politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling Analysis: Johnson approval ratings are markedly better

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling Analysis: Johnson approval ratings are markedly better in seats gained by the Tories at GE2019

The one poll we get every week is by Opinium for the Observer – a pollsters that provide some of the best cross tabs for analysis.

Read the full story here

Peter_the_Punter

First, no less!

Or is that no fewer?

ydoethur

Peter_the_Punter said:

First, no less!

Or is that no fewer?

The fewer remarks about grammar on this thread, the less likely we are to be sidetracked.

CorrectHorseBattery

What's his rating like in Lib Dem and Labour targets?

Scott_xP

ydoethur said:

The fewer remarks about grammar on this thread, the less likely we are to be sidetracked.

Statistically unlikely

DavidL

Interesting but probably too early to be particularly significant. If people in these seats still feel the same in 3 years then it will undoubtedly make SKS's job more difficult.

SKS is such a step up on Corbyn that it is difficult to judge but my initial impression is that he will appeal a lot more to those safe inner city and University seats than to the towns of northern England where the Tories made their gains. Early days though.

Scott_xP

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

CorrectHorseBattery

Also what are Keir's ratings in the scenarios outlined in the OP?

Fysics_Teacher

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

First, no less!

Or is that no fewer?

The fewer remarks about grammar on this thread, the less likely we are to be sidetracked.

Spoilsport...

CorrectHorseBattery

DavidL said:

Interesting but probably too early to be particularly significant. If people in these seats still feel the same in 3 years then it will undoubtedly make SKS's job more difficult.

SKS is such a step up on Corbyn that it is difficult to judge but my initial impression is that he will appeal a lot more to those safe inner city and University seats than to the towns of northern England where the Tories made their gains. Early days though.

He should surely be in line to gain a few of the very tight marginals back, most projections have him doing that already.

I suspect progress in London and the South East can be made with Lib Dem help

MikeSmithson

CorrectHorseBattery said:

What's his rating like in Lib Dem and Labour targets?

Those cross heads are not provided

rottenborough

Rolls Royce down 5% this morning.

ydoethur

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Well, I don't feel it's much of a revelation that seats that voted Tory have a more positive view of the Tory leader than seats that voted Labour. I mean, that's the equivalent of hearing that men whose wives have had an affair with Ryan Giggs have a lower opinion of him than their wives do.

The size of that gap between traditional Tory seats to Tory gains last year is much larger than I thought it would be.

It does suggest replacing Johnson is unlikely to do the Tories many electoral favours.

But equally, he may have that favourability rating simply because he is the Tory leader, and it would pass to Sunak or Javid.

Richard_Nabavi

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Yes, and most important of all we haven't yet hit the end of the Brexit transition period, so the contradictions and chaotic implementation of the government's approach aren't yet showing up much.

CorrectHorseBattery

Has his rating in Tory gains declined over time, decreased, stayed the same?

Gallowgate

Brexit has happened, but nothing has actually changed yet. That’s important. Therefore there is no reason why anyone would feel anything other than vindicated in their “get Brexit done” vote.

The key moment will be when things do actually change - the aftermath of that, and whether voters feel like their lives are improving or not, will decide voting intention for the future, in my opinion.

CorrectHorseBattery

https://twitter.com/radioriley/status/1286606998101004288

Pagan2

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.

Good times.

Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home counties

Do you think that after a tax rise on Amazon, their prices will a) stay the same; or b) rise to reflect the tax rise?

If it pushes more consumers to shop locally and boost the revenues of high street shops and reduce spending on Amazon due to price rises at Amazon all to the good

It won't and no one sane wants a return to the days if you wanted some electrical appliance you had a choice between curries and dixons. The high street for the majority of people is somewhere you get your hair cut or a coffee or are passing through on the way to somewhere else.

Traditional high streets are the buggy whip makers of the 21st century, if people wanted them they would be using them . They aren't so they go bust and we should stop trying to force people into them in the old mould and even worse spending tax payers money are trying to keep them running as of old whether that be by direct grant or stealth taxes.

High streets were always crap for choice and synonymous with poor service. I order a fridge on line I will be given an hour window when it will arrive. In the old days I was lucky to be told morning or afternoon.

We shouldn't try to force people into them but nor should we exorbitantly tax those that do more than those that shop online which is our present status quo. Do you agree with that?

If the high street goes bust then let it go bust. But it should do so on a level playing field not due to excess taxes that it's competitors don't pay.

Where have I argued they shouldn't pay the same tax? As far as I know they do. What online shops shouldn't have to do is pay extra tax because they are online and not bricks and mortar. No one forces people to set up a shop in the high st rather than online. I am sure other shops that do both pay the same business rates on their warehouses as online places like amazon do.

Personally I don't see why you aren't arguing the problem is the excessive business rates being charged rather than arguing we should add extra tax onto online

I'm arguing both. Business rates should be cut and a level playing field should exist between physical and online. Considering this is 4.5% of the entire tax take annually simple abolition isn't an option so either abolish and replace with a tax fit for purpose for the 21st century ... Or put an equivalent tax on online sales using the funds to reduces taxes on rates.

Nigel thanks for the correction it's not HMRC. I simply used the word HMRC as a metaphor for "the taxman" but you're right they're not responsible for this one. Still needs fixing though.

No high street shops pay a tax for being a high street shop. Amazon isnt a high street shop so they dont pay that tax.

