Yes and a good project - sort of. The Woodland Trust tend to buy land off the market. I won't say too much as they are one of my neighbours. I am all for diverse planting and then managing the forest created. The problem is when you are destroying a valuable habitat to create the wood. The Woodland Trust would not do that. But here in Yorkshire Dales we see pasture and meadow land being planted - I'm not so cool with that.
I will say the Woodland Trust were excellent and helpful when we were putting Broadband, B4RN in our area. Very different from English Nature or is it Natural England.
FPT - the Conservatives have created a large polarisation in their voting coalition because their economics and cultural values work for older people, and don't for younger people.
If the Conservatives want the votes of younger people they need to not saddle them with so much debt, make buying houses easier/renting cheaper and show that whilst they are patriotic they are also relaxed about multi-levelled identities.
I don't climate change really features here, actually, as the Tories do actually have a good practical set of policies in place that are both deliverable and realistic.
Tories lead with all voters over 35 and over 50% of 34+ year olds now own their own home
Over the next two weeks the Tories just need to keep pressing home in the marginal seats "that only .. votes going to Labour/Liberals could result in the Tories not winning the seat and Corbyn becoming PM through the back door because the SNP has already said it will put him in Downing Street if he meets their conditions". Such a message should keep the Remainer Tories onside.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
So, it is back to Eric Joyce's fists again. The election of Corbyn was absolutely key to the Brexit referendum result, agreed (and it is not acknowledged enough the role that Corbyn played, far more important than "Russian interference"). But, Corbyn himself happened because of the huge disillusionment in New Labour following the financial crisis & the Iraq War. Corbyn was inevitable.
Yep, Eric Joyce has an awful lot to answer for. I guess we could even go a little further back, and pin it on the union who sent out their 2010 leadership ballots in a big envelope with Ed’s mug printed on the outside.
He might just about manage it, you might think, with a little help from his friends if he comes up a few short of 325 seats. But he ain't got many friends. The price for them supporting a Labour Government would almost certainly be his removal and replacement with a much more acceptable kind of Leader. It would also imply a much more centreist Labour government in Office.
I certainly think "the removal and replacement" of Corbyn is very unlikely in the scenario you suggest.
First, if Corby does it again, his folk hero status will be enhanced. He will have dodged another bullet.
Second, the Labour party is not going to replace its leader at the behest of the LibDems/SNP.
I don't like the 18-24 category much from a statistical point of view because it's such a small group. It's a bit like having a separate category for people aged 85+. 18-30 would be preferable IMO.
Reality is the polar opposite. Yes YouGov currently says that if Tory Remainers etc vote Conservative as they're saying then Corbyn will be kept out of Downing Street - job done.
However it also says it won't take that much swing to put Corbyn in Downing Street. What the MRP also shows is that with so few LD MPs to be elected and with the SNP tied at the hip to Corbyn's Labour it won't take many seats to change hands to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
A vote for the Conservatives will keep Corbyn out. A vote for anyone else is a vote for Corbyn as PM. It is as simple as that.
With Boris looking likely to win a majority, it is time to give his plans serious scrutiny and get some firm commitments on the record.
His promise to 'Get Brexit Done' needs to be interrogated. We need to know precisely how he will will avoid a cold, hard Brexit in 12 months. A promise is required. We cannot afford to give him a blank cheque.
We won't get that.
But, we know he's a snake and will throw anyone under a bus to save himself.
In my view, that means he will ratfuck the ERG to get a good, close relationship with the EU, and build on that with a nominal "thin" US one, and similar with Oz, Nz, Japan and Canada.
I don't think he's a No Dealer, but he will be boxed in if he only gets a majority of ten - he really needs 60-80.
A key defence against a hard Brexit is to get him on the record ruling one out to avoid a later claim that the Tories have mandate. At present ‘get Brexit done’ is a blank cheque.
The idea that Corbyn can't become PM is simply not true. It really wouldn't take that much of a swing to lose the Tory majority and at that point it is entirely possible that Labour, as the next largest party could get a coalition with a couple of simple promises - Independence vote for Scotland and Second EU referendum for the Lib Dems.
Obviously OGH wants to push the narrative that it is safe to vote anti-Tory without the risk of Corbyn but that is just spin. Corbyn remains a genuine risk (if you regard his Premiership as a risk) and the only way to prevent him is by voting Tory.
Oh I regard a Corbyn Premiership as a risk, Richard, but I think OGH has it more right than you this time.
The only way Corbyn can realistically become PM is with an Overall Majority. That's 33/1 against as I write and I'd be a layer, not a backer, even at that price.
He might just about manage it, you might think, with a little help from his friends if he comes up a few short of 325 seats. But he ain't got many friends. The price for them supporting a Labour Government would almost certainly be his removal and replacement with a much more acceptable kind of Leader. It would also imply a much more centreist Labour government in Office.
You can see the appeal for Leavers like me. I can see it too for Remain Tories. Boris would go, the traditional Tory Party would resume control, the Brexiteers who hijacked the Party would be vanquished and we might even have a second look at the whole question of revisiting the referendum in the light of what we have learned since.
Seems a very positive way to use one's vote to me.
I would be delighted if it happens but am bemused why posters think Corbyn wouldnt be PM in a hung parliament scenario. In a hung parliament will almost certainly be Johnson (his deal) or Corbyn (2nd ref) as they can say its no deal if the minor parties dont play ball. There is no plausible timescale or majority for anything else. Johnson will squat as PM open to no deal, until either Labour leavers go for his deal or the SNP and LDs agree to a limited Corbyn minority govt.
It is interesting to consider the counter-factual. What if Corbyn had never made the shortlist? We'd likely have Cooper or Burnham as Labour leader. Neither titans, but neither far left nutcases either. Both pro-EU. Likely would've helped win the pro-EU side the referendum. Osborne would probably be PM. Jews would feel more relaxed about living here. Would there be a push for greater EU integration? Would UKIP be riding high in the polls? Hard to say. But the far left squatting on Labour's front bench would've been avoided, and that would be a very good thing. Edited for para-spacing.
The counter-counter-factual is that the tensions in society - an unbalanced and increasingly inequitable economy and the inter-generational divide - would nevertheless have played out in our politics somehow.
Since the model works by starting from a very small sample of local voters - as I recall fewer than a hundred - and then projects demographic-based voting behaviour based on regional and national polling onto the seat to make up the result - I would have thought a weakness of this approach is determining accurately the level of support for Indy’s like Field or the TIGs?
I don’t expect them to win, just wonder how accurate the MRP can be for such candidates?
Last time round the MRP severely overestimated Claire Wright's appeal over the Tories in East Devon.
You’re right - and I remember wondering then how the model could do that. Nothing in any of the descriptions I have read suggests how you can use demographics to work out whether people are going to vote for an Independent standing in one constituency.
+1 I wrote the model off for this reason - it just made it look like it hadn't been through proper review by people who actually understood electoral mechanics. On the other hand, she did have just about the largest error bar of any prediction in any seat in the country... but, even so ...
Do any statisticians happen to know roughly what the margin of error would be in a poll of just 100 people? Ignoring for the moment that they're not randomly sampled.
First stab: assume random sampling of 50k people (with or without replacement; doesn't matter much). Assume it's a two horse race and true result is 50:50 tossup. Then use normal approximation to the binomial distribution: gives you N(50, 25^2). Which implies a 95% CI between 0% and 100%. Which feels about right, actually. I'm sure someone with a better stats background will be along soon to explain where I've gone wrong.
Where I went wrong is to confuse standard deviation with variance. It's actually N(50, 25), so SD = 5 and CI is about 10 points either side of central estimate. Load for a bit to allow for the simplifications I've made - probably looking at an error bar about 30 percentage points wide, at a guess.
Lesson one in statistics is that the population size is irrelevant to the accuracy of a sample. So any sums working from the population size have got off on the wrong foot.
Its less relevant but it is not irrelevant. Reductio ad absurdum if you have a sample of 1 it can not be an accurate sample.
I am not persuaded you can safely tactically vote and keep Corbyn out There is only one way to do that and it is to vote conservative
Of course you're not. You are a Tory diehard (though not in the debased HYUFD usage of the term).
I do not like diehard as a term and have called out HYUFD on many occasions over its use
I could be persuaded to vote otherwise in some circumstances but Corbyn has to be soundly defeated and gone by Xmas would be my best Xmas present
I would be very happy to see Corbyn replaced as labour leader, but not at the cost of the far far worse Johnson getting a majority. There's plenty of other people who think Johnson has to be soundly defeated and gone by Xmas would be the best Xmas present for us.
The idea that Corbyn can't become PM is simply not true. It really wouldn't take that much of a swing to lose the Tory majority and at that point it is entirely possible that Labour, as the next largest party could get a coalition with a couple of simple promises - Independence vote for Scotland and Second EU referendum for the Lib Dems.
Obviously OGH wants to push the narrative that it is safe to vote anti-Tory without the risk of Corbyn but that is just spin. Corbyn remains a genuine risk (if you regard his Premiership as a risk) and the only way to prevent him is by voting Tory.
But, I think the swing is limited.
The Tory vote (for this election) is pretty solid. What's driving up the Labour score is Labour waverers firming up, and some LD voters (Remainers) moving back to them to try to frustrate Brexit.
There is a limit to how far that can go, probably 37-38% of the vote, so a "worst case" for Boris for this election is probably a 4% lead of 42% to 38%, or something like that.
