. Hammond and other Remainers in the Cabinet have accepted this. Only hardcore Remainers don’t.
Only hardcore Remainers don't? If that was the case I wouldn't expect to find NatCen finding many members of the public wanting to remain in the Single Market - the same is the case for a recent Survation poll, which also found support for not leaving the Customs Union.
@ThreeQuidder Linking to Guido? I may as well start linking to the Canary then.
Sure, for comment, when it's as accurate as this:
Remainers and their media allies need to be honest about what they mean when they talk about “soft Brexit”. If “soft Brexit” means staying inside the single market (not taking back control of borders), staying inside the customs union (not taking back control of trade), and staying inside the ECJ (not taking back control of laws), then that is not Brexit. Hammond and other Remainers in the Cabinet have accepted this. Only hardcore Remainers don’t.
Only hardcore Remainers don't? If that was the case I wouldn't expect to find NatCen finding many members of the public wanting to remain in the Single Market - the same is the case for a recent Survation poll, which also found support for not leaving the Customs Union.
I don't think the general public knows what the customs union entails, and certainly doesn't know what the "single market" entails, as it is a great misnomer.
@ThreeQuidder Linking to Guido? I may as well start linking to the Canary then.
Sure, for comment, when it's as accurate as this:
Remainers and their media allies need to be honest about what they mean when they talk about “soft Brexit”. If “soft Brexit” means staying inside the single market (not taking back control of borders), staying inside the customs union (not taking back control of trade), and staying inside the ECJ (not taking back control of laws), then that is not Brexit. Hammond and other Remainers in the Cabinet have accepted this. Only hardcore Remainers don’t.
Only hardcore Remainers don't? If that was the case I wouldn't expect to find NatCen finding many members of the public wanting to remain in the Single Market - the same is the case for a recent Survation poll, which also found support for not leaving the Customs Union.
Asking people if they want to keep the Single Market and Customs Union without pointing out that freedom of movement would continue is a pretty disingenuous/pointless activity.
If you hate austerity, why would you want a Hard Brexit?
You do not but access to the single market will be the aim of the deal.Define what you mean by Hard Brexit ?
Every country in the world has access to the single market.
For me, a Hard Brexit is one that makes it significantly more time-consuming and expensive for UK businesses to operate inside the single market while reducing the current rights that EU membership delivers to UK citizens.
It's still broadly correct. If you went back to 2014 and said Trump will be President, the UK will vote to leave the EU, France will have a new party in government, and Corbyn will lead Labour and come damn close to winning a general election, people would think that you are raving mad. Three major countries where the voters have had enough of the status quo and you think there's nothing much in it?
If you hate austerity, why would you want a Hard Brexit?
You do not but access to the single market will be the aim of the deal.Define what you mean by Hard Brexit ?
Every country in the world has access to the single market.
For me, a Hard Brexit is one that makes it significantly more time-consuming and expensive for UK businesses to operate inside the single market while reducing the current rights that EU membership delivers to UK citizens.
And for businesses in the EU to do business with UK.
@ThreeQuidder Yes, and the general public also doesn't know about potential economic hit we could face in the case of a Hard Brexit.
No, really? Remainers were very clear before the referendum what they claimed would happen to the economy if we voted to Leave.
Edit: Predictably, you say "could", i.e. Project Fear.
Warning people of risks is not Project Fear.
Many of us are still clear about our concerns and worries regarding Hard Brexit. Even some leavers on here have expressed concerns about the government's approach. Have you read any of rcs1000s posts recently? He's no Remainer.
Leaving the EU is like supporting the England national football team over the years .There could be one glorious home team victory like 66 or a near miss on penalties as in 90 and 96 semi finals.More likely a quarter final mediocre performance quarter final as in 02 06 .Less likely a no deal did not qualify as in ,74 78 ,94.
@ThreeQuidder Yes, and the general public also doesn't know about potential economic hit we could face in the case of a Hard Brexit.
No, really? Remainers were very clear before the referendum what they claimed would happen to the economy if we voted to Leave.
Edit: Predictably, you say "could", i.e. Project Fear.
Warning people of risks is not Project Fear.
"could" is meaningless. Almost anything could happen. This is why Project Fear was dismissed by (enough of) the voters.
And it certainly is Project Fear if you highlight only the negative "could"s.
Not really - if that was the case no one would take into account risks of anything. We measure things by how likely they may be - an asterioid hitting earth is extremely unlikely, while there remains a more likely chance that Brexit, handled badly, could go very wrong for us indeed.
