Government is doing the right thing in building more houses and has my full support for that. Hopefully any NIMBYs opposed to it are driven off - this is precisely the sort of thing a government with an 80 seat majority should be doing.
Hopefully if Boris can deal with housing properly you might even consider voting for the Tories in the future . . .
No chance of voting Tory.
Even if Tory planning reforms mean you're able to get on the housing ladder?
We'll see. People change, a few months ago you were willing to support Jeremy Corbyn and Momentumites, now you want him expelled and are considering Ed Davey positively. Once you've got a mortgage who knows what you might think then?
The best way for Tories to win your vote in the future though is to earn it. To demonstrate why Toryism is good for the country and good for you and your family.
I won't be voting Tory.
The reason I vote for a party is not because of housing alone, I don't like what the Tories stand for.
To make out like housing is the reason I vote Labour is why you keep failing to win over people like me I'm afraid.
And just what do the Tories stand for in your eyes?
The Tories are constantly winning over people like you I'm afraid. Every single election through time people who formerly voted Labour switch to the Tories - far more than happens the other way around. The reason for that is people come to understand better what the Tories stand for - and see it as good - rather than the cartoon caricature of what people mistakenly think the Tories stand for when they're young and simplistic.
The Tories aren't winning over people under 30 at all, this is a complete fiction. We've had this argument before.
The one group Labour dominates in is the under 30s.
The Tories represent everything that has gone wrong with this country in my recent memory.
Austerity, Brexit, student loans being jacked up, housing crisis.
They split the country down the middle and divided us in two, I will never forgive them for that, especially Cameron who ran away.
And Boris Johnson is another bloke from Eton, enough said
The Tories have almost never been popular with the under 30s throughout history. The one exception was 1987 I think.
Spot on, I was contending with Philip's idea they're somehow popular with the young, that's all.
I think there is an ingrained hatred of the Tories with the young.
Philip is sort of right on housing for others (not me), that making housing genuinely affordable and obtainable by those under 30 would get them more votes - but they'd have to do a lot of work in five years to make anything like the progress they need to make.
I never said the Tories are popular with the young, I said they are addressing the concerns of the young and will win them around in the future. Today's young is the future old generations. The idea that today's young, when they are older and wiser, will still magically be voting for Labour is a myth propagated by every generation.
You won't remain young forever. There are five years between every General Election normally, that is a pretty long time. Your under thirties of today could be mid-thirties by the next General Election. The mid-thirties of today could be in their forties next time - and so on. And they will change accordingly and there'll be a new generation voting for the first time.
I'm a Millenial, just, whose first vote was for Blair but unless there's an early election this last election was my last election in my thirties. By 2024 I'll be in my forties. The generation of Millenials who voted first time around for Blair - are now starting to vote more for the Tories than for Labour. I don't know how old exactly you are but I'm guessing you're a decade younger - so in a decade's time, or two General Elections from now, you'll see a lot more of your own cohort considering their voting differently. You may or may not be one of them. Probably as there will be a swing to Labour inevitably you'll be less likely to change your mind prior to Labour being in office but after Labour have been in office it will be your Generation that swings hardest to kick them out of it.
As for the issues that you chose that represent what you dislike - "Austerity, Brexit, student loans being jacked up, housing crisis." - Labour were behind all of those. It was Labour's overspending that caused austerity. It was Labour's messing around with the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty that led to Brexit. It was Labour that introduced Tuition Fees. It was Labour that created the housing crisis and under Labour home ownership rates for the young collapsed.
To blame Labour when they haven't been in Government for 10 years is one of your problems Philip.
You could have resolved these issues, you chose not to. Not my problem.
The Tories have resolved or are resolving the problems.
Your issues: Austerity - dealt with. The 10% deficit that Brown bequeathed was just 1.2% prior to this recession, which is why we're in much better shape for this recession and can afford to borrow better than we could afford to do so last time when we went into the last recession overspending. Brexit - dealt with, will be fully dealt with by the end of this year let alone the end of this Parliament. Student loans being jacked up - happened every couple of years in the decade 2000-2010. Hasn't happened again since 2010. Housing crisis - being dealt with. Home ownership rates are going up, house prices have stabilised, wage-to-house price ratios (which is what matters most) were going back down pre-crash. The government is continuing to make this a top priority to continue to deal with it.
Austerity has not been "dealt with". You completely screwed up the public sector.
Student loan still impacts me today, come back when you've reduced the cost.
Brexit is something young people don't want.
Housing crisis is not being dealt with for the under 30s, come back when most of us own houses
Austerity has been dealt with. People always naively think the public sector needs more money, without considering how to pay for it.
Student loans don't impact you today, if you're paying towards a loan you're paying a graduate tax effectively and are earning a decent wage. This goes back to your first issue - if you are objecting to paying taxes (a student loan) then what alternative did you have to sort out public funding? Unless you wanted others to pay your taxes for you?
Brexit may not be something you want but that's democracy and will be history next time. Its dealt with, you may not like how it is dealt with but unlike what HYUFD thinks it won't be what parties are campaigning on next time - there is a reason Davey pointedly didn't mention it today and there is a reason Starmer pointedly isn't mentioning it either. Its dealt with and even Davey and Starmer accept that.
Housing crisis is being dealt with. In 1 General Elections time half the 20-somethings of today will be in their 30s. In 2 General Elections time every single 20-something of the last election (bar rounding for months) will be a 30-something and with the trends the way they are the majority of the older 20-somethings of today will own their own home by the next-but-one General Election.
Farron's manifesto was explicitly about trying to get second place instead of labour and apparently people felt that expectation was not enough (despite being hard enough). Swinson then overshot and said she could win outright.
Not sure how they pitch themselves now. Particularly without the Corbyn factor
You don’t, starting from such a low base you only have one option, target, target and target. Have a sensible forward looking, green, financially Responsible platform without falling down the left wing micro issue hole. Then get out on the doorsteps in thirty constituencies. We’ve been here before and no doubt could be again unless Labour implodes on itself, which of course is highly possible.
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
It's the other way around. If you *can't* get a mortgage then you will to some extent blame the government, and be less likely to want to re-elect them.
The target needs to be "A million new homes before the next election", that's why the planning reform is so desperately needed.
To win over people in my age group - not me but others - they need to get millions of the under 30s on the housing ladder and that means making housing affordable.
I'm not going to vote Tory because I got a mortgage.
But I don't see how they do that without going after house prices, which pisses off their older voters.
Let's be honest, we will get ignored because we don't vote.
You're not being ignored, your concerns are already being dealt with.
It was under Labour that house prices rose and that ownership rates fell. Under the Tories house prices have plateaued and home ownership rates are increasing once more in recent years. The recession may not help that this year but Boris is trying to deal with it - whether you vote or not.
Because and this is what you seem to be struggling with, much like HYUFD, the next election won't be a carbon copy of the last one. The next election will be in five years time. In five years time everyone who voted last time will either be dead, or five years older and wiser.
The parties need to think not how do we win your vote last time, but how do we get it next time.
And I've explained to you, you aren't winning my vote.
A mortgage is not going to change it either, you seem to think my voting habit is entirely based around housing.
You individually will not, your generation collectively will. Happens every decade.
But you said me, you were wrong.
No I did not.
Okay then, well I'm wrong then. But in my case my vote isn't going to change.
When you make inroads into Labour support of 50%+ amongst the under 30s, then you can pat yourself on the back
If that's happening the Tories will be on course for a 100, 150+ majority.
Well I've often been wrong.
I don't think I was suggesting you were. Just pointing out that if the Tories are doing well enough to make inroads in the under 30s, they are very likely doing extremely well in other age groups.
Government is doing the right thing in building more houses and has my full support for that. Hopefully any NIMBYs opposed to it are driven off - this is precisely the sort of thing a government with an 80 seat majority should be doing.
Hopefully if Boris can deal with housing properly you might even consider voting for the Tories in the future . . .
No chance of voting Tory.
Even if Tory planning reforms mean you're able to get on the housing ladder?
We'll see. People change, a few months ago you were willing to support Jeremy Corbyn and Momentumites, now you want him expelled and are considering Ed Davey positively. Once you've got a mortgage who knows what you might think then?
The best way for Tories to win your vote in the future though is to earn it. To demonstrate why Toryism is good for the country and good for you and your family.
I won't be voting Tory.
The reason I vote for a party is not because of housing alone, I don't like what the Tories stand for.
To make out like housing is the reason I vote Labour is why you keep failing to win over people like me I'm afraid.
And just what do the Tories stand for in your eyes?
The Tories are constantly winning over people like you I'm afraid. Every single election through time people who formerly voted Labour switch to the Tories - far more than happens the other way around. The reason for that is people come to understand better what the Tories stand for - and see it as good - rather than the cartoon caricature of what people mistakenly think the Tories stand for when they're young and simplistic.
The Tories aren't winning over people under 30 at all, this is a complete fiction. We've had this argument before.
The one group Labour dominates in is the under 30s.
The Tories represent everything that has gone wrong with this country in my recent memory.
Austerity, Brexit, student loans being jacked up, housing crisis.
They split the country down the middle and divided us in two, I will never forgive them for that, especially Cameron who ran away.
And Boris Johnson is another bloke from Eton, enough said
The Tories have almost never been popular with the under 30s throughout history. The one exception was 1987 I think.
Spot on, I was contending with Philip's idea they're somehow popular with the young, that's all.
I think there is an ingrained hatred of the Tories with the young.