He may or may not scrape a majority on that, but he wouldn't drop below 320 seats.
Mr. Sandpit, there was another absolutely bloody brilliant reason McBride wasn't liked.
Indeed so, and the same issues with Mr Coulson. There’s a reason that leaders cling on to their advisors well beyond the point at which you’d think they’d be seen as a liability.
The idea that Corbyn can't become PM is simply not true. It really wouldn't take that much of a swing to lose the Tory majority and at that point it is entirely possible that Labour, as the next largest party could get a coalition with a couple of simple promises - Independence vote for Scotland and Second EU referendum for the Lib Dems.
Obviously OGH wants to push the narrative that it is safe to vote anti-Tory without the risk of Corbyn but that is just spin. Corbyn remains a genuine risk (if you regard his Premiership as a risk) and the only way to prevent him is by voting Tory.
Oh I regard a Corbyn Premiership as a risk, Richard, but I think OGH has it more right than you this time.
The only way Corbyn can realistically become PM is with an Overall Majority. That's 33/1 against as I write and I'd be a layer, not a backer, even at that price.
He might just about manage it, you might think, with a little help from his friends if he comes up a few short of 325 seats. But he ain't got many friends. The price for them supporting a Labour Government would almost certainly be his removal and replacement with a much more acceptable kind of Leader. It would also imply a much more centreist Labour government in Office.
You can see the appeal for Leavers like me. I can see it too for Remain Tories. Boris would go, the traditional Tory Party would resume control, the Brexiteers who hijacked the Party would be vanquished and we might even have a second look at the whole question of revisiting the referendum in the light of what we have learned since.
Seems a very positive way to use one's vote to me.
I would be delighted if it happens but am bemused why posters think Corbyn wouldnt be PM in a hung parliament scenario. In a hung parliament will almost certainly be Johnson (his deal) or Corbyn (2nd ref) as they can say its no deal if the minor parties dont play ball. There is no plausible timescale or majority for anything else. Johnson will squat as PM open to no deal, until either Labour leavers go for his deal or the SNP and LDs agree to a limited Corbyn minority govt.
I think the argument is that to survive any time in Government Labour would need some support from other Parties and the price, amongst other things, would include defenestration of Jeremy. Since a lot of Labour MPS, Members and Voters want this anyway it is a price that will surely be offered. He might well go voluntarily anyway.
I just don't see Corbyn surviving any result other than a Labour Overall Majority.
Just got 6/5 Cambridge for Labour. MRP poll has as clear Labour. Thoughts?
AFAIK city is trending LD again and students will have long since gone home following end of term. So I'm backing LDs. No idea how/if yougov deal with that kind of stuff but my guess is it's tricky.
Good point. If you're going to use demographics to predict a seat, you need to have stable demographics (or guess correctly what the demographics will be on the day).
My guess is that many Cambridge students will be relaxed about the Remain v Remain contest in the city and, unusually this time, will be looking to cast their vote at home in the shires.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
So, it is back to Eric Joyce's fists again.
The election of Corbyn was absolutely key to the Brexit referendum result, agreed (and it is not acknowledged enough the role that Corbyn played, far more important than "Russian interference").
But, Corbyn himself happened because of the huge disillusionment in New Labour following the financial crisis & the Iraq War. Corbyn was inevitable.
Surely he wasn't the one and only non-blairite who could possibly have been elected? There must be Labour peeps in some ways similar but without all the baggage and not so totally rubbish at politics?
The flaw is that many want Corbyn(ism) to be demonstrably shown to have failed as an election platform and be killed off completely. They desperately need a return to sanity in the main opposition and an alternative to vote for with confidence.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
Agree 100%
And me
Actually, I don't. It's attacking the symptom not the cause.
Left-wing populism has its roots in the great recession in the late noughties, and the relative economic stagnation of the West this century. Globalisation.
Put simply: because the money and baubles weren't there to spread around anymore.
Centre-left candidates weren't promising that, but Corbyn did.
The MRP result seems to be perfectly calibrated for the satisfaction of Labour moderates. The Labour defeat is heavy enough that Corbyn will be seen to have clearly failed, but it's not so heavy as to do mortal damage to the Labour Party, nor are the Lib Dems making the advances that would put them closer to challenging Labour as the principal party of Opposition. All they have to do now is find a candidate who can appeal to the membership, and then work out how to defeat the Tories.
True if Labour lose and replace Corbyn with a moderate. If after a second heavier Corbyn defeat Labour pick another hard left leader the LDs have their chance, especially if ex Labour Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and succeeds Swinson as LD leader
I don't think there are many (any?) hard left Labour MPs who could become leader.
Laura Pidcock is possibly the closest, but they've clearly been fishing around for ages to try and find a replacement for Corbyn, and appear desperate to over promote her and Long-Bailey as the only viable options. I doubt Long-Bailey is anything like as left wing as Corbyn, and the other favourites in the betting (Starmer, Thornberry, Cooper and Rayner) are far closer to the centre.
The flaw is that many want Corbyn(ism) to be demonstrably shown to have failed as an election platform and be killed off completely. They desperately need a return to sanity in the main opposition and an alternative to vote for with confidence.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
Agree 100%
I also agree 100%. The Sarajavo pistol shot was the election of Ed rather than David by the narrowest of margins. There had to be a lot of mistakes after that to be sure but that vote has had a catastrophic effect.
Wrong party. David Cameron was the worst prime minister since Lord North, and is largely responsible for the current mess vis-a-vis Europe, the economy, and the dislocation of Britain, so we need to trace Cameron's rise to power. Perhaps the Sarajevo assassination was that William Hague resigned too quickly, and should have stayed on to fight another election.
Surely in your scenario it was that speech without notes?
The MRP result seems to be perfectly calibrated for the satisfaction of Labour moderates. The Labour defeat is heavy enough that Corbyn will be seen to have clearly failed, but it's not so heavy as to do mortal damage to the Labour Party, nor are the Lib Dems making the advances that would put them closer to challenging Labour as the principal party of Opposition. All they have to do now is find a candidate who can appeal to the membership, and then work out how to defeat the Tories.
Disagreed. It will leave Corbyn's Labour close enough for Corbynites to think 'one more heave' of extreme Corbyn/McDonell Marxism will work. And there is a very worrying danger that with a leader less repugnantly antisemitic etc it might.
For moderates to regain the party Corbyn's Labour is going to need to be humiliated 1983 style. Even if it is and the moderates regain control of the party they could still win the following election. It would be a challenge but a 1997-style swing is entirely possible in 2024: it will have been 14 years of Tory-led government and many of the gains the Tories make now based on Brexit could be vulnerable to being regained by Labour once Brexit is done.
Mr. Sandpit, there was another absolutely bloody brilliant reason McBride wasn't liked.
Indeed so, and the same issues with Mr Coulson. There’s a reason that leaders cling on to their advisors well beyond the point at which you’d think they’d be seen as a liability.
Even the LibDems reappointed the same idiot to run this campaign who ran the 2017 one.
"Acorns planted would never be seen again - its a squirrel thing ! You need to plant things that are about 2 ft tall optimum. I am a great believer in over planting rather than the sodding plastic guards which tend to kill those trees the rabbits don't eat. But as I said earlier you really can't get oak trees to grow at over 900 ft - have a nice photo of one at that height, just about their limit. And none of this addresses the other reality Ash Dieback a disaster of European proportions. I know I have about 400 or so ash trees on my farm so I scaled that up to somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 in South Lakeland. They will all be dead within five years. For the blanket planting being proposed you need to be talking larch or spruce I guess and Japanese Larch are not exactly native. Historically in the valleys of the dales the terminal species were oak in the lower dry areas with ash further up, perhaps to 1200 ft. Alder in the wetter areas and birch up to the tree line, perhaps even covering the drier parts of the fell tops at 2000 ft. But the weather was a lot better 5,000 years ago of course. On reflection I think you would be planting a lot denser than Fysics Teacher and I suggested earlier - you should do 50 trees per acre ajust our calculations accordingly."
50 trees per acre requires something closer to 5 x Wales for 2 billion trees......
Oh I regard a Corbyn Premiership as a risk, Richard, but I think OGH has it more right than you this time.
The only way Corbyn can realistically become PM is with an Overall Majority. That's 33/1 against as I write and I'd be a layer, not a backer, even at that price.
He might just about manage it, you might think, with a little help from his friends if he comes up a few short of 325 seats. But he ain't got many friends. The price for them supporting a Labour Government would almost certainly be his removal and replacement with a much more acceptable kind of Leader. It would also imply a much more centreist Labour government in Office.
You can see the appeal for Leavers like me. I can see it too for Remain Tories. Boris would go, the traditional Tory Party would resume control, the Brexiteers who hijacked the Party would be vanquished and we might even have a second look at the whole question of revisiting the referendum in the light of what we have learned since.
Seems a very positive way to use one's vote to me.
I would be delighted if it happens but am bemused why posters think Corbyn wouldnt be PM in a hung parliament scenario. In a hung parliament will almost certainly be Johnson (his deal) or Corbyn (2nd ref) as they can say its no deal if the minor parties dont play ball. There is no plausible timescale or majority for anything else. Johnson will squat as PM open to no deal, until either Labour leavers go for his deal or the SNP and LDs agree to a limited Corbyn minority govt.
I think the argument is that to survive any time in Government Labour would need some support from other Parties and the price, amongst other things, would include defenestration of Jeremy. Since a lot of Labour MPS, Members and Voters want this anyway it is a price that will surely be offered. He might well go voluntarily anyway.