It is not Project Fear to highlight 'could' because nothing is certain and set in stone, so no one can predict what will definitely happen. It's much better to say could then to say that 350m per week will go to the NHS if we leave and then backtrack on it.
Call me morbid, but I'd already had a look how old the oldest Tory MPs were (and how marginal their seats are) a couple of weeks ago. And apart from lovely old KC it's slim pickings. So the minority government is likely to survive. I suppose (or hope) that tacit alliances will form between some Tories and some members of other parties that'll force the government to act out of character, enabling the gradual end of Austerity, for example. So it'll be less of a Theresa May government and more of a Heidi Allen government. If this gets too ridiculous, most Tories will start champing at the bit for another election. If I were Corbyn I'd try to suppress Labour's poll ratings, eg. by getting Umunna to rebel against me over Brexit, to lull the Tories into thinking they should have a snap election...
Just been talking to our local, Tory, MP a Cabinet Minister. I don’t know who she thinks I am but she opined quietly that Corbyn could be PM in a few months. I said that the Tories would have to split for that to happen, and the Tory Party hadn’t done so for 150 years and she said that nevertheless......
This feels implausible to me. Even Heidi Allen thinks a Corbyn premiership would be an utter disaster. The party will not facilitate it.
It was certainly true that until yesterday the parties were still on a war footing, and though the MPs themselves are off on their hols soon, I assume nothing will be taken for granted just yet. All the MPs and PPCs I've heard from, directly or otherwise, have been expecting an autumn election, which could be a dangerous state of mind if their HQs don't calm them down.
May might still go, but it's hard to see what might bring the government down now.
@ThreeQuidder Yes, and the general public also doesn't know about potential economic hit we could face in the case of a Hard Brexit.
No, really? Remainers were very clear before the referendum what they claimed would happen to the economy if we voted to Leave.
Edit: Predictably, you say "could", i.e. Project Fear.
Warning people of risks is not Project Fear.
"could" is meaningless. Almost anything could happen. This is why Project Fear was dismissed by (enough of) the voters.
And it certainly is Project Fear if you highlight only the negative "could"s.
Not really - if that was the case no one would take into account risks of anything. We measure things by how likely they may be - an asterioid hitting earth is extremely unlikely, while there remains a more likely chance that Brexit, handled badly, could go very wrong for us indeed.
Yes, so Project Fear kept saying...!
By the way, every time you highlight a promise that wasn't made (by people who weren't in any position to keep it anyway) you don't make people take you seriously.
Climate change news - according to The Weather Channel, in the month of June Atlanta will get on average 18 days over 95 degrees (35 Celsius). This June we've had 3. Today it's cold, rainy and in the mid 70s. My electric bill is less than half what it was in June last year (less air conditioning).
@ThreeQuidder Yes, and the general public also doesn't know about potential economic hit we could face in the case of a Hard Brexit.
No, really? Remainers were very clear before the referendum what they claimed would happen to the economy if we voted to Leave.
Edit: Predictably, you say "could", i.e. Project Fear.
Warning people of risks is not Project Fear.
"could" is meaningless. Almost anything could happen. This is why Project Fear was dismissed by (enough of) the voters.
And it certainly is Project Fear if you highlight only the negative "could"s.
Not really - if that was the case no one would take into account risks of anything. We measure things by how likely they may be - an asterioid hitting earth is extremely unlikely, while there remains a more likely chance that Brexit, handled badly, could go very wrong for us indeed.
It is not Project Fear to highlight 'could' because nothing is certain and set in stone, so no one can predict what will definitely happen. It's much better to say could then to say that 350m per week will go to the NHS if we leave and then backtrack on it.
Anyway, I'm off. Have a good evening.
The leave campaign gave examples of what was possible if we left, not pledges that could be backtracked on.
Climate change news - according to The Weather Channel, in the month of June Atlanta will get on average 18 days over 95 degrees (35 Celsius). This June we've had 3. Today it's cold, rainy and in the mid 70s. My electric bill is less than half what it was in June last year (less air conditioning).
Climate change news - according to The Weather Channel, in the month of June Atlanta will get on average 18 days over 95 degrees (35 Celsius). This June we've had 3. Today it's cold, rainy and in the mid 70s. My electric bill is less than half what it was in June last year (less air conditioning).
