politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where is the Democratic Tea Party?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where is the Democratic Tea Party?

There is no doubt that President Trump is keen to make the Presidential election a referendum on ‘woke’, on the topping of statues, and on the Democratic party being in hock to a far left faction.

Read the full story here

Mexicanpete

Like Biden?

Alistair

The Dems had a chance to turn the Occupy Wall Street moment into their Tea Party but they declined.

dixiedean

Those are shocking figures re registered Republicans. When I was at Uni in the late eighties with a large number of Americans, there were several surprising Republicans.
Many of them would have been comfortable in the LDs.

CorrectHorseBattery

Evening. Hope you're all well and enjoying the slightly warmer weather today.

I had a nice 11K ish (loop) run this morning, now lounging around before I cook a Hello Fresh meal this evening

Sean_F

I read on 538 that Never Trump Republicans have been crucial in ensuring that left wing Democrats aren't winning Senatorial primaries.

isam

What's amazing about the leader ratings now, as opposed to the 2017-2019 period, is that all the leaders are liked. Check out the seas of red for May, Corbyn, Swinson, Cable, and Sturgeon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_approval_opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#2019_2

That's what you get for boring on about Brexit!

RochdalePioneers

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Evening. Hope you're all well and enjoying the slightly warmer weather today.

I had a nice 11K ish (loop) run this morning, now lounging around before I cook a Hello Fresh meal this evening

It's warm. Then it clouds over and the wind makes it feel arctic

MattW

dixiedean said:

Those are shocking figures re registered Republicans. When I was at Uni in the late eighties with a large number of Americans, there were several surprising Republicans.
Many of them would have been comfortable in the LDs.

Names and places :-)

In the USA a significant number of Quakers are Evangelical, whilst over here they are generally more woke than a guard dog on benzedrine.

Carnyx

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

rcs1000

Sean_F said:

I read on 538 that Never Trump Republicans have been crucial in ensuring that left wing Democrats aren't winning Senatorial primaries.

That's interesting, and it's resulting in an incredibly moderate set of Democrats potentially heading to the Senate.

Stuartinromford

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Hence the BoJo paradox. What Boris wants, more than anything, is to be liked, hence the shameless populism. But his final ascent to office depends on Gove and Cummings, who have a radical reform agenda that will make the PM unpopular. They don't care about such niceties. What happens next?

alex_

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

I read on 538 that Never Trump Republicans have been crucial in ensuring that left wing Democrats aren't winning Senatorial primaries.

That's interesting, and it's resulting in an incredibly moderate set of Democrats potentially heading to the Senate.

Anything that enables a return from the polarisation and partisanship of the last 20 years would be fantastic. Even if it means a lot of the left will be disappointed. The question is whether Republican senators can find away to return to sanity or are too far gone or reliant on the Trump base for their political futures.

algarkirk

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

No easy answers. For London to become part of normal UK again property prices would have to something like halve; it would have to be possible to recreate a middling sort of middle class within London; and there would have to be greater opportunity outside London, and (comparatively) less opportunity within it. This crisis permits a possibility of returning London from an exotic independent republic (from the point of view of those not living near it) to the capital of the UK. The political risks would be immense.

Essexit

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Agree with Nick that it's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, and that more working from home would be a good thing.

That said, in the short term the only rebalancing would be from the metropolis to its commuter belt, and a lot of struggling service sector workers would lose out.

Stuartinromford

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

No easy answers. For London to become part of normal UK again property prices would have to something like halve; it would have to be possible to recreate a middling sort of middle class within London; and there would have to be greater opportunity outside London, and (comparatively) less opportunity within it. This crisis permits a possibility of returning London from an exotic independent republic (from the point of view of those not living near it) to the capital of the UK. The political risks would be immense.

It is risky, but the current model of London has nothing to offer to anyone between the oligarchy and those in social housing. That can't carry on forever.

DavidL

Having fought their way back into this match England have thrown it away again. To be honest England don't deserve anything out of this match and the Windies have bowled well, Gabriel especially. I honestly thought Pope was a genuine find for England after SA but he's been poor in this game.

alex_

Essexit said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Agree with Nick that it's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, and that more working from home would be a good thing.

That said, in the short term the only rebalancing would be from the metropolis to its commuter belt, and a lot of struggling service sector workers would lose out.

It's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, but equally the Government isn't obliged to force employers to accept workers desire to work from home under cover of "Government guidance". Which i think is really what the shift amounts to.