Philip is sort of right on housing for others (not me), that making housing genuinely affordable and obtainable by those under 30 would get them more votes - but they'd have to do a lot of work in five years to make anything like the progress they need to make.
The young vs old split is THE dividing line in our politics these days.
In GE19 Lab got their biggest ever share of the under 40s and their lowest ever share of the over 65s.
I think.
No that was 2017. The turning point for Lab -> Con was 49 in 2017, it went down to 37 or 38 in 2019.
Right, 2017 then. The great day. And I guess it slipped across all categories in 2019 compared to that.
Big challenge - how to stop older people voting Con and at least consider Lab but at the same time retain the votes and enthusiasm of the under 40s.
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
It's the other way around. If you *can't* get a mortgage then you will to some extent blame the government, and be less likely to want to re-elect them.
The target needs to be "A million new homes before the next election", that's why the planning reform is so desperately needed.
To win over people in my age group - not me but others - they need to get millions of the under 30s on the housing ladder and that means making housing affordable.
I'm not going to vote Tory because I got a mortgage.
But I don't see how they do that without going after house prices, which pisses off their older voters.
Let's be honest, we will get ignored because we don't vote.
You're not being ignored, your concerns are already being dealt with.
It was under Labour that house prices rose and that ownership rates fell. Under the Tories house prices have plateaued and home ownership rates are increasing once more in recent years. The recession may not help that this year but Boris is trying to deal with it - whether you vote or not.
Because and this is what you seem to be struggling with, much like HYUFD, the next election won't be a carbon copy of the last one. The next election will be in five years time. In five years time everyone who voted last time will either be dead, or five years older and wiser.
The parties need to think not how do we win your vote last time, but how do we get it next time.
And I've explained to you, you aren't winning my vote.
A mortgage is not going to change it either, you seem to think my voting habit is entirely based around housing.
You individually will not, your generation collectively will. Happens every decade.
But you said me, you were wrong.
No I did not.
Okay then, well I'm wrong then. But in my case my vote isn't going to change.
When you make inroads into Labour support of 50%+ amongst the under 30s, then you can pat yourself on the back
If that's happening the Tories will be on course for a 100, 150+ majority.
Well I've often been wrong.
I don't think I was suggesting you were. Just pointing out that if the Tories are doing well enough to make inroads in the under 30s, they are very likely doing extremely well in other age groups.
If the Tories have won under 30s it is likely a Tory landslide, as mentioned earlier last time the Tories won 18 to 24s was 1983 when the Tories won a majority of 144
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
The question for Labour is going to be, how many young voters can you abandon in the name of getting older voters to vote for you. A lot I would expect
Government is doing the right thing in building more houses and has my full support for that. Hopefully any NIMBYs opposed to it are driven off - this is precisely the sort of thing a government with an 80 seat majority should be doing.
Hopefully if Boris can deal with housing properly you might even consider voting for the Tories in the future . . .
No chance of voting Tory.
Even if Tory planning reforms mean you're able to get on the housing ladder?
We'll see. People change, a few months ago you were willing to support Jeremy Corbyn and Momentumites, now you want him expelled and are considering Ed Davey positively. Once you've got a mortgage who knows what you might think then?
The best way for Tories to win your vote in the future though is to earn it. To demonstrate why Toryism is good for the country and good for you and your family.
I won't be voting Tory.
The reason I vote for a party is not because of housing alone, I don't like what the Tories stand for.
To make out like housing is the reason I vote Labour is why you keep failing to win over people like me I'm afraid.
And just what do the Tories stand for in your eyes?
The Tories are constantly winning over people like you I'm afraid. Every single election through time people who formerly voted Labour switch to the Tories - far more than happens the other way around. The reason for that is people come to understand better what the Tories stand for - and see it as good - rather than the cartoon caricature of what people mistakenly think the Tories stand for when they're young and simplistic.
The Tories aren't winning over people under 30 at all, this is a complete fiction. We've had this argument before.
The one group Labour dominates in is the under 30s.
The Tories represent everything that has gone wrong with this country in my recent memory.
Austerity, Brexit, student loans being jacked up, housing crisis.
They split the country down the middle and divided us in two, I will never forgive them for that, especially Cameron who ran away.
And Boris Johnson is another bloke from Eton, enough said
The Tories have almost never been popular with the under 30s throughout history. The one exception was 1987 I think.
Spot on, I was contending with Philip's idea they're somehow popular with the young, that's all.
I think there is an ingrained hatred of the Tories with the young.
Philip is sort of right on housing for others (not me), that making housing genuinely affordable and obtainable by those under 30 would get them more votes - but they'd have to do a lot of work in five years to make anything like the progress they need to make.
I never said the Tories are popular with the young, I said they are addressing the concerns of the young and will win them around in the future. Today's young is the future old generations. The idea that today's young, when they are older and wiser, will still magically be voting for Labour is a myth propagated by every generation.
You won't remain young forever. There are five years between every General Election normally, that is a pretty long time. Your under thirties of today could be mid-thirties by the next General Election. The mid-thirties of today could be in their forties next time - and so on. And they will change accordingly and there'll be a new generation voting for the first time.
I'm a Millenial, just, whose first vote was for Blair but unless there's an early election this last election was my last election in my thirties. By 2024 I'll be in my forties. The generation of Millenials who voted first time around for Blair - are now starting to vote more for the Tories than for Labour. I don't know how old exactly you are but I'm guessing you're a decade younger - so in a decade's time, or two General Elections from now, you'll see a lot more of your own cohort considering their voting differently. You may or may not be one of them. Probably as there will be a swing to Labour inevitably you'll be less likely to change your mind prior to Labour being in office but after Labour have been in office it will be your Generation that swings hardest to kick them out of it.
As for the issues that you chose that represent what you dislike - "Austerity, Brexit, student loans being jacked up, housing crisis." - Labour were behind all of those. It was Labour's overspending that caused austerity. It was Labour's messing around with the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty that led to Brexit. It was Labour that introduced Tuition Fees. It was Labour that created the housing crisis and under Labour home ownership rates for the young collapsed.
To blame Labour when they haven't been in Government for 10 years is one of your problems Philip.
You could have resolved these issues, you chose not to. Not my problem.
The Tories have resolved or are resolving the problems.
Your issues: Austerity - dealt with. The 10% deficit that Brown bequeathed was just 1.2% prior to this recession, which is why we're in much better shape for this recession and can afford to borrow better than we could afford to do so last time when we went into the last recession overspending. Brexit - dealt with, will be fully dealt with by the end of this year let alone the end of this Parliament. Student loans being jacked up - happened every couple of years in the decade 2000-2010. Hasn't happened again since 2010. Housing crisis - being dealt with. Home ownership rates are going up, house prices have stabilised, wage-to-house price ratios (which is what matters most) were going back down pre-crash. The government is continuing to make this a top priority to continue to deal with it.
Austerity has not been "dealt with". You completely screwed up the public sector.
Student loan still impacts me today, come back when you've reduced the cost.
Brexit is something young people don't want.
Housing crisis is not being dealt with for the under 30s, come back when most of us own houses
Austerity has been dealt with. People always naively think the public sector needs more money, without considering how to pay for it.
Student loans don't impact you today, if you're paying towards a loan you're paying a graduate tax effectively and are earning a decent wage. This goes back to your first issue - if you are objecting to paying taxes (a student loan) then what alternative did you have to sort out public funding? Unless you wanted others to pay your taxes for you?
Brexit may not be something you want but that's democracy and will be history next time. Its dealt with, you may not like how it is dealt with but unlike what HYUFD thinks it won't be what parties are campaigning on next time - there is a reason Davey pointedly didn't mention it today and there is a reason Starmer pointedly isn't mentioning it either. Its dealt with and even Davey and Starmer accept that.
Housing crisis is being dealt with. In 1 General Elections time half the 20-somethings of today will be in their 30s. In 2 General Elections time every single 20-something of the last election (bar rounding for months) will be a 30-something and with the trends the way they are the majority of the older 20-somethings of today will own their own home by the next-but-one General Election.
Brexit is dealt with, the type of Brexit is not and neither Starmer nor the LDs have shifted from their opposition to a WTO terms Brexit or a hard Brexit FTA and neither will do unless that is what happens and it turns out to be a fantastic success.
The fact Starmer and Davey are talking about other issues now too does not change that
So here is my question to the "Trump has a better chance than you think you are letting your emotions cloud your predictions" crowd.
What were you saying in 2018 before the midterms?
Because I distinctly remember a cadre of posters who said you couldn't trust the polls, that the polls would tighten by election day, that Dem policy X would be really unpopular with swing voters (aleways, conicidentally a policy that they personally disagreed with), that there would be shy Trump voters, that there would be voters who weren't concerned with Trump so Trump's popularity wouldn't be an issue, that the Dem vote would be in all the wrong places, that the Dems were complacent etc.
The Dems then got their largest increase in seats in 44 years.
A very good point that's difficult to answer. I think the dems were a much nicer lot before Pelosi became speaker. And of course there was no BLM in 2018. But You have a very good point.
Pelosi, speaker 2007-2011, obviously a terrible drag on Dem presidential ambitions.
Yep good point, but different ballgame when its Trump. He has brought out the worst in the dems, undoubtedly.
He brings out the worst in everyone. It's one of his USPs. Perhaps his most potent one.
Both left and right who despise right or left need to understand that the polar opposite to their world view is just as valid. Trying to explain to Corbynites why the Tories are popular was a waste of air and they still don't get it. Same with the Tories the other way round why not being an IDS to the poor/sick has appeal.