LOL. Labour Remainers should be in face palm mode right now. Imagine hailing Corbyn as the messiah and having Nigel Farage and Dan Hannan praise him. Oh dear.
Just because Farage approves of a pint of beer, doesn't mean beer is not a good thing.
Corbyn is leading Labour well over Brexit.
Beer tastes awful.
Corbyn's position on Brexit has split the party. He's as much an architect of the project as Hannan and Farage were. He knew what he as doing during EUref. I find it hard to understand how you can dislike Vince so much but like Corbyn so much. Vince is much more closer to an liberal, internationalist, open Britain world view than Corbyn is, that's for sure.
As far as I am concerned Corbyn is the curates egg. Good in parts, much less good in others.
Cable is just not someone who can conribute the energy and ideas that my party needs. I also found his coalition contributions unhelpful.
Call me morbid, but I'd already had a look how old the oldest Tory MPs were (and how marginal their seats are) a couple of weeks ago. And apart from lovely old KC it's slim pickings. So the minority government is likely to survive. I suppose (or hope) that tacit alliances will form between some Tories and some members of other parties that'll force the government to act out of character, enabling the gradual end of Austerity, for example. So it'll be less of a Theresa May government and more of a Heidi Allen government. If this gets too ridiculous, most Tories will start champing at the bit for another election. If I were Corbyn I'd try to suppress Labour's poll ratings, eg. by getting Umunna to rebel against me over Brexit, to lull the Tories into thinking they should have a snap election...
Just been talking to our local, Tory, MP a Cabinet Minister. I don’t know who she thinks I am but she opined quietly that Corbyn could be PM in a few months. I said that the Tories would have to split for that to happen, and the Tory Party hadn’t done so for 150 years and she said that nevertheless......
This feels implausible to me. Even Heidi Allen thinks a Corbyn premiership would be an utter disaster. The party will not facilitate it.
It was certainly true that until yesterday the parties were still on a war footing, and though the MPs themselves are off on their hols soon, I assume nothing will be taken for granted just yet. All the MPs and PPCs I've heard from, directly or otherwise, have been expecting an autumn election, which could be a dangerous state of mind if their HQs don't calm them down.
May might still go, but it's hard to see what might bring the government down now.
DUP's 2nd shopping list might. But that's not until 2018 now.
It's still broadly correct. If you went back to 2014 and said Trump will be President, the UK will vote to leave the EU, France will have a new party in government, and Corbyn will lead Labour and come damn close to winning a general election, people would think that you are raving mad. Three major countries where the voters have had enough of the status quo and you think there's nothing much in it?
In hindsight Brexit wasn't much of a surprise after 40 years of negative headlines. But the Leave vote has disrupted UK politics, that's for sure. I'm sceptical though that there's an international mood for change, or that political events overseas are infectious. Would Macron have won if Trump hadn't? Or if Brexit hadn't? I don't see why not.
Survation poll due shortly, I think. What are we expecting?
Labour lead up as post-election momentum gathers speed? Labour lead down as Theresa's crisis week recedes?
I'm not expecting much either way - I think that people are paying less attention to politics than us nerds at the moment: after the election excitement they're all politicked out. For the same reason, I doubt if the latest events will affect anything much.
LOL. Labour Remainers should be in face palm mode right now. Imagine hailing Corbyn as the messiah and having Nigel Farage and Dan Hannan praise him. Oh dear.
Just because Farage approves of a pint of beer, doesn't mean beer is not a good thing.
Corbyn is leading Labour well over Brexit.
Beer tastes awful.
Corbyn's position on Brexit has split the party. He's as much an architect of the project as Hannan and Farage were. He knew what he as doing during EUref. I find it hard to understand how you can dislike Vince so much but like Corbyn so much. Vince is much more closer to an liberal, internationalist, open Britain world view than Corbyn is, that's for sure.
As far as I am concerned Corbyn is the curates egg. Good in parts, much less good in others.
Cable is just not someone who can contribute the energy and ideas that my party needs. I also found his coalition contributions unhelpful.
I agree with you about Cable on both counts, - but I think he will get media attention, talk authoritatively on Brexit and the economy and won't be bullied or conned by the opposition. He's a wily old codger. So I am going to hold my nose and vote for him. Not that there's going to be any choice!
Survation poll due shortly, I think. What are we expecting?
Labour lead up as post-election momentum gathers speed? Labour lead down as Theresa's crisis week recedes?