When the guidance was "work from home if you can", then employers potentially risked legal trouble if they asked workers to come in where they felt there were benefits to their business in doing so (even if not strictly "necessary"). That probably doesn't apply with a shift in guidance, providing the employer takes reasonable mitigation steps.

kle4

Alistair said:

The Dems had a chance to turn the Occupy Wall Street moment into their Tea Party but they declined.

Some sense then.

kle4

Just read a sci-fi novel which included the detail of a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs. How do these authors come up with this stuff?

Stuartinromford said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Hence the BoJo paradox. What Boris wants, more than anything, is to be liked, hence the shameless populism. But his final ascent to office depends on Gove and Cummings, who have a radical reform agenda that will make the PM unpopular. They don't care about such niceties. What happens next?

Whatever is the easiest path?

rottenborough

Let's hear it for Mitt Romney. One of the last decent GOP politicians left standing.

Big_G_NorthWales

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1282010352440487938?s=09

not_on_fire

rottenborough said:

Let's hear it for Mitt Romney. One of the last decent GOP politicians left standing.

In hindsight, Romney winning in 2012 would have been a much better outcome for America

Stuartinromford

kle4 said:

Just read a sci-fi novel which included the detail of a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs. How do these authors come up with this stuff?

Stuartinromford said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Hence the BoJo paradox. What Boris wants, more than anything, is to be liked, hence the shameless populism. But his final ascent to office depends on Gove and Cummings, who have a radical reform agenda that will make the PM unpopular. They don't care about such niceties. What happens next?

Whatever is the easiest path?

So what's easiest for BJ? Presumably to let Govey'n'Dom get on with it, until they make the PM unpopular, then dump them with the elegance of dumping an ex-mistress.

tlg86

Interesting thread, thanks Robert.

not_on_fire

alex_ said:

Essexit said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Agree with Nick that it's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, and that more working from home would be a good thing.

That said, in the short term the only rebalancing would be from the metropolis to its commuter belt, and a lot of struggling service sector workers would lose out.

It's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, but equally the Government isn't obliged to force employers to accept workers desire to work from home under cover of "Government guidance". Which i think is really what the shift amounts to.

When the guidance was "work from home if you can", then employers potentially risked legal trouble if they asked workers to come in where they felt there were benefits to their business in doing so (even if not strictly "necessary"). That probably doesn't apply with a shift in guidance, providing the employer takes reasonable mitigation steps.

My CEO has said there is absolutely rush to reopen the offices and we are doing just fine working from home. I suspect many other businesses are in a similar position, and those that try to force their employees back full time will face a revolt.

kle4

Stuartinromford said:

kle4 said:

Just read a sci-fi novel which included the detail of a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs. How do these authors come up with this stuff?

Stuartinromford said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Hence the BoJo paradox. What Boris wants, more than anything, is to be liked, hence the shameless populism. But his final ascent to office depends on Gove and Cummings, who have a radical reform agenda that will make the PM unpopular. They don't care about such niceties. What happens next?

Whatever is the easiest path?

So what's easiest for BJ? Presumably to let Govey'n'Dom get on with it, until they make the PM unpopular, then dump them with the elegance of dumping an ex-mistress.

We have a winner.

RobD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1282010352440487938?s=09

£10bn per point? Worth every penny.

dixiedean

rottenborough said:

Let's hear it for Mitt Romney. One of the last decent GOP politicians left standing.

The only one by the looks of it.

SandyRentool

alex_ said:

Essexit said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Agree with Nick that it's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, and that more working from home would be a good thing.

That said, in the short term the only rebalancing would be from the metropolis to its commuter belt, and a lot of struggling service sector workers would lose out.

It's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, but equally the Government isn't obliged to force employers to accept workers desire to work from home under cover of "Government guidance". Which i think is really what the shift amounts to.

When the guidance was "work from home if you can", then employers potentially risked legal trouble if they asked workers to come in where they felt there were benefits to their business in doing so (even if not strictly "necessary"). That probably doesn't apply with a shift in guidance, providing the employer takes reasonable mitigation steps.

Employers have a legal obligation to provide a safe place of work. There are very few offices in which that can currently be achieved at 100% occupancy.

I am prepared to make the sacrifice and stay at home so that some of my colleagues can go in to the office.

Stuartinromford

kle4 said:

Stuartinromford said:

kle4 said:

Just read a sci-fi novel which included the detail of a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs. How do these authors come up with this stuff?

