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?
Interesting question. I think not, because trees do not take water from aquifers or reservoirs, and the tree canopy generally keeps woodland floor damp. Overall I would think more trees would have zero impact on drought at worst, and probably create a beneficial effect.
One of the main problems with flooding which most commentators seem to miss, is how it is exacerbated by run off caused by building high intensity housing on low lying areas. This is then a double whammy as said houses are then liable to be flooded.
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.
And then what? Choose no deal when Corbyn says he has won the election and will either be PM now or we go back to the polls for a second run? Or capitulate and have all the LD voters pissed off because they thought they were promised no Corbyn.
Yeah, I think that's true and perhaps more so at this election than most. For example, suppose a lot of The Yoof vote, but Oldies don't, it would make a big difference to the outcome. No idea if this will happen. Could just as easily be the other way round. This is just one example of the imponderables the Pollsters are facing. They could so easily be very wrong, and you couldn't really blame them.
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.
Reforestation is not a Ponzi scheme - though I'd entirely agree that it is a near term palliative rather than any kind of long term solution to climate change. It is, however, a very sensible partial stopgap during the (at least) couple of decades it will take to transition to fully renewable energy sources. What is going on now is alarming, as various systems are at the point of collapse: https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-scientists.html The description climate emergency is an entirely accurate one - on a human timescale it's a very slow moving emergency, but it will take a massive and sustained effort to halt it.
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.
No its not. According to the polls over 40% of voters are voting for Johnson's party and over 30% of voters are voting for Corbyn's party with no other party beating single digits except Swinson's who struggling to be in the low teens. It doesn't matter what electoral system you have with those numbers - either you will have Corbyn or Johnson as PM afterwards. If you can't stand either then either pick the lesser evil or waste your vote. Those are the candidates to choose from though.
A bit rich for a man who has an unknown number of illegitimate children and has rendered his wife a single mother by his serial infidelity.
There's news, there's fake news, and then there's stuff that happened in 1995.
Except where Corbyn is concerned, of course!
Please don't stop dredging up the old stuff on him as far as primary school ...
It's relevant with Corbyn because his main USP is that he believed it* then, and he still believes it now. Whereas with Johnson, his main fault is that it's unclear that he even believed it then... *(not about single mothers; about whatever else it is that has been dredged up from the past)
I think the Lib Dems problem is that remainers come broadly in two flavours. Either they're left wing, anti-austerity, anti-Tory (Incl the 2015 "yellow Tories") and at a GE they'll go to Corbyn because he's close enough to remain with the 2nd ref that it doesn't matter. Some might vote tactically Lib Dem but plenty won't. Or they're Tory remainers who broadly have made their peace with Brexit and prioritise keeping Corbyn out above anything else. They don't mind the Lib Dem message but safer to keep Conservative this GE. The number of Sam Gyimahs and Philip Lees amongst the general public isn't all that high.
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?
Interesting question. I think not, because trees do not take water from aquifers or reservoirs, and the tree canopy generally keeps woodland floor damp. Overall I would think more trees would have zero impact on drought at worst, and probably create a beneficial effect.
One of the main problems with flooding which most commentators seem to miss, is how it is exacerbated by run off caused by building high intensity housing on low lying areas. This is then a double whammy as said houses are then liable to be flooded.
Without trees, water runs off quickly, floods, then disappears. With trees, water is retained so less flooding when it rains and a slow release of water during dry periods.
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.
No its not. According to the polls over 40% of voters are voting for Johnson's party and over 30% of voters are voting for Corbyn's party with no other party beating single digits except Swinson's who struggling to be in the low teens. It doesn't matter what electoral system you have with those numbers - either you will have Corbyn or Johnson as PM afterwards. If you can't stand either then either pick the lesser evil or waste your vote. Those are the candidates to choose from though.
If that were true, I think I'd slit my wrists. Fortunately, it is not.
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.
Thanks so the soil not the tree is absorbing the water? In which case I imagine it acts like insulation, it helps in heavy-water conditions by ensuring more gets taken by the soil - and it it helps in drought conditions by ensuring more was in the soil in the first place. Is that right? Win/win?
Morning all. The labour campaign rebrand is hardly the act of a party thinking a 2017 repeat is on, and given that the 2 or 3% gap closing seems to have come from taking LD votes it's pretty risky to suddenly become leave friendly. The comment on their internal polling is interesting too, an admission of 'it's not good' should be inflated by a degree of awfulness to hit the right picture. They are seriously worried about the red wall and they dont think they can gain anything in the south, east and sw or London.
I think the Lib Dems problem is that remainers come broadly in two flavours. Either they're left wing, anti-austerity, anti-Tory (Incl the 2015 "yellow Tories") and at a GE they'll go to Corbyn because he's close enough to remain with the 2nd ref that it doesn't matter. Some might vote tactically Lib Dem but plenty won't. Or they're Tory remainers who broadly have made their peace with Brexit and prioritise keeping Corbyn out above anything else. They don't mind the Lib Dem message but safer to keep Conservative this GE. The number of Sam Gyimahs and Philip Lees amongst the general public isn't all that high.
To what extent is that the fault of the LD politicians though? I imagine there would be a lot more with someone like Paddy Ashdown in charge making the case for a centrist remain.
A bit rich for a man who has an unknown number of illegitimate children and has rendered his wife a single mother by his serial infidelity.
There's news, there's fake news, and then there's stuff that happened in 1995.
Except where Corbyn is concerned, of course!
Please don't stop dredging up the old stuff on him as far as primary school ...
It's relevant with Corbyn because his main USP is that he believed it* then, and he still believes it now. Whereas with Johnson, his main fault is that it's unclear that he even believed it then... *(not about single mothers; about whatever else it is that has been dredged up from the past)
The 'it's ok, he was probably lying' defence is definitely the best defence.
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.
And then what? Choose no deal when Corbyn says he has won the election and will either be PM now or we go back to the polls for a second run? Or capitulate and have all the LD voters pissed off because they thought they were promised no Corbyn.
If Corbyn+SNP+PC get a majority this fails. Corbyn gets in. But it is a significantly higher bar. If they need LD for a majority and don't change tack, then back to the polls. Equally, Boris can be held to the fire over a second vote for his deal. Here LDs are reliant on blocking and Labour bringing a VoNC or Boris seeking another election. If we get in this position it is a mandate for continuing pressure on the executive. If it needs more GEs to get to an outcome where something is conceded to end this Hard Brexit vs Hard Left stand off, then so be it.
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.