I'm not expecting much either way - I think that people are paying less attention to politics than us nerds at the moment: after the election excitement they're all politicked out. For the same reason, I doubt if the latest events will affect anything much.
Climate change news - according to The Weather Channel, in the month of June Atlanta will get on average 18 days over 95 degrees (35 Celsius). This June we've had 3. Today it's cold, rainy and in the mid 70s. My electric bill is less than half what it was in June last year (less air conditioning).
Climate change news - according to The Weather Channel, in the month of June Atlanta will get on average 18 days over 95 degrees (35 Celsius). This June we've had 3. Today it's cold, rainy and in the mid 70s. My electric bill is less than half what it was in June last year (less air conditioning).
Climate change news - according to The Weather Channel, in the month of June Atlanta will get on average 18 days over 95 degrees (35 Celsius). This June we've had 3. Today it's cold, rainy and in the mid 70s. My electric bill is less than half what it was in June last year (less air conditioning).
Climate change news - according to The Weather Channel, in the month of June Atlanta will get on average 18 days over 95 degrees (35 Celsius). This June we've had 3. Today it's cold, rainy and in the mid 70s. My electric bill is less than half what it was in June last year (less air conditioning).
I was reading that one of the concerns raised was British military personnel/second home owners shouldn't be allowed to vote. I wonder if voters will have to submit to genetic testing to confirm their ancestry.
I was reading that one of the concerns raised was British military personnel/second home owners shouldn't be allowed to vote. I wonder if voters will have to submit to genetic testing to confirm their ancestry.
There's no need to go to all that trouble. No true Scot would vote 'No' so they could use that as the test.
I was reading that one of the concerns raised was British military personnel/second home owners shouldn't be allowed to vote. I wonder if voters will have to submit to genetic testing to confirm their ancestry.
There's no need to go to all that trouble. No true Scot would vote 'No' so they could use that as the test.
His pushing out the CEO at the Government's direction (subsequently denied) was cynical and self-serving. I assumed the only reason he didn't resign earlier was because none of his colleagues fancied stepping up and taking the flak.
The Housing Cabinet member also needs to resign. Last heard, he had fled his home and left the Borough, whilst staying in the job. He should, and probably will, be the next one to go.
His pushing out the CEO at the Government's direction (subsequently denied) was cynical and self-serving. I assumed the only reason he didn't resign earlier was because none of his colleagues fancied stepping up and taking the flak.
Two of the councillors are Oxford contemporaries of the PM and will have known her......so lets see who steps forward....
And odd, given how many of his former opponents have subsequently expressed their willingness to serve, after their being stunned by Corby emerging as an ace election campaigner...
LOL. Labour Remainers should be in face palm mode right now. Imagine hailing Corbyn as the messiah and having Nigel Farage and Dan Hannan praise him. Oh dear.
Just because Farage approves of a pint of beer, doesn't mean beer is not a good thing.
Corbyn is leading Labour well over Brexit.
Beer tastes awful.
Corbyn's position on Brexit has split the party. He's as much an architect of the project as Hannan and Farage were. He knew what he as doing during EUref. I find it hard to understand how you can dislike Vince so much but like Corbyn so much. Vince is much more closer to an liberal, internationalist, open Britain world view than Corbyn is, that's for sure.
As far as I am concerned Corbyn is the curates egg. Good in parts, much less good in others.
Cable is just not someone who can contribute the energy and ideas that my party needs. I also found his coalition contributions unhelpful.
I agree with you about Cable on both counts, - but I think he will get media attention, talk authoritatively on Brexit and the economy and won't be bullied or conned by the opposition. He's a wily old codger. So I am going to hold my nose and vote for him. Not that there's going to be any choice!
Cable is brilliant at doing the media rounds and making lots of reasonable sounding suggestions of where the government is going wrong. Obviously when he actually had the power to make some of these decisions he was bloody useless.
And odd, given how many of his former opponents have subsequently expressed their willingness to serve, after their being stunned by Corby emerging as an ace election campaigner...
Many of those offers are conditional ones. It's obviously better for Corbyn to have people say "I'll serve, but must be free to express my disagreement on X, Y and Z" than to have them refuse to serve at all. But it isn't ideal.
I think some of them also want to get assurances in writing. I've heard of more than one who, in 2015, asked for and (crucially) got oral assurances that they'd be able to vote with the Government on Syria. He then tried to renege on it (although ultimately, grudgingly, allowed a free vote). One of Corbyn's flaws is that his oral agreements aren't worth the air they are bloviated into.