I just don't see Corbyn surviving any result other than a Labour Overall Majority.
And Corbyn just says he has won* the election and its up to SNP & LD to decide if they want no deal or a 2nd referendum. Each day is a day closer to no deal and Corbyn has the mandate and electoral success to go with it. If remainer centrist Labour MPs try and force him out, then it would only take a handful of obstinate Corbynites to stop the centrist candidate becoming PM, far too messy a chain reaction to play around with when no deal is imminent. *Yes they would probably be 2nd in seats, but they claimed to have won the last election when miles behind.
The flaw is that many want Corbyn(ism) to be demonstrably shown to have failed as an election platform and be killed off completely. They desperately need a return to sanity in the main opposition and an alternative to vote for with confidence.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
It was the trifecta of Corbyn, Cameron and Clegg. The three Cs.
Corbyn and Clegg both trashed their own parties, whereas Cameron chose to preserve his at the expense of trashing the country.
The MRP modelling technique is based on sampling the voting preferences of a large number of demographic groups and then applying the result to the demographics of each constituency. It is a model. My model does not rely on demographics at all - not even remain/leave of each seat. It assumes that the demographics of each seat are "baked in" to the 2017 actual result including the relative strength of the activists base, council representation, history etc that I don't think the MRP model reflects. It then applies assumptions about tactical voting. It is a model. The appeal of the MRP model is that it was close last time. But that is a sample of one. I think it was also used in the US so a sample of two. Imagine a heavily promoted modelling technique (with whizzy multilevel Regression and Post-stratification) that correctly picked the 20/1 winner of last year's Grand National. Would its prediction for this year influence the betting? You bet it would - whether it was a sound model or not! "The computer says" For this reason I'm betting against the MRP which has moved certain markets e.g LD over 25.5 seats at 3.35 looks good value. It shot up after the MRP was published. EDIT. If my model proves to be spot on this time, you shouldn't assume it is a good model. It might just be lucky. But I suspect it would be followed with close attention next time!
MRP therefore wins over a 'static' model if the change in voting behaviour is driven by demographics - as has been the case in recent years. The MRP also starts with the data from its panellists (around 100?) in each seat, rather than starting with a blank piece of paper.
Where you have a point is that the MRP will itself affect the result. Last time it came late and few people believed it. This time it comes early and, as you say, with a lot of credibility.
As I understand it, the panellists (around 100?) in each seat are not chosen to be representative of that seat though in total across the nation they are chosen to be representative. So a huge MOE for the panellists - more than +/- 10%. The big changes in demographics are reflected in the change in vote share. My model is not static. If it were, it would produce the same results as last time.
It's a mix. Otherwise they'd never be able to predict the LibDem share in LibDem held seats.
I think the argument is that to survive any time in Government Labour would need some support from other Parties and the price, amongst other things, would include defenestration of Jeremy. Since a lot of Labour MPS, Members and Voters want this anyway it is a price that will surely be offered. He might well go voluntarily anyway.
I just don't see Corbyn surviving any result other than a Labour Overall Majority.
He could perhaps be persuaded to go if an acceptable replacement is chosen. He would never hand over control to someone like Yvette Cooper, but maybe McDonnell (who, while still hated by tories as a Marxist, is recognised on the remain side as more remainy than Corbyn, who is also less tied up in Hamas and Anti Semitism baggage than Corbyn. And is generally seen as more compotent than Corbyn). Think it would be unlikely to see one of the more junior figures be chosen to go straight to PM (such as Long Bailey or Pidcock).
Now I know that neither option is good but as Labour can't win a majority at least he would be controlled by other factors - Boris with a majority won't be.
Corbo constrained by Sturgeon and Swinson is a far less dangerous proposition for the UK than Full Metal Boris.
But we know it's party before country for the tories.
Every single time.
Unfair. The BJorg are very, VERY reluctantly voting for BJ to save the country from Corbyn, in a pious 'this is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you' kinda way.
Scientific info request: How does planting a tree help with CO2 levels? I understand it will absorb CO2 during its life, but when it dies surely it will release the carbon as it decomposes or is burned.
Yes but the trick is you then plant a new one. If, once you have your 2 billion trees you are continually planting new trees in rotation you keep the carbon locked up.
I imagined it was better than that - like burying the trunks or something. I'm actually disappointed.
Does it release CO2 when it decomposes? If so, where did oil and coal come from? Isn't that just dead trees and animals that have been buried under successive layers of the earth's surface? Anyway, as others have said, the key is to keep replacing the trees over time.
As has been said elsewhere during the cretaceous period trees which fell did not rot and that is why we have fossil fuels. That did not happen for that long, 100 million years or so. On this I am as eco as anyone - it is NOT a good idea to be burning any of this - even if 95% of what is said is bullshit that must be true.
What you are describing though is a trees Ponzi scheme. In fact what is there already is probably doing that in any case.
So do I have any suggestion rather than just knocking ? Well yes actually. Buy up as much dry desert as you can and build enormous sheds 35 ft tall. Cover the top with solar panels taking the light levels down by 80 or 90% and do arable and market cropping in the vast space below. You would need water but in a closed enviroment that would be self recycling.
And Corbyn just says he has won* the election and its up to SNP & LD to decide if they want no deal or a 2nd referendum. Each day is a day closer to no deal and Corbyn has the mandate and electoral success to go with it. If remainer centrist Labour MPs try and force him out, then it would only take a handful of obstinate Corbynites to stop the centrist candidate becoming PM, far too messy a chain reaction to play around with when no deal is imminent. *Yes they would probably be 2nd in seats, but they claimed to have won the last election when miles behind.
The idea that Corbyn will be pushed out if he has just prevented another seemingly inevitable Tory landslide win is absolutely ludicrous.
Corby's supporters will say he has done a remarkable thing. And in truth, Corby will have done a remarkable thing.
The flaw is that many want Corbyn(ism) to be demonstrably shown to have failed as an election platform and be killed off completely. They desperately need a return to sanity in the main opposition and an alternative to vote for with confidence.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
Agree 100%
I also agree 100%. The Sarajavo pistol shot was the election of Ed rather than David by the narrowest of margins. There had to be a lot of mistakes after that to be sure but that vote has had a catastrophic effect.
Wrong party. David Cameron was the worst prime minister since Lord North, and is largely responsible for the current mess vis-a-vis Europe, the economy, and the dislocation of Britain, so we need to trace Cameron's rise to power. Perhaps the Sarajevo assassination was that William Hague resigned too quickly, and should have stayed on to fight another election.
Surely in your scenario it was that speech without notes?
Yes, you can't expect people without capital to be capitalists.
The more independent and self-sufficient people are, the more they lean to the centre-right, otherwise they'll want to suck hard on the teat of the State.
The Tories need to make sure the Millennial have it as good as their parents.
Scientific info request: How does planting a tree help with CO2 levels? I understand it will absorb CO2 during its life, but when it dies surely it will release the carbon as it decomposes or is burned.
Yes but the trick is you then plant a new one. If, once you have your 2 billion trees you are continually planting new trees in rotation you keep the carbon locked up.
I imagined it was better than that - like burying the trunks or something. I'm actually disappointed.
Does it release CO2 when it decomposes? If so, where did oil and coal come from? Isn't that just dead trees and animals that have been buried under successive layers of the earth's surface? Anyway, as others have said, the key is to keep replacing the trees over time.
I think coal and oil was formed in anaerobic conditions and, in the case of coal, require something quite literally seismic to form. If dead trees are left on the surface they will return their carbon to the atmosphere. What I've learned today is that you can store x amount of carbon per hectare. Once you've run out of hectares, you've run out of potential. And one thing we know about the UK is that hectares are expensive - at the last auctions I attended farmland here was selling at £45k/hectare. That's without the opportunity cost of not growing food on it. On the plus side, after 37 years wondering, we may have found a genuine use for the Falkland Islands where land cost 1000x less.
No native trees in the Falklands, which possibly tells us something about the viability of introducing them there.
I have seen the most remote single tree in the world - on Campbell Island, in the sub-Antarctic Islands south of New Zealand.
Since the model works by starting from a very small sample of local voters - as I recall fewer than a hundred - and then projects demographic-based voting behaviour based on regional and national polling onto the seat to make up the result - I would have thought a weakness of this approach is determining accurately the level of support for Indy’s like Field or the TIGs?
I don’t expect them to win, just wonder how accurate the MRP can be for such candidates?
Last time round the MRP severely overestimated Claire Wright's appeal over the Tories in East Devon.
You’re right - and I remember wondering then how the model could do that. Nothing in any of the descriptions I have read suggests how you can use demographics to work out whether people are going to vote for an Independent standing in one constituency.
+1 I wrote the model off for this reason - it just made it look like it hadn't been through proper review by people who actually understood electoral mechanics. On the other hand, she did have just about the largest error bar of any prediction in any seat in the country... but, even so ...
Do any statisticians happen to know roughly what the margin of error would be in a poll of just 100 people? Ignoring for the moment that they're not randomly sampled.
First stab: assume random sampling of 50k people (with or without replacement; doesn't matter much). Assume it's a two horse race and true result is 50:50 tossup. Then use normal approximation to the binomial distribution: gives you N(50, 25^2). Which implies a 95% CI between 0% and 100%. Which feels about right, actually. I'm sure someone with a better stats background will be along soon to explain where I've gone wrong.
