Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Moving on from Trump punters make it 69% chance that there will be UK-EU deal this year – politicalb

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 12 in General
imageMoving on from Trump punters make it 69% chance that there will be UK-EU deal this year – politicalbetting.com

Above is the market from Smarkets, the betting exchange that unlike Betfair settled Biden bets at the weekend, on whether there’ll be a UK deal with the EU by the end of December.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 9,606
    edited November 12
    first and far faster than any Brexit agreement is going to be - although I pity any exporters given the complete lack of information available from the Government.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,624
    1st. Like Biden's dogs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,988
    "Sign" a deal is the key issue.

    I think it's quite likely there will be a deal agreed, and then a quick two month standstill transition extension to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,243
    I might have a lemon sobeit next time I'm out for dinner. Refreshing.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,240
    rcs1000 said:

    "Sign" a deal is the key issue.

    I think it's quite likely there will be a deal agreed, and then a quick two month standstill transition extension to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

    In other words it will all be smoothed over despite all the posturing...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,624
    For those who read my piece on Blue Labour a few weeks ago.

  • 69%?

    Nice
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,566
    What constitutes a "Trade Deal" as far as this market is concerned?

    I think mini deals to keep the planes flying etc would happen even in the absence of a deal on customs, tarrifs and quotas. Is that enough for this market?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 1,806

    For those who read my piece on Blue Labour a few weeks ago.

    Do you have a copy of that @rottenborough ?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 27,213
    An irony of the 'fantastic deal' that Boris signed without apparently reading is that Northern Irish fishermen will be able to fish in British waters and land their fresh catch in EU ports, but English and Scottish boats will find it virtually impossible because of the administrative hassles and delays. What a PM, eh?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,591
    Finally, todays cases.

    Firstly, could everyone who likes reporting day data, please run round screaming, while on fire (ignition sources available on request).

    Secondly look at specimen day data -

    image

    vs yesterday

    image
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,201
    edited November 12
    The absolute top example of Westminster bubble obsession....35k positive cases and they ask this nonsense.
  • The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,820

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's a reporting day figure. The specimen day trend is still actually R~1-1.1 nationally.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 35,436

    The absolute top example of Westminster bubble obsession....35k positive cases and they ask this nonsense.
    Numbers aren't suprising. I have two friends on opposite sides of the country, both work/have family who work for the same supermarket chain, both saying management know they have staff with Covid - but are having to keep their supermarkets open.....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,591
    edited November 12
    MaxPB said:

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's a reporting day figure. The specimen day trend is still actually R~1-1.1 nationally.
    See graphs in post below for the cases comparison between yesterday and today.... and R (according to your forumula :-) )

    image

    image
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,820

    MaxPB said:

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's a reporting day figure. The specimen day trend is still actually R~1-1.1 nationally.
    See graphs in post below for the cases comparison between yesterday and today.... and R (according to your forumula :-) )

    image

    image
    Indeed, I've made an automatically updating dashboard in Looker.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,463
    I agree, Boris will likely compromise with the EU on state aid after Biden's win and a trade deal will be agreed before the end of the year
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,566

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    That r number must be significantly above 1 then.

    Certainly on my manor the figures are looking grim. 200 inpatients, 28 on ICU, figures that are not far off the April peak, and still rising. Press-gangs out to fill staffing gaps on the respiratory front line with anyone with a pulse. It's horrible, but at least not the sense of panic at Easter.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,782
    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    There was a conversation a bit earlier about another Scotland vote.

    Unlike many on here I don’t take the view that on such critical matters (see also Brexit) one can just decide things with a simple, one-off majority vote. To take the point to absurdity, what if the 2014 referendum had been carried by just one vote?

    Nor do I think that, having voted in 2014, it is appropriate to be having another vote any time soon. Although “once every generation” carries no legal weight, ever twenty years does not seem unreasonable for a question of this magnitude.

    Extending the franchise to 16+ was worth about 0.5% in favour of Indy and I’ve no idea why this was granted.

    I do also think it is worth looking at granting a vote to anyone born in Scotland who wishes to register as such. I do not know whether this would help or hinder independence, but I often wonder how I’d feel if my homeland (NZ) voted for some irrevocable break-up. I would certainly want a say in that, despite not living there for 20 years.