I cannot foresee *any* circumstance where I would vote Tory nationally. Their worldview towards the poor/sick isn't something I will ever be able to associate myself with. And understand how for people on the other side its economic policies which similarly preclude them the other way.
Well I voted for Davey and with my track record I am afraid we are:
DOOMED!
He could make a decent Deputy Prime Minister in the next Tory LD coalition 😜
While I certainly favour the Conservatives losing their majority, in the circumstances of a hung parliament it isn't going to be a Tory PM.
It depends upon the numbers in a Hung Parliament. If its 2010 or 2017 style maths then it certainly could be a Tory PM again. Ultimately it will always depend upon the numbers.
It won't be, even the DUP would now prefer EEA UK wide and Starmer to Boris and a border in the Irish Sea and Davey will also go with Starmer and EEA over Boris and hard Brexit.
Unless there is a Brexit Party MP in 2024 if the Tories do not get a majority again no other party will prop up the Tories
You're always fighting the last battle. Nobody is arguing about EEA right now, by 2024 this will be history. What matters is what people will be seeking to do in 2024-29, not Europe.
It will still be an issue, unless we go to EEA and/or a Customs Union then there will be a border in the Irish Sea so the DUP will vote for Starmer over Boris.
The LDs will always vote for a softer Brexit over a hard Brexit so that means they will not back Boris either and nor will the SNP.
As I said if the Tories do not win a majority in 2024 then Starmer will be PM
The LDs nor anybody else will be voting for Brexit in 2024. Transition ends this year, not in five years time.
EEA is still Brexit, just the softest Brexit and the LDs will always vote for Starmer and that over WTO terms Brexit with Boris or even a FTA which is still a hard Brexit
Which would have been relevant at the last election pre-Brexit or even if there was one now during transition, it is utterly irrelevant come 2024 unless a party decides to revisit the terms of Brexit - which none are showing any signs of doing yet.
By 2024 this debate will be over, just like how Blair didn't revisit many things bitterly debated under Thatcher.
All the opposition parties voted down the Withdrawal Agreements of both Boris and May, all bar the DUP voted to stay in the Single Market and/or Customs Union and all bar the DUP voted against No Deal.
However now the Boris Withdrawal Agreement and the border in the Irish Sea has passed the DUP have said they would vote for EEA for the whole UK rather than separate Northern Ireland from GB
Yes and Labour voted down privatisation and reforms to curb union powers in the 80s - doesn't mean that when Blair came to power that he reversed those decisions. Blair didn't spend his time in office reversing Thatcher's reforms, he came to power with his own agenda and his own reforms.
When it comes to 2024 then as far as Brexit is concerned it will be already done and a case of "what is done, is done". Starmer could come to power seeking to spend his time refighting old battles and undoing what Boris had done - or far more likely he would if he wins come to power with his own agenda and his own issues just like Blair did. Which is unlikely to be EEA or anything Europe related.
If WTO Terms Brexit or a Boris FTA with the EU ends up fantastically for the UK then Starmer will likely back it, however the Tories will likely be re elected anyway.
If however as is likely we are on WTO terms in 2024 and if it turns out badly then Starmer will obviously back a softer Brexit and probably EEA
Though if Boris's Brexit goes badly, can the Conservatives really hold the line of no change? I appreciate the risks from whatever Farage's next vehicle turns out to be, but the risks of owning a bad Brexit are surely worse.
The question for Labour is going to be, how many young voters can you abandon in the name of getting older voters to vote for you. A lot I would expect
The young almost always votes Labour.
The thing that is uncertain is how todays 20-39 year olds will vote when they are 40-59 year olds.
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
Like how to set up Bullingdon Clubs in local comprehensives?
Great discussion by all participants. Very much enjoying it. Even a smattering of PB knowhow in monitor recommendations, and laced (!) with some philosophising on booze.
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
Yeah, sure. So either Eton is about 1,000,000 SDs out to the right of the "good schools" bell curve, or a once-in-the-life-of-the-universe chance has elevated it over all the other good schools in the tory party leader selection stakes.
Both left and right who despise right or left need to understand that the polar opposite to their world view is just as valid. Trying to explain to Corbynites why the Tories are popular was a waste of air and they still don't get it. Same with the Tories the other way round why not being an IDS to the poor/sick has appeal.
I cannot foresee *any* circumstance where I would vote Tory nationally. Their worldview towards the poor/sick isn't something I will ever be able to associate myself with. And understand how for people on the other side its economic policies which similarly preclude them the other way.
People sleeping in doorways don't have money. Whom do these councillors expect will pay their fines? Aside from being pointlessly cruel its also stupid.
Trying to force the “work from the office and spend hours commuting” genie back in the bottle is not going to be easy. They should be embracing the increases in in quality of life and environmental aspect, rather than fretting over office space and coffee shops.
Both left and right who despise right or left need to understand that the polar opposite to their world view is just as valid. Trying to explain to Corbynites why the Tories are popular was a waste of air and they still don't get it. Same with the Tories the other way round why not being an IDS to the poor/sick has appeal.
I cannot foresee *any* circumstance where I would vote Tory nationally. Their worldview towards the poor/sick isn't something I will ever be able to associate myself with. And understand how for people on the other side its economic policies which similarly preclude them the other way.
Which is where the LibDems could come in...
Absolutely mate - and perhaps I might be one of those voters depending on seat.
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
Yeah, sure. So either Eton is about 1,000,000 SDs out to the right of the "good schools" bell curve, or a once-in-the-life-of-the-universe chance has elevated it over all the other good schools in the tory party leader selection stakes.
Your school didn't do as good a job on mathematics, probability and bell curves as it should have if you think 1,000,000 SDs or once-in-the-life-of-the-universe has come into play here.
I really like the tone of that article. The Tories need to engage across a much wider spectrum than independence/Indyref2, they need policies on schools, universities, employment and health. A very long way to go but its a good start.
Interesting he talks about the £2000 Scottish dividend. Isn't that a ~ £200 cost for everyone else in the union
This is one of the things that I hate about the Tories, why do we need to get back to the office. I am happy WFH, I thought they believed in free will but they want to tell me where to work.
It's not difficult to understand why people think this is all just a ruse to protect their mates who own property.
The question for Labour is going to be, how many young voters can you abandon in the name of getting older voters to vote for you. A lot I would expect
The young almost always votes Labour.
The thing that is uncertain is how todays 20-39 year olds will vote when they are 40-59 year olds.
As Churchill reputedly said 'if you a not a socialist when young you have no heart, if you are not a conservative when old you have no brain'
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
Yeah, sure. So either Eton is about 1,000,000 SDs out to the right of the "good schools" bell curve, or a once-in-the-life-of-the-universe chance has elevated it over all the other good schools in the tory party leader selection stakes.
The former is more likely to be correct. From sons of friends and relations (nephew) who are there or have left recently I can say that amongst private schools it is in a category of its own. You'd have thought that it would be lumped in with Winchester and Harrow (and increasingly Oundle) but no. It is out there. And everyone knows it.
What bemuses me is why they worry about votes in London, they just won a landslide without
London has a "halo". I live in a rural constituency that has been solid Tory forever. That majority is slowly falling as progressive voters move here from London. When I moved in 20 years ago, the neighbours on each side were born and bred locals; now, I'm surrounded by London expats, and not Tory-voting ones either.
There are a whole lot of seats like this. London is worthwhile for the Tories to worry about, because your Hampstead & Kilburn voters of 2019 are your Guildford voters of 2028.
Well I voted for Davey and with my track record I am afraid we are:
DOOMED!
He could make a decent Deputy Prime Minister in the next Tory LD coalition 😜
While I certainly favour the Conservatives losing their majority, in the circumstances of a hung parliament it isn't going to be a Tory PM.
It depends upon the numbers in a Hung Parliament. If its 2010 or 2017 style maths then it certainly could be a Tory PM again. Ultimately it will always depend upon the numbers.
It won't be, even the DUP would now prefer EEA UK wide and Starmer to Boris and a border in the Irish Sea and Davey will also go with Starmer and EEA over Boris and hard Brexit.
Unless there is a Brexit Party MP in 2024 if the Tories do not get a majority again no other party will prop up the Tories
You're always fighting the last battle. Nobody is arguing about EEA right now, by 2024 this will be history. What matters is what people will be seeking to do in 2024-29, not Europe.
It will still be an issue, unless we go to EEA and/or a Customs Union then there will be a border in the Irish Sea so the DUP will vote for Starmer over Boris.
The LDs will always vote for a softer Brexit over a hard Brexit so that means they will not back Boris either and nor will the SNP.
As I said if the Tories do not win a majority in 2024 then Starmer will be PM
The LDs nor anybody else will be voting for Brexit in 2024. Transition ends this year, not in five years time.
EEA is still Brexit, just the softest Brexit and the LDs will always vote for Starmer and that over WTO terms Brexit with Boris or even a FTA which is still a hard Brexit
Which would have been relevant at the last election pre-Brexit or even if there was one now during transition, it is utterly irrelevant come 2024 unless a party decides to revisit the terms of Brexit - which none are showing any signs of doing yet.
By 2024 this debate will be over, just like how Blair didn't revisit many things bitterly debated under Thatcher.
All the opposition parties voted down the Withdrawal Agreements of both Boris and May, all bar the DUP voted to stay in the Single Market and/or Customs Union and all bar the DUP voted against No Deal.