Where I went wrong is to confuse standard deviation with variance. It's actually N(50, 25), so SD = 5 and CI is about 10 points either side of central estimate. Load for a bit to allow for the simplifications I've made - probably looking at an error bar about 30 percentage points wide, at a guess.
Lesson one in statistics is that the population size is irrelevant to the accuracy of a sample. So any sums working from the population size have got off on the wrong foot.
Yes, it only matters that it's large enough to assume the Normal approximation is reasonable. I skipped a few steps in my logic.
The flaw is that many want Corbyn(ism) to be demonstrably shown to have failed as an election platform and be killed off completely. They desperately need a return to sanity in the main opposition and an alternative to vote for with confidence.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
Agree 100%
And me
Actually, I don't. It's attacking the symptom not the cause.
Left-wing populism has its roots in the great recession in the late noughties, and the relative economic stagnation of the West this century. Globalisation.
Put simply: because the money and baubles weren't there to spread around anymore.
Centre-left candidates weren't promising that, but Corbyn did.
Or the money and baubles were there but went to the already comfortably and well off, without the centrist politicians noticing.
I don’t expect them to win, just wonder how accurate the MRP can be for such candidates?
Last time round the MRP severely overestimated Claire Wright's appeal over the Tories in East Devon.
You’re right - and I remember wondering then how the model could do that. Nothing in any of the descriptions I have read suggests how you can use demographics to work out whether people are going to vote for an Independent standing in one constituency.
+1 I wrote the model off for this reason - it just made it look like it hadn't been through proper review by people who actually understood electoral mechanics. On the other hand, she did have just about the largest error bar of any prediction in any seat in the country... but, even so ...
Do any statisticians happen to know roughly what the margin of error would be in a poll of just 100 people? Ignoring for the moment that they're not randomly sampled.
First stab: assume random sampling of 50k people (with or without replacement; doesn't matter much). Assume it's a two horse race and true result is 50:50 tossup. Then use normal approximation to the binomial distribution: gives you N(50, 25^2). Which implies a 95% CI between 0% and 100%. Which feels about right, actually. I'm sure someone with a better stats background will be along soon to explain where I've gone wrong.
Where I went wrong is to confuse standard deviation with variance. It's actually N(50, 25), so SD = 5 and CI is about 10 points either side of central estimate. Load for a bit to allow for the simplifications I've made - probably looking at an error bar about 30 percentage points wide, at a guess.
Lesson one in statistics is that the population size is irrelevant to the accuracy of a sample. So any sums working from the population size have got off on the wrong foot.
Its less relevant but it is not irrelevant. Reductio ad absurdum if you have a sample of 1 it can not be an accurate sample.
Which is true whether the population is ten or ten million.
Once you get beyond trivial examples with small populations, it makes no difference. You can draw ten balls from a small box with 100 white and 100 black balls, or from a swimming pool with 10000 white and 10000 black. Provided the balls are mixed properly and your sample is randomly chosen, the statistical errors are the same.
I am not persuaded you can safely tactically vote and keep Corbyn out
There is only one way to do that and it is to vote conservative
Unfortunately, I'm not impressed by the Conservative candidate in my constituency. As FPTP relies on its legitimacy by having the best candidate win in each constituency, and, a few years ago, the Conservatives insisted that a second-choice vote should never be as legitimate as a first-choice vote I find I cannot in good conscience vote for the Conservative candidate.
Neither am I impressed by the manifesto under which he is standing, so I can't use that as an argument, either (albeit that voting for the Party rather than the Person would be inappropriate, anyway, and might justify such things as PR)
I think the argument is that to survive any time in Government Labour would need some support from other Parties and the price, amongst other things, would include defenestration of Jeremy. Since a lot of Labour MPS, Members and Voters want this anyway it is a price that will surely be offered. He might well go voluntarily anyway.
I just don't see Corbyn surviving any result other than a Labour Overall Majority.
Other parties can't demand defenestration of a party leader. The other parties have a binary choice: Johnson's Tories or Corbyn's Labour. Either they vote with one, or they vote with the other, or they abstain in which case the largest bloc without them wins.
Given the SNP have said they will back Corbyn's Labour and their price is explicitly an independence referendum not Corbyn's head - and given will be so few Liberal Democrats any demands by Swinson that Corbyn resigns would be laughed out. Either Swinson or her successor must back Johnson or Corbyn.
There is no mechanism within our Parliamentary democracy for a third party after an election to demand another party change its leader.
The MRP modelling technique is based on sampling the voting preferences of a large number of demographic groups and then applying the result to the demographics of each constituency. It is a model. My model does not rely on demographics at all - not even remain/leave of each seat. It assumes that the demographics of each seat are "baked in" to the 2017 actual result including the relative strength of the activists base, council representation, history etc that I don't think the MRP model reflects. It then applies assumptions about tactical voting. It is a model. The appeal of the MRP model is that it was close last time. But that is a sample of one. I think it was also used in the US so a sample of two. Imagine a heavily promoted modelling technique (with whizzy multilevel Regression and Post-stratification) that correctly picked the 20/1 winner of last year's Grand National. Would its prediction for this year influence the betting? You bet it would - whether it was a sound model or not! "The computer says" For this reason I'm betting against the MRP which has moved certain markets e.g LD over 25.5 seats at 3.35 looks good value. It shot up after the MRP was published. EDIT. If my model proves to be spot on this time, you shouldn't assume it is a good model. It might just be lucky. But I suspect it would be followed with close attention next time!
MRP therefore wins over a 'static' model if the change in voting behaviour is driven by demographics - as has been the case in recent years. The MRP also starts with the data from its panellists (around 100?) in each seat, rather than starting with a blank piece of paper.
Where you have a point is that the MRP will itself affect the result. Last time it came late and few people believed it. This time it comes early and, as you say, with a lot of credibility.
As I understand it, the panellists (around 100?) in each seat are not chosen to be representative of that seat though in total across the nation they are chosen to be representative. So a huge MOE for the panellists - more than +/- 10%. The big changes in demographics are reflected in the change in vote share. My model is not static. If it were, it would produce the same results as last time.
It's a mix. Otherwise they'd never be able to predict the LibDem share in LibDem held seats.
It would be very boring if there was a model that could accurately predict results. There would be no betting opportunities. It would be like betting on when the next total eclipse of the sun will occur. Also there would be no need for voters to actually go out and vote as the result would be known in advance.
Scientific info request: How does planting a tree help with CO2 levels? I understand it will absorb CO2 during its life, but when it dies surely it will release the carbon as it decomposes or is burned.
Depends what happens to the tree at end of life. If it is used as building material, the CO2 remains locked in. If it is burnt then the CO2 returns to the atmosphere. If it is burnt with CCS, then there is a transfer of CO2 from the atmosphere to underground storage, so the overall tree growing and burning process becomes net negative. See "BECCS" - bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.
Second point, if the overall level of tree coverage is increased, then this will hold more CO2 in a dynamic steady state (!) than with lower tree coverage, so less CO2 in the atmosphere.
Planting trees 'sui generis' has the potential to worsen ecosystems because of monoculture - but if it's done correctly, there is a ton of benefits from healthy long-term reforestation, including (but not limited to) protecting top-soil, locking up rainwater, a thriving ecosystem (which may also lock up additional carbon), and often benefits to local communities (as relevant in the UK as anywhere else in the world). But your basic point is correct - if we keep pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, forests of themselves don't reduce them, but they can act as a 'sink' - at the moment, the oceans are sinking a lot of CO2 and that's causing them to acidify.
Tories start on 316 MPs in my mind. 322 probably gets a majority. They lose 5-6 to the Libs and 3-5 to the SNP.
So I think a net gain of 15 from Labour will get them a majority. I don't think Labour can hold on to that many Leave seats so some how they will need to start taking seats off the Tories where the demographics are more helpful like Itchen, Chipping Barnet and Chingford.
Oh and sorry OGH, the nearer Labour climbs to 35%, the more the Tory waverers are firming up. Possibles to probables, probables to firm.
Corbyn is toxic. The LibDems will make no meaningful advance until he - and his ilk - depart the scene. That 2017 exit poll hangs over this election more than any 2019 poll.
The flaw is that many want Corbyn(ism) to be demonstrably shown to have failed as an election platform and be killed off completely. They desperately need a return to sanity in the main opposition and an alternative to vote for with confidence.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
Agree 100%
And me
Actually, I don't. It's attacking the symptom not the cause.
Left-wing populism has its roots in the great recession in the late noughties, and the relative economic stagnation of the West this century. Globalisation.
Put simply: because the money and baubles weren't there to spread around anymore.
Centre-left candidates weren't promising that, but Corbyn did.
Or the money and baubles were there but went to the already comfortably and well off, without the centrist politicians noticing.
The defeat of communism removed the need to spread the benefits of growth widely, and so the rich and powerful were able to set about recreating the unequal societies that were the norm throughout earlier history.
IFS Lib Dems have the only fiscally conservative manifesto, we can’t say much about the Tory manifesto because there is nothing in it and Labour ...er it would be the highest tax/spend regime in the industrialized world. (Paraphrased)
Scientific info request: How does planting a tree help with CO2 levels? I understand it will absorb CO2 during its life, but when it dies surely it will release the carbon as it decomposes or is burned.
Yes but the trick is you then plant a new one. If, once you have your 2 billion trees you are continually planting new trees in rotation you keep the carbon locked up.
I imagined it was better than that - like burying the trunks or something. I'm actually disappointed.