Its the same as

We do the same job and charge on total living expenses + 1000 pounds

You drive so you pay road tax
I dont drive so pay no road tax

You complaining I should have to pay extra income tax to make up the difference that I don't pay in road tax so always charge 150£ less for the job than you and undercut you

If they have a storefront rather than just going online you have to presume they are either a) making a bad commercial decision or b) they derive some extra benefit from having a store front than just being online. Its this extra perceived benefit they are paying extra tax for

DavidL

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

CorrectHorseBattery

Gallowgate said:

Brexit has happened, but nothing has actually changed yet. That’s important. Therefore there is no reason why anyone would feel anything other than vindicated in their “get Brexit done” vote.

The key moment will be when things do actually change - the aftermath of that, and whether voters feel like their lives are improving or not, will decide voting intention for the future, in my opinion.

Completely agree with you.

Even I as a self-confessed Brexit hater have no perception yet of any change, mostly because we're still in the EU SM + CU

Scott_xP

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yes, and most important of all we haven't yet hit the end of the Brexit transition period, so the contradictions and chaotic implementation of the government's approach aren't yet showing up much.

It will be interesting to see what happens in seats where the impact is visible locally (like 12 lorry parks in Kent) as opposed to Northern seats where it might be less so. Unless the car factories close down of course.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

First, no less!

Or is that no fewer?

The fewer remarks about grammar on this thread, the less likely we are to be sidetracked.

FPT...

Fysics_Teacher said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

alex_ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.

Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.

I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.

Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.

I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.

Do you think the OED will ever state:

"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?

It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.

“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.

That. of course, comes down to the steady loss of knowledge of how to use the apostrophe - 'should of' being a homonym for 'should've'.
Such linguistic innovations are, regrettably or not, inevitable. Though there is a degree of entertainment to be had from attempting to halt the inexorable march of evolution.

CorrectHorseBattery

Pagan2 said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.

Good times.

Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home counties

Do you think that after a tax rise on Amazon, their prices will a) stay the same; or b) rise to reflect the tax rise?

If it pushes more consumers to shop locally and boost the revenues of high street shops and reduce spending on Amazon due to price rises at Amazon all to the good

It won't and no one sane wants a return to the days if you wanted some electrical appliance you had a choice between curries and dixons. The high street for the majority of people is somewhere you get your hair cut or a coffee or are passing through on the way to somewhere else.

Traditional high streets are the buggy whip makers of the 21st century, if people wanted them they would be using them . They aren't so they go bust and we should stop trying to force people into them in the old mould and even worse spending tax payers money are trying to keep them running as of old whether that be by direct grant or stealth taxes.

High streets were always crap for choice and synonymous with poor service. I order a fridge on line I will be given an hour window when it will arrive. In the old days I was lucky to be told morning or afternoon.

We shouldn't try to force people into them but nor should we exorbitantly tax those that do more than those that shop online which is our present status quo. Do you agree with that?

If the high street goes bust then let it go bust. But it should do so on a level playing field not due to excess taxes that it's competitors don't pay.

Where have I argued they shouldn't pay the same tax? As far as I know they do. What online shops shouldn't have to do is pay extra tax because they are online and not bricks and mortar. No one forces people to set up a shop in the high st rather than online. I am sure other shops that do both pay the same business rates on their warehouses as online places like amazon do.

Personally I don't see why you aren't arguing the problem is the excessive business rates being charged rather than arguing we should add extra tax onto online

I'm arguing both. Business rates should be cut and a level playing field should exist between physical and online. Considering this is 4.5% of the entire tax take annually simple abolition isn't an option so either abolish and replace with a tax fit for purpose for the 21st century ... Or put an equivalent tax on online sales using the funds to reduces taxes on rates.

Nigel thanks for the correction it's not HMRC. I simply used the word HMRC as a metaphor for "the taxman" but you're right they're not responsible for this one. Still needs fixing though.

No high street shops pay a tax for being a high street shop. Amazon isnt a high street shop so they dont pay that tax.

Its the same as

We do the same job and charge on total living expenses + 1000 pounds

You drive so you pay road tax
I dont drive so pay road tax

You complaining I should have to pay extra income tax to make up the difference that I don't pay in road tax so always charge 150£ less for the job than you and undercut you

If they have a storefront rather than just going online you have to presume they are either a) making a bad commercial decision or b) they derive some extra benefit from having a store front than just being online. Its this extra perceived benefit they are paying extra tax for

Thanks for quoting the post

CorrectHorseBattery

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

Ed M is already in the SC though?

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

First, no less!

Or is that no fewer?

The fewer remarks about grammar on this thread, the less likely we are to be sidetracked.

FPT...

Fysics_Teacher said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

alex_ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.

Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.

I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.

Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.

I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.

Do you think the OED will ever state:

"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?

It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.

“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.

That. of course, comes down to the steady loss of knowledge of how to use the apostrophe - 'should of' being a homonym for 'should've'.
Such linguistic innovations are, regrettably or not, inevitable. Though there is a degree of entertainment to be had from attempting to halt the inexorable march of evolution.

*Bangs head on desk*

DavidL

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/radioriley/status/1286606998101004288

I do think BMI is severely shortist. If I were only a couple of inches taller I would be ok.

CorrectHorseBattery

https://twitter.com/SiobhanBenita/status/1287629562453594117

Khan is almost running unopposed at this point

ydoethur

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

Ed M is already in the SC though?

Is he? I didn't even know he was a judge!