However now the Boris Withdrawal Agreement and the border in the Irish Sea has passed the DUP have said they would vote for EEA for the whole UK rather than separate Northern Ireland from GB
Yes and Labour voted down privatisation and reforms to curb union powers in the 80s - doesn't mean that when Blair came to power that he reversed those decisions. Blair didn't spend his time in office reversing Thatcher's reforms, he came to power with his own agenda and his own reforms.
When it comes to 2024 then as far as Brexit is concerned it will be already done and a case of "what is done, is done". Starmer could come to power seeking to spend his time refighting old battles and undoing what Boris had done - or far more likely he would if he wins come to power with his own agenda and his own issues just like Blair did. Which is unlikely to be EEA or anything Europe related.
If WTO Terms Brexit or a Boris FTA with the EU ends up fantastically for the UK then Starmer will likely back it, however the Tories will likely be re elected anyway.
If however as is likely we are on WTO terms in 2024 and if it turns out badly then Starmer will obviously back a softer Brexit and probably EEA
Though if Boris's Brexit goes badly, can the Conservatives really hold the line of no change? I appreciate the risks from whatever Farage's next vehicle turns out to be, but the risks of owning a bad Brexit are surely worse.
Depends, if they avoid leakage by shifting to EEA or soft Brexit with Sunak it might be doable, but if they shift to soft Brexit they might end up not regaining Remainers who have switched to Labour and the LDs after inflicting a damaging No Deal WTO terms while then losing Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party after abandoning WTO terms Brexit and risk ending up trounced like the Canadian Tories in 1993 and as they were in the 2019 Euro elections under May
This is one of the things that I hate about the Tories, why do we need to get back to the office. I am happy WFH, I thought they believed in free will but they want to tell me where to work.
It's not difficult to understand why people think this is all just a ruse to protect their mates who own property.
It's an interesting problem. The people who can work from home tend to be well-off with good jobs. Those who can't, like the barista working in the starbucks by your office, aren't. WFH nets the well-off even more money by saving on expenses, while puts others out of a job due to lost trade. It wouldn't have been much of an issue if it was gradual, but it is a sudden change in behaviour which is going to have quite significant consequences for the economy.
What bemuses me is why they worry about votes in London, they just won a landslide without
London has a "halo". I live in a rural constituency that has been solid Tory forever. That majority is slowly falling as progressive voters move here from London. When I moved in 20 years ago, the neighbours on each side were born and bred locals; now, I'm surrounded by London expats, and not Tory-voting ones either.
There are a whole lot of seats like this. London is worthwhile for the Tories to worry about, because your Hampstead & Kilburn voters of 2019 are your Guildford voters of 2028.
Guildford, Winchester likely go to Lib Dem next time - but they have been Lib Dem in the past
So here is my question to the "Trump has a better chance than you think you are letting your emotions cloud your predictions" crowd.
What were you saying in 2018 before the midterms?
Because I distinctly remember a cadre of posters who said you couldn't trust the polls, that the polls would tighten by election day, that Dem policy X would be really unpopular with swing voters (aleways, conicidentally a policy that they personally disagreed with), that there would be shy Trump voters, that there would be voters who weren't concerned with Trump so Trump's popularity wouldn't be an issue, that the Dem vote would be in all the wrong places, that the Dems were complacent etc.
The Dems then got their largest increase in seats in 44 years.
Trump is 2.16 when the polls/models price him at over 3.
So to the extent that sentiment and emotion is clouding judgment it is PRO Trump sentiment and emotion.
Polls alone can't price him at all, especially not at this stage. Models, or rather the people making them, have to make a lot of guesses about how likely it is that people will change their minds in the next weeks, amongst other things. Which is also what punters on betfair are doing. I don't think the models take a view (or do they?) on which way the economy will go, or how likely good coronavirus news is before November, or whether an October surprise is more likely to hurt Biden than Trump. Which are the kinds of things that punters might be taking a view on without sentiment necessarily clouding their judgement.
This is one of the things that I hate about the Tories, why do we need to get back to the office. I am happy WFH, I thought they believed in free will but they want to tell me where to work.
It's not difficult to understand why people think this is all just a ruse to protect their mates who own property.
It's an interesting problem. The people who can work from home tend to be well-off with good jobs. Those who can't, like the barista working in the starbucks by your office, aren't. WFH nets the well-off even more money by saving on expenses, while puts others out of a job due to lost trade. It wouldn't have been much of an issue if it was gradual, but it is a sudden change in behaviour which is going to have quite significant consequences for the economy.
That's for smarter people than I to work out but being a good little Tory, I am going to use my liberty and work from home. I'm alright Jack, no such thing as society, etc.
Funny how there's a society when the Tories are in danger
This is one of the things that I hate about the Tories, why do we need to get back to the office. I am happy WFH, I thought they believed in free will but they want to tell me where to work.
It's not difficult to understand why people think this is all just a ruse to protect their mates who own property.
It's an interesting problem. The people who can work from home tend to be well-off with good jobs. Those who can't, like the barista working in the starbucks by your office, aren't. WFH nets the well-off even more money by saving on expenses, while puts others out of a job due to lost trade. It wouldn't have been much of an issue if it was gradual, but it is a sudden change in behaviour which is going to have quite significant consequences for the economy.
That's for smarter people than I to work out but being a good little Tory, I am going to use my liberty and work from home. I'm alright Jack, no such thing as society, etc.
Funny how there's a society when the Tories are in danger
Isn't it more funny that you don't seem concerned about it?
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
Yeah, sure. So either Eton is about 1,000,000 SDs out to the right of the "good schools" bell curve, or a once-in-the-life-of-the-universe chance has elevated it over all the other good schools in the tory party leader selection stakes.
The former is more likely to be correct. From sons of friends and relations (nephew) who are there or have left recently I can say that amongst private schools it is in a category of its own. You'd have thought that it would be lumped in with Winchester and Harrow (and increasingly Oundle) but no. It is out there. And everyone knows it.
Yes, strange that back in the day Eton and Harrow would always be mentioned in the same breath (Eton vs. Harrow cricket match at Lords etc.). Now the latter is distinctly second rung. What happened?
We’re not aware of any data showing this. Statutory homelessness in England fell between 2003 and 2009. It has risen around 39% since then.
Alternatively the graph shows that homelessness is lower in England throughout the entire Tory time in Downing Street than it was in all but 2 years of Labour's government. And the graph and subsequent data also shows its been going down again for the last five years.
It the Tories now have homelessness below what it was under Labour from 1997-2007 then do you think the Tories have done a good or job bad?
Trying to force the “work from the office and spend hours commuting” genie back in the bottle is not going to be easy. They should be embracing the increases in in quality of life and environmental aspect, rather than fretting over office space and coffee shops.
I'm still not sure about the government caring that much about this issue, but if they do, then it says a lot about them. Mrs T wouldn't have tried to buck the market.
My feeling is that Ed will not talk about Brexit, which is a good move.
I'm not sure Ed ever talks about anything other than sustainable energy.
He's a supporter of tidal lagoon power stations. Which is a tick in the box....
Significant constituency for that on PB.
I think generally going very green, more renewables, cancelling Hinkley Point, accelerating electric only vehicles in city centres in particular and committing to the infrastructure necessary for that, cancelling Heathrow expansion in the new circumstances, etc is the way to go. It is much more mainstream than it was but the other parties are being slow enough to leave space to be heard.
One of these things is not like the other: why on Earth have you put cancelling Hinkley Point in that list?
Knowing quite a few people from Eton, I can say - anecdotally - they are all exclusively arseholes.
ISTM that simply to say you are an OE would qualify the person in your book as being an arsehole and hence forgive me if I don't take that assessment with any insight.
I think the rapid increase in homelessness and rough sleeping since Labour left office is a moral stain and something we should be deeply ashamed of.
While I think the fact that the numbers rough sleeping is in decline is a good thing that the government is dealing with well and hope that continues.
Funny that.
I deeply regretted the winding down of the schemes that had been put in place to get everyone off the street at the outbreak of the pandemic. That seemed to me an opportunity that should have been grasped to end this shame once and for all.
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
Yeah, sure. So either Eton is about 1,000,000 SDs out to the right of the "good schools" bell curve, or a once-in-the-life-of-the-universe chance has elevated it over all the other good schools in the tory party leader selection stakes.
The former is more likely to be correct. From sons of friends and relations (nephew) who are there or have left recently I can say that amongst private schools it is in a category of its own. You'd have thought that it would be lumped in with Winchester and Harrow (and increasingly Oundle) but no. It is out there. And everyone knows it.
Oundle?
You could easily be right about the current SOP. My point though was historical - awesomely, BJ is the 20th OE PM. That I think says more about the position of the Tory party in the British class system than it says about academic excellence. Not a point I lose sleep over, but a rejoinder to the pious suggestion that the party is OE-blind in leader selection.
I agree with you entirely that they were a dreadful, stupid, avoidable misfire. Probably the second worst mistake of the coalition government (academy chains being the worst).
The minor detail that it was formulated by a review led by a disgraced perjurer who was sacked from his employer for embezzling funds to support an, um, colourful private life and then lied about it in court, before having to admit it (he was damn lucky it was David Eady he was in front of, or he’d have had five years for that) and whose knowledge of universities could have been written in very large print on the head of a pin was the icing on the shit cake. I mean, what did people expect such an utter low life would come up with?
But you do know that it was a Labour policy, on guidelines laid out by Mandelson, that the Tories had agreed to adopt and the Liberal Democrats said they would oppose?
My feeling is that Ed will not talk about Brexit, which is a good move.