As OGH points out, the devil is in the detail. And---it should be understood by lefties--- the devil looks after his/her own.(*) (*) We ought to to avoid sexism here. I have even heard that angels are transgender.
And odd, given how many of his former opponents have subsequently expressed their willingness to serve, after their being stunned by Corby emerging as an ace election campaigner...
So ace he lost the election against the worst Tory campaign in living memory.
Corbyn was crap. He was just less crap than we all expected.
Also the simple fact as we can see from the numbers, for whatever reason, Labour MPs seem to go on longer in the house than Tory MPs. Maybe they need the money more, or whatever.
Isn't it simply that a large Labour cohort entered parliament in 1997, whereas current Tory MPs are much more likely to have entered parliament in 2010 or 2015?
I think it is remarkable that it isn't more widely known but for a Conservative MP to be re-adopted as parliamentary candidate their likelihood to survive to the next election is an important factor. It isn't formally laid down but your chances of being selected as a parliamentary candidate if you aren't in visibly good health are pretty slim.
I agree with you about Cable on both counts, - but I think he will get media attention, talk authoritatively on Brexit and the economy and won't be bullied or conned by the opposition. He's a wily old codger. So I am going to hold my nose and vote for him. Not that there's going to be any choice!
Cable is brilliant at doing the media rounds and making lots of reasonable sounding suggestions of where the government is going wrong. Obviously when he actually had the power to make some of these decisions he was bloody useless.
How much power did the Lib Dems have in government, when the larger party could block them so easily? I think their strength was in preventing the Tories from doing things (which they have managed to do since 2015 gave them a majority, sadly). And this worked both ways, of course. By and large, nothing very unpleasant happened under the coalition government.
Also the simple fact as we can see from the numbers, for whatever reason, Labour MPs seem to go on longer in the house than Tory MPs. Maybe they need the money more, or whatever.
Isn't it simply that a large Labour cohort entered parliament in 1997, whereas current Tory MPs are much more likely to have entered parliament in 2010 or 2015?
I think it is remarkable that it isn't more widely known but for a Conservative MP to be re-adopted as parliamentary candidate their likelihood to survive to the next election is an important factor. It isn't formally laid down but your chances of being selected as a parliamentary candidate if you aren't in visibly good health are pretty slim.
It's probably a fairly clear sign that the Scottish Conservatives were astonished to do as well as they did that on the one hand they have a 27 year old MP in Angus and on the other hand they have a 65 year old MP in Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock who not too long ago had double bypass surgery.
That's not true. You get duty free booze and fags on the way to and from Switzerland, and I think if we had Switzerland's relationship with the EU it would come under the heading of "Soft Brexit".
"Two thirds of pensioners are still saving in retirement, putting away more than any other age group, according to new research. Rather than just spending all the money they have built up over their working lives, over-65s put away an average of £270 a month or £3,240 a year on average. Experts say this is because saving becomes a habit that is hard to break, especially when retirees want build up a pot to pass on to their loved ones."
I was reading that one of the concerns raised was British military personnel/second home owners shouldn't be allowed to vote. I wonder if voters will have to submit to genetic testing to confirm their ancestry.
Oh dear the disease is spreading quickly throughout Tory ranks, what little brain cells were there are melting fast.
I agree with you about Cable on both counts, - but I think he will get media attention, talk authoritatively on Brexit and the economy and won't be bullied or conned by the opposition. He's a wily old codger. So I am going to hold my nose and vote for him. Not that there's going to be any choice!
Cable is brilliant at doing the media rounds and making lots of reasonable sounding suggestions of where the government is going wrong. Obviously when he actually had the power to make some of these decisions he was bloody useless.
How much power did the Lib Dems have in government, when the larger party could block them so easily? I think their strength was in preventing the Tories from doing things (which they have managed to do since 2015 gave them a majority, sadly). And this worked both ways, of course. By and large, nothing very unpleasant happened under the coalition government.
Lamb, Alexander and Webb achieved lots.
Cable spent more time leaking and briefing against the Tories, and then ballsed up the Royal Mail sell off. And little to no progress on stuff like business regulation.
I agree with you about Cable on both counts, - but I think he will get media attention, talk authoritatively on Brexit and the economy and won't be bullied or conned by the opposition. He's a wily old codger. So I am going to hold my nose and vote for him. Not that there's going to be any choice!