CorrectHorseBattery

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

Ed M is already in the SC though?

Is he? I didn't even know he was a judge!

He's in the Shadow Cabinet.

Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

He is in the shadow cabinet.

Scott_xP

DavidL said:

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

He's back already

Five years in the political wilderness have sharpened Miliband’s appetite. Restored to Labour’s top team, the man dubbed “Red Ed” by the tabloids has been handed the job of designing the party’s future for a post-Covid British economy, with a brief covering business and climate change. Miliband, 50, insists that the world is a very different place from that harrowing night in 2015 when he left the political stage in despair. “Reforming capitalism is tough and there is big resistance to it,” he says. “But I think the mood has changed.”


https://www.ft.com/content/ef6b2633-5d74-413b-86c9-956fbfabac72

Philip_Thompson

Interesting analysis Mike.

People saying confirmation bias here are likely mixing up cause and effect. Surely seats gained by Johnson likely had a higher approval of Johnson before the election not just after it? That afterall is likely how he gained them in the first place.

SouthamObserver

Interesting data points. What are the comparables for Starmer?

CorrectHorseBattery

Ed M would have done a lot better running on the 2017 manifesto, which is where he naturally sits, politically.

CorrectHorseBattery

SouthamObserver said:

Interesting data points. What are the comparables for Starmer?

I also must know this.

Pagan2

Scott_xP said:

DavidL said:

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

He's back already

Five years in the political wilderness have sharpened Miliband’s appetite. Restored to Labour’s top team, the man dubbed “Red Ed” by the tabloids has been handed the job of designing the party’s future for a post-Covid British economy, with a brief covering business and climate change. Miliband, 50, insists that the world is a very different place from that harrowing night in 2015 when he left the political stage in despair. “Reforming capitalism is tough and there is big resistance to it,” he says. “But I think the mood has changed.”


https://www.ft.com/content/ef6b2633-5d74-413b-86c9-956fbfabac72

Can we expect another gravestone for labour?

Scott_xP

DavidL said:

I do think BMI is severely shortist. If I were only a couple of inches taller I would be ok.

Apparently Chris Hoy is obese, based on his BMI

eek

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/SiobhanBenita/status/1287629562453594117

Khan is almost running unopposed at this point

Would anyone really want the job? The finances for TFL are going to be a mess for the next 5 years even if things returned to normal tomorrow (and they won't).

The other real areas of responsbility are Fire and Police from memory and neither are that interesting.

CorrectHorseBattery

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting analysis Mike.

People saying confirmation bias here are likely mixing up cause and effect. Surely seats gained by Johnson likely had a higher approval of Johnson before the election not just after it? That afterall is likely how he gained them in the first place.

Surely we want to know if the rating has dropped, stayed the same or increased. That is the useful information.

CorrectHorseBattery

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/SiobhanBenita/status/1287629562453594117

Khan is almost running unopposed at this point

Would anyone really want the job? The finances for TFL are going to be a mess for the next 5 years even if things returned to normal tomorrow (and they won't).

The other real areas of responsbility are Fire and Police from memory and neither are that interesting.

Pretty irrelevant though to his re-election. It's one of the only places in the UK Labour pretty much have it sewn up.

DavidL

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DavidL said:

Interesting but probably too early to be particularly significant. If people in these seats still feel the same in 3 years then it will undoubtedly make SKS's job more difficult.

SKS is such a step up on Corbyn that it is difficult to judge but my initial impression is that he will appeal a lot more to those safe inner city and University seats than to the towns of northern England where the Tories made their gains. Early days though.

He should surely be in line to gain a few of the very tight marginals back, most projections have him doing that already.

I suspect progress in London and the South East can be made with Lib Dem help

There can't be much more to realistically win in London and success in increasing the vote in the south risks an increase in the inefficiency of the Labour vote, more good seconds. His challenge is the towns but there is nothing new in that. Its where UK elections are pretty much always won and lost.

SouthamObserver

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

Ed M is already in the SC though?

Is he? I didn't even know he was a judge!

He's in the Shadow Cabinet.

Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

Business, isn't it?

CorrectHorseBattery

Scott_xP said:

DavidL said:

I do think BMI is severely shortist. If I were only a couple of inches taller I would be ok.

Apparently Chris Hoy is obese, based on his BMI

BMI is a pretty poor measure.

Most marathon runners would be underweight by BMI.

Peter_the_Punter

Scott_xP said:

DavidL said:

I do think BMI is severely shortist. If I were only a couple of inches taller I would be ok.

Apparently Chris Hoy is obese, based on his BMI

Good to hear. I have short, thick legs (no sniggering please) and am technically obese as a consequence, despite being as lean and fit as a butcher's dog.

RochdalePioneers

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Perhaps. Or he's giving them what they voted for so they are feeling good. One of my local Labour friends keeps making lazy attacks against our new Tory MP. I keep pointing out that if he asks one of the normals around here they'd say the literal opposite of what he is throwing at them.

Nigelb

Pagan2 said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.

Good times.

Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home counties

Do you think that after a tax rise on Amazon, their prices will a) stay the same; or b) rise to reflect the tax rise?

If it pushes more consumers to shop locally and boost the revenues of high street shops and reduce spending on Amazon due to price rises at Amazon all to the good

It won't and no one sane wants a return to the days if you wanted some electrical appliance you had a choice between curries and dixons. The high street for the majority of people is somewhere you get your hair cut or a coffee or are passing through on the way to somewhere else.