I'm not sure Ed ever talks about anything other than sustainable energy.
He's a supporter of tidal lagoon power stations. Which is a tick in the box....
Significant constituency for that on PB.
I think generally going very green, more renewables, cancelling Hinkley Point, accelerating electric only vehicles in city centres in particular and committing to the infrastructure necessary for that, cancelling Heathrow expansion in the new circumstances, etc is the way to go. It is much more mainstream than it was but the other parties are being slow enough to leave space to be heard.
One of these things is not like the other: why on Earth have you put cancelling Hinkley Point in that list?
Because nuclear power is very unpopular with the majority of people who want to push green issues and that's the voters he should be going for (plus it is a horrendously bad deal that threatens our manufacturing base with excessive energy costs for decades). You can make the argument that nuclear base loads are much greener than gas, let alone coal, but its not an argument that the target voters are accepting of.
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
Yeah, sure. So either Eton is about 1,000,000 SDs out to the right of the "good schools" bell curve, or a once-in-the-life-of-the-universe chance has elevated it over all the other good schools in the tory party leader selection stakes.
The former is more likely to be correct. From sons of friends and relations (nephew) who are there or have left recently I can say that amongst private schools it is in a category of its own. You'd have thought that it would be lumped in with Winchester and Harrow (and increasingly Oundle) but no. It is out there. And everyone knows it.
Yes, strange that back in the day Eton and Harrow would always be mentioned in the same breath (Eton vs. Harrow cricket match at Lords etc.). Now the latter is distinctly second rung. What happened?
Good question - I know (because I know the bloke who runs it) that Harrow has made a very big effort to internationalise itself via Asia outposts while I am unware that Eton has done the same thing so perhaps that has in peoples' minds diluted the brand. But yes, it is very much a "fallback" choice now.
What bemuses me is why they worry about votes in London, they just won a landslide without
London has a "halo". I live in a rural constituency that has been solid Tory forever. That majority is slowly falling as progressive voters move here from London. When I moved in 20 years ago, the neighbours on each side were born and bred locals; now, I'm surrounded by London expats, and not Tory-voting ones either.
There are a whole lot of seats like this. London is worthwhile for the Tories to worry about, because your Hampstead & Kilburn voters of 2019 are your Guildford voters of 2028.
I have no plans to move to Guildford. Wild horses ...
Trying to force the “work from the office and spend hours commuting” genie back in the bottle is not going to be easy. They should be embracing the increases in in quality of life and environmental aspect, rather than fretting over office space and coffee shops.
I'm still not sure about the government caring that much about this issue, but if they do, then it says a lot about them. Mrs T wouldn't have tried to buck the market.
Indeed. Trying to return to a status quo ante that didn't work for so many people on behalf of city property oligarchs is absurd. If people can WFH are happy to do so and have employers who want them to the government can do nothing about it. Its the free market bitches - their whining about it and attempt to force the market rather suggests the party of fuck business has forgotten what a free market is...
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
Yeah, sure. So either Eton is about 1,000,000 SDs out to the right of the "good schools" bell curve, or a once-in-the-life-of-the-universe chance has elevated it over all the other good schools in the tory party leader selection stakes.
The former is more likely to be correct. From sons of friends and relations (nephew) who are there or have left recently I can say that amongst private schools it is in a category of its own. You'd have thought that it would be lumped in with Winchester and Harrow (and increasingly Oundle) but no. It is out there. And everyone knows it.
Yes, strange that back in the day Eton and Harrow would always be mentioned in the same breath (Eton vs. Harrow cricket match at Lords etc.). Now the latter is distinctly second rung. What happened?
The relationship between the top 3 is perfectly encapsulated in the well-known joke: there are 3 public school boys and a lady. The Etonian suggests the lady might like a chair, the Wykehamist fetches one and the Harrovian sits on it.
What bemuses me is why they worry about votes in London, they just won a landslide without
London has a "halo". I live in a rural constituency that has been solid Tory forever. That majority is slowly falling as progressive voters move here from London. When I moved in 20 years ago, the neighbours on each side were born and bred locals; now, I'm surrounded by London expats, and not Tory-voting ones either.
There are a whole lot of seats like this. London is worthwhile for the Tories to worry about, because your Hampstead & Kilburn voters of 2019 are your Guildford voters of 2028.
I have no plans to move to Guildford. Wild horses ...
The point about Guildford is that the horses have all been tamed and are knocking it out of the park on their dressage tests.
I think the rapid increase in homelessness and rough sleeping since Labour left office is a moral stain and something we should be deeply ashamed of.
Coincidentally they've just published the latest ScoGov report on the situation up here in 2019-20. Up 4% from previous year which is not great news. But that was very largely before covid and the emergency lodging programme.
But to put it into context there's an interesting graph on the Shelter Scotland website - about 1/5 of the way down. Also another showing private and council new houses. I wonder what happened in 2007?
What bemuses me is why they worry about votes in London, they just won a landslide without
London has a "halo". I live in a rural constituency that has been solid Tory forever. That majority is slowly falling as progressive voters move here from London. When I moved in 20 years ago, the neighbours on each side were born and bred locals; now, I'm surrounded by London expats, and not Tory-voting ones either.
There are a whole lot of seats like this. London is worthwhile for the Tories to worry about, because your Hampstead & Kilburn voters of 2019 are your Guildford voters of 2028.
I have no plans to move to Guildford. Wild horses ...
What’s wrong with Guildford? (Other than the fact it’s a bastard to get to from anywhere other than London or Winchester.)
The second wave looks absolutely terrible in Spain and France. France specifically seems like it is going to have a period like March/April again.
Is this just in case numbers, or is it translating to deaths too now?
Just looked at the worldometers (for what its worth). Yes a small increase in deaths in Spain, not yet in France. I hope that this is a casedemic (i.e. lots of cases being found in asymptomatic, or mildly ill people). We have no idea really how many actual cases there were in France and Spain (or indeed the UK) in March and April.
Well I voted for Davey and with my track record I am afraid we are:
DOOMED!
He could make a decent Deputy Prime Minister in the next Tory LD coalition 😜
While I certainly favour the Conservatives losing their majority, in the circumstances of a hung parliament it isn't going to be a Tory PM.
It depends upon the numbers in a Hung Parliament. If its 2010 or 2017 style maths then it certainly could be a Tory PM again. Ultimately it will always depend upon the numbers.
It won't be, even the DUP would now prefer EEA UK wide and Starmer to Boris and a border in the Irish Sea and Davey will also go with Starmer and EEA over Boris and hard Brexit.
Unless there is a Brexit Party MP in 2024 if the Tories do not get a majority again no other party will prop up the Tories
You're always fighting the last battle. Nobody is arguing about EEA right now, by 2024 this will be history. What matters is what people will be seeking to do in 2024-29, not Europe.
It will still be an issue, unless we go to EEA and/or a Customs Union then there will be a border in the Irish Sea so the DUP will vote for Starmer over Boris.
The LDs will always vote for a softer Brexit over a hard Brexit so that means they will not back Boris either and nor will the SNP.
As I said if the Tories do not win a majority in 2024 then Starmer will be PM
The LDs nor anybody else will be voting for Brexit in 2024. Transition ends this year, not in five years time.
EEA is still Brexit, just the softest Brexit and the LDs will always vote for Starmer and that over WTO terms Brexit with Boris or even a FTA which is still a hard Brexit
Which would have been relevant at the last election pre-Brexit or even if there was one now during transition, it is utterly irrelevant come 2024 unless a party decides to revisit the terms of Brexit - which none are showing any signs of doing yet.
By 2024 this debate will be over, just like how Blair didn't revisit many things bitterly debated under Thatcher.
All the opposition parties voted down the Withdrawal Agreements of both Boris and May, all bar the DUP voted to stay in the Single Market and/or Customs Union and all bar the DUP voted against No Deal.
However now the Boris Withdrawal Agreement and the border in the Irish Sea has passed the DUP have said they would vote for EEA for the whole UK rather than separate Northern Ireland from GB
Yes and Labour voted down privatisation and reforms to curb union powers in the 80s - doesn't mean that when Blair came to power that he reversed those decisions. Blair didn't spend his time in office reversing Thatcher's reforms, he came to power with his own agenda and his own reforms.
When it comes to 2024 then as far as Brexit is concerned it will be already done and a case of "what is done, is done". Starmer could come to power seeking to spend his time refighting old battles and undoing what Boris had done - or far more likely he would if he wins come to power with his own agenda and his own issues just like Blair did. Which is unlikely to be EEA or anything Europe related.
If WTO Terms Brexit or a Boris FTA with the EU ends up fantastically for the UK then Starmer will likely back it, however the Tories will likely be re elected anyway.
If however as is likely we are on WTO terms in 2024 and if it turns out badly then Starmer will obviously back a softer Brexit and probably EEA
Though if Boris's Brexit goes badly, can the Conservatives really hold the line of no change? I appreciate the risks from whatever Farage's next vehicle turns out to be, but the risks of owning a bad Brexit are surely worse.
Depends, if they avoid leakage by shifting to EEA or soft Brexit with Sunak it might be doable, but if they shift to soft Brexit they might end up not regaining Remainers who have switched to Labour and the LDs after inflicting a damaging No Deal WTO terms while then losing Leavers to Farage and the Brexit Party after abandoning WTO terms Brexit and risk ending up trounced like the Canadian Tories in 1993 and as they were in the 2019 Euro elections under May
That's a fair point. To be honest, if Boris's Brexit fails badly enough for the topic to still be active in 2024, it's hard to see how the government can / should win; their signature policy will have failed.