Cable is brilliant at doing the media rounds and making lots of reasonable sounding suggestions of where the government is going wrong. Obviously when he actually had the power to make some of these decisions he was bloody useless.
How much power did the Lib Dems have in government, when the larger party could block them so easily? I think their strength was in preventing the Tories from doing things (which they have managed to do since 2015 gave them a majority, sadly). And this worked both ways, of course. By and large, nothing very unpleasant happened under the coalition government.
Speaking from personal experience, stopping things as the junior coalition partner is a lot easier than getting your own priorities introduced, as the latter needs the larger party to vote for them en masse. That said, the LibDems did well in getting pensions reform, the pupil premium, higher income tax personal allowances, free school meals, and the Green Deal introduced during their term of office.
The greatest strength of coalition government is that the wider consultation and dual party veto means that truly dumb proposals get vetoed by one side or the other, often before they see the light of day. Talk to former LD ministers in private, as I have, and you'll realise that the real achievement of the LibDems was in stopping some Tory proposals that, as a consequence, never got any publicity at all.
I agree with you about Cable on both counts, - but I think he will get media attention, talk authoritatively on Brexit and the economy and won't be bullied or conned by the opposition. He's a wily old codger. So I am going to hold my nose and vote for him. Not that there's going to be any choice!
Cable is brilliant at doing the media rounds and making lots of reasonable sounding suggestions of where the government is going wrong. Obviously when he actually had the power to make some of these decisions he was bloody useless.
How much power did the Lib Dems have in government, when the larger party could block them so easily? I think their strength was in preventing the Tories from doing things (which they have managed to do since 2015 gave them a majority, sadly). And this worked both ways, of course. By and large, nothing very unpleasant happened under the coalition government.
Speaking from personal experience, stopping things as the junior coalition partner is a lot easier than getting your own priorities introduced, as the latter needs the larger party to vote for them en masse. That said, the LibDems did well in getting pensions reform, the pupil premium, higher income tax personal allowances, free school meals, and the Green Deal introduced during their term of office.
The greatest strength of coalition government is that the wider consultation and dual party veto means that truly dumb proposals get vetoed by one side or the other, often before they see the light of day. Talk to former LD ministers in private, as I have, and you'll realise that the real achievement of the LibDems was in stopping some Tory proposals that, as a consequence, never got any publicity at all.
On topic, I've looked up the statistical life tables. The ONS publish life expectancy tables including a figure with the probability of somebody alive at age X not being alive at age X+1.
So a girl aged 11 or 12 (the safest age and sex) has only a 0.006% chance of dying in the next 12 months. A 51 year old (the average age of an MP in 2015 - I don't have 2017 figures) has a 0.35% chance of dying (men) or 0.23% (women). A 99 year old has a 38.1% chance of dying in the next year (men) or 33.5% (women).
Looking at a five year period, and very roughly averaging men and women, you have about a 0.25% chance of dying in any five year period in your 20s, 0.5% in your 30s, 1% in your 40s, 2.5% in your 50s, 5% in your 60s, and 15% in your 70s.
Looking at 2015 Tory MPs (as I say, I don't have the 2017 numbers):
5 were in their 20s - vanishingly unlikely not to survive the full five years. 41 were in their 30s - again unlikely, but maybe a one in four chance of one or more passing on. 122 were in their 40s - you'd expect 1-2 deaths in that sort of group. 113 were in their 50s - you'd expect 2-3 deaths in this sort of group. 40 were in their 60s - you'd again expect 2-3 deaths in this sort of group. 8 were in their 70s - you'd expect 1-2 deaths in this sort of group.
Overall, then, you'd be looking at around eight deaths in a group with broadly the profile of Tory MPs.
Now, I accept MPs are fairly well off, equating to lower risk. They also probably wouldn't have stood for the election if they were battling a major health problem just now (although many are likely to be managing less immediately threatening conditions). So it wouldn't be unreasonable to halve it to four. With such low numbers and low individual risk, it's entirely possible it'll be zero or one (as it has been in recent Parliaments). But it's also entirely possible it will be seven or eight.
I would contend that this - a par of around four based on millions of real lives and deaths in the UK - is a much more realistic predictor. I know it's a rather grim calculation - and let's hope I'm wrong and MPs of all parties remain healthy for the full term - but if you have to calculate it, that's broadly the way to go about it.
On topic, I've looked up the statistical life tables. The ONS publish life expectancy tables including a figure with the probability of somebody alive at age X not being alive at age X+1.