Stuartinromford said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Hence the BoJo paradox. What Boris wants, more than anything, is to be liked, hence the shameless populism. But his final ascent to office depends on Gove and Cummings, who have a radical reform agenda that will make the PM unpopular. They don't care about such niceties. What happens next?

Whatever is the easiest path?

So what's easiest for BJ? Presumably to let Govey'n'Dom get on with it, until they make the PM unpopular, then dump them with the elegance of dumping an ex-mistress.

We have a winner.

Once you ask the right question, the right answer falls out quite easily.

SouthamObserver

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1282010352440487938?s=09

Labour has been the big beneficiary of the Cummings affair. It has

not_on_fire said:

alex_ said:

Essexit said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Agree with Nick that it's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, and that more working from home would be a good thing.

That said, in the short term the only rebalancing would be from the metropolis to its commuter belt, and a lot of struggling service sector workers would lose out.

It's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, but equally the Government isn't obliged to force employers to accept workers desire to work from home under cover of "Government guidance". Which i think is really what the shift amounts to.

When the guidance was "work from home if you can", then employers potentially risked legal trouble if they asked workers to come in where they felt there were benefits to their business in doing so (even if not strictly "necessary"). That probably doesn't apply with a shift in guidance, providing the employer takes reasonable mitigation steps.

My CEO has said there is absolutely rush to reopen the offices and we are doing just fine working from home. I suspect many other businesses are in a similar position, and those that try to force their employees back full time will face a revolt.

Cutting out the commute has made our content teams a lot more productive. But the sales teams need to be back together again. A lot of companies are going to change permanently. There’s nothing the PM can do about it.

CorrectHorseBattery

Deltapoll, 6 point lead Tories at 44, Labour 38.

The Tory support is rock solid stable - but Labour still is below 40 which is disappointing.

Stocky

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Evening. Hope you're all well and enjoying the slightly warmer weather today.

I had a nice 11K ish (loop) run this morning, now lounging around before I cook a Hello Fresh meal this evening

You`re so middle class CHB

Nigelb

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

I read on 538 that Never Trump Republicans have been crucial in ensuring that left wing Democrats aren't winning Senatorial primaries.

That's interesting, and it's resulting in an incredibly moderate set of Democrats potentially heading to the Senate.

There is, of course, a significant difference between running for a House seat, and running for the Senate.
And the four of the awkward squad you mention were, as you note, rather than being “unelectable”, elected.

Look ahead a decade, and they’ll likely be represented in the Senate, too. The real question is whether the Democratic party can remain a broad church as its more radical wing begins to get serious institutional heft at the top of the party.

not_on_fire

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1282010352440487938?s=09

Labour has been the big beneficiary of the Cummings affair. It has

not_on_fire said:

alex_ said:

Essexit said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

Agree with Nick that it's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, and that more working from home would be a good thing.

That said, in the short term the only rebalancing would be from the metropolis to its commuter belt, and a lot of struggling service sector workers would lose out.

It's not up to the PM to tell people to go to their offices, but equally the Government isn't obliged to force employers to accept workers desire to work from home under cover of "Government guidance". Which i think is really what the shift amounts to.

When the guidance was "work from home if you can", then employers potentially risked legal trouble if they asked workers to come in where they felt there were benefits to their business in doing so (even if not strictly "necessary"). That probably doesn't apply with a shift in guidance, providing the employer takes reasonable mitigation steps.

My CEO has said there is absolutely rush to reopen the offices and we are doing just fine working from home. I suspect many other businesses are in a similar position, and those that try to force their employees back full time will face a revolt.

Cutting out the commute has made our content teams a lot more productive. But the sales teams need to be back together again. A lot of companies are going to change permanently. There’s nothing the PM can do about it.

Agreed. The idea that an entire company needs to be spending time commuting for five days a week already looks laughable.

IanB2

But where is the Nighthawks Cafe? No sooner was its return trumpeted to widespread acclaim, than it disappeared.

SouthamObserver

Not great ...
https://twitter.com/marklemley/status/1281988910877478912?s=21

Alistair

not_on_fire said:

rottenborough said:

Let's hear it for Mitt Romney. One of the last decent GOP politicians left standing.

In hindsight, Romney winning in 2012 would have been a much better outcome for America

The 2012 GOP Congress was a bunch of fucking nuts and Romney had committed to their policy platform.

David Frum endorsed Romney only on the hope that Romney wasn't actually going to enact any of his insane manifesto.