The Conservatives might be better off hibernating as a hard English nationalist party in 2024 than being hammered from both sides. But it would be long road back.
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
Yeah, sure. So either Eton is about 1,000,000 SDs out to the right of the "good schools" bell curve, or a once-in-the-life-of-the-universe chance has elevated it over all the other good schools in the tory party leader selection stakes.
The former is more likely to be correct. From sons of friends and relations (nephew) who are there or have left recently I can say that amongst private schools it is in a category of its own. You'd have thought that it would be lumped in with Winchester and Harrow (and increasingly Oundle) but no. It is out there. And everyone knows it.
Yes, strange that back in the day Eton and Harrow would always be mentioned in the same breath (Eton vs. Harrow cricket match at Lords etc.). Now the latter is distinctly second rung. What happened?
The relationship between the top 3 is perfectly encapsulated in the well-known joke: there are 3 public school boys and a lady. The Etonian suggests the lady might like a chair, the Wykehamist fetches one and the Harrovian sits on it.
I think CHB was suggesting their pupils leave an Eton mess.
The question for Labour is going to be, how many young voters can you abandon in the name of getting older voters to vote for you. A lot I would expect
The young almost always votes Labour.
The thing that is uncertain is how todays 20-39 year olds will vote when they are 40-59 year olds.
As Churchill reputedly said 'if you a not a socialist when young you have no heart, if you are not a conservative when old you have no brain'
So here is my question to the "Trump has a better chance than you think you are letting your emotions cloud your predictions" crowd.
What were you saying in 2018 before the midterms?
Because I distinctly remember a cadre of posters who said you couldn't trust the polls, that the polls would tighten by election day, that Dem policy X would be really unpopular with swing voters (aleways, conicidentally a policy that they personally disagreed with), that there would be shy Trump voters, that there would be voters who weren't concerned with Trump so Trump's popularity wouldn't be an issue, that the Dem vote would be in all the wrong places, that the Dems were complacent etc.
The Dems then got their largest increase in seats in 44 years.
A very good point that's difficult to answer. I think the dems were a much nicer lot before Pelosi became speaker. And of course there was no BLM in 2018. But You have a very good point.
Pelosi, speaker 2007-2011, obviously a terrible drag on Dem presidential ambitions.
Yep good point, but different ballgame when its Trump. He has brought out the worst in the dems, undoubtedly.
And the GOP. In this one instance Trump can really be said to have worked in an inclusive and unifying manner.
I think the rapid increase in homelessness and rough sleeping since Labour left office is a moral stain and something we should be deeply ashamed of.
While I think the fact that the numbers rough sleeping is in decline is a good thing that the government is dealing with well and hope that continues.
Funny that.
I deeply regretted the winding down of the schemes that had been put in place to get everyone off the street at the outbreak of the pandemic. That seemed to me an opportunity that should have been grasped to end this shame once and for all.
The problem is there will never be a total end to it as people who are rough sleeping are doing so for complicated reasons. Drugs, mental health and migration can all be factors.
I found someone rough sleeping at my work place's boiler room about 2 years ago. The boiler room door wasn't the most secure and he'd forced it open and gotten in there, closing it behind him so it wasn't obvious what he'd done and he and was camping out in there - he had clothes, food and what worried me most was he was using the gas boiler (a large commercial one) as an ashtray! I tried speaking to him but he didn't speak a word of English. A colleague of mine was able to speak to him, he was Polish and had come over to live in the UK and hadn't found work or somewhere to live and was now rough sleeping. He couldn't communicate in English with me at all but as my my colleague could translate we asked if we could help or put him in contact with anyone, but he didn't want to talk to us. He then left and the next day he was gone never to be seen again though he left a lot of belongings (some of which looked stolen) and trash behind.
I'm not sure what perfect solution there is to prevent that, especially since he was trying to hide and didn't seem to want to receive help.
The question for Labour is going to be, how many young voters can you abandon in the name of getting older voters to vote for you. A lot I would expect
The young almost always votes Labour.
The thing that is uncertain is how todays 20-39 year olds will vote when they are 40-59 year olds.
As Churchill reputedly said 'if you a not a socialist when young you have no heart, if you are not a conservative when old you have no brain'
Which is clearly a load of bollocks
The (apocryphal) quote was about Liberalism, not socialism. Churchill was not big on socialism but he did need to explain his move from left-wing liberalism to high Tory jingoism over about 15 years in the 1920s.
But he always hated socialists. Who could forget in 1945 he compared Labour to the Gestapo?
The second wave looks absolutely terrible in Spain and France. France specifically seems like it is going to have a period like March/April again.
Is this just in case numbers, or is it translating to deaths too now?
In Spain it looks like the death rate is picking up, I can't imagine France will be far behind with that level of new cases per day, even if they are milder or asymptomatic it won't be long until it spreads into vulnerable groups as it did in the US after a prolonged period of spread among young people.
To me it seems odd that if I manage to get a mortgage I'll somehow think differently, seems to suggest again - that I vote entirely based on housing. I don't.
This of course presumes the Tories manage to make housing affordable for people under 30, only got to take what is it, 10+ years off the average home ownership rate?
Good luck is all I can say
You personally may or may not but a vast, vast number of your age cohort will. It happens all the time.
Life is complex and what the Tories stand for is good, once people have to balance bills in their own life then they come to understand what the Tories stand for much better.
You think the Tories stand for good stuff, I don't.
You haven't said what you think the Tories stand for.
Their current leader is another bloke from Eton, I thought I didn't have to say much more
Please do.
I'm not sure why where someone's parents chose to send a child to school when they were a child should matter.
You say that as if it is a point in your favour. Surely the statistics show that it matters very much indeed to the people who decide who is to be leader of the Tory party?
No they don't say that.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
Yeah, sure. So either Eton is about 1,000,000 SDs out to the right of the "good schools" bell curve, or a once-in-the-life-of-the-universe chance has elevated it over all the other good schools in the tory party leader selection stakes.
The former is more likely to be correct. From sons of friends and relations (nephew) who are there or have left recently I can say that amongst private schools it is in a category of its own. You'd have thought that it would be lumped in with Winchester and Harrow (and increasingly Oundle) but no. It is out there. And everyone knows it.
Yes, strange that back in the day Eton and Harrow would always be mentioned in the same breath (Eton vs. Harrow cricket match at Lords etc.). Now the latter is distinctly second rung. What happened?
The relationship between the top 3 is perfectly encapsulated in the well-known joke: there are 3 public school boys and a lady. The Etonian suggests the lady might like a chair, the Wykehamist fetches one and the Harrovian sits on it.
I think CHB was suggesting their pupils leave an Eton mess.
Stanley Baldwin joked (?) that as there had been six Etonians in the previous government, there should be six Harrovians in his.
So here is my question to the "Trump has a better chance than you think you are letting your emotions cloud your predictions" crowd.
What were you saying in 2018 before the midterms?
Because I distinctly remember a cadre of posters who said you couldn't trust the polls, that the polls would tighten by election day, that Dem policy X would be really unpopular with swing voters (aleways, conicidentally a policy that they personally disagreed with), that there would be shy Trump voters, that there would be voters who weren't concerned with Trump so Trump's popularity wouldn't be an issue, that the Dem vote would be in all the wrong places, that the Dems were complacent etc.
The Dems then got their largest increase in seats in 44 years.
Trump is 2.16 when the polls/models price him at over 3.
So to the extent that sentiment and emotion is clouding judgment it is PRO Trump sentiment and emotion.
Polls alone can't price him at all, especially not at this stage. Models, or rather the people making them, have to make a lot of guesses about how likely it is that people will change their minds in the next weeks, amongst other things. Which is also what punters on betfair are doing. I don't think the models take a view (or do they?) on which way the economy will go, or how likely good coronavirus news is before November, or whether an October surprise is more likely to hurt Biden than Trump. Which are the kinds of things that punters might be taking a view on without sentiment necessarily clouding their judgement.
The models do price it based on input from the polling and other adjustments, some more complex than others. And the 2.16 current Trump price is way way shorter than any of the models have it. Punters are anticipating the Biden lead shrinking to 3 or 4 points quite soon. Why? I suppose for several reasons. Convention bounce. Civil disorder. Jobs pickup. Vaccine news. Memory of 2016.
Me, I still call it clearly for Biden with Trump below 200 in the EC. I plan the biggest spread bet of my life when SPIN puts the market up if the consensus stays as out of line with the polls as it is now.
This is one of the things that I hate about the Tories, why do we need to get back to the office. I am happy WFH, I thought they believed in free will but they want to tell me where to work.
It's not difficult to understand why people think this is all just a ruse to protect their mates who own property.
It's an interesting problem. The people who can work from home tend to be well-off with good jobs. Those who can't, like the barista working in the starbucks by your office, aren't. WFH nets the well-off even more money by saving on expenses, while puts others out of a job due to lost trade. It wouldn't have been much of an issue if it was gradual, but it is a sudden change in behaviour which is going to have quite significant consequences for the economy.
That's for smarter people than I to work out but being a good little Tory, I am going to use my liberty and work from home. I'm alright Jack, no such thing as society, etc.
Funny how there's a society when the Tories are in danger
Isn't it more funny that you don't seem concerned about it?
If I;m reading that right, the tories are very unpopular, but the mainstream opposition parties are not really benefiting
There are a stack of votes to the right of where Johnson has the tories, in my view, and some tory MPs know this.