So a girl aged 11 or 12 (the safest age and sex) has only a 0.006% chance of dying in the next 12 months. A 51 year old (the average age of an MP in 2015 - I don't have 2017 figures) has a 0.35% chance of dying (men) or 0.23% (women). A 99 year old has a 38.1% chance of dying in the next year (men) or 33.5% (women).
Looking at a five year period, and very roughly averaging men and women, you have about a 0.25% chance of dying in any five year period in your 20s, 0.5% in your 30s, 1% in your 40s, 2.5% in your 50s, 5% in your 60s, and 15% in your 70s.
Looking at 2015 Tory MPs (as I say, I don't have the 2017 numbers):
5 were in their 20s - vanishingly unlikely not to survive the full five years. 41 were in their 30s - again unlikely, but maybe a one in four chance of one or more passing on. 122 were in their 40s - you'd expect 1-2 deaths in that sort of group. 113 were in their 50s - you'd expect 2-3 deaths in this sort of group. 40 were in their 60s - you'd again expect 2-3 deaths in this sort of group. 8 were in their 70s - you'd expect 1-2 deaths in this sort of group.
Overall, then, you'd be looking at around eight deaths in a group with broadly the profile of Tory MPs.
Now, I accept MPs are fairly well off, equating to lower risk. They also probably wouldn't have stood for the election if they were battling a major health problem just now (although many are likely to be managing less immediately threatening conditions). So it wouldn't be unreasonable to halve it to four. With such low numbers and low individual risk, it's entirely possible it'll be zero or one (as it has been in recent Parliaments). But it's also entirely possible it will be seven or eight.
I would contend that this - a par of around four based on millions of real lives and deaths in the UK - is a much more realistic predictor. I know it's a rather grim calculation - and let's hope I'm wrong and MPs of all parties remain healthy for the full term - but if you have to calculate it, that's broadly the way to go about it.
Comparing your analysis with Mike's figures in the lead suggests that Tory MPs are an unusually healthy bunch? Which is surprising; their stress levels are probably low as most of them sit in safe seats untroubled by job insecurity, but I would have thought their lifestyles aren't particularly healthy ones for people of their age, what with all those lunches and all?
I agree with you about Cable on both counts, - but I think he will get media attention, talk authoritatively on Brexit and the economy and won't be bullied or conned by the opposition. He's a wily old codger. So I am going to hold my nose and vote for him. Not that there's going to be any choice!
Cable is brilliant at doing the media rounds and making lots of reasonable sounding suggestions of where the government is going wrong. Obviously when he actually had the power to make some of these decisions he was bloody useless.
How much power did the Lib Dems have in government, when the larger party could block them so easily? I think their strength was in preventing the Tories from doing things (which they have managed to do since 2015 gave them a majority, sadly). And this worked both ways, of course. By and large, nothing very unpleasant happened under the coalition government.
Lamb, Alexander and Webb achieved lots.
Cable spent more time leaking and briefing against the Tories, and then ballsed up the Royal Mail sell off. And little to no progress on stuff like business regulation.
Didn't Cable initiate the Green Investment bank, now to be sold off at a profit by the Gov't?
Comments
Only hardcore Remainers don't? If that was the case I wouldn't expect to find NatCen finding many members of the public wanting to remain in the Single Market - the same is the case for a recent Survation poll, which also found support for not leaving the Customs Union.
Is your town a run-down time-warp, a squalid cess pit, or a herpes-infested s***hole? Revealed, the ten WORST places to live in England as chosen by their not-so-proud inhabitants
@ThreeQuidder Yes, and the general public also doesn't know about potential economic hit we could face in the case of a Hard Brexit.
For me, a Hard Brexit is one that makes it significantly more time-consuming and expensive for UK businesses to operate inside the single market while reducing the current rights that EU membership delivers to UK citizens.
Edit: Predictably, you say "could", i.e. Project Fear.
Many of us are still clear about our concerns and worries regarding Hard Brexit. Even some leavers on here have expressed concerns about the government's approach. Have you read any of rcs1000s posts recently? He's no Remainer.
Soft Brexit: No duty free booze and fags
And it certainly is Project Fear if you highlight only the negative "could"s.
They were OK before I left them!
It is not Project Fear to highlight 'could' because nothing is certain and set in stone, so no one can predict what will definitely happen. It's much better to say could then to say that 350m per week will go to the NHS if we leave and then backtrack on it.
Anyway, I'm off. Have a good evening.