Traditional high streets are the buggy whip makers of the 21st century, if people wanted them they would be using them . They aren't so they go bust and we should stop trying to force people into them in the old mould and even worse spending tax payers money are trying to keep them running as of old whether that be by direct grant or stealth taxes.

High streets were always crap for choice and synonymous with poor service. I order a fridge on line I will be given an hour window when it will arrive. In the old days I was lucky to be told morning or afternoon.

We shouldn't try to force people into them but nor should we exorbitantly tax those that do more than those that shop online which is our present status quo. Do you agree with that?

If the high street goes bust then let it go bust. But it should do so on a level playing field not due to excess taxes that it's competitors don't pay.

Where have I argued they shouldn't pay the same tax? As far as I know they do. What online shops shouldn't have to do is pay extra tax because they are online and not bricks and mortar. No one forces people to set up a shop in the high st rather than online. I am sure other shops that do both pay the same business rates on their warehouses as online places like amazon do.

Personally I don't see why you aren't arguing the problem is the excessive business rates being charged rather than arguing we should add extra tax onto online

I'm arguing both. Business rates should be cut and a level playing field should exist between physical and online. Considering this is 4.5% of the entire tax take annually simple abolition isn't an option so either abolish and replace with a tax fit for purpose for the 21st century ... Or put an equivalent tax on online sales using the funds to reduces taxes on rates.

Nigel thanks for the correction it's not HMRC. I simply used the word HMRC as a metaphor for "the taxman" but you're right they're not responsible for this one. Still needs fixing though.

No high street shops pay a tax for being a high street shop. Amazon isnt a high street shop so they dont pay that tax.

Its the same as

We do the same job and charge on total living expenses + 1000 pounds

You drive so you pay road tax
I dont drive so pay no road tax

You complaining I should have to pay extra income tax to make up the difference that I don't pay in road tax so always charge 150£ less for the job than you and undercut you

If they have a storefront rather than just going online you have to presume they are either a) making a bad commercial decision or b) they derive some extra benefit from having a store front than just being online. Its this extra perceived benefit they are paying extra tax for

Though it isn't really the same thing at all, given the levels of business rates levied on retailers. What was a tax set as high as the market would bear has become a punitive levy on a struggling industry.

The purpose of tax is to raise revenue for government while doing the least possible damage to those being taxed. Business rates now fail on both counts.
Amazon also pays rates, but at a much lower level than those imposed for 'being a high street shop'.

CorrectHorseBattery

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DavidL said:

Interesting but probably too early to be particularly significant. If people in these seats still feel the same in 3 years then it will undoubtedly make SKS's job more difficult.

SKS is such a step up on Corbyn that it is difficult to judge but my initial impression is that he will appeal a lot more to those safe inner city and University seats than to the towns of northern England where the Tories made their gains. Early days though.

He should surely be in line to gain a few of the very tight marginals back, most projections have him doing that already.

I suspect progress in London and the South East can be made with Lib Dem help

There can't be much more to realistically win in London and success in increasing the vote in the south risks an increase in the inefficiency of the Labour vote, more good seconds. His challenge is the towns but there is nothing new in that. Its where UK elections are pretty much always won and lost.

Few closer seats in London now, I think it's 5-10 more gains possible. Not much though as you say.

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

Top 20 Labour targets have majorities under 2000. Top 50 is under 5000.

DavidL

Scott_xP said:

DavidL said:

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

He's back already

Five years in the political wilderness have sharpened Miliband’s appetite. Restored to Labour’s top team, the man dubbed “Red Ed” by the tabloids has been handed the job of designing the party’s future for a post-Covid British economy, with a brief covering business and climate change. Miliband, 50, insists that the world is a very different place from that harrowing night in 2015 when he left the political stage in despair. “Reforming capitalism is tough and there is big resistance to it,” he says. “But I think the mood has changed.”


https://www.ft.com/content/ef6b2633-5d74-413b-86c9-956fbfabac72

Didn't know that. Thanks.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

First, no less!

Or is that no fewer?

The fewer remarks about grammar on this thread, the less likely we are to be sidetracked.

FPT...

Fysics_Teacher said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

alex_ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.

Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.

I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.

Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.

I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.

Do you think the OED will ever state:

"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?

It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.

“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.

That. of course, comes down to the steady loss of knowledge of how to use the apostrophe - 'should of' being a homonym for 'should've'.
Such linguistic innovations are, regrettably or not, inevitable. Though there is a degree of entertainment to be had from attempting to halt the inexorable march of evolution.

*Bangs head on desk*

I tried that; it failed to make any difference.

Gallowgate

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DavidL said:

Interesting but probably too early to be particularly significant. If people in these seats still feel the same in 3 years then it will undoubtedly make SKS's job more difficult.

SKS is such a step up on Corbyn that it is difficult to judge but my initial impression is that he will appeal a lot more to those safe inner city and University seats than to the towns of northern England where the Tories made their gains. Early days though.

He should surely be in line to gain a few of the very tight marginals back, most projections have him doing that already.

I suspect progress in London and the South East can be made with Lib Dem help

There can't be much more to realistically win in London and success in increasing the vote in the south risks an increase in the inefficiency of the Labour vote, more good seconds. His challenge is the towns but there is nothing new in that. Its where UK elections are pretty much always won and lost.

Counter-intuitivly, investing in the “towns” could backfire in the long run.