I don’t disagree, I think that with someone like Corbyn as an opponent Conservatives need to make the case for free markets and sound money even more forcefully than usual. Anyone under 45 or 50 has no memory of what society was like the last time Jeremy Corbyn’s brand of politics was enacted.
If that were true, I think I'd slit my wrists. Fortunately, it is not.
What's false about it? According to the MRP we are looking at Con 359, Lab 211, SNP 43, LD 13, Plaid 4, Green 1, Speaker 1, NI 18 SNP, Plaid and Green would 100% back Corbyn over Johnson so lets sum them up as assorted Left. We then have: Con 359, Left 259, LD 13, Speaker 1, NI 18 Either you are going to vote for Corbyn to be PM or Johnson. Directly or indirectly. If you're prepared to but Corbyn in PM so be it but one of them will be PM after the election. Sturgeon has already said she will back him as PM!
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.
No its not. According to the polls over 40% of voters are voting for Johnson's party and over 30% of voters are voting for Corbyn's party with no other party beating single digits except Swinson's who struggling to be in the low teens. It doesn't matter what electoral system you have with those numbers - either you will have Corbyn or Johnson as PM afterwards. If you can't stand either then either pick the lesser evil or waste your vote. Those are the candidates to choose from though.
Typical anti democratic bollox from you taking your advice leads to the duopoly continuing without change. It is because of the system you get people voting for their least worst option or to stop the other lot. A fair PR system would radically change the way the party vote shares drop giving a broader more democratic government. The two party system was barley justifiable when both were broad churches organizations but now have been reduced to only represent the true way casting aside diversity of opinion and only rewarding loyalty to the leader.
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.
No its not. According to the polls over 40% of voters are voting for Johnson's party and over 30% of voters are voting for Corbyn's party with no other party beating single digits except Swinson's who struggling to be in the low teens. It doesn't matter what electoral system you have with those numbers - either you will have Corbyn or Johnson as PM afterwards. If you can't stand either then either pick the lesser evil or waste your vote. Those are the candidates to choose from though.
Sorry but in telling us that our system boils down to "pick the lesser evil or waste your vote" you are actually making the case for changing to a PR system that gives people proper representation.
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?
Interesting question. I think not, because trees do not take water from aquifers or reservoirs, and the tree canopy generally keeps woodland floor damp. Overall I would think more trees would have zero impact on drought at worst, and probably create a beneficial effect.
One of the main problems with flooding which most commentators seem to miss, is how it is exacerbated by run off caused by building high intensity housing on low lying areas. This is then a double whammy as said houses are then liable to be flooded.
Without trees, water runs off quickly, floods, then disappears. With trees, water is retained so less flooding when it rains and a slow release of water during dry periods.
Depends what kind of land you're looking at. (Stable) peat moorland, for example, provides an excellent very long term carbon sink, and retains a very large amount of water.
Cheeky OGH. 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.
No its not. According to the polls over 40% of voters are voting for Johnson's party and over 30% of voters are voting for Corbyn's party with no other party beating single digits except Swinson's who struggling to be in the low teens. It doesn't matter what electoral system you have with those numbers - either you will have Corbyn or Johnson as PM afterwards. If you can't stand either then either pick the lesser evil or waste your vote. Those are the candidates to choose from though.
Except it is possible, although unlikely, that you could get a majority for either party whilst those individuals lose their seats, leading to a different leader. Because we don't have a presidential system. We do not think about our vote in the same way that it actually works, which is patently why we should change our system. (I understand one doesn't have to be in the HoC to be PM, but I would get the feeling in the modern era it would be untenable to lose your seat and stay on as PM for political reasons) As our politics has become more about leaders of parties rather than our representatives or parties themselves, maybe we should change our political system to recognise that and / or try and lessen that. Parliament wasn't designed for presidential style politics, and the way we vote reflects that. So either we change the politics to a presidential system, or we should change our voting method to better recognise the aim is to not end up focusing on just one person, but on parties and policies and compromise. Or we could do both 🤷♂️
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.
There are other, much more recent carbon stores from non rotting vegetation - one of the largest of which - the Siberian permafrost - is currently at great risk: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html
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.
And then what? Choose no deal when Corbyn says he has won the election and will either be PM now or we go back to the polls for a second run? Or capitulate and have all the LD voters pissed off because they thought they were promised no Corbyn.
If Corbyn+SNP+PC get a majority this fails. Corbyn gets in. But it is a significantly higher bar. If they need LD for a majority and don't change tack, then back to the polls. Equally, Boris can be held to the fire over a second vote for his deal. Here LDs are reliant on blocking and Labour bringing a VoNC or Boris seeking another election. If we get in this position it is a mandate for continuing pressure on the executive. If it needs more GEs to get to an outcome where something is conceded to end this Hard Brexit vs Hard Left stand off, then so be it.
You do realise that back to the polls = Johnson remains as PM until the next election = no deal? Good luck to the LDs in that election having delivered no deal.
If that were true, I think I'd slit my wrists. Fortunately, it is not.
What's false about it? According to the MRP we are looking at Con 359, Lab 211, SNP 43, LD 13, Plaid 4, Green 1, Speaker 1, NI 18 SNP, Plaid and Green would 100% back Corbyn over Johnson so lets sum them up as assorted Left. We then have: Con 359, Left 259, LD 13, Speaker 1, NI 18 Either you are going to vote for Corbyn to be PM or Johnson. Directly or indirectly. If you're prepared to but Corbyn in PM so be it but one of them will be PM after the election. Sturgeon has already said she will back him as PM!
I've already explained. I am not repeating for the benefit of slow learners.
Yeah, I think that's true and perhaps more so at this election than most. For example, suppose a lot of The Yoof vote, but Oldies don't, it would make a big difference to the outcome. No idea if this will happen. Could just as easily be the other way round. This is just one example of the imponderables the Pollsters are facing. They could so easily be very wrong, and you couldn't really blame them.
I laughed when I saw the "Ynys Mon could go Tory" prediction, but it is interesting that other people looked at some of the predictions for their local areas and went "What???". I think that the unpredictability of this election will be high and many pollsters will be re-evaluating their methodologies come Friday 13th (how appropriate that date is)
I would just like to say I think the tories have also added a policy they wouldn't have if it wasnt for the "debates" on QT a person asked what are you going to do about Student loans, a lot of mature students can't afford Tuition loans.
And then the tories announced they are bringing back bursaries for nurses. Would that have been in the manifesto otherwise?
If that were true, I think I'd slit my wrists. Fortunately, it is not.