IanB2

So now, officially, one in a hundred Americans has tested positive for the virus. A milestone that only Chile, among countries of any size, has so far reached.

Yet, in the bigger scheme of things, one in a hundred is still small.

SouthamObserver

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Deltapoll, 6 point lead Tories at 44, Labour 38.

The Tory support is rock solid stable - but Labour still is below 40 which is disappointing.

Disappointing not to be doing better, but Labour is doing OK. Cummings and Johnson have brought the party back into the game earlier than might otherwise have been the case. The fact Labour is keeping its gains in a week when Sunak was throwing money around like confetti indicates a level of solidity in the vote which is encouraging.

not_on_fire

Alistair said:

not_on_fire said:

rottenborough said:

Let's hear it for Mitt Romney. One of the last decent GOP politicians left standing.

In hindsight, Romney winning in 2012 would have been a much better outcome for America

The 2012 GOP Congress was a bunch of fucking nuts and Romney had committed to their policy platform.

David Frum endorsed Romney only on the hope that Romney wasn't actually going to enact any of his insane manifesto.

Yes, but at the time the Dems had a majority in the senate and would have stopped the more crackpot stuff. Romney lost partly because it was obvious he was a moderate pretending to be a Tea Partier.

Big_G_NorthWales

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1282017310635552768?s=09

Big_G_NorthWales

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1282018112355864583?s=09

Big_G_NorthWales

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1282018256241537024?s=09

SouthamObserver

SNP on 6%. That is clean sweep territory in Scotland - except, perhaps, Edinburgh South.

Alistair

not_on_fire said:

Alistair said:

not_on_fire said:

rottenborough said:

Let's hear it for Mitt Romney. One of the last decent GOP politicians left standing.

In hindsight, Romney winning in 2012 would have been a much better outcome for America

The 2012 GOP Congress was a bunch of fucking nuts and Romney had committed to their policy platform.

David Frum endorsed Romney only on the hope that Romney wasn't actually going to enact any of his insane manifesto.

Yes, but at the time the Dems had a majority in the senate and would have stopped the more crackpot stuff. Romney lost partly because it was obvious he was a moderate pretending to be a Tea Partier.

We are deep into what if but for Romney to win that would have also meant Senate seats going red, maybe enough to give them a bare majority.

Alistair

https://twitter.com/edvulliamy/status/1281899281138495489?s=19

another_richard

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

SouthamObserver

Well ...
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1282022804255322112?s=21

Nigelb

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

Big_G_NorthWales

SouthamObserver said:

Well ...
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1282022804255322112?s=21

It does ask the question why is labour behind

another_richard

dixiedean said:

Those are shocking figures re registered Republicans. When I was at Uni in the late eighties with a large number of Americans, there were several surprising Republicans.
Many of them would have been comfortable in the LDs.

A long term legacy of the civil war.

As well as the standard centre-right types the Republicans also had liberals from New England and hillbillies from Appalachia.

Whereas the Democrats had KKK supporters from the South along with standard centre-left types.

tlg86

Nigelb said:

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

There was a scientist on BBC Breakfast arguing that the government might be shifting towards encouraging the wearing of masks to make nervous people feel safer about shopping.

Personally I think it will have the opposite affect and will reduce the propensity for people to go out as there are plenty of people who won't want to wear a mask so just won't bother.

malcolmg

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1282017310635552768?s=09

SNP surge , a massacre coming up

Andy_JS

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1282017310635552768?s=09

It's difficult to understand how the SNP can be as high as 6% in a GB-wide poll. They were on 4% at GE2019 when they polled 45% in Scotland.

another_richard

Nigelb said:

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

It was explained on the last thread.

But here it is again.

It will make people think that going out is more dangerous than it is.

Therefore some people will not leave their homes and will order things online instead.

With the consequent negative economic, social and public health effects.

And now I'm going to improve my health by going for a walk.

Gary_Burton

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1282017310635552768?s=09

It's difficult to understand how the SNP can be as high as 6% in a GB-wide poll.

Must be due to rounding upwards as 50% equated to 4.9% in 2015.

isam

SouthamObserver said:

Well ...
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1282022804255322112?s=21

...well, well

https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1282020979015856131?s=20

Big_G_NorthWales

Interesting piece from John Rentoul of the Independent

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1281942476618641408?s=09

OnlyLivingBoy

Stuartinromford said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

Stuartinromford said:

Black_Rook said:

NickPalmer said:

What I don't get is Johnson switching from "work at home if you can" to "go to the office if you can". Let's say the risk is now zero. What is the reason of state to cause the prime minister to urge one working arrangement or another? What's it got to do with him whether X resumes an hour-long commute on possibly crowded transport or not? Shouldn't it be up to X and X's employer?