For a North East England example the Government is promising to massively increase transport links from places like Cramlington, Ashington, and Blyth to Newcastle. This in turn will perhaps, in the long-run, make these places more metropolitan, and thus more likely to vote Labour in its current form.

See Tynemouth, once a safe Tory seat, now essentially a suburb of Newcastle.

CorrectHorseBattery

Kensington, Chipping Barnet, Chingford, majorites under 1300.

I know 2019 was a whitewash but a lot of the Tory gains are very slim indeed

CorrectHorseBattery

5% swing wipes out the Tory majority and creates a mess of a Parliament.

OnlyLivingBoy

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

Perhaps the idea that it's more important to have a charismatic front man than somebody who actually understands how the world works as PM is part of our problem.
I do sometimes wonder whether evolutionary processes have left us congenitally unable to pick good leaders. The kind of leadership qualities that would help a neolithic tribe to survive and prosper (aggression, physical presence and charisma) are maybe not those that help deliver good leadership in large complex capitalist societies. I mean, look at how the taller candidate usually wins the US presidential election - that does suggest voters are basically picking somebody to lead a raiding or hunting party on the African savannah thirty thousand years ago.

Fysics_Teacher

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/radioriley/status/1286606998101004288

I do think BMI is severely shortist. If I were only a couple of inches taller I would be ok.

Because BMI uses the square of your height, not the cube, it is actually the other way round.

I speak as someone who has not had a good lockdown from the mass point of view and I was several inches too short for my weight even at the start.

CorrectHorseBattery

As usual, OLD BOUNDARIES

Nigelb

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting analysis Mike.

People saying confirmation bias here are likely mixing up cause and effect. Surely seats gained by Johnson likely had a higher approval of Johnson before the election not just after it? That afterall is likely how he gained them in the first place.

Not necessarily true.
Voters frequently remember, erroneously, that they voted for the winner,

CorrectHorseBattery

What is the impact of new boundaries likely to be on the top 50 Labour target seats?

ydoethur

Good grief.

The ICC has done something intelligent at last.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/29546256/tv-umpires-call-all-no-balls-odi-super-league

Sooner they bring it in for all internationals, the better.

DavidL

rottenborough said:

Rolls Royce down 5% this morning.

They must be in trouble. Every airline will be looking to cut any orders for new planes for at least 5 years. They are relying entirely on their parts business (which in fairness will pick up if the average fleet gets a bit older).

Pagan2

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.

Good times.

Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home counties

Do you think that after a tax rise on Amazon, their prices will a) stay the same; or b) rise to reflect the tax rise?

If it pushes more consumers to shop locally and boost the revenues of high street shops and reduce spending on Amazon due to price rises at Amazon all to the good

It won't and no one sane wants a return to the days if you wanted some electrical appliance you had a choice between curries and dixons. The high street for the majority of people is somewhere you get your hair cut or a coffee or are passing through on the way to somewhere else.

Traditional high streets are the buggy whip makers of the 21st century, if people wanted them they would be using them . They aren't so they go bust and we should stop trying to force people into them in the old mould and even worse spending tax payers money are trying to keep them running as of old whether that be by direct grant or stealth taxes.

High streets were always crap for choice and synonymous with poor service. I order a fridge on line I will be given an hour window when it will arrive. In the old days I was lucky to be told morning or afternoon.

We shouldn't try to force people into them but nor should we exorbitantly tax those that do more than those that shop online which is our present status quo. Do you agree with that?

If the high street goes bust then let it go bust. But it should do so on a level playing field not due to excess taxes that it's competitors don't pay.

Where have I argued they shouldn't pay the same tax? As far as I know they do. What online shops shouldn't have to do is pay extra tax because they are online and not bricks and mortar. No one forces people to set up a shop in the high st rather than online. I am sure other shops that do both pay the same business rates on their warehouses as online places like amazon do.

Personally I don't see why you aren't arguing the problem is the excessive business rates being charged rather than arguing we should add extra tax onto online

I'm arguing both. Business rates should be cut and a level playing field should exist between physical and online. Considering this is 4.5% of the entire tax take annually simple abolition isn't an option so either abolish and replace with a tax fit for purpose for the 21st century ... Or put an equivalent tax on online sales using the funds to reduces taxes on rates.

Nigel thanks for the correction it's not HMRC. I simply used the word HMRC as a metaphor for "the taxman" but you're right they're not responsible for this one. Still needs fixing though.

No high street shops pay a tax for being a high street shop. Amazon isnt a high street shop so they dont pay that tax.

Its the same as

We do the same job and charge on total living expenses + 1000 pounds

You drive so you pay road tax
I dont drive so pay no road tax

You complaining I should have to pay extra income tax to make up the difference that I don't pay in road tax so always charge 150£ less for the job than you and undercut you

If they have a storefront rather than just going online you have to presume they are either a) making a bad commercial decision or b) they derive some extra benefit from having a store front than just being online. Its this extra perceived benefit they are paying extra tax for

Though it isn't really the same thing at all, given the levels of business rates levied on retailers. What was a tax set as high as the market would bear has become a punitive levy on a struggling industry.

The purpose of tax is to raise revenue for government while doing the least possible damage to those being taxed. Business rates now fail on both counts.
Amazon also pays rates, but at a much lower level than those imposed for 'being a high street shop'.