Turn it into furniture or houses. And, with the lifetime of trees and the lifetime of furniture or houses, you've locked up the carbon for a century or two or three, anyway, by which time our other mitigating actions can have taken effect.
Like baling water from a boat - the trick is to not let the water get too far ahead.
Scientific info request: How does planting a tree help with CO2 levels? I understand it will absorb CO2 during its life, but when it dies surely it will release the carbon as it decomposes or is burned.
Yes but the trick is you then plant a new one. If, once you have your 2 billion trees you are continually planting new trees in rotation you keep the carbon locked up.
I imagined it was better than that - like burying the trunks or something. I'm actually disappointed.
Does it release CO2 when it decomposes? If so, where did oil and coal come from? Isn't that just dead trees and animals that have been buried under successive layers of the earth's surface? Anyway, as others have said, the key is to keep replacing the trees over time.
As has been said elsewhere during the cretaceous period trees which fell did not rot and that is why we have fossil fuels. That did not happen for that long, 100 million years or so. On this I am as eco as anyone - it is NOT a good idea to be burning any of this - even if 95% of what is said is bullshit that must be true.
What you are describing though is a trees Ponzi scheme. In fact what is there already is probably doing that in any case.
So do I have any suggestion rather than just knocking ? Well yes actually. Buy up as much dry desert as you can and build enormous sheds 35 ft tall. Cover the top with solar panels taking the light levels down by 80 or 90% and do arable and market cropping in the vast space below. You would need water but in a closed enviroment that would be self recycling.
Point of order. The main coal developing period was the Carboniferous (hence the name) not the Cretaceous. A difference of about 150 million years.
The idea that Corbyn can't become PM is simply not true. It really wouldn't take that much of a swing to lose the Tory majority and at that point it is entirely possible that Labour, as the next largest party could get a coalition with a couple of simple promises - Independence vote for Scotland and Second EU referendum for the Lib Dems.
Obviously OGH wants to push the narrative that it is safe to vote anti-Tory without the risk of Corbyn but that is just spin. Corbyn remains a genuine risk (if you regard his Premiership as a risk) and the only way to prevent him is by voting Tory.
Oh I regard a Corbyn Premiership as a risk, Richard, but I think OGH has it more right than you this time.
The only way Corbyn can realistically become PM is with an Overall Majority. That's 33/1 against as I write and I'd be a layer, not a backer, even at that price
Seems a very positive way to use one's vote to me.
I would be delighted if it happens but am bemused why posters think Corbyn wouldnt be PM in a hung parliament scenario. In a hung parliament will almost certainly be Johnson (his deal) or Corbyn (2nd ref) as they can say its no deal if the minor parties dont play ball. There is no plausible timescale or majority for anything else. Johnson will squat as PM open to no deal, until either Labour leavers go for his deal or the SNP and LDs agree to a limited Corbyn minority govt.
I think the argument is that to survive any time in Government Labour would need some support from other Parties and the price, amongst other things, would include defenestration of Jeremy. Since a lot of Labour MPS, Members and Voters want this anyway it is a price that will surely be offered. He might well go voluntarily anyway.
I just don't see Corbyn surviving any result other than a Labour Overall Majority.
I don’t think that’s true. I thought Dura Ace put it well when he said Corbyn would see denying the Tories a majority as a victory.
If he exceeded his GE2017 seat totals he’d certainly stick around, and would probably do a S&C with the SNP which would get him over 300 seats and able to govern.
Ah, and I see Vanilla has had another “upgrade” in the last couple of days. Can someone please tell them to stop it?
Obviously an upgrade by someone who doesn't actually use the service very much.
Indeed. I’m consulting with a company designing a website and mobile app at the moment, and it’s quite amazing how difficult it is to get across to the “visionary” people the importance of real-world feedback and not doing things differently to competitors simply for the sake of it. At the very least, a company like Vanilla should give their paying customers the option of which layout style to use, with existing users defaulted to the old one so they can make the change themselves if they wish. One of the worst traits of ‘cloud’ computing.
The flaw is that many want Corbyn(ism) to be demonstrably shown to have failed as an election platform and be killed off completely. They desperately need a return to sanity in the main opposition and an alternative to vote for with confidence.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
Agree 100%
And me
Actually, I don't. It's attacking the symptom not the cause.
Left-wing populism has its roots in the great recession in the late noughties, and the relative economic stagnation of the West this century. Globalisation.
Put simply: because the money and baubles weren't there to spread around anymore.
Centre-left candidates weren't promising that, but Corbyn did.
Or the money and baubles were there but went to the already comfortably and well off, without the centrist politicians noticing.
The defeat of communism removed the need to spread the benefits of growth widely, and so the rich and powerful were able to set about recreating the unequal societies that were the norm throughout earlier history.
I hadnt considered communism as relevant and on first reflection still dont. Blair and Clinton were the early political gainers of the fall of communism, the search for the third way.
Whilst there is an element of the rich and powerful behind some of the changes, it seems far more opportunistic than a conspiratorial plan. I dont think they decided lets have a massive banking crisis which will allow us to subsequently boost asset prices. It was more once asset prices were booming, those becoming richer actively supported the politicians who could keep that happening.
Technological change especially including how news is delivered was certainly a driver.
Scientific info request: How does planting a tree help with CO2 levels? I understand it will absorb CO2 during its life, but when it dies surely it will release the carbon as it decomposes or is burned.
Yes but the trick is you then plant a new one. If, once you have your 2 billion trees you are continually planting new trees in rotation you keep the carbon locked up.
I imagined it was better than that - like burying the trunks or something. I'm actually disappointed.
Does it release CO2 when it decomposes? If so, where did oil and coal come from? Isn't that just dead trees and animals that have been buried under successive layers of the earth's surface? Anyway, as others have said, the key is to keep replacing the trees over time.
As has been said elsewhere during the cretaceous period trees which fell did not rot and that is why we have fossil fuels. That did not happen for that long, 100 million years or so. On this I am as eco as anyone - it is NOT a good idea to be burning any of this - even if 95% of what is said is bullshit that must be true.
What you are describing though is a trees Ponzi scheme. In fact what is there already is probably doing that in any case.
So do I have any suggestion rather than just knocking ? Well yes actually. Buy up as much dry desert as you can and build enormous sheds 35 ft tall. Cover the top with solar panels taking the light levels down by 80 or 90% and do arable and market cropping in the vast space below. You would need water but in a closed enviroment that would be self recycling.
Point of order. The main coal developing period was the Carboniferous (hence the name) not the Cretaceous. A difference of about 150 million years.
FPT - the Conservatives have created a large polarisation in their voting coalition because their economics and cultural values work for older people, and don't for younger people. If the Conservatives want the votes of younger people they need to not saddle them with so much debt, make buying houses easier/renting cheaper and show that whilst they are patriotic they are also relaxed about multi-levelled identities. I don't climate change really features here, actually, as the Tories do actually have a good practical set of policies in place that are both deliverable and realistic.
We just need to shout from the rooftops that Corbyn’s economic illiteracy of spending trillions (£1,000,000,000,000s) of pounds of tomorrow’s money today, will make today’s young much, much poorer in life than a government that spends within its means - no matter how difficult that may seem right now.
It is a huge risk for anyone to vote in favour of something that they dont want to happen. That is exactly what happened to allow Corbyn in in the first place. Von Papen thought the constitutional conservatives could control the Nazis. People like OGH and Heseltine think the same about the LD's and tory remainers re theTrotskyites and Bosheviks now in charge of the Labour Party. Foolish and dangerous in equal measure.
Its less relevant but it is not irrelevant. Reductio ad absurdum if you have a sample of 1 it can not be an accurate sample.
Which is true whether the population is ten or ten million.
Once you get beyond trivial examples with small populations, it makes no difference. You can draw ten balls from a small box with 100 white and 100 black balls, or from a swimming pool with 10000 white and 10000 black. Provided the balls are mixed properly and your sample is randomly chosen, the statistical errors are the same.
Are you talking about population now? Rather than sample? Again I believe it does vary somewhat actually. Because if your box is small enough then each ball you draw out is changing the remaining sample.
If you're drawing 10 balls then the odds of drawing 10 of the same colour [thus incorrectly seeming to have no variation at all in your sample] from the box is 0.15% while the odds of drawing 10 of the same colour from the pool is 0.19%
If you'd have said 100,000 of each or 1,000,000 of each then that would have reduced the variance more.
The flaw is that many want Corbyn(ism) to be demonstrably shown to have failed as an election platform and be killed off completely. They desperately need a return to sanity in the main opposition and an alternative to vote for with confidence.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
Agree 100%
And me
Actually, I don't. It's attacking the symptom not the cause.
Left-wing populism has its roots in the great recession in the late noughties, and the relative economic stagnation of the West this century. Globalisation.
Put simply: because the money and baubles weren't there to spread around anymore.
Centre-left candidates weren't promising that, but Corbyn did.
Or the money and baubles were there but went to the already comfortably and well off, without the centrist politicians noticing.
That, in itself, is a populist view.
A better one would be that globalisation gives good well-paid jobs to the highly educated and mobile but depressed or stagnated the wages of those with low education and local.
And, they get called racists or idiots for their trouble, which really pisses them off.
It is a huge risk for anyone to vote in favour of something that they dont want to happen. That is exactly what happened to allow Corbyn in in the first place. Von Papen thought the constitutional conservatives could control the Nazis. People like OGH and Heseltine think the same about the LD's and tory remainers re theTrotskyites and Bosheviks now in charge of the Labour Party. Foolish and dangerous in equal measure.