There was much discussion of this yesterday. My take is that Johnson anticipates a major slump and an attendant unemployment spike in all the urban cores which the commuters have abandoned. There's no future for the landlords of office blocks, the cleaners and other contractors that service them, and the providers of all sorts of other services in those areas (gyms, sandwich shops and cafes, bars and restaurants) if most of the offices are no longer needed.

It won't work, of course. As you suggest, businesses that have found they can do without their offices and workers who have been liberated from the misery of commuting aren't going to artificially recreate the economy of February 2020 just to make the Government's life easier. And even those businesses that do want their workers to start commuting again can only operate at a fraction of their former capacity, because social distancing.

The Government is clearly afraid of a situation in which, come the Autumn, some kind of modest economic recovery is underway, but the TV news crews are able to visit places like the City of London and Canary Wharf and film the metaphorical tumbleweeds rolling down the streets. These will then be accompanied by interviews with the bankrupted owners of bars, sandwich joints and cleaning contractors and their unemployed workers. "What are you doing about this?", the question will be asked of ministers. Giving a satisfactory answer will be challenging. Once it becomes obvious that these areas are largely surplus to requirements and end up economically bombed out, then what can they do apart from dole out benefits?

But that's the paradox.

The government claims that it wants to get activity and power out of the metropolis. Here's a heaven-sent opportunity to do it.

And they're fluffing it.

I suppose it's been Tory policy for decades to pump up the City (including Isle of Dogs etc.) financial quarter - Mrs T started it. I went to visit friends in Rotherhithe when changing jobs and moving back home to Scotland in 1993 and had a wander around the [edit] Dogs area - I was stunned by the amount of money being spent there. (And seeing Hartlepool and Sedgefield the next year just drove the point home.)

Now it's turning into the equivalent of Pripyat. A monument to the Conservative Party's absolutely dominant policy for the UK economy for my entire adult life. Not easy for even Mr Johnson to dismiss.

No easy answers. For London to become part of normal UK again property prices would have to something like halve; it would have to be possible to recreate a middling sort of middle class within London; and there would have to be greater opportunity outside London, and (comparatively) less opportunity within it. This crisis permits a possibility of returning London from an exotic independent republic (from the point of view of those not living near it) to the capital of the UK. The political risks would be immense.

It is risky, but the current model of London has nothing to offer to anyone between the oligarchy and those in social housing. That can't carry on forever.

People keep asserting stuff like this as if it were some kind of undisputed fact. London is expensive but it's possible to live there quite happily and even buy somewhere decent to live on a fairly unremarkable middle class salary (or at least on two of them). Of course you will get a bigger place and a more manageable mortgage outside the capital. Our neck of South East London is home to a fairly representative cross section of society and is not noticeable for oligarchs.

not_on_fire

another_richard said:

Nigelb said:

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

It was explained on the last thread.

But here it is again.

It will make people think that going out is more dangerous than it is.

Therefore some people will not leave their homes and will order things online instead.

With the consequent negative economic, social and public health effects.

And now I'm going to improve my health by going for a walk.

What’s wrong with ordering stuff online, if people regard it cheaper and safer? Should we ban cars because of the impact on horseshoe manufactures?

Carnyx

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1282017310635552768?s=09

SNP surge , a massacre coming up

At least they mentioned the SNP - which is more than some polls bother to do.

Hope you are keeping well. Been cloudy with some sun over in the east - very pleasant actually.

CorrectHorseBattery

Opinium showing 4 point lead, they were most accurate at last election.

I think lead is probably 4-6 points, YG is outlier

CorrectHorseBattery

Flavible Projection CON: 319 (-46) LAB: 246 (+43) SNP: 55 (+7) LDEM: 6 (-5) PC: 5 (+1) GRN: 1 (-)


Messy Parliament

tlg86

not_on_fire said:

another_richard said:

Nigelb said:

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

It was explained on the last thread.

But here it is again.

It will make people think that going out is more dangerous than it is.

Therefore some people will not leave their homes and will order things online instead.

With the consequent negative economic, social and public health effects.

And now I'm going to improve my health by going for a walk.