What's false about it? According to the MRP we are looking at Con 359, Lab 211, SNP 43, LD 13, Plaid 4, Green 1, Speaker 1, NI 18 SNP, Plaid and Green would 100% back Corbyn over Johnson so lets sum them up as assorted Left. We then have: Con 359, Left 259, LD 13, Speaker 1, NI 18 Either you are going to vote for Corbyn to be PM or Johnson. Directly or indirectly. If you're prepared to but Corbyn in PM so be it but one of them will be PM after the election. Sturgeon has already said she will back him as PM!
I've already explained. I am not repeating for the benefit of slow learners.
You explained that you believed that the other parties will demand Corbyn's defenestration if he doesn't have a majority but when I replied to you saying there's no mechanism for that plus Sturgeon etc have already said they will work with Corbyn . . . I haven't seen you explain further why believe that. If you were punting then what sequence of events would lead to Corbyn's defenestration given Sturgeon has already said she will work with them and the only scenario there's No Overall Majority is a much better than expected Labour result like 2017 in which case Corbyn will be claiming victory not conceding defeat?
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.
Given his ratings, I'd suggest that he'll have done nothing remarkable. Corbyn's so much less popular than his party and policies, that the "inevitable Tory landslide" is almost certainly due to him. It'll be prevented by people voting Labour/anti-Tory, despite Corbyn - something that may well not show up till very late, or even until polling day.
I would just like to say I think the tories have also added a policy they wouldn't have if it wasnt for the "debates" on QT a person asked what are you going to do about Student loans, a lot of mature students can't afford Tuition loans.
And then the tories announced they are bringing back bursaries for nurses. Would that have been in the manifesto otherwise?
Possibly. There are burseries available for those who want to go into teaching, especially for STEM. It makes sense to make bursaries available for areas of concern. Are there other subjects where bursaries are available other than teaching [and soon to be nursing]?
I rather liked the Corbynite who attacked this tweet for it having too many question marks and thus suggesting a lack of impartiality and this was more show biz than serious political coverage by the BBC. A retired politics teacher unsurprisingly....
Yeah, I think that's true and perhaps more so at this election than most. For example, suppose a lot of The Yoof vote, but Oldies don't, it would make a big difference to the outcome. No idea if this will happen. Could just as easily be the other way round. This is just one example of the imponderables the Pollsters are facing. They could so easily be very wrong, and you couldn't really blame them.
I laughed when I saw the "Ynys Mon could go Tory" prediction, but it is interesting that other people looked at some of the predictions for their local areas and went "What???". I think that the unpredictability of this election will be high and many pollsters will be re-evaluating their methodologies come Friday 13th (how appropriate that date is)
I'm not sure why you think it's such an hilarious proposition, it's about a 5 or 6% swing to take it, less than many seats being discussed. It's also a very volatile seat historically with wild voting intention changes.
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.
No its not. According to the polls over 40% of voters are voting for Johnson's party and over 30% of voters are voting for Corbyn's party with no other party beating single digits except Swinson's who struggling to be in the low teens. It doesn't matter what electoral system you have with those numbers - either you will have Corbyn or Johnson as PM afterwards. If you can't stand either then either pick the lesser evil or waste your vote. Those are the candidates to choose from though.
If that were true, I think I'd slit my wrists. Fortunately, it is not.
It is true, unless you're practising cognitive dissonance to justify your visceral need to cast a Labour vote.
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.
I don’t disagree, I think that with someone like Corbyn as an opponent Conservatives need to make the case for free markets and sound money even more forcefully than usual. Anyone under 45 or 50 has no memory of what society was like the last time Jeremy Corbyn’s brand of politics was enacted.
It's true that people my age or younger don't really remember the 1970s. But your problem is that for many younger people the Thatcherite economic system we have currently is terrible. No job security, no help with education costs, unaffordable housing, no proper action to deal with the climate emergency. They are absolutely right to vote for someone who will at least try to make it work better for them. Older people can vote to protect their privileges too of course, but the number of people for whom the current set up doesn't work is increasing every day, and eventually the gerontocracy will be outvoted.
I would just like to say I think the tories have also added a policy they wouldn't have if it wasnt for the "debates" on QT a person asked what are you going to do about Student loans, a lot of mature students can't afford Tuition loans.
And then the tories announced they are bringing back bursaries for nurses. Would that have been in the manifesto otherwise?
Possibly. There are burseries available for those who want to go into teaching, especially for STEM. It makes sense to make bursaries available for areas of concern. Are there other subjects where bursaries are available other than teaching [and soon to be nursing]?
I think there used to be for Physiotherapy and Dietics and other NHS careers. I think if the tories are nor bringing them back for these groups people will feel hard done by.
I think the Lib Dems problem is that remainers come broadly in two flavours. Either they're left wing, anti-austerity, anti-Tory (Incl the 2015 "yellow Tories") and at a GE they'll go to Corbyn because he's close enough to remain with the 2nd ref that it doesn't matter. Some might vote tactically Lib Dem but plenty won't. Or they're Tory remainers who broadly have made their peace with Brexit and prioritise keeping Corbyn out above anything else. They don't mind the Lib Dem message but safer to keep Conservative this GE. The number of Sam Gyimahs and Philip Lees amongst the general public isn't all that high.
But, the Sam Gyimahs/Philip Lees/Michael Heseltines/Rachel Johnsons/Matthew Parris's all talk to each other and socialise together at Westminster, with other Londoners, so they've managed to convince themselves there's a far bigger groundswell for their movement than there actually is.
Yeah, I think that's true and perhaps more so at this election than most. For example, suppose a lot of The Yoof vote, but Oldies don't, it would make a big difference to the outcome. No idea if this will happen. Could just as easily be the other way round. This is just one example of the imponderables the Pollsters are facing. They could so easily be very wrong, and you couldn't really blame them.
I laughed when I saw the "Ynys Mon could go Tory" prediction, but it is interesting that other people looked at some of the predictions for their local areas and went "What???". I think that the unpredictability of this election will be high and many pollsters will be re-evaluating their methodologies come Friday 13th (how appropriate that date is)
I'm not sure why you think it's such an hilarious proposition, it's about a 5 or 6% swing to take it, less than many seats being discussed. It's also a very volatile seat historically with wild voting intention changes.
I think it is hilarious because I have been there and it does not look like Tory territory to me. Holyhead in particular is run down and basically depends on the Stena ferries. If they go for any reason, the Holyhead is in real trouble. As for "volatile", apart from 9 years (1979-1988) it has been Labour for about 100 years. Is that what you call volatile?
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.
I don’t disagree, I think that with someone like Corbyn as an opponent Conservatives need to make the case for free markets and sound money even more forcefully than usual. Anyone under 45 or 50 has no memory of what society was like the last time Jeremy Corbyn’s brand of politics was enacted.