No wonder they are so unhappy right now.
It's not so much left vs right with the Toris right now. It's more a question of competency with Covid and school exams. Plus we have Brexit to 'look forward' to.
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
I appreciate that's the advice on a sense of better safe than sorry but when you started and how consistently and quickly you've been drinking realistically matters.
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning. If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
That has always been my thought process. I tend to drink moderately so have no concerns about the next day and I do the same calculation, but would delay driving longer if I have been drinking an unknown quantity of wine at a party.
My only doubts come about when I see these police programmes where someone is stopped with a ridiculous amount of alcohol in their system from the night before. There are three possibilities:
a) they are lying and have been drinking that day b) they should be dead from alcohol poisoning c) the above calculation is wrong
I tend to believe a), but worry I am wrong.
d) They didn't realise how much they'd drank. Easily done especially if someone introduces shots into the round of drinks. It's very easy to consume eg a few Jagerbombs or Tequilas and forget about them. Or if drinking spirits or wine not realise how much is in the drink.
Indeed so. Got the tee shirt.
Taken aback slightly - and sneakily impressed - to hear that you sometimes have 5 pints with your dinner.
I couldn't do that. Or rather I wouldn't enjoy the food much if I did.
I said over an evening starting with dinner and ending at midnight, not over the course of a meal alone.
I won't say what my record for drinking in a night is, but I realised the next day that I could have died from it. The problem with excessive drinking is losing track of what you're doing and going to more excess, especially if you're with drunk and irresponsible people who encourage you to drink more. I wouldn't have driven not just the next day but the day after either.
Most of the time though I'm a boringly responsible drinker, I'd rather be at home and drink a bottle of wine over an evening going from dinner through to cheese and biscuits after than go out and drink to excess nowadays.
A bottle of wine goes quickly , at best 4 glasses, if sharing you would be dying of thirst.
If I;m reading that right, the tories are very unpopular, but the mainstream opposition parties are not really benefiting
There are a stack of votes to the right of where Johnson has the tories, in my view, and some tory MPs know this.
No wonder they are so unhappy right now.
If we had PR then the people who support Farragism / Corbynism could have parties representing their views and have representation - which is how it should be. Then the grand old parties could be less of a bugger's muddle of conflicting views.
The second wave looks absolutely terrible in Spain and France. France specifically seems like it is going to have a period like March/April again.
Is this just in case numbers, or is it translating to deaths too now?
In Spain it looks like the death rate is picking up, I can't imagine France will be far behind with that level of new cases per day, even if they are milder or asymptomatic it won't be long until it spreads into vulnerable groups as it did in the US after a prolonged period of spread among young people.
I don;t understand why Corona is picking up in France and Spain, where controls are pretty draconian.
Knowing quite a few people from Eton, I can say - anecdotally - they are all exclusively arseholes.
ISTM that simply to say you are an OE would qualify the person in your book as being an arsehole and hence forgive me if I don't take that assessment with any insight.
I am sure there are lots of nice people at Eton. Just the ones I know are arseholes.
This is one of the things that I hate about the Tories, why do we need to get back to the office. I am happy WFH, I thought they believed in free will but they want to tell me where to work.
It's not difficult to understand why people think this is all just a ruse to protect their mates who own property.
It's an interesting problem. The people who can work from home tend to be well-off with good jobs. Those who can't, like the barista working in the starbucks by your office, aren't. WFH nets the well-off even more money by saving on expenses, while puts others out of a job due to lost trade. It wouldn't have been much of an issue if it was gradual, but it is a sudden change in behaviour which is going to have quite significant consequences for the economy.
That's for smarter people than I to work out but being a good little Tory, I am going to use my liberty and work from home. I'm alright Jack, no such thing as society, etc.
Funny how there's a society when the Tories are in danger
Isn't it more funny that you don't seem concerned about it?
No I'm a Tory now, we don't care about anyone
I suspect this is driven by the fact it's being pushed by a Tory government. If Labour had said it, raising the points I raised earlier, would you still have the same attitude?
The second wave looks absolutely terrible in Spain and France. France specifically seems like it is going to have a period like March/April again.
Is this just in case numbers, or is it translating to deaths too now?
In Spain it looks like the death rate is picking up, I can't imagine France will be far behind with that level of new cases per day, even if they are milder or asymptomatic it won't be long until it spreads into vulnerable groups as it did in the US after a prolonged period of spread among young people.
I don;t understand why Corona is picking up in France and Spain, where controls are pretty draconian.
....????
Everyone and their mother just went on holiday there.
My point about Eton was more that I am not surprised Johnson is like he is, knowing the people that I do that go to Eton. He's like an older version of them.
I think the rapid increase in homelessness and rough sleeping since Labour left office is a moral stain and something we should be deeply ashamed of.
While I think the fact that the numbers rough sleeping is in decline is a good thing that the government is dealing with well and hope that continues.
Funny that.
I deeply regretted the winding down of the schemes that had been put in place to get everyone off the street at the outbreak of the pandemic. That seemed to me an opportunity that should have been grasped to end this shame once and for all.
The problem is there will never be a total end to it as people who are rough sleeping are doing so for complicated reasons. Drugs, mental health and migration can all be factors.
I found someone rough sleeping at my work place's boiler room about 2 years ago. The boiler room door wasn't the most secure and he'd forced it open and gotten in there, closing it behind him so it wasn't obvious what he'd done and he and was camping out in there - he had clothes, food and what worried me most was he was using the gas boiler (a large commercial one) as an ashtray! I tried speaking to him but he didn't speak a word of English. A colleague of mine was able to speak to him, he was Polish and had come over to live in the UK and hadn't found work or somewhere to live and was now rough sleeping. He couldn't communicate in English with me at all but as my my colleague could translate we asked if we could help or put him in contact with anyone, but he didn't want to talk to us. He then left and the next day he was gone never to be seen again though he left a lot of belongings (some of which looked stolen) and trash behind.
I'm not sure what perfect solution there is to prevent that, especially since he was trying to hide and didn't seem to want to receive help.
Very likely a warrant out for him from Poland. Most of the cases my colleagues involved in extradition are involved in concern Poles who can have warrants for all sorts of weird things, including the non payment of taxes.
If I;m reading that right, the tories are very unpopular, but the mainstream opposition parties are not really benefiting
There are a stack of votes to the right of where Johnson has the tories, in my view, and some tory MPs know this.
No wonder they are so unhappy right now.
It's not so much left vs right with the Toris right now. It's more a question of competency with Covid and school exams. Plus we have Brexit to 'look forward' to.
maybe but on competence Starmer should be doing better, really, as he is pretty competent.
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
I appreciate that's the advice on a sense of better safe than sorry but when you started and how consistently and quickly you've been drinking realistically matters.
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning. If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
That has always been my thought process. I tend to drink moderately so have no concerns about the next day and I do the same calculation, but would delay driving longer if I have been drinking an unknown quantity of wine at a party.
My only doubts come about when I see these police programmes where someone is stopped with a ridiculous amount of alcohol in their system from the night before. There are three possibilities:
a) they are lying and have been drinking that day b) they should be dead from alcohol poisoning c) the above calculation is wrong
I tend to believe a), but worry I am wrong.
d) They didn't realise how much they'd drank. Easily done especially if someone introduces shots into the round of drinks. It's very easy to consume eg a few Jagerbombs or Tequilas and forget about them. Or if drinking spirits or wine not realise how much is in the drink.
Indeed so. Got the tee shirt.
Taken aback slightly - and sneakily impressed - to hear that you sometimes have 5 pints with your dinner.
I couldn't do that. Or rather I wouldn't enjoy the food much if I did.
I said over an evening starting with dinner and ending at midnight, not over the course of a meal alone.
I won't say what my record for drinking in a night is, but I realised the next day that I could have died from it. The problem with excessive drinking is losing track of what you're doing and going to more excess, especially if you're with drunk and irresponsible people who encourage you to drink more. I wouldn't have driven not just the next day but the day after either.
Most of the time though I'm a boringly responsible drinker, I'd rather be at home and drink a bottle of wine over an evening going from dinner through to cheese and biscuits after than go out and drink to excess nowadays.
A bottle of wine goes quickly , at best 4 glasses, if sharing you would be dying of thirst.
Knowing quite a few people from Eton, I can say - anecdotally - they are all exclusively arseholes.
ISTM that simply to say you are an OE would qualify the person in your book as being an arsehole and hence forgive me if I don't take that assessment with any insight.
I am sure there are lots of nice people at Eton. Just the ones I know are arseholes.
If you know "quite a few" perhaps reviewing your social circles might be appropriate?
Outrageous. The man is Innocent until proven Guilty again.
I would tentatively suggest that a trial where none of the accused were present or represented and none of the evidence was challenged is not particularly good evidence of anything.
My point about Eton was more that I am not surprised Johnson is like he is, knowing the people that I do that go to Eton. He's like an older version of them.
I agree with you entirely that they were a dreadful, stupid, avoidable misfire. Probably the second worst mistake of the coalition government (academy chains being the worst).
The minor detail that it was formulated by a review led by a disgraced perjurer who was sacked from his employer for embezzling funds to support an, um, colourful private life and then lied about it in court, before having to admit it (he was damn lucky it was David Eady he was in front of, or he’d have had five years for that) and whose knowledge of universities could have been written in very large print on the head of a pin was the icing on the shit cake. I mean, what did people expect such an utter low life would come up with?