What’s wrong with ordering stuff online, if people regard it cheaper and safer? Should we ban cars because of the impact on horseshoe manufactures?

That's exactly where we're heading if the reports about wanting workers to go back to the office are true.

Carnyx

Gary_Burton said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1282017310635552768?s=09

It's difficult to understand how the SNP can be as high as 6% in a GB-wide poll.

Must be due to rounding upwards as 50% equated to 4.9% in 2015.

Support for independence is 54% - so allowing for those SNP voters who don't eant indy, and Labour ones who do, it wouldn't be surprising to find 5.51% pro SNP rounded up to 6% - given the error margins.

SouthamObserver

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Well ...
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1282022804255322112?s=21

It does ask the question why is labour behind

The economy and Brexit, I’d guess. Both are abstract challenges currently for most people.

SouthamObserver

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Opinium showing 4 point lead, they were most accurate at last election.

I think lead is probably 4-6 points, YG is outlier

All the polling is very stable currently, even YouGov within its own parameters.

kle4

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1282017310635552768?s=09

SNP surge , a massacre coming up

If it is even close to that, yes.

isam

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Opinium showing 4 point lead, they were most accurate at last election.

I think lead is probably 4-6 points, YG is outlier

You Gov have been almost exactly the same as the average of all polls since Starmer took over at Labour, never at the extremes of either party's score. Why are people so keen to dismiss them?

Nigelb

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

There was a scientist on BBC Breakfast arguing that the government might be shifting towards encouraging the wearing of masks to make nervous people feel safer about shopping.

Personally I think it will have the opposite affect and will reduce the propensity for people to go out as there are plenty of people who won't want to wear a mask so just won't bother.

How does your difference of opinion make it a stupid idea ?

SouthamObserver

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Well ...
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1282022804255322112?s=21

...well, well

https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1282020979015856131?s=20

All MoE.

SandyRentool

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Flavible Projection CON: 319 (-46) LAB: 246 (+43) SNP: 55 (+7) LDEM: 6 (-5) PC: 5 (+1) GRN: 1 (-)


Messy Parliament

Is that like Messy Church? MPs all bring their kids?

Barnesian

Latest data
Covid cases still decreasing but very slowly. R only just under 1.
10 cases per million per day for England.
5 cases per million per day for London.

CorrectHorseBattery

Starmer priority must be to achieve 40% consistently, still work to do on that Lib Dem and Green vote

tlg86

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

There was a scientist on BBC Breakfast arguing that the government might be shifting towards encouraging the wearing of masks to make nervous people feel safer about shopping.

Personally I think it will have the opposite affect and will reduce the propensity for people to go out as there are plenty of people who won't want to wear a mask so just won't bother.

How does your difference of opinion make it a stupid idea ?

I'm not giving an opinion on whether or not it's a stupid idea. I appreciate that there probably is a decent benefit from people wearing masks. The problem is this. No one is brave enough to tell the plebs that they need to accept that we cannot eradicate it and that we need to get back to "normal".

For months we have been saying on here that the big challenge is getting people to go back to normal. There are some people who would rather stay at home than go to the pub/football/shops and wear a mask.

CorrectHorseBattery

I wonder if YG will bother to use there MRP model next election, it proved to really be no more useful than Opinium traditional method

SouthamObserver

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer priority must be to achieve 40% consistently, still work to do on that Lib Dem and Green vote

Labour needs a LibDem revival more than anything.

CorrectHorseBattery

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer priority must be to achieve 40% consistently, still work to do on that Lib Dem and Green vote

Labour needs a LibDem revival more than anything.

Taking from Tory vote indeed - but those voters are currently still with the Tories. Presumably because Brexit has not yet been a disaster

Barnesian

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Opinium showing 4 point lead, they were most accurate at last election.

I think lead is probably 4-6 points, YG is outlier

All the polling is very stable currently, even YouGov within its own parameters.

The EMA (Exponential Moving Average) gives 10% weight to the latest poll and 90% to the previous running total.

Tory 43.4% (-0.1)
Lab 37.3% (+0.2)
LibDem 7.1% (-0.1)
Brexit 0.3% (-0.1)
Green 3.9% (+0.1)

Tory lead 6%
Shares very stable
Tory majority 22

CorrectHorseBattery

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Opinium showing 4 point lead, they were most accurate at last election.

I think lead is probably 4-6 points, YG is outlier

All the polling is very stable currently, even YouGov within its own parameters.