It's true that people my age or younger don't really remember the 1970s. But your problem is that for many younger people the Thatcherite economic system we have currently is terrible. No job security, no help with education costs, unaffordable housing, no proper action to deal with the climate emergency. They are absolutely right to vote for someone who will at least try to make it work better for them. Older people can vote to protect their privileges too of course, but the number of people for whom the current set up doesn't work is increasing every day, and eventually the gerontocracy will be outvoted.
How would any of your issues be helped by borrowing another couple of trillion, to add to the trillion and a half that we’ve borrowed already? The young who vote for that are selfishly transferring an even bigger burden to their own children.
Some value about this morning: Tory over/under W Hill: Go Under Tories 350.5 @ 5/6 LibDem over/ynder Betfair SP: Go Over LibDem 16.5 @ Evens
Wow the yellows are having a nightmare. I have them at evens under 44.5 from what? 3 weeks ago? The no-show of the yellow surge is the story of this election.
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.
And then what? Choose no deal when Corbyn says he has won the election and will either be PM now or we go back to the polls for a second run? Or capitulate and have all the LD voters pissed off because they thought they were promised no Corbyn.
If Corbyn+SNP+PC get a majority this fails. Corbyn gets in. But it is a significantly higher bar. If they need LD for a majority and don't change tack, then back to the polls. Equally, Boris can be held to the fire over a second vote for his deal. Here LDs are reliant on blocking and Labour bringing a VoNC or Boris seeking another election. If we get in this position it is a mandate for continuing pressure on the executive. If it needs more GEs to get to an outcome where something is conceded to end this Hard Brexit vs Hard Left stand off, then so be it.
You do realise that back to the polls = Johnson remains as PM until the next election = no deal? Good luck to the LDs in that election having delivered no deal.
Very narrow band between, Boris has the numbers to get the deal through and Opposition have the numbers to force further Extension Request. Think Pulpstar did a header on it a month or so back. In that very narrow band and in the last days when all has failed, either with Boris careering to No Deal or Extension Rejected, some agility might be required to soften things and, yes, if new Labour rebels don't lead, which they might, there would only be 'courageous' political calls left for LDs. Boris Deal for GB EFTA perhaps?
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
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'm not missing that at all. I've said numerous times a sensible Labour leader would win this election, or at least form the next Government.
I just totally disagree with this idea Corbyn won't be the next PM if Labour does well enough to kick Johnson out of Downing Street. He will, and PC/LD/SDLP etc will acquiesce in it in the belief they can control his Government bill by bill.
The SNP will actively keep him there, both for the referendum they want and because they know it will really rile English Tories, thus furthering their cause.
I don't think the MRP is solid. Tactical voting and a closing of the gap can easily see us back into hung parliament territory. Only Johnson or Corbyn will be PM. I have never met either of them. I take a sceptical view of what is said about them in the media because the media's job is mainly selling newspapers or getting clicks. I take a doubly sceptical view of what is said about them on social media because everyone seems to just confirm their own biases. I judge people by their actions. Johnson's private life speaks poorly to his character. However his time as Mayor of London speaks well to his way of working. When he has had top jobs and can make his own policy he has been OK - certainly more progressive and sensible than most of his critics say. Apart from the Garden Bridge nonsense... Corbyn's voting record and public acts speak to his political ideology overriding all other factors. His blindness to the evils of his 'friends' over decades worries me enormously. His supporters now control most of the levers of power within Labour - it is not now the party most voters think it is. This NHS dossier hyping is patently OTT and the spending plans are madness. So thoughts of tactical voting to keep the evil Tories out are dangerous. You may not like Johnson but - seriously and objectively based on the evidence - who is worse? Trying to game a hung parliament again or thinking Corbyn will be restrained somehow is risky. I'll just try to relax and trust the British people. [Really don't like the new formatting btw]
Yeah, I think that's true and perhaps more so at this election than most. For example, suppose a lot of The Yoof vote, but Oldies don't, it would make a big difference to the outcome. No idea if this will happen. Could just as easily be the other way round. This is just one example of the imponderables the Pollsters are facing. They could so easily be very wrong, and you couldn't really blame them.
I laughed when I saw the "Ynys Mon could go Tory" prediction, but it is interesting that other people looked at some of the predictions for their local areas and went "What???". I think that the unpredictability of this election will be high and many pollsters will be re-evaluating their methodologies come Friday 13th (how appropriate that date is)
I'm not sure why you think it's such an hilarious proposition, it's about a 5 or 6% swing to take it, less than many seats being discussed. It's also a very volatile seat historically with wild voting intention changes.
I think it is hilarious because I have been there and it does not look like Tory territory to me. Holyhead in particular is run down and basically depends on the Stena ferries. If they go for any reason, the Holyhead is in real trouble. As for "volatile", apart from 9 years (1979-1988) it has been Labour for about 100 years. Is that what you call volatile?
I said voting percentages were very volatile and wild. They are. I have also been there, its heavily Welsh language and has a solid plaid presence and it's also very small c conservative. There has always been a tendency for the tiries to get into the 30s in upswing times for them here and with it being a three party poll well seat that makes it a legitimate target. It's much more likely to go blue than many that are predicted to do so.
If that were true, I think I'd slit my wrists. Fortunately, it is not.
What's false about it? According to the MRP we are looking at Con 359, Lab 211, SNP 43, LD 13, Plaid 4, Green 1, Speaker 1, NI 18 SNP, Plaid and Green would 100% back Corbyn over Johnson so lets sum them up as assorted Left. We then have: Con 359, Left 259, LD 13, Speaker 1, NI 18 Either you are going to vote for Corbyn to be PM or Johnson. Directly or indirectly. If you're prepared to but Corbyn in PM so be it but one of them will be PM after the election. Sturgeon has already said she will back him as PM!
I've already explained. I am not repeating for the benefit of slow learners.
I am afraid you are starting to catch the same delusions that are infecting others who dislike both leaders. As has already been stated, the choice is Corbyn or Johnson. One of them will be PM unless we have yet another election - which will also mean a No Deal Brexit.
I think the Lib Dems problem is that remainers come broadly in two flavours. Either they're left wing, anti-austerity, anti-Tory (Incl the 2015 "yellow Tories") and at a GE they'll go to Corbyn because he's close enough to remain with the 2nd ref that it doesn't matter. Some might vote tactically Lib Dem but plenty won't. Or they're Tory remainers who broadly have made their peace with Brexit and prioritise keeping Corbyn out above anything else. They don't mind the Lib Dem message but safer to keep Conservative this GE. The number of Sam Gyimahs and Philip Lees amongst the general public isn't all that high.