It is a huge risk for anyone to vote in favour of something that they dont want to happen. That is exactly what happened to allow Corbyn in in the first place. Von Papen thought the constitutional conservatives could control the Nazis. People like OGH and Heseltine think the same about the LD's and tory remainers re theTrotskyites and Bosheviks now in charge of the Labour Party. Foolish and dangerous in equal measure.
So as someone who supports none of the parties, are you suggesting it is less dangerous to not vote at all? Pick one by random?
Its less relevant but it is not irrelevant. Reductio ad absurdum if you have a sample of 1 it can not be an accurate sample.
Which is true whether the population is ten or ten million.
Once you get beyond trivial examples with small populations, it makes no difference. You can draw ten balls from a small box with 100 white and 100 black balls, or from a swimming pool with 10000 white and 10000 black. Provided the balls are mixed properly and your sample is randomly chosen, the statistical errors are the same.
Are you talking about population now? Rather than sample? Again I believe it does vary somewhat actually. Because if your box is small enough then each ball you draw out is changing the remaining sample.
If you're drawing 10 balls then the odds of drawing 10 of the same colour [thus incorrectly seeming to have no variation at all in your sample] from the box is 0.15% while the odds of drawing 10 of the same colour from the pool is 0.19%
If you'd have said 100,000 of each or 1,000,000 of each then that would have reduced the variance more.
I was always talking about population, if you read back.
For the purposes of this discussion, the marginal effect you are talking about can be ignored.
FPT - the Conservatives have created a large polarisation in their voting coalition because their economics and cultural values work for older people, and don't for younger people. If the Conservatives want the votes of younger people they need to not saddle them with so much debt, make buying houses easier/renting cheaper and show that whilst they are patriotic they are also relaxed about multi-levelled identities. I don't climate change really features here, actually, as the Tories do actually have a good practical set of policies in place that are both deliverable and realistic.
We just need to shout from the rooftops that Corbyn’s economic illiteracy of spending trillions (£1,000,000,000,000s) of pounds of tomorrow’s money today, will make today’s young much, much poorer in life than a government that spends within its means - no matter how difficult that may seem right now.
That would have a lot of resonance were it not for the fact that the Conservative Party is now controlled by people who advocate the most economically illiterate policy ever proposed in peacetime, i.e. Brexit.
It is a huge risk for anyone to vote in favour of something that they dont want to happen. That is exactly what happened to allow Corbyn in in the first place. Von Papen thought the constitutional conservatives could control the Nazis. People like OGH and Heseltine think the same about the LD's and tory remainers re theTrotskyites and Bosheviks now in charge of the Labour Party. Foolish and dangerous in equal measure.
Isn't the point here, at its simplest, that the young are less likely to vote than the old. If you don't allow for this at al, your prediction from the raw data will be way out?
FPT - the Conservatives have created a large polarisation in their voting coalition because their economics and cultural values work for older people, and don't for younger people. If the Conservatives want the votes of younger people they need to not saddle them with so much debt, make buying houses easier/renting cheaper and show that whilst they are patriotic they are also relaxed about multi-levelled identities. I don't climate change really features here, actually, as the Tories do actually have a good practical set of policies in place that are both deliverable and realistic.
We just need to shout from the rooftops that Corbyn’s economic illiteracy of spending trillions (£1,000,000,000,000s) of pounds of tomorrow’s money today, will make today’s young much, much poorer in life than a government that spends within its means - no matter how difficult that may seem right now.
But, with Boris dog-whistling that he never really agreed with fiscal conservatism (austerity) and scrapped corporation tax cuts to save money he is surrendering that intellectual argument to Labour.
Going through the MRP projections Vs my model, the degree of consensus in Lab/Con contests is remarkable. I think this tells us that the MRP isn't telling us anything very surprising this time around - whereas in 2017 we didn't yet know how much the EU referendum had redrawn political geography. Since 2017 is now the baseline there is less room for surprise and hence we should probably be more confident in the polls and models. Having said that, the MRP does seem to be particularly positive on Tory chances Vs the SNP and the poor old Lib Dems. Presumably tactical voting might help the latter, but in Scotland probably helps the Tories more. Just FYI my model Vs MRP is Con -16; Lab +3; LD +7; SNP +6.
FPT - the Conservatives have created a large polarisation in their voting coalition because their economics and cultural values work for older people, and don't for younger people. If the Conservatives want the votes of younger people they need to not saddle them with so much debt, make buying houses easier/renting cheaper and show that whilst they are patriotic they are also relaxed about multi-levelled identities. I don't climate change really features here, actually, as the Tories do actually have a good practical set of policies in place that are both deliverable and realistic.
We just need to shout from the rooftops that Corbyn’s economic illiteracy of spending trillions (£1,000,000,000,000s) of pounds of tomorrow’s money today, will make today’s young much, much poorer in life than a government that spends within its means - no matter how difficult that may seem right now.
Free Broadband would be good, though. And who doesn't like trees?
The idea that Corbyn can't become PM is simply not true. It really wouldn't take that much of a swing to lose the Tory majority and at that point it is entirely possible that Labour, as the next largest party could get a coalition with a couple of simple promises - Independence vote for Scotland and Second EU referendum for the Lib Dems.
Obviously OGH wants to push the narrative that it is safe to vote anti-Tory without the risk of Corbyn but that is just spin. Corbyn remains a genuine risk (if you regard his Premiership as a risk) and the only way to prevent him is by voting Tory.
Oh I regard a Corbyn Premiership as a risk, Richard, but I think OGH has it more right than you this time.
The only way Corbyn can realistically become PM is with an Overall Majority. That's 33/1 against as I write and I'd be a layer, not a backer, even at that price
Seems a very positive way to use one's vote to me.
I would be delighted if it happens but am bemused why posters think Corbyn wouldnt be PM in a hung parliament scenario. In a hung parliament will almost certainly be Johnson (his deal) or Corbyn (2nd ref) as they can say its no deal if the minor parties dont play ball. There is no plausible timescale or majority for anything else. Johnson will squat as PM open to no deal, until either Labour leavers go for his deal or the SNP and LDs agree to a limited Corbyn minority govt.
I think the argument is that to survive any time in Government Labour would need some support from other Parties and the price, amongst other things, would include defenestration of Jeremy. Since a lot of Labour MPS, Members and Voters want this anyway it is a price that will surely be offered. He might well go voluntarily anyway.
I just don't see Corbyn surviving any result other than a Labour Overall Majority.
I don’t think that’s true. I thought Dura Ace put it well when he said Corbyn would see denying the Tories a majority as a victory.
If he exceeded his GE2017 seat totals he’d certainly stick around, and would probably do a S&C with the SNP which would get him over 300 seats and able to govern.
In the unlikely even he would want to stay on, or that his Party/Members/Voters would tolerate it, the support from other Parties would be lacking. How do you suppose he would run a Government in that circumstance?
What you seem to be missing in all this is that if it were not for Corbyn, Labour would be romping this election. You really think the Party doesn't know that, and are going to give him another pass if he does not get a clear overall majority? And I mean a clear one.
I can see some of Mike's logic in the header but the MRP is also clear that a Tory majoity is by no means secure. Without one, there is every prospect of a Labour-led administration. Tory remainers will come in many shapes and sizes but, while many are upset about leaving the EU, lots are concerned about overturning the referendum result, about any Westminster government dancing to the tune of the SNP and about continued uncertainty. Also, the bigger Boris's majority, the less reliant he is on the ERG and the more room for manoeuvre he has in his negotiations with the EU.
Someone mentioned Cambridge, I think it's going to stay Labour and quite easily. The Lib Dem candidate has run into some problems and I think the student vote will be heavily Labour. Many will have gone home but there are still a lot of graduate students around plus many undergraduates will be staying up to help out with the Cambridge interviews that happen in the week of the election. The UCU strike has also helped Labour, I think, as there's a strong Momentum element in UCU that are using the strike for rallying support for Corbyn.
Scientific info request: How does planting a tree help with CO2 levels? I understand it will absorb CO2 during its life, but when it dies surely it will release the carbon as it decomposes or is burned.
It's complicated. But putting a forest where there was none before has the net effect of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere in the near term, and also in the long term, if the forest is maintained and dying trees are replaced by new growth (and also a certain amount of carbon gets locked up in soil formation). In the short term there can also be negative effects through change in albedo - forests planted a high latitudes with reduce snow cover, and therefore reflect less energy back into space in the winter. Here's a recent paper looking at some of the dynamics: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/10/4382
I can see some of Mike's logic in the header but the MRP is also clear that a Tory majoity is by no means secure. Without one, there is every prospect of a Labour-led administration. Tory remainers will come in many shapes and sizes but, while many are upset about leaving the EU, lots are concerned about overturning the referendum result, about any Westminster government dancing to the tune of the SNP and about continued uncertainty. Also, the bigger Boris's majority, the less reliant he is on the ERG and the more room for manoeuvre he has in his negotiations with the EU.
Someone mentioned Cambridge, I think it's going to stay Labour and quite easily. The Lib Dem candidate has run into some problems and I think the student vote will be heavily Labour. Many will have gone home but there are still a lot of graduate students around plus many undergraduates will be staying up to help out with the Cambridge interviews that happen in the week of the election. The UCU strike has also helped Labour, I think, as there's a strong Momentum element in UCU that are using the strike for rallying support for Corbyn.