Interestingly may be easier to assess amazon for taxes post brexit for goods it sells into this country as all goods will have to be supplied to uk customers from uk based warehouses

https://tamebay.com/2020/07/amazon-fba-brexit-bombshell-efn-and-pan-european-fba-ends-for-uk.html

MarqueeMark

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

They haven't made a mistake - he delivered. We have left the EU.

It's almost as if you have forgotten how pissed off people were at the attempts to thwart that.

BannedinnParis

But 2017? But Red Wall?

Scott_xP

RochdalePioneers said:

Perhaps. Or he's giving them what they voted for so they are feeling good.

That's the question.

Did they vote for more expensive holidays, for example?

CorrectHorseBattery

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

They haven't made a mistake - he delivered. We have left the EU.

It's almost as if you have forgotten how pissed off people were at the attempts to thwart that.

Correct. Now he needs to find something else to hold his coalition together.

CorrectHorseBattery

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1287688734528475136

ydoethur

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1287688734528475136

We can but hope.

Richard_Nabavi

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

They haven't made a mistake - he delivered. We have left the EU.

It's almost as if you have forgotten how pissed off people were at the attempts to thwart that.

We left the EU by the effluxion of time, having missed the Boris do-or-die date. Still, I suppose in the final analysis that will be the government's greatest achievement.

Fysics_Teacher

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Perhaps. Or he's giving them what they voted for so they are feeling good.

That's the question.

Did they vote for more expensive holidays, for example?

So you don’t think airlines should have to pay for the CO2 they produce?

Scott_xP

MarqueeMark said:

It's almost as if you have forgotten how pissed off people were at the attempts to thwart that.

I am well aware how upset people were that others were trying to avert catastrophe.

The question now is whether those same people are grateful when catastrophe is delivered.

rottenborough

Zoom has been added to the OED.

TheWhiteRabbit

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Scott_xP said:

DavidL said:

I do think BMI is severely shortist. If I were only a couple of inches taller I would be ok.

Apparently Chris Hoy is obese, based on his BMI

BMI is a pretty poor measure.

Most marathon runners would be underweight by BMI.

It's a perfectly good measure for 95% of people, and those 5% know they are different.

ydoethur

CorrectHorseBattery said:

What is the impact of new boundaries likely to be on the top 50 Labour target seats?

Until we have a clear idea of what the boundary changes are, it's rather hard to say.

On current proposals however, it would make winning back any seats in Wales rather more complicated.

Scott_xP

Fysics_Teacher said:

So you don’t think airlines should have to pay for the CO2 they produce?

Where did you get that from?

For the average punter, taking a holiday in Europe will be more expensive after we have left that it was when we were members.

Is that what they voted for?

CorrectHorseBattery

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

What is the impact of new boundaries likely to be on the top 50 Labour target seats?

Until we have a clear idea of what the boundary changes are, it's rather hard to say.

On current proposals however, it would make winning back any seats in Wales rather more complicated.

8 of the 50 targets for Labour are in Wales.

42 gains would revert to the 2017 Parliament. Lib Dems are crucial to get that down further. 310 or less I reckon and the Tories are screwed.

MaxPB

CorrectHorseBattery said:

5% swing wipes out the Tory majority and creates a mess of a Parliament.

5% is a big swing though, that implies a result of 39 Con/38 Lab. One would expect that the Tory majority would be gone.

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1287688734528475136

We can but hope.

Hmm, his previous tweet also raises the issue:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1287687931155677184

Peter_the_Punter

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Gallowgate said:

Brexit has happened, but nothing has actually changed yet. That’s important. Therefore there is no reason why anyone would feel anything other than vindicated in their “get Brexit done” vote.

The key moment will be when things do actually change - the aftermath of that, and whether voters feel like their lives are improving or not, will decide voting intention for the future, in my opinion.

Completely agree with you.

Even I as a self-confessed Brexit hater have no perception yet of any change, mostly because we're still in the EU SM + CU

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Gallowgate said:

Brexit has happened, but nothing has actually changed yet. That’s important. Therefore there is no reason why anyone would feel anything other than vindicated in their “get Brexit done” vote.

The key moment will be when things do actually change - the aftermath of that, and whether voters feel like their lives are improving or not, will decide voting intention for the future, in my opinion.

Completely agree with you.

Even I as a self-confessed Brexit hater have no perception yet of any change, mostly because we're still in the EU SM + CU

I'm pretty much the same although I would suggest that the worsening of our credit rating and decline in the value of the pound are connected with Brexit, in which case we are already suffering some of its consequences.

CorrectHorseBattery

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

5% swing wipes out the Tory majority and creates a mess of a Parliament.

5% is a big swing though, that implies a result of 39 Con/38 Lab. One would expect that the Tory majority would be gone.

5% swing isn't impossible though, depends where the country is in 2024.

Fysics_Teacher

rottenborough said:

Zoom has been added to the OED.

I would be surprised if it hadn’t been in there for quite some time.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=zoom&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&smoothing=7&year_end=2019&corpus=26&direct_url=t4;,zoom;,c0;,s0;;zoom;,c0;;Zoom;,c0;;ZOOM;,c0

Philip_Thompson

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

DavidL said:

Interesting but probably too early to be particularly significant. If people in these seats still feel the same in 3 years then it will undoubtedly make SKS's job more difficult.

SKS is such a step up on Corbyn that it is difficult to judge but my initial impression is that he will appeal a lot more to those safe inner city and University seats than to the towns of northern England where the Tories made their gains. Early days though.