But, the Sam Gyimahs/Philip Lees/Michael Heseltines/Rachel Johnsons/Matthew Parris's all talk to each other and socialise together at Westminster, with other Londoners, so they've managed to convince themselves there's a far bigger groundswell for their movement than there actually is.
That is part of it. I think bigger problems are centrist remain has not been sold well, what is the point of it beyond remain? That has not been explained or sold to me and I should be an easy convert. Also FPTP clearly has an impact as many LDs preferences across the electoral cycle end up voting for second preference or anti worst preference when the GE comes around.
Some value about this morning: Tory over/under W Hill: Go Under Tories 350.5 @ 5/6 LibDem over/ynder Betfair SP: Go Over LibDem 16.5 @ Evens
Wow the yellows are having a nightmare. I have them at evens under 44.5 from what? 3 weeks ago? The no-show of the yellow surge is the story of this election.
The story of the election will be the realisation of the sheer fury in the country over parliamentarians using every trick in the book and outside of it to thwart the referendum result. John Bercow has done a lot of damage IMO. I (narrowly) voted remain by the way.
Some value about this morning: Tory over/under W Hill: Go Under Tories 350.5 @ 5/6 LibDem over/ynder Betfair SP: Go Over LibDem 16.5 @ Evens
Wow the yellows are having a nightmare. I have them at evens under 44.5 from what? 3 weeks ago? The no-show of the yellow surge is the story of this election.
Yeah, I think that's true and perhaps more so at this election than most. For example, suppose a lot of The Yoof vote, but Oldies don't, it would make a big difference to the outcome. No idea if this will happen. Could just as easily be the other way round. This is just one example of the imponderables the Pollsters are facing. They could so easily be very wrong, and you couldn't really blame them.
I laughed when I saw the "Ynys Mon could go Tory" prediction, but it is interesting that other people looked at some of the predictions for their local areas and went "What???". I think that the unpredictability of this election will be high and many pollsters will be re-evaluating their methodologies come Friday 13th (how appropriate that date is)
I'm not sure why you think it's such an hilarious proposition, it's about a 5 or 6% swing to take it, less than many seats being discussed. It's also a very volatile seat historically with wild voting intention changes.
I think it is hilarious because I have been there and it does not look like Tory territory to me. Holyhead in particular is run down and basically depends on the Stena ferries. If they go for any reason, the Holyhead is in real trouble. As for "volatile", apart from 9 years (1979-1988) it has been Labour for about 100 years. Is that what you call volatile?
Do you look up any data before your post, or do you just let your emotions run riot and type away?
It was Plaid from 1987 to 2001, Tory for the previous 8 years, has been Labour for the last 18 years, but nearly went Plaid again in 2015. It has often been closely fought. It also narrowly voted to Leave.
The Tories could easily get in if their opposition splits between Labour and Plaid, as the Leave vote coalesces around it.
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.
And then what? Choose no deal when Corbyn says he has won the election and will either be PM now or we go back to the polls for a second run? Or capitulate and have all the LD voters pissed off because they thought they were promised no Corbyn.
If Corbyn+SNP+PC get a majority this fails. Corbyn gets in. But it is a significantly higher bar. If they need LD for a majority and don't change tack, then back to the polls. Equally, Boris can be held to the fire over a second vote for his deal. Here LDs are reliant on blocking and Labour bringing a VoNC or Boris seeking another election. If we get in this position it is a mandate for continuing pressure on the executive. If it needs more GEs to get to an outcome where something is conceded to end this Hard Brexit vs Hard Left stand off, then so be it.
You do realise that back to the polls = Johnson remains as PM until the next election = no deal? Good luck to the LDs in that election having delivered no deal.
Very narrow band between, Boris has the numbers to get the deal through and Opposition have the numbers to force further Extension Request. Think Pulpstar did a header on it a month or so back. In that very narrow band and in the last days when all has failed, either with Boris careering to No Deal or Extension Rejected, some agility might be required to soften things and, yes, if new Labour rebels don't lead, which they might, there would only be 'courageous' political calls left for LDs. Boris Deal for GB EFTA perhaps?
I think you are very wrong on this, there is indeed a narrow band where no deal is likely. Above that you have a Tory minority led by Johnson that can squeeze through his deal. Below you have a Labour minority led by Corbyn that can deliver 2nd ref and nothing else. I dont see anything else happening other than those three options in a hung parliament. The LDs could choose to extend the narrow no deal band to block Corbyn if they want to, but the price of that if their bluff is called is either no deal or the LDs have to back down having achieved nothing bar looking stupid and impotent.
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.
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.
It’s not a promise we need. It’s details. Will we get them? Seems unlikely.
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.
I don’t disagree, I think that with someone like Corbyn as an opponent Conservatives need to make the case for free markets and sound money even more forcefully than usual. Anyone under 45 or 50 has no memory of what society was like the last time Jeremy Corbyn’s brand of politics was enacted.
It's true that people my age or younger don't really remember the 1970s. But your problem is that for many younger people the Thatcherite economic system we have currently is terrible. No job security, no help with education costs, unaffordable housing, no proper action to deal with the climate emergency. They are absolutely right to vote for someone who will at least try to make it work better for them. Older people can vote to protect their privileges too of course, but the number of people for whom the current set up doesn't work is increasing every day, and eventually the gerontocracy will be outvoted.
How would any of your issues be helped by borrowing another couple of trillion, to add to the trillion and a half that we’ve borrowed already? The young who vote for that are selfishly transferring an even bigger burden to their own children.
You are literally just making up numbers. Do you actually think Labour plans to run a 20% of GDP fiscal deficit every year?
No its not. According to the polls over 40% of voters are voting for Johnson's party and over 30% of voters are voting for Corbyn's party with no other party beating single digits except Swinson's who struggling to be in the low teens. It doesn't matter what electoral system you have with those numbers - either you will have Corbyn or Johnson as PM afterwards. If you can't stand either then either pick the lesser evil or waste your vote. Those are the candidates to choose from though.
Your argument presupposes that people vote for those parties positively, whereas FPTP encourages people to vote negatively. FPTP forces people into a binary choice because fear of the worst option/the wasted vote argument reinforces it.
Given a free choice, it's highly likely support for the Brexservative Party and the Revolutionary Labour Party would plummet.