May might still go, but it's hard to see what might bring the government down now.
By the way, every time you highlight a promise that wasn't made (by people who weren't in any position to keep it anyway) you don't make people take you seriously.
I just saw Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children, and the climax of the movie takes place in Blackpool. Who knew?
Cable is just not someone who can conribute the energy and ideas that my party needs. I also found his coalition contributions unhelpful.
Labour lead up as post-election momentum gathers speed?
Labour lead down as Theresa's crisis week recedes?
I'm not expecting much either way - I think that people are paying less attention to politics than us nerds at the moment: after the election excitement they're all politicked out. For the same reason, I doubt if the latest events will affect anything much.
https://twitter.com/MargotB125/status/880826284670152704
This *might* be Peak Jezza for now though...
https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/880479914809413633
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/880830795245641728
His pushing out the CEO at the Government's direction (subsequently denied) was cynical and self-serving. I assumed the only reason he didn't resign earlier was because none of his colleagues fancied stepping up and taking the flak.
The Housing Cabinet member also needs to resign. Last heard, he had fled his home and left the Borough, whilst staying in the job. He should, and probably will, be the next one to go.
I think some of them also want to get assurances in writing. I've heard of more than one who, in 2015, asked for and (crucially) got oral assurances that they'd be able to vote with the Government on Syria. He then tried to renege on it (although ultimately, grudgingly, allowed a free vote). One of Corbyn's flaws is that his oral agreements aren't worth the air they are bloviated into.
(*) We ought to to avoid sexism here. I have even heard that angels are transgender.
Corbyn was crap. He was just less crap than we all expected.
"Two thirds of pensioners are still saving in retirement, putting away more than any other age group, according to new research. Rather than just spending all the money they have built up over their working lives, over-65s put away an average of £270 a month or £3,240 a year on average. Experts say this is because saving becomes a habit that is hard to break, especially when retirees want build up a pot to pass on to their loved ones."
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4651674/Pensioners-save-age-group.html#ixzz4lVZVCPJj Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
https://twitter.com/Far_Right_Watch/status/880790195536310273
https://www.worldfitnesslevel.org/#/
Cable spent more time leaking and briefing against the Tories, and then ballsed up the Royal Mail sell off. And little to no progress on stuff like business regulation.
The greatest strength of coalition government is that the wider consultation and dual party veto means that truly dumb proposals get vetoed by one side or the other, often before they see the light of day. Talk to former LD ministers in private, as I have, and you'll realise that the real achievement of the LibDems was in stopping some Tory proposals that, as a consequence, never got any publicity at all.
So a girl aged 11 or 12 (the safest age and sex) has only a 0.006% chance of dying in the next 12 months. A 51 year old (the average age of an MP in 2015 - I don't have 2017 figures) has a 0.35% chance of dying (men) or 0.23% (women). A 99 year old has a 38.1% chance of dying in the next year (men) or 33.5% (women).
Looking at a five year period, and very roughly averaging men and women, you have about a 0.25% chance of dying in any five year period in your 20s, 0.5% in your 30s, 1% in your 40s, 2.5% in your 50s, 5% in your 60s, and 15% in your 70s.
Looking at 2015 Tory MPs (as I say, I don't have the 2017 numbers):
5 were in their 20s - vanishingly unlikely not to survive the full five years.
41 were in their 30s - again unlikely, but maybe a one in four chance of one or more passing on.
122 were in their 40s - you'd expect 1-2 deaths in that sort of group.
113 were in their 50s - you'd expect 2-3 deaths in this sort of group.
40 were in their 60s - you'd again expect 2-3 deaths in this sort of group.
8 were in their 70s - you'd expect 1-2 deaths in this sort of group.
Overall, then, you'd be looking at around eight deaths in a group with broadly the profile of Tory MPs.
Now, I accept MPs are fairly well off, equating to lower risk. They also probably wouldn't have stood for the election if they were battling a major health problem just now (although many are likely to be managing less immediately threatening conditions). So it wouldn't be unreasonable to halve it to four. With such low numbers and low individual risk, it's entirely possible it'll be zero or one (as it has been in recent Parliaments). But it's also entirely possible it will be seven or eight.
I would contend that this - a par of around four based on millions of real lives and deaths in the UK - is a much more realistic predictor. I know it's a rather grim calculation - and let's hope I'm wrong and MPs of all parties remain healthy for the full term - but if you have to calculate it, that's broadly the way to go about it.