But you do know that it was a Labour policy, on guidelines laid out by Mandelson, that the Tories had agreed to adopt and the Liberal Democrats said they would oppose?
I think the rapid increase in homelessness and rough sleeping since Labour left office is a moral stain and something we should be deeply ashamed of.
While I think the fact that the numbers rough sleeping is in decline is a good thing that the government is dealing with well and hope that continues.
Funny that.
I deeply regretted the winding down of the schemes that had been put in place to get everyone off the street at the outbreak of the pandemic. That seemed to me an opportunity that should have been grasped to end this shame once and for all.
The problem is there will never be a total end to it as people who are rough sleeping are doing so for complicated reasons. Drugs, mental health and migration can all be factors.
I found someone rough sleeping at my work place's boiler room about 2 years ago. The boiler room door wasn't the most secure and he'd forced it open and gotten in there, closing it behind him so it wasn't obvious what he'd done and he and was camping out in there - he had clothes, food and what worried me most was he was using the gas boiler (a large commercial one) as an ashtray! I tried speaking to him but he didn't speak a word of English. A colleague of mine was able to speak to him, he was Polish and had come over to live in the UK and hadn't found work or somewhere to live and was now rough sleeping. He couldn't communicate in English with me at all but as my my colleague could translate we asked if we could help or put him in contact with anyone, but he didn't want to talk to us. He then left and the next day he was gone never to be seen again though he left a lot of belongings (some of which looked stolen) and trash behind.
I'm not sure what perfect solution there is to prevent that, especially since he was trying to hide and didn't seem to want to receive help.
Very likely a warrant out for him from Poland. Most of the cases my colleagues involved in extradition are involved in concern Poles who can have warrants for all sorts of weird things, including the non payment of taxes.
I hadn't even considered that as a possibility. Makes sense.
Another reason too then why people might rough sleep - trying to evade the law. Hard to legally resolve an issue for people seeking to evade the law.
Its a complicated issue to resolve, most of the people doing it will be complicated cases.
Knowing quite a few people from Eton, I can say - anecdotally - they are all exclusively arseholes.
ISTM that simply to say you are an OE would qualify the person in your book as being an arsehole and hence forgive me if I don't take that assessment with any insight.
I am sure there are lots of nice people at Eton. Just the ones I know are arseholes.
If you know "quite a few" perhaps reviewing your social circles might be appropriate?
Oh I don't see them much anymore, for that reason.
I stick with people that are pleasant to be around
This is one of the things that I hate about the Tories, why do we need to get back to the office. I am happy WFH, I thought they believed in free will but they want to tell me where to work.
It's not difficult to understand why people think this is all just a ruse to protect their mates who own property.
It's an interesting problem. The people who can work from home tend to be well-off with good jobs. Those who can't, like the barista working in the starbucks by your office, aren't. WFH nets the well-off even more money by saving on expenses, while puts others out of a job due to lost trade. It wouldn't have been much of an issue if it was gradual, but it is a sudden change in behaviour which is going to have quite significant consequences for the economy.
That's for smarter people than I to work out but being a good little Tory, I am going to use my liberty and work from home. I'm alright Jack, no such thing as society, etc.
Funny how there's a society when the Tories are in danger
Isn't it more funny that you don't seem concerned about it?
No I'm a Tory now, we don't care about anyone
I suspect this is driven by the fact it's being pushed by a Tory government. If Labour had said it, raising the points I raised earlier, would you still have the same attitude?
Is this a new feature, where your posts merge together. It's a good one, I am guilty of just making multiple posts out of habit on other sites that merge them all into one
Comments
Student loans don't impact you today, if you're paying towards a loan you're paying a graduate tax effectively and are earning a decent wage. This goes back to your first issue - if you are objecting to paying taxes (a student loan) then what alternative did you have to sort out public funding? Unless you wanted others to pay your taxes for you?
Brexit may not be something you want but that's democracy and will be history next time. Its dealt with, you may not like how it is dealt with but unlike what HYUFD thinks it won't be what parties are campaigning on next time - there is a reason Davey pointedly didn't mention it today and there is a reason Starmer pointedly isn't mentioning it either. Its dealt with and even Davey and Starmer accept that.
Housing crisis is being dealt with. In 1 General Elections time half the 20-somethings of today will be in their 30s. In 2 General Elections time every single 20-something of the last election (bar rounding for months) will be a 30-something and with the trends the way they are the majority of the older 20-somethings of today will own their own home by the next-but-one General Election.
Except in UKania obvs.
https://twitter.com/ProfPMiddleton/status/1298942533444210688?s=20
Big challenge - how to stop older people voting Con and at least consider Lab but at the same time retain the votes and enthusiasm of the under 40s.
If I knew I'd be telling you.
Good schools have taught pupils well who go on to do good things shouldn't really be a shocker. We should not be attacking good schools we should be looking at how the work and see what lessons we can learn from them for state schools.
The fact Starmer and Davey are talking about other issues now too does not change that
Now, suddenly, many cities are on life support. They will survive of course. but things will be different.
I cannot foresee *any* circumstance where I would vote Tory nationally. Their worldview towards the poor/sick isn't something I will ever be able to associate myself with. And understand how for people on the other side its economic policies which similarly preclude them the other way.
Which is where the LibDems could come in...
The thing that is uncertain is how todays 20-39 year olds will vote when they are 40-59 year olds.
Great discussion by all participants. Very much enjoying it. Even a smattering of PB knowhow in monitor recommendations, and laced (!) with some philosophising on booze.
People sleeping in doorways don't have money. Whom do these councillors expect will pay their fines? Aside from being pointlessly cruel its also stupid.
It's not difficult to understand why people think this is all just a ruse to protect their mates who own property.
Funny that.
We’re not aware of any data showing this. Statutory homelessness in England fell between 2003 and 2009. It has risen around 39% since then.
There are a whole lot of seats like this. London is worthwhile for the Tories to worry about, because your Hampstead & Kilburn voters of 2019 are your Guildford voters of 2028.
Did something happen to the Liberal Democrats today? I hear a rumour that you were talking about them.
Funny how there's a society when the Tories are in danger
It the Tories now have homelessness below what it was under Labour from 1997-2007 then do you think the Tories have done a good or job bad?
You could easily be right about the current SOP. My point though was historical - awesomely, BJ is the 20th OE PM. That I think says more about the position of the Tory party in the British class system than it says about academic excellence. Not a point I lose sleep over, but a rejoinder to the pious suggestion that the party is OE-blind in leader selection.
I agree with you entirely that they were a dreadful, stupid, avoidable misfire. Probably the second worst mistake of the coalition government (academy chains being the worst).
The minor detail that it was formulated by a review led by a disgraced perjurer who was sacked from his employer for embezzling funds to support an, um, colourful private life and then lied about it in court, before having to admit it (he was damn lucky it was David Eady he was in front of, or he’d have had five years for that) and whose knowledge of universities could have been written in very large print on the head of a pin was the icing on the shit cake. I mean, what did people expect such an utter low life would come up with?
But you do know that it was a Labour policy, on guidelines laid out by Mandelson, that the Tories had agreed to adopt and the Liberal Democrats said they would oppose?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browne_Review
Exhaled respiratory particles during singing and talking
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2020.1812502
But to put it into context there's an interesting graph on the Shelter Scotland website - about 1/5 of the way down. Also another showing private and council new houses. I wonder what happened in 2007?
https://scotland.shelter.org.uk/housing_policy/key_statistics/homelessness_facts_and_research
Sorry not sorry.
The Conservatives might be better off hibernating as a hard English nationalist party in 2024 than being hammered from both sides. But it would be long road back.
There are a stack of votes to the right of where Johnson has the tories, in my view, and some tory MPs know this.
No wonder they are so unhappy right now.
I found someone rough sleeping at my work place's boiler room about 2 years ago. The boiler room door wasn't the most secure and he'd forced it open and gotten in there, closing it behind him so it wasn't obvious what he'd done and he and was camping out in there - he had clothes, food and what worried me most was he was using the gas boiler (a large commercial one) as an ashtray! I tried speaking to him but he didn't speak a word of English. A colleague of mine was able to speak to him, he was Polish and had come over to live in the UK and hadn't found work or somewhere to live and was now rough sleeping. He couldn't communicate in English with me at all but as my my colleague could translate we asked if we could help or put him in contact with anyone, but he didn't want to talk to us. He then left and the next day he was gone never to be seen again though he left a lot of belongings (some of which looked stolen) and trash behind.
I'm not sure what perfect solution there is to prevent that, especially since he was trying to hide and didn't seem to want to receive help.
But he always hated socialists. Who could forget in 1945 he compared Labour to the Gestapo?
Me, I still call it clearly for Biden with Trump below 200 in the EC. I plan the biggest spread bet of my life when SPIN puts the market up if the consensus stays as out of line with the polls as it is now.
Plus we have Brexit to 'look forward' to.
....????
Still, I did say it was anecdotal.
https://twitter.com/MrAlAnderson/status/1298598615884193794
The Trump premium has disappeared but the Biden premium has extended.
Biden 1.87
Trump 2.18
Dem 1.84
Rep 2.18
Still, I did say it was anecdotal. Yes I am well aware of that - and something Labour got completely wrong. I am happy to make that clear.
Another reason too then why people might rough sleep - trying to evade the law. Hard to legally resolve an issue for people seeking to evade the law.
Its a complicated issue to resolve, most of the people doing it will be complicated cases.
I stick with people that are pleasant to be around
That must be cultural appropriation on a truly epic scale.