The EMA (Exponential Moving Average) gives 10% weight to the latest poll and 90% to the previous running total.

Tory 43.4% (-0.1)
Lab 37.3% (+0.2)
LibDem 7.1% (-0.1)
Brexit 0.3% (-0.1)
Green 3.9% (+0.1)

Tory lead 6%
Shares very stable
Tory majority 22

Objectively, Starmer has made progress in quite a short period of time. Not nearly enough.

Can't see RLB doing better though

Nigelb

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

There was a scientist on BBC Breakfast arguing that the government might be shifting towards encouraging the wearing of masks to make nervous people feel safer about shopping.

Personally I think it will have the opposite affect and will reduce the propensity for people to go out as there are plenty of people who won't want to wear a mask so just won't bother.

How does your difference of opinion make it a stupid idea ?

I'm not giving an opinion on whether or not it's a stupid idea. I appreciate that there probably is a decent benefit from people wearing masks. The problem is this. No one is brave enough to tell the plebs that they need to accept that we cannot eradicate it and that we need to get back to "normal".

For months we have been saying on here that the big challenge is getting people to go back to normal. There are some people who would rather stay at home than go to the pub/football/shops and wear a mask.

With good government messaging, there would be a great deal more who would be more comfortable about being in indoor public places if everyone were wearing masks.

kle4

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

There was a scientist on BBC Breakfast arguing that the government might be shifting towards encouraging the wearing of masks to make nervous people feel safer about shopping.

Personally I think it will have the opposite affect and will reduce the propensity for people to go out as there are plenty of people who won't want to wear a mask so just won't bother.

How does your difference of opinion make it a stupid idea ?

I'm not giving an opinion on whether or not it's a stupid idea. I appreciate that there probably is a decent benefit from people wearing masks. The problem is this. No one is brave enough to tell the plebs that they need to accept that we cannot eradicate it and that we need to get back to "normal".

For months we have been saying on here that the big challenge is getting people to go back to normal. There are some people who would rather stay at home than go to the pub/football/shops and wear a mask.

With good government messaging, there would be a great deal more who would be more comfortable about being in indoor public places if everyone were wearing masks.

Probably. Though many seem to simultaneously believe no one listens to this shower of a government anyway, and yet that the government would be utterly trusted and therefore followed if it used slightly better words.

justin124

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Deltapoll, 6 point lead Tories at 44, Labour 38.

The Tory support is rock solid stable - but Labour still is below 40 which is disappointing.

Not really. Few on here were predicting a few months ago that a Labour vote share as high as 38% would become pretty normal as early as the Summer recess.

tlg86

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

There was a scientist on BBC Breakfast arguing that the government might be shifting towards encouraging the wearing of masks to make nervous people feel safer about shopping.

Personally I think it will have the opposite affect and will reduce the propensity for people to go out as there are plenty of people who won't want to wear a mask so just won't bother.

How does your difference of opinion make it a stupid idea ?

I'm not giving an opinion on whether or not it's a stupid idea. I appreciate that there probably is a decent benefit from people wearing masks. The problem is this. No one is brave enough to tell the plebs that they need to accept that we cannot eradicate it and that we need to get back to "normal".

For months we have been saying on here that the big challenge is getting people to go back to normal. There are some people who would rather stay at home than go to the pub/football/shops and wear a mask.

With good government messaging, there would be a great deal more who would be more comfortable about being in indoor public places if everyone were wearing masks.

Well, I'm not going back to the office come what may. I'm performing just as well working from home thank you very much.

I think there is a problem for the UK in that we are an incredibly liberal country. You might be right, but it needs everyone to do it and it needs zero tolerance policing. We really struggle with that in this country.

SandyRentool

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

another_richard said:

On a note of concern today's positive cases were proportionally high with the details potentially dangerous.

Now given the pubs opened a week ago that might just be a factor.

Or maybe not.

A close watch will have to be made on the testing numbers for the next few days.

Now if the opening of pubs did have an effect then the government policy of encouraging people to visit them might need to change and would mean that masks in shops is an even more stupid idea.

On better news new cases in the Bournemouth area remain minimal - further suggesting that outside activities are low risk.

Still not understanding your argument that masks in shops is a ‘stupid idea’.
Would you care to explain it ?

There was a scientist on BBC Breakfast arguing that the government might be shifting towards encouraging the wearing of masks to make nervous people feel safer about shopping.

Personally I think it will have the opposite affect and will reduce the propensity for people to go out as there are plenty of people who won't want to wear a mask so just won't bother.