He should surely be in line to gain a few of the very tight marginals back, most projections have him doing that already.

I suspect progress in London and the South East can be made with Lib Dem help

There can't be much more to realistically win in London and success in increasing the vote in the south risks an increase in the inefficiency of the Labour vote, more good seconds. His challenge is the towns but there is nothing new in that. Its where UK elections are pretty much always won and lost.

Counter-intuitivly, investing in the “towns” could backfire in the long run.

For a North East England example the Government is promising to massively increase transport links from places like Cramlington, Ashington, and Blyth to Newcastle. This in turn will perhaps, in the long-run, make these places more metropolitan, and thus more likely to vote Labour in its current form.

See Tynemouth, once a safe Tory seat, now essentially a suburb of Newcastle.

Not sure I agree. Metropolitan doesn't mean automatically Labour. A key differential normally is home ownership rates. Cities tend to have more renters, Labour. Rural communities more owner occupied, Tory. Towns therefore are left as the swing seats.

If you end up with better transport links but more importantly easier to own your own home that should be good for the Tories. Getting as many people as possible onto the housing ladder should be one of the parties primary objectives.

OnlyLivingBoy

On topic: aren't voters in the 2019 Tory gains more invested in "Boris" than the Tory party? So perhaps it's not surprising: given structural antipathy to the Tories in many of these areas, it was only seats where Johnson himself was particularly popular that the Tory candidate won. In traditional Tory seats, by contrast, "Boris" was likely less important as a selling point. A corollary of this is that replacing Johnson mid-term in an effort to bolster Tory support may have the opposite effect in some of these seats. I have a gut feeling that Sunak may be less popular in these seats than in the traditional Tory home counties, but it'd be interesting to see polling on that.
There's also the Brexit factor at work, although I imagine that will fade as an issue over time, especially if it turns out to be a bit shit, as seems likely.

MaxPB

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1287688734528475136

Would be a big win if it kept Boris and his second raters off TV.

DavidL

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

Perhaps the idea that it's more important to have a charismatic front man than somebody who actually understands how the world works as PM is part of our problem.
I do sometimes wonder whether evolutionary processes have left us congenitally unable to pick good leaders. The kind of leadership qualities that would help a neolithic tribe to survive and prosper (aggression, physical presence and charisma) are maybe not those that help deliver good leadership in large complex capitalist societies. I mean, look at how the taller candidate usually wins the US presidential election - that does suggest voters are basically picking somebody to lead a raiding or hunting party on the African savannah thirty thousand years ago.

I think that successful leaders have a range of skills including the abilities to inspire, set out clear messages and to persuade. May, for example, lacked these skills despite being diligent, clever and generally right (immigration being a bit of a black mark). And she was a disaster as leader, a total disaster.

Boris has these skills in spades. Whether he has a sufficient grip of the detail to choose the right direction is the more problematic bit.

There is much to be said for a front man who has the confidence to surround him or herself with brighter people but that is quite rare. Arguably early Maggie. Certainly Reagan.

Fysics_Teacher

Scott_xP said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

So you don’t think airlines should have to pay for the CO2 they produce?

Where did you get that from?

For the average punter, taking a holiday in Europe will be more expensive after we have left that it was when we were members.

Is that what they voted for?

Why and by how much do you think it will increase? And will that be more or less than the cost changes needed to counter climate change?

Theuniondivvie

Should probably start with the fruits of his own loins before taking on a nation.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1287663288688484352?s=20

Peter_the_Punter

ydoethur said:

Good grief.

The ICC has done something intelligent at last.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/29546256/tv-umpires-call-all-no-balls-odi-super-league

Sooner they bring it in for all internationals, the better.

Agreed. Would it be too much to hope that they would also have a word with umpires about their interpretation of the 'bad light' regulations?

MattW

Fysics_Teacher said:

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/radioriley/status/1286606998101004288

I do think BMI is severely shortist. If I were only a couple of inches taller I would be ok.

Because BMI uses the square of your height, not the cube, it is actually the other way round.

I speak as someone who has not had a good lockdown from the mass point of view and I was several inches too short for my weight even at the start.

Indeed.

For fairness shouldn't it be the cube of your height, as mass should be linear with volume?

Dura_Ace

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/radioriley/status/1286606998101004288

💪𝒮𝒪𝐿𝐼𝒟 𝑀𝒰𝒮𝒞𝐿𝐸💪

Peter_the_Punter

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/radioriley/status/1286606998101004288

💪𝒮𝒪𝐿𝐼𝒟 𝑀𝒰𝒮𝒞𝐿𝐸💪

Between the ears.

DavidL

Fysics_Teacher said:

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/radioriley/status/1286606998101004288

I do think BMI is severely shortist. If I were only a couple of inches taller I would be ok.

Because BMI uses the square of your height, not the cube, it is actually the other way round.

I speak as someone who has not had a good lockdown from the mass point of view and I was several inches too short for my weight even at the start.

Not sure I get that. I went to the NHS BMI calculator. If I was 6'1 instead of 5'11 I would be a healthy weight, albeit at the top end. As it it I should be losing 9llb.

OnlyLivingBoy

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

This looks like confirmation bias in action. Those that took a chance voting for BoZo don't want to admit they made a mistake, yet.

Liked your link to the Miliband manifesto on the previous thread. Confirmed my idea that he is a pretty good policy wonk but not a great executive/front man. If I was SKS I would be trying pretty hard to get him back into the shadow cabinet. He needs some fresh thinking and it would be another demonstration that Corbyn era was a sad aberration.