Easy Labour hold. I think the LibDems grossly underestimated that fact that every Labour Remain seat has a very strong Labour Remainer MP. The posters in Cambridge all say "Re-Elect Dan Z". The emphasis is on the candidate, not the party.
Can someone explain the idea of we need trees to prevent flooding by absorbing rainwater idea to me. I understand the notion that the trees will absorb the water thus preventing flooding - but does that not result in the risk of the opposite problem? Ie that when we go through a dry spell resulting in a drought the trees will still be needing water thus making the drought effects worse? Would we be facing many more hosepipe bans etc etc?
The flaw is that many want Corbyn(ism) to be demonstrably shown to have failed as an election platform and be killed off completely. They desperately need a return to sanity in the main opposition and an alternative to vote for with confidence.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
Agree 100%
I also agree 100%. The Sarajavo pistol shot was the election of Ed rather than David by the narrowest of margins. There had to be a lot of mistakes after that to be sure but that vote has had a catastrophic effect.
Wrong party. David Cameron was the worst prime minister since Lord North, and is largely responsible for the current mess vis-a-vis Europe, the economy, and the dislocation of Britain, so we need to trace Cameron's rise to power. Perhaps the Sarajevo assassination was that William Hague resigned too quickly, and should have stayed on to fight another election.
Surely in your scenario it was that speech without notes?
Without Blair there would have been no Cameron. We can clearly trace the problem back to the premature death of John Smith, and, in turn, the high cholesterol levels in the diet of the typical Scot.
Reality is the polar opposite. Yes YouGov currently says that if Tory Remainers etc vote Conservative as they're saying then Corbyn will be kept out of Downing Street - job done.
However it also says it won't take that much swing to put Corbyn in Downing Street. What the MRP also shows is that with so few LD MPs to be elected and with the SNP tied at the hip to Corbyn's Labour it won't take many seats to change hands to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
A vote for the Conservatives will keep Corbyn out. A vote for anyone else is a vote for Corbyn as PM. It is as simple as that.
If you are trying to tell everyone who doesn't like Corbyn that they have to vote for the Tories under Johnson then it really is time we changed our electoral system because it is patently unfit for purpose.
If you are one of the millions who can't stand either you may as well stay at home
Mr. Sandpit, there was another absolutely bloody brilliant reason McBride wasn't liked.
Indeed so, and the same issues with Mr Coulson. There’s a reason that leaders cling on to their advisors well beyond the point at which you’d think they’d be seen as a liability.
Even the LibDems reappointed the same idiot to run this campaign who ran the 2017 one.
Yep, and they also kept on Chris Rennard well after he was a serious liability too. Every party does it. I’ve seen similar things in business, where a “star” sales person or designer isn’t fired when they should have been despite their being a terrible person, because they make the numbers and trifling little problems like sexual harrasment shouldn’t be allowed to get in the way.
The flaw is that many want Corbyn(ism) to be demonstrably shown to have failed as an election platform and be killed off completely. They desperately need a return to sanity in the main opposition and an alternative to vote for with confidence.
Personally I think the disaster that has befallen U.K. politics in recent years can almost all be traced back to the election of Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Virtually everything else has flowed from there.
Agree 100%
And me
Actually, I don't. It's attacking the symptom not the cause.
Left-wing populism has its roots in the great recession in the late noughties, and the relative economic stagnation of the West this century. Globalisation.
Put simply: because the money and baubles weren't there to spread around anymore.
Centre-left candidates weren't promising that, but Corbyn did.
Or the money and baubles were there but went to the already comfortably and well off, without the centrist politicians noticing.
That, in itself, is a populist view.
A better one would be that globalisation gives good well-paid jobs to the highly educated and mobile but depressed or stagnated the wages of those with low education and local.
And, they get called racists or idiots for their trouble, which really pisses them off.
I think it was fairly accurate rather than populist. Highly educated and mobile have always had good jobs, technology and globalisation have certainly limited opportunities in the West for many of those without education. On being called racist, we need to get rid of the word racist and replace it with several new words describing more specific types of racist behaviour. Racism means different things to different people, which is why many get offended at being called racist, when others really think they are racist. The human mind uses pattern recognition and stereotyping very heavily so we are likely all racist to a degree. There is clearly a huge difference between someone attacking a stranger purely for their race through to nationalistic jokes through to sub conscious bias in job recruitment. They are separate issues yet bundled together through a word that has lost any shared meaning.
Can someone explain the idea of we need trees to prevent flooding by absorbing rainwater idea to me. I understand the notion that the trees will absorb the water thus preventing flooding - but does that not result in the risk of the opposite problem? Ie that when we go through a dry spell resulting in a drought the trees will still be needing water thus making the drought effects worse? Would we be facing many more hosepipe bans etc etc?
The tree roots break up the soil more, so it allows more water to be retained in the soil itself.
I can see some of Mike's logic in the header but the MRP is also clear that a Tory majoity is by no means secure. Without one, there is every prospect of a Labour-led administration. Tory remainers will come in many shapes and sizes but, while many are upset about leaving the EU, lots are concerned about overturning the referendum result, about any Westminster government dancing to the tune of the SNP and about continued uncertainty. Also, the bigger Boris's majority, the less reliant he is on the ERG and the more room for manoeuvre he has in his negotiations with the EU.
Someone mentioned Cambridge, I think it's going to stay Labour and quite easily. The Lib Dem candidate has run into some problems and I think the student vote will be heavily Labour. Many will have gone home but there are still a lot of graduate students around plus many undergraduates will be staying up to help out with the Cambridge interviews that happen in the week of the election. The UCU strike has also helped Labour, I think, as there's a strong Momentum element in UCU that are using the strike for rallying support for Corbyn.
Easy Labour hold. I think the LibDems grossly underestimated that fact that every Labour Remain seat has a very strong Labour Remainer MP. The posters in Cambridge all say "Re-Elect Dan Z". The emphasis is on the candidate, not the party.
When candidates effectively disown their own party and leader (and even colours - cf. 'Rosina the Remainer' in Tooting, campaigning in yellow and blue) it's always a bad sign for their national prospects.
As for Corbyn, let's assume MRP is wrong due to lack of tactical voting allowance and high MOE. However, red and yellow pants being shat leads to campaign silly decisions. Corbyn reinforces that Labour leave means Leave. Reinforces the Labour vote in Shieldsman but loses it in Wakefield. Labour do then end up down on 200 or so. A triumph for Corbyn as so many hated Blairites like Creagh lose their seats and sounds anti-semites win theirs. He won't go anywhere.
I can see some of Mike's logic in the header but the MRP is also clear that a Tory majoity is by no means secure. Without one, there is every prospect of a Labour-led administration. Tory remainers will come in many shapes and sizes but, while many are upset about leaving the EU, lots are concerned about overturning the referendum result, about any Westminster government dancing to the tune of the SNP and about continued uncertainty. Also, the bigger Boris's majority, the less reliant he is on the ERG and the more room for manoeuvre he has in his negotiations with the EU.
Someone mentioned Cambridge, I think it's going to stay Labour and quite easily. The Lib Dem candidate has run into some problems and I think the student vote will be heavily Labour. Many will have gone home but there are still a lot of graduate students around plus many undergraduates will be staying up to help out with the Cambridge interviews that happen in the week of the election. The UCU strike has also helped Labour, I think, as there's a strong Momentum element in UCU that are using the strike for rallying support for Corbyn.
Easy Labour hold. I think the LibDems grossly underestimated that fact that every Labour Remain seat has a very strong Labour Remainer MP. The posters in Cambridge all say "Re-Elect Dan Z". The emphasis is on the candidate, not the party.
Yes, I think among the more permanent residents of Cambridge the message is aimed at promoting Zeichner, and particular his record as a remainer. That is allied with a strong pro-Corbyn/Momentum movement among the students, which means I think Labour will hold easily.
LDs should ramp up a Never Corbyn, Never Corbynism message in their conditions for dealing with Labour. Even if that means risking losing the chance of a People's Vote.
Comments
I will say the Woodland Trust were excellent and helpful when we were putting Broadband, B4RN in our area. Very different from English Nature or is it Natural England.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1199953572118638593?s=20
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/milestonesjourneyingintoadulthood/2019-02-18
I guess we could even go a little further back, and pin it on the union who sent out their 2010 leadership ballots in a big envelope with Ed’s mug printed on the outside.
First, if Corby does it again, his folk hero status will be enhanced. He will have dodged another bullet.
Second, the Labour party is not going to replace its leader at the behest of the LibDems/SNP.
Reality is the polar opposite. Yes YouGov currently says that if Tory Remainers etc vote Conservative as they're saying then Corbyn will be kept out of Downing Street - job done.
However it also says it won't take that much swing to put Corbyn in Downing Street. What the MRP also shows is that with so few LD MPs to be elected and with the SNP tied at the hip to Corbyn's Labour it won't take many seats to change hands to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
A vote for the Conservatives will keep Corbyn out. A vote for anyone else is a vote for Corbyn as PM. It is as simple as that.
There's plenty of other people who think Johnson has to be soundly defeated and gone by Xmas would be the best Xmas present for us.
The Tory vote (for this election) is pretty solid. What's driving up the Labour score is Labour waverers firming up, and some LD voters (Remainers) moving back to them to try to frustrate Brexit.
There is a limit to how far that can go, probably 37-38% of the vote, so a "worst case" for Boris for this election is probably a 4% lead of 42% to 38%, or something like that.
He may or may not scrape a majority on that, but he wouldn't drop below 320 seats.