"The IFS says neither Labour nor the Conservatives' fiscal plans are "a properly credible prospectus". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2019-50582197 The group's main criticisms of Labour include the party not being able to deliver investment spending increases on the scale they promise. It also says it would be highly likely that Labour, at least over the longer-term, would need to implement other tax raising measures in order to raise the £80bn of tax revenue they want. On the party's promise to compensate those women hit by changes to the pension age, the IFS says most in the group are relatively well off and that "to believe the whole group should receive compensation is a recipe for complete stasis in policy.” On the Conservatives, the IFS says their “die in a ditch” style promise to exit the transition period by the end of 2020 could mean something like “no deal”, which could harm economy and increase debt. It also says the party failed to come up with any kind of plan or money for social care - and that the promise nobody would need to sell their house is an uncosted aspiration. On spending, the IFS says Conservative plans, if delivered, would leave public service spending outside of health still 14% lower in 2023-24 than it was in 2010-11. No more austerity perhaps, but an awful lot of it is baked in, the group says....
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.
Doesn’t it depend on (a) how long lived the tree is; and (b) what is done with it at the end of its life?
So if you plant long-lived trees that is a big help. If you use them to make furniture then you are not releasing the carbon in the tree whereas if you burn them you are.
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.
It’s not a promise we need. It’s details. Will we get them? Seems unlikely.
I disagree, it is unrealistic to expect details of a negotiation in advance, especially when its from the junior partner. What we need is credible and trusted leaders backed by experienced and successful negotiators. What we have is a vain liar backed by unicorn chasing buffoons.
Why are people reheating exactly the same criticism of the YouGov MRP as last time out?
Leigh is the new Canterbury?
There will absolutely be big misses by the MRP forecast. And as I say I think this is the Tory high watermark.
But the whole "I can't believe in large demographic shifts occuring" when the previous election had large demographics shifts occurring is verging on gamblers fallacy.
Some value about this morning: Tory over/under W Hill: Go Under Tories 350.5 @ 5/6 LibDem over/ynder Betfair SP: Go Over LibDem 16.5 @ Evens
Wow the yellows are having a nightmare. I have them at evens under 44.5 from what? 3 weeks ago? The no-show of the yellow surge is the story of this election.
The story of the election will be the realisation of the sheer fury in the country over parliamentarians using every trick in the book and outside of it to thwart the referendum result. John Bercow has done a lot of damage IMO. I (narrowly) voted remain by the way.
Well done for mastering the blockquote system. Just as the blockquote system is up the swannee!
No its not. According to the polls over 40% of voters are voting for Johnson's party and over 30% of voters are voting for Corbyn's party with no other party beating single digits except Swinson's who struggling to be in the low teens. It doesn't matter what electoral system you have with those numbers - either you will have Corbyn or Johnson as PM afterwards. If you can't stand either then either pick the lesser evil or waste your vote. Those are the candidates to choose from though.
Your argument presupposes that people vote for those parties positively, whereas FPTP encourages people to vote negatively. FPTP forces people into a binary choice because fear of the worst option/the wasted vote argument reinforces it.
Given a free choice, it's highly likely support for the Brexservative Party and the Revolutionary Labour Party would plummet.
Because PR politics is so moderate right?
You wouldn't see the Freedom Party in Austria or Likud in Israel or Five Star or Lega Nord in Italy enter office under PR systems would you? Oh . . .
Why are people reheating exactly the same criticism of the YouGov MRP as last time out?
Leigh is the new Canterbury?
There will absolutely be big misses by the MRP forecast. And as I say I think this is the Tory high watermark.
But the whole "I can't believe in large demographic shifts occuring" when the previous election had large demographics shifts occurring is verging on gamblers fallacy.
Some value about this morning: Tory over/under W Hill: Go Under Tories 350.5 @ 5/6 LibDem over/ynder Betfair SP: Go Over LibDem 16.5 @ Evens
Wow the yellows are having a nightmare. I have them at evens under 44.5 from what? 3 weeks ago? The no-show of the yellow surge is the story of this election.
The story of the election will be the realisation of the sheer fury in the country over parliamentarians using every trick in the book and outside of it to thwart the referendum result. John Bercow has done a lot of damage IMO. I (narrowly) voted remain by the way.
Well done for mastering the blockquote system. Just as the blockquote system is up the swannee!
II think it is hilarious because I have been there and it does not look like Tory territory to me. Holyhead in particular is run down and basically depends on the Stena ferries. If they go for any reason, the Holyhead is in real trouble. As for "volatile", apart from 9 years (1979-1988) it has been Labour for about 100 years. Is that what you call volatile?
What do you mean you have been there? It sounds like you just took a ferry to Ireland, and didn't go anyone else on the island. Like Beaumaris, one of the prettiest and most prosperous towns in North Wales.
Caergybi is the Labour stronghold on the island -- the rest of Ynys Mon is primarily Tory/Plaid Cymru. Note that the Tory vote was depressed for a while because an Independent Tory (Peter Rogers) stood in the GEs in 2005 and 2010.
A surprisingly low number for Labour in London. London will be one of the areas in the country which will be hardest hit by Corbynite policies, of course.
A small story for those of you who think "A View From Cumbria" and I don't know what we are talking about when it comes to planting trees.
In the aftermath of WWII when the Easter Ross Seaboard Peninsula was handed back to the farming families and others who had been cleared out to enable the Americans to practice in secret for DDay, two small forests were planted around North Cadboll. One was at the bottom of my paddock. Around 6 years ago a team of scientists from Robert Gordon University arrived unannounced at my house because they had received funding to study the topography of the peninsula at the time the Vikings arrived to settle and over-run the picts in the 10th and 11th centuries. It transpired there were3 natural peat bogs across Easter Ross and one of them had literally been at the bottom of my paddock.
Due to the presence of the wood comprising crap Norwegian firs, they couldn't really achieve much. A couple of years later my neighbouring farmer who owned most of the wood decided to have it felled because timber prices had finally risen enough to make it a viable exercise. One of these huge tractor extractors came in and started felling the wood. Within 7 days when it had reached the far end of the wood, the peat bog had started to re-establish itself as the timber company discovered when the huge tractor extractor started to sink and ended up sunk up to the top of the top of the continuous track system it moves upon. They had to bring in one of these huge mobile cranes to pull it out before it sank completely. The wood has been replanted in a mix of nature trees but the core of the peat bog remains boggy where it was bone dry when the fir trees were present. I have a large resident population of wildlife including a small colony of roe deer, several pairs of herons and several more of buzzards plus red kites and other raptors. The local RSPB man comes down regularly and updates me on what is nesting etc where.
I don’t disagree, I think that with someone like Corbyn as an opponent Conservatives need to make the case for free markets and sound money even more forcefully than usual. Anyone under 45 or 50 has no memory of what society was like the last time Jeremy Corbyn’s brand of politics was enacted.