Perhaps the idea that it's more important to have a charismatic front man than somebody who actually understands how the world works as PM is part of our problem.
I do sometimes wonder whether evolutionary processes have left us congenitally unable to pick good leaders. The kind of leadership qualities that would help a neolithic tribe to survive and prosper (aggression, physical presence and charisma) are maybe not those that help deliver good leadership in large complex capitalist societies. I mean, look at how the taller candidate usually wins the US presidential election - that does suggest voters are basically picking somebody to lead a raiding or hunting party on the African savannah thirty thousand years ago.

I think that successful leaders have a range of skills including the abilities to inspire, set out clear messages and to persuade. May, for example, lacked these skills despite being diligent, clever and generally right (immigration being a bit of a black mark). And she was a disaster as leader, a total disaster.

Boris has these skills in spades. Whether he has a sufficient grip of the detail to choose the right direction is the more problematic bit.

There is much to be said for a front man who has the confidence to surround him or herself with brighter people but that is quite rare. Arguably early Maggie. Certainly Reagan.

I doubt there were any people smarter than Thatcher in any of her cabinets, although arguably more plausibly so at the beginning than later. But point taken.

NickPalmer

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Perhaps the idea that it's more important to have a charismatic front man than somebody who actually understands how the world works as PM is part of our problem.
I do sometimes wonder whether evolutionary processes have left us congenitally unable to pick good leaders. The kind of leadership qualities that would help a neolithic tribe to survive and prosper (aggression, physical presence and charisma) are maybe not those that help deliver good leadership in large complex capitalist societies. I mean, look at how the taller candidate usually wins the US presidential election - that does suggest voters are basically picking somebody to lead a raiding or hunting party on the African savannah thirty thousand years ago.

I remember a voter quite literally telling me she voted for me as I was the taller candidate (6 ft 1). And lots of voters saying they were voting as per usual as they couldn't be bothered to go into detail.

Except in existential crises, most people don't spend much time thinking about politics, so they have to make choices based on pretty fleeting impressions - Tindr for elections. Boris seemed cheerful and optimistic, Tony seemed fresh and enthusiastic, Corbyn seemed fresh and different for one election. In current circs there is possibly a market for calm competence. In 2024? Who knows?

kle4

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/radioriley/status/1286606998101004288

I do think BMI is severely shortist. If I were only a couple of inches taller I would be ok.

Indeed. BMI says I'd be healthy at less than 9 stone, but not at 11 stone 3. Nonsense.

Fysics_Teacher

MattW said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/radioriley/status/1286606998101004288

I do think BMI is severely shortist. If I were only a couple of inches taller I would be ok.

Because BMI uses the square of your height, not the cube, it is actually the other way round.

I speak as someone who has not had a good lockdown from the mass point of view and I was several inches too short for my weight even at the start.

Indeed.

For fairness shouldn't it be the cube of your height, as mass should be linear with volume?

From the Physics point of view, yes.
From the medical point of view, anything that will convince people my shape that we are not just “big boned” is probably a good thing.

MaxPB

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

5% swing wipes out the Tory majority and creates a mess of a Parliament.

5% is a big swing though, that implies a result of 39 Con/38 Lab. One would expect that the Tory majority would be gone.

5% swing isn't impossible though, depends where the country is in 2024.

Nothing is impossible, however, 5% is a big swing. 2010 was a 5.1% swing, for example and that was the limit of what was seen as achievable. Only Blair, Thatcher and Cameron have achieved that level of swing since WW2. Starmer is not Blair or Thatcher, he may yet be Cameron, though. They also faced pretty insipid opponents. Boris, for all his faults, is a good campaigner and has a way of connecting with people that a lot of politicians can only dream of.

The more I see of Starmer the less impressive he becomes. He's presentable but seems like a blank sheet of paper, nothing he has said or done has challenged that yet.

Mortimer

On topic, I think this is partly down to the wonderful approach of many of the 'Blue Wall' Tory MPs. I follow Aaron of this parish, Alex Stafford and Dehenna Davison on Twitter and they are all thoroughly involved in bettering life for those in their community. An absolute credit to the Conservative Party.

DavidL

ydoethur said:

Good grief.

The ICC has done something intelligent at last.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/29546256/tv-umpires-call-all-no-balls-odi-super-league

Sooner they bring it in for all internationals, the better.

Some of Gabriel's overs could take 10 minutes.

MarqueeMark

rottenborough said:

Zoom has been added to the OED.

Fat Larry's Band were so ahead of their time.....

nichomar

60% of confectionary sales (were) are at the point of sale, that’s why there is always a fight to get best placement. This is because they are impulse purchases. Whilst banning the practice may be good for weight loss it could cost an awful lot of jobs.

kle4

Theuniondivvie said:

Should probably start with the fruits of his own loins before taking on a nation.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1287663288688484352?s=20

Indeed! Though I do think that kind of piece is something he is good at. It's when his flaws actually help him as he doesnt come across as too lecturing and his admissions seem genuine.

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Good grief.

The ICC has done something intelligent at last.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/29546256/tv-umpires-call-all-no-balls-odi-super-league

Sooner they bring it in for all internationals, the better.

Some of Gabriel's overs could take 10 minutes.

But if his partner at the other end is Cornwall they might still manage to get their overs in at the appropriate rate.