I just don't see Corbyn surviving any result other than a Labour Overall Majority.
My guess is that many Cambridge students will be relaxed about the Remain v Remain contest in the city and, unusually this time, will be looking to cast their vote at home in the shires.
Left-wing populism has its roots in the great recession in the late noughties, and the relative economic stagnation of the West this century. Globalisation.
Put simply: because the money and baubles weren't there to spread around anymore.
Centre-left candidates weren't promising that, but Corbyn did.
Laura Pidcock is possibly the closest, but they've clearly been fishing around for ages to try and find a replacement for Corbyn, and appear desperate to over promote her and Long-Bailey as the only viable options. I doubt Long-Bailey is anything like as left wing as Corbyn, and the other favourites in the betting (Starmer, Thornberry, Cooper and Rayner) are far closer to the centre.
For moderates to regain the party Corbyn's Labour is going to need to be humiliated 1983 style. Even if it is and the moderates regain control of the party they could still win the following election. It would be a challenge but a 1997-style swing is entirely possible in 2024: it will have been 14 years of Tory-led government and many of the gains the Tories make now based on Brexit could be vulnerable to being regained by Labour once Brexit is done.
"Acorns planted would never be seen again - its a squirrel thing !
You need to plant things that are about 2 ft tall optimum. I am a great believer in over planting rather than the sodding plastic guards which tend to kill those trees the rabbits don't eat. But as I said earlier you really can't get oak trees to grow at over 900 ft - have a nice photo of one at that height, just about their limit.
And none of this addresses the other reality Ash Dieback a disaster of European proportions. I know I have about 400 or so ash trees on my farm so I scaled that up to somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 in South Lakeland. They will all be dead within five years.
For the blanket planting being proposed you need to be talking larch or spruce I guess and Japanese Larch are not exactly native. Historically in the valleys of the dales the terminal species were oak in the lower dry areas with ash further up, perhaps to 1200 ft. Alder in the wetter areas and birch up to the tree line, perhaps even covering the drier parts of the fell tops at 2000 ft. But the weather was a lot better 5,000 years ago of course.
On reflection I think you would be planting a lot denser than Fysics Teacher and I suggested earlier - you should do 50 trees per acre ajust our calculations accordingly."
50 trees per acre requires something closer to 5 x Wales for 2 billion trees......
*Yes they would probably be 2nd in seats, but they claimed to have won the last election when miles behind.
Corbyn and Clegg both trashed their own parties, whereas Cameron chose to preserve his at the expense of trashing the country.
The BJorg are very, VERY reluctantly voting for BJ to save the country from Corbyn, in a pious 'this is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you' kinda way.
What you are describing though is a trees Ponzi scheme. In fact what is there already is probably doing that in any case.
So do I have any suggestion rather than just knocking ? Well yes actually. Buy up as much dry desert as you can and build enormous sheds 35 ft tall. Cover the top with solar panels taking the light levels down by 80 or 90% and do arable and market cropping in the vast space below. You would need water but in a closed enviroment that would be self recycling.
Corby's supporters will say he has done a remarkable thing. And in truth, Corby will have done a remarkable thing.
Yes, you can't expect people without capital to be capitalists.
The more independent and self-sufficient people are, the more they lean to the centre-right, otherwise they'll want to suck hard on the teat of the State.
The Tories need to make sure the Millennial have it as good as their parents.
Once you get beyond trivial examples with small populations, it makes no difference. You can draw ten balls from a small box with 100 white and 100 black balls, or from a swimming pool with 10000 white and 10000 black. Provided the balls are mixed properly and your sample is randomly chosen, the statistical errors are the same.
I think Labour in Birmingham Edgbaston at 8/11 with Bet365 is another cracking bet.
This seat is the dog that never barks for the Tories, and MRP gives it an estimated 11% Labour lead.
Neither am I impressed by the manifesto under which he is standing, so I can't use that as an argument, either (albeit that voting for the Party rather than the Person would be inappropriate, anyway, and might justify such things as PR)
Given the SNP have said they will back Corbyn's Labour and their price is explicitly an independence referendum not Corbyn's head - and given will be so few Liberal Democrats any demands by Swinson that Corbyn resigns would be laughed out. Either Swinson or her successor must back Johnson or Corbyn.
There is no mechanism within our Parliamentary democracy for a third party after an election to demand another party change its leader.
This 11 minute mini-doc is a great explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN8RE02iNII
They lose 5-6 to the Libs and 3-5 to the SNP.
So I think a net gain of 15 from Labour will get them a majority. I don't think Labour can hold on to that many Leave seats so some how they will need to start taking seats off the Tories where the demographics are more helpful like Itchen, Chipping Barnet and Chingford.
Corbyn is toxic. The LibDems will make no meaningful advance until he - and his ilk - depart the scene. That 2017 exit poll hangs over this election more than any 2019 poll.
If the Conservatives had a far right leader and Labour had a bland numpty as their leader, I'd vote Labour.
Mr. Nichomar, others here have been quite impressed, relatively at least, with the Lib Dem manifesto.
And, with the lifetime of trees and the lifetime of furniture or houses, you've locked up the carbon for a century or two or three, anyway, by which time our other mitigating actions can have taken effect.
Like baling water from a boat - the trick is to not let the water get too far ahead.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1199983139638173696?s=20
If he exceeded his GE2017 seat totals he’d certainly stick around, and would probably do a S&C with the SNP which would get him over 300 seats and able to govern.
At the very least, a company like Vanilla should give their paying customers the option of which layout style to use, with existing users defaulted to the old one so they can make the change themselves if they wish. One of the worst traits of ‘cloud’ computing.
Surely not.....
Whilst there is an element of the rich and powerful behind some of the changes, it seems far more opportunistic than a conspiratorial plan. I dont think they decided lets have a massive banking crisis which will allow us to subsequently boost asset prices. It was more once asset prices were booming, those becoming richer actively supported the politicians who could keep that happening.
Technological change especially including how news is delivered was certainly a driver.
Von Papen thought the constitutional conservatives could control the Nazis. People like OGH and Heseltine think the same about the LD's and tory remainers re theTrotskyites and Bosheviks now in charge of the Labour Party. Foolish and dangerous in equal measure.
If you're drawing 10 balls then the odds of drawing 10 of the same colour [thus incorrectly seeming to have no variation at all in your sample] from the box is 0.15% while the odds of drawing 10 of the same colour from the pool is 0.19%
If you'd have said 100,000 of each or 1,000,000 of each then that would have reduced the variance more.
A better one would be that globalisation gives good well-paid jobs to the highly educated and mobile but depressed or stagnated the wages of those with low education and local.
And, they get called racists or idiots for their trouble, which really pisses them off.
https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/1199826967375351808
Specifically:
https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/1199831323977900032
https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/1199831867115147264
I must say I've thought the narrative of current polling suggesting a hung parliament relied really heavily on super efficient vote spreading for Lab/LD and super inefficient vote spreading for Cons, but the thinking here is that we shouldn't always trust poll weighting, and that if it is closer to the raw data than it is still a v close race.
For the purposes of this discussion, the marginal effect you are talking about can be ignored.
Having said that, the MRP does seem to be particularly positive on Tory chances Vs the SNP and the poor old Lib Dems. Presumably tactical voting might help the latter, but in Scotland probably helps the Tories more.
Just FYI my model Vs MRP is Con -16; Lab +3; LD +7; SNP +6.
What you seem to be missing in all this is that if it were not for Corbyn, Labour would be romping this election. You really think the Party doesn't know that, and are going to give him another pass if he does not get a clear overall majority? And I mean a clear one.
Someone mentioned Cambridge, I think it's going to stay Labour and quite easily. The Lib Dem candidate has run into some problems and I think the student vote will be heavily Labour. Many will have gone home but there are still a lot of graduate students around plus many undergraduates will be staying up to help out with the Cambridge interviews that happen in the week of the election. The UCU strike has also helped Labour, I think, as there's a strong Momentum element in UCU that are using the strike for rallying support for Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/bobobalti/status/1199978035702829057?s=20
*secretly agree with
But putting a forest where there was none before has the net effect of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere in the near term, and also in the long term, if the forest is maintained and dying trees are replaced by new growth (and also a certain amount of carbon gets locked up in soil formation).
In the short term there can also be negative effects through change in albedo - forests planted a high latitudes with reduce snow cover, and therefore reflect less energy back into space in the winter.
Here's a recent paper looking at some of the dynamics:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/10/4382
If you are one of the millions who can't stand either you may as well stay at home
I’ve seen similar things in business, where a “star” sales person or designer isn’t fired when they should have been despite their being a terrible person, because they make the numbers and trifling little problems like sexual harrasment shouldn’t be allowed to get in the way.
On being called racist, we need to get rid of the word racist and replace it with several new words describing more specific types of racist behaviour. Racism means different things to different people, which is why many get offended at being called racist, when others really think they are racist. The human mind uses pattern recognition and stereotyping very heavily so we are likely all racist to a degree. There is clearly a huge difference between someone attacking a stranger purely for their race through to nationalistic jokes through to sub conscious bias in job recruitment. They are separate issues yet bundled together through a word that has lost any shared meaning.
Labour do then end up down on 200 or so. A triumph for Corbyn as so many hated Blairites like Creagh lose their seats and sounds anti-semites win theirs. He won't go anywhere.
Even if that means risking losing the chance of a People's Vote.
Please don't stop dredging up the old stuff on him as far as primary school ...