How does your difference of opinion make it a stupid idea ?

I'm not giving an opinion on whether or not it's a stupid idea. I appreciate that there probably is a decent benefit from people wearing masks. The problem is this. No one is brave enough to tell the plebs that they need to accept that we cannot eradicate it and that we need to get back to "normal".

For months we have been saying on here that the big challenge is getting people to go back to normal. There are some people who would rather stay at home than go to the pub/football/shops and wear a mask.

I would feel more comfortable going into a shop if everyone was masked. However we have been able to get everything we need online for the past 4 months so I don't plan to go to any shops anytime soon anyway.

Foxy

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer priority must be to achieve 40% consistently, still work to do on that Lib Dem and Green vote

Better to pick up Tory voters. Each switcher counts double. That purple wall...

Foxy

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer priority must be to achieve 40% consistently, still work to do on that Lib Dem and Green vote

Labour needs a LibDem revival more than anything.

Davey with a voice for financial sanity should be able to peel away Remainer Tories horrified at the wanton spending.

Andy_JS

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer priority must be to achieve 40% consistently, still work to do on that Lib Dem and Green vote

Doesn't 6% represent rock-bottom for the LDs?

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1282033376397008896

Black_Rook

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer priority must be to achieve 40% consistently, still work to do on that Lib Dem and Green vote

Labour needs a LibDem revival more than anything.

The net result of everything that's happened since the election (according to the polls, which granted aren't worth very much) is that Labour has eaten a third of the Lib Dem vote plus the "never Tory" residuum of the Brexit Party's support. The Conservative share is completely stable and the Lib Dems seem further from any kind of "revival" than ever before.

Labour supporters really need to stop praying that the completely moribund Liberal Democrats will somehow take just enough seats off the Tories to permit a wobbly as anything rainbow coalition to take over, and work out how to get large numbers of Con-to-Lab switchers on side. If Labour can't present itself plausibly as a potential majority party again, then it's going to find itself perpetually crippled by association with the SNP with all that entails. The rest is noise.

IanB2

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1282017310635552768?s=09

It's difficult to understand how the SNP can be as high as 6% in a GB-wide poll. They were on 4% at GE2019 when they polled 45% in Scotland.

4 could be 4.4%. 6 could be 5.6%. Toss in the MOE. Suddenly not so difficult to understand?

Foxy

I am pleased to see that India now has a Coronavirus cure...

Carnyx

Foxy said:

I am pleased to see that India now has a Coronavirus cure...

Can't be any worse than the Trumpist stuff.

What's it like to drink? A Scot asks.

Stocky

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer priority must be to achieve 40% consistently, still work to do on that Lib Dem and Green vote

Labour needs a LibDem revival more than anything.

Could get one with Davey

felix

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Opinium showing 4 point lead, they were most accurate at last election.

I think lead is probably 4-6 points, YG is outlier

You Gov have been almost exactly the same as the average of all polls since Starmer took over at Labour, never at the extremes of either party's score. Why are people so keen to dismiss them?

The games people play - let's ignore Delta and YG because we don't like them and praise Opinium because it was closer last time. The level of the analysis is simply partisan point scoring. We had some idiot earlier today blaming 'nasty' voters for supporting the Tories. Utterly pathetic.

felix

Stocky said:

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer priority must be to achieve 40% consistently, still work to do on that Lib Dem and Green vote

Labour needs a LibDem revival more than anything.

Could get one with Davey

Yup there's been a steady uptick in the LD vote share since he's been back in charge - oh wait no- there's been the sum total of nada!

Foxy

Carnyx said:

Foxy said:

I am pleased to see that India now has a Coronavirus cure...

Can't be any worse than the Trumpist stuff.

What's it like to drink? A Scot asks.

If anything like other Indian whisky, suitable only for an absolute emergency...

nichomar

It’s actually quite interesting how the pandemic has made many countries insular. There is real carnage in many places around the world and it hardly gets a mention. There is going to be one hell of a mess to be cleared up after this is over and it will make Europe’s problems seem insignificant.

Stocky

felix said:

Stocky said:

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Starmer priority must be to achieve 40% consistently, still work to do on that Lib Dem and Green vote

Labour needs a LibDem revival more than anything.

Could get one with Davey

Yup there's been a steady uptick in the LD vote share since he's been back in charge - oh wait no- there's been the sum total of nada!

Davey is far more likely to pull across Tory voters than Moran is