It's true that people my age or younger don't really remember the 1970s. But your problem is that for many younger people the Thatcherite economic system we have currently is terrible. No job security, no help with education costs, unaffordable housing, no proper action to deal with the climate emergency. They are absolutely right to vote for someone who will at least try to make it work better for them. Older people can vote to protect their privileges too of course, but the number of people for whom the current set up doesn't work is increasing every day, and eventually the gerontocracy will be outvoted.
How would any of your issues be helped by borrowing another couple of trillion, to add to the trillion and a half that we’ve borrowed already? The young who vote for that are selfishly transferring an even bigger burden to their own children.
You are literally just making up numbers. Do you actually think Labour plans to run a 20% of GDP fiscal deficit every year?
I think that Corbyn has every intention of borrowing or printing a couple of trillion over the course of a Parliament, yes. Maybe he’ll hide some of it by confiscation or undervaluation of shares in companies he doesn’t like, as they get expropriated by the State. Most of this is clearly obvious by reading his manifesto, and it shouldn’t be under-estimated the amount of capital flight that is set to happen on the morning of Friday 13th if it looks like he’ll be the next PM.
Another terrible day for the Tories....Tories are screwed...This just gives Labour so much cover, as nobody is really going to look at what the difference in "credible" is i.e. Tories will probably have to put up tax a little bit, compared to Labour's total pie in the sky.
Interesting that the MRP majority would have been 100 if announced on Friday. Might have changed the narrative for the weekend. Also shows how quickly things can change. Tories winning 16 less seats over 2 days shows what's possible.
No its not. According to the polls over 40% of voters are voting for Johnson's party and over 30% of voters are voting for Corbyn's party with no other party beating single digits except Swinson's who struggling to be in the low teens. It doesn't matter what electoral system you have with those numbers - either you will have Corbyn or Johnson as PM afterwards. If you can't stand either then either pick the lesser evil or waste your vote. Those are the candidates to choose from though.
Your argument presupposes that people vote for those parties positively, whereas FPTP encourages people to vote negatively. FPTP forces people into a binary choice because fear of the worst option/the wasted vote argument reinforces it. Given a free choice, it's highly likely support for the Brexservative Party and the Revolutionary Labour Party would plummet.
Because PR politics is so moderate right? You wouldn't see the Freedom Party in Austria or Likud in Israel or Five Star or Lega Nord in Italy enter office under PR systems would you? Oh . . .
Don’t forget that the 2015 UK election under PR would have resulted in a massive majority for a Con/UKIP coalition.
Anyone have a prediction of SNP seat total? Barnesian?
I don't model the Scottish seats. Too difficult. I take an average of other people's work - Baxter, Flavible, Panelbase, principlefish and MRP. It's currently Con/Lab/LD/SNP 10/1/5/44
What do we think Labour's change of strategy means? That they are confident they have secured lots of other areas that they can just throw all their resources at Brexit voting seats looking to flip them to really make it close with the Tories or just a hail mary?
Just imagine if Jeremy Corbyn had said the Chief Rabbi was talking through his kippah.
I think you will find the Ludlow incident was just another example of satire. Corbyn's outrageous alleged thoughts quoted above by contrast are nothing short of naked racism.
Why are people reheating exactly the same criticism of the YouGov MRP as last time out?
Leigh is the new Canterbury?
There will absolutely be big misses by the MRP forecast. And as I say I think this is the Tory high watermark.
But the whole "I can't believe in large demographic shifts occuring" when the previous election had large demographics shifts occurring is verging on gamblers fallacy.
The objection to MRP is not "I can't believe in large demographic shifts occurring". Clearly they have. It is reflected in the change in voting intention.
Comments
For reference my polling card says only to chase up if you haven't received it by the 5th.
One of the main problems with flooding which most commentators seem to miss, is how it is exacerbated by run off caused by building high intensity housing on low lying areas. This is then a double whammy as said houses are then liable to be flooded.
Or capitulate and have all the LD voters pissed off because they thought they were promised no Corbyn.
What is going on now is alarming, as various systems are at the point of collapse:
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-scientists.html
The description climate emergency is an entirely accurate one - on a human timescale it's a very slow moving emergency, but it will take a massive and sustained effort to halt it.
If you can't stand either then either pick the lesser evil or waste your vote. Those are the candidates to choose from though.
Whereas with Johnson, his main fault is that it's unclear that he even believed it then...
*(not about single mothers; about whatever else it is that has been dredged up from the past)
Either they're left wing, anti-austerity, anti-Tory (Incl the 2015 "yellow Tories") and at a GE they'll go to Corbyn because he's close enough to remain with the 2nd ref that it doesn't matter. Some might vote tactically Lib Dem but plenty won't.
Or they're Tory remainers who broadly have made their peace with Brexit and prioritise keeping Corbyn out above anything else. They don't mind the Lib Dem message but safer to keep Conservative this GE.
The number of Sam Gyimahs and Philip Lees amongst the general public isn't all that high.
With trees, water is retained so less flooding when it rains and a slow release of water during dry periods.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED !
If they need LD for a majority and don't change tack, then back to the polls.
Equally, Boris can be held to the fire over a second vote for his deal. Here LDs are reliant on blocking and Labour bringing a VoNC or Boris seeking another election. If we get in this position it is a mandate for continuing pressure on the executive.
If it needs more GEs to get to an outcome where something is conceded to end this Hard Brexit vs Hard Left stand off, then so be it.
Con 359, Lab 211, SNP 43, LD 13, Plaid 4, Green 1, Speaker 1, NI 18
SNP, Plaid and Green would 100% back Corbyn over Johnson so lets sum them up as assorted Left. We then have:
Con 359, Left 259, LD 13, Speaker 1, NI 18
Either you are going to vote for Corbyn to be PM or Johnson. Directly or indirectly. If you're prepared to but Corbyn in PM so be it but one of them will be PM after the election. Sturgeon has already said she will back him as PM!
The two party system was barley justifiable when both were broad churches organizations but now have been reduced to only represent the true way casting aside diversity of opinion and only rewarding loyalty to the leader.
As our politics has become more about leaders of parties rather than our representatives or parties themselves, maybe we should change our political system to recognise that and / or try and lessen that. Parliament wasn't designed for presidential style politics, and the way we vote reflects that. So either we change the politics to a presidential system, or we should change our voting method to better recognise the aim is to not end up focusing on just one person, but on parties and policies and compromise. Or we could do both 🤷♂️
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html
Good luck to the LDs in that election having delivered no deal.
I think that the unpredictability of this election will be high and many pollsters will be re-evaluating their methodologies come Friday 13th (how appropriate that date is)
And then the tories announced they are bringing back bursaries for nurses. Would that have been in the manifesto otherwise?
If you were punting then what sequence of events would lead to Corbyn's defenestration given Sturgeon has already said she will work with them and the only scenario there's No Overall Majority is a much better than expected Labour result like 2017 in which case Corbyn will be claiming victory not conceding defeat?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50580699
Are there other subjects where bursaries are available other than teaching [and soon to be nursing]?
I thought you were better than that.
Older people can vote to protect their privileges too of course, but the number of people for whom the current set up doesn't work is increasing every day, and eventually the gerontocracy will be outvoted.
Tory over/under W Hill: Go Under Tories 350.5 @ 5/6
LibDem over/ynder Betfair SP: Go Over LibDem 16.5 @ Evens
As for "volatile", apart from 9 years (1979-1988) it has been Labour for about 100 years. Is that what you call volatile?
In that very narrow band and in the last days when all has failed, either with Boris careering to No Deal or Extension Rejected, some agility might be required to soften things and, yes, if new Labour rebels don't lead, which they might, there would only be 'courageous' political calls left for LDs. Boris Deal for GB EFTA perhaps?
I just totally disagree with this idea Corbyn won't be the next PM if Labour does well enough to kick Johnson out of Downing Street. He will, and PC/LD/SDLP etc will acquiesce in it in the belief they can control his Government bill by bill.
The SNP will actively keep him there, both for the referendum they want and because they know it will really rile English Tories, thus furthering their cause.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1199979628783423488?s=21
I have never met either of them. I take a sceptical view of what is said about them in the media because the media's job is mainly selling newspapers or getting clicks. I take a doubly sceptical view of what is said about them on social media because everyone seems to just confirm their own biases.
I judge people by their actions.
Johnson's private life speaks poorly to his character. However his time as Mayor of London speaks well to his way of working. When he has had top jobs and can make his own policy he has been OK - certainly more progressive and sensible than most of his critics say. Apart from the Garden Bridge nonsense...
Corbyn's voting record and public acts speak to his political ideology overriding all other factors. His blindness to the evils of his 'friends' over decades worries me enormously. His supporters now control most of the levers of power within Labour - it is not now the party most voters think it is. This NHS dossier hyping is patently OTT and the spending plans are madness.
So thoughts of tactical voting to keep the evil Tories out are dangerous. You may not like Johnson but - seriously and objectively based on the evidence - who is worse? Trying to game a hung parliament again or thinking Corbyn will be restrained somehow is risky.
I'll just try to relax and trust the British people.
[Really don't like the new formatting btw]
Them's your choices. Anything else is unicorns.
I (narrowly) voted remain by the way.
It was Plaid from 1987 to 2001, Tory for the previous 8 years, has been Labour for the last 18 years, but nearly went Plaid again in 2015. It has often been closely fought. It also narrowly voted to Leave.
The Tories could easily get in if their opposition splits between Labour and Plaid, as the Leave vote coalesces around it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585278
SNP hold more likely?
Will we get them?
Seems unlikely.
Given a free choice, it's highly likely support for the Brexservative Party and the Revolutionary Labour Party would plummet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2019-50582197
The group's main criticisms of Labour include the party not being able to deliver investment spending increases on the scale they promise.
It also says it would be highly likely that Labour, at least over the longer-term, would need to implement other tax raising measures in order to raise the £80bn of tax revenue they want.
On the party's promise to compensate those women hit by changes to the pension age, the IFS says most in the group are relatively well off and that "to believe the whole group should receive compensation is a recipe for complete stasis in policy.”
On the Conservatives, the IFS says their “die in a ditch” style promise to exit the transition period by the end of 2020 could mean something like “no deal”, which could harm economy and increase debt.
It also says the party failed to come up with any kind of plan or money for social care - and that the promise nobody would need to sell their house is an uncosted aspiration.
On spending, the IFS says Conservative plans, if delivered, would leave public service spending outside of health still 14% lower in 2023-24 than it was in 2010-11.
No more austerity perhaps, but an awful lot of it is baked in, the group says....
So if you plant long-lived trees that is a big help. If you use them to make furniture then you are not releasing the carbon in the tree whereas if you burn them you are.
But the whole "I can't believe in large demographic shifts occuring" when the previous election had large demographics shifts occurring is verging on gamblers fallacy.
You wouldn't see the Freedom Party in Austria or Likud in Israel or Five Star or Lega Nord in Italy enter office under PR systems would you? Oh . . .
Caergybi is the Labour stronghold on the island -- the rest of Ynys Mon is primarily Tory/Plaid Cymru. Note that the Tory vote was depressed for a while because an Independent Tory (Peter Rogers) stood in the GEs in 2005 and 2010.
A surprisingly low number for Labour in London. London will be one of the areas in the country which will be hardest hit by Corbynite policies, of course.
In the aftermath of WWII when the Easter Ross Seaboard Peninsula was handed back to the farming families and others who had been cleared out to enable the Americans to practice in secret for DDay, two small forests were planted around North Cadboll. One was at the bottom of my paddock. Around 6 years ago a team of scientists from Robert Gordon University arrived unannounced at my house because they had received funding to study the topography of the peninsula at the time the Vikings arrived to settle and over-run the picts in the 10th and 11th centuries. It transpired there were3 natural peat bogs across Easter Ross and one of them had literally been at the bottom of my paddock.
Due to the presence of the wood comprising crap Norwegian firs, they couldn't really achieve much. A couple of years later my neighbouring farmer who owned most of the wood decided to have it felled because timber prices had finally risen enough to make it a viable exercise. One of these huge tractor extractors came in and started felling the wood. Within 7 days when it had reached the far end of the wood, the peat bog had started to re-establish itself as the timber company discovered when the huge tractor extractor started to sink and ended up sunk up to the top of the top of the continuous track system it moves upon. They had to bring in one of these huge mobile cranes to pull it out before it sank completely. The wood has been replanted in a mix of nature trees but the core of the peat bog remains boggy where it was bone dry when the fir trees were present. I have a large resident population of wildlife including a small colony of roe deer, several pairs of herons and several more of buzzards plus red kites and other raptors. The local RSPB man comes down regularly and updates me on what is nesting etc where.
Less than Bootle!
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50585818
Another terrible day for the Tories....Tories are screwed...This just gives Labour so much cover, as nobody is really going to look at what the difference in "credible" is i.e. Tories will probably have to put up tax a little bit, compared to Labour's total pie in the sky.
Con/Lab/LD/SNP
10/1/5/44