    Quite entitled to hold the views you do: but just one small point: the Scottish franchise has generally been extennded to 16+ as a wider point of public principle - crossparty approval (including Smith Commission). It's Westminster is the holdout here.
    Yes, am aware of that.
    I am personally against votes at 16 on principle, and don’t understand why it seems to have gained traction in parts of this country. Outside of Scotland (and now Wales), is there any country on earth that has votes at 16?

    And then, again, I can see in the Scottish context that it aids the independence movement.

    I think it is constitutionally iffy to allow it for an independence vote.
    As for it being constitutionally iffy, the Tories signed if off nem con, both in the Edinburgh agreement (for indyref) and in the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill. That does surprise me a bit too - LD and Labour and Greens yes, but if the Tories are happy ...?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33173488

    So it's not just a matter of the independence vote - and even in that case there is a strong argument that above all it should be permitted for that if nothing else, given the long term impact. The 16 andf 17 yos will be more affected than old f**ts like me whereas in an ordinary election the diferential is much less (and negligible in recent Westminster elections ...). So I think it a shame it wasn't allowed for the Brexit one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,887
    More likely, given their track record, Johnson and Cummings will either fail to sign by accident or sign something, realise it wasn’t what they thought and try to renege on it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,463
    edited November 12
    I imagine Mr Fox's $4 million net worth probably also helps him do what he is doing and give up acting

    https://www.networthlist.org/laurence-fox-net-worth-81584
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,031
    edited November 12
    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed very obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative becomes more entrenched.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,127
    edited November 12

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's rather strange. It really is quite a remarkable jump above the trendline, and I'd have thought quite possibly indicative of some sort of screw-up, though I suppose there is a chance it could be noise. Frankly, it was getting increasingly hard to believe that cases really were remaining steady in the UK.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,463
    edited November 12

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly after Corbyn's suspension and a bit from Tories to Farage post lockdown 2, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,031
    edited November 12
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,820

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's rather strange. It really is quite a remarkable jump above the trendline, and I'd have thought quite possibly indicative of some sort of screw-up, though I suppose there is a chance it could be noise. Frankly, it was getting increasingly hard to believe that cases really were remaining steady in the UK.
    We'll see tomorrow when the ONS data comes out.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,591

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's rather strange. It really is quite a remarkable jump above the trendline, and I'd have thought quite possibly indicative of some sort of screw-up, though I suppose there is a chance it could be noise. Frankly, it was getting increasingly hard to believe that cases really were remaining steady in the UK.
    It's reporting day stuff - see the graphs I posted towards the bottom of the thread showing the data yesterday and today.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 15,691
    Subject to the small print but 69% chance of a deal is a great bet. I'd do it if I had a $markets account. I think it's a near certainty and always has been.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,127
    edited November 12

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's rather strange. It really is quite a remarkable jump above the trendline, and I'd have thought quite possibly indicative of some sort of screw-up, though I suppose there is a chance it could be noise. Frankly, it was getting increasingly hard to believe that cases really were remaining steady in the UK.
    It's reporting day stuff - see the graphs I posted towards the bottom of the thread showing the data yesterday and today.
    So what? It's 33,470 cases that we didn't know about until today, so it's news. It means that the cases are most likely rising more quickly than we thought. Frankly, this "oh it's just reporting day stuff" every time cases increase is getting a bit tired now. It's meaningless.

    Edit: For avoidance of doubt, this doesn't mean that it's a good idea to place too much weight on a single day's figures is a good idea, but I really don't think it makes sense to simply dismiss it as reporting day stuff. As I've pointed out before, the reporting day figures generally correlate pretty well to the final specimen date figures, and so they have predictive power.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,887
    edited November 12

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's rather strange. It really is quite a remarkable jump above the trendline, and I'd have thought quite possibly indicative of some sort of screw-up, though I suppose there is a chance it could be noise. Frankly, it was getting increasingly hard to believe that cases really were remaining steady in the UK.
    It's reporting day stuff - see the graphs I posted towards the bottom of the thread showing the data yesterday and today.
    So what? It's 33,470 cases that we didn't know about until today, so it's news. It means that the cases are most likely rising more quickly than we thought. Frankly, this "oh it's just reporting day stuff" every time cases increase is getting a bit tired now. It's meaningless.
    It’s not looking terribly encouraging all around. I had hoped half term would see a dampening of cases, but round here at least it seems to have had the opposite effect.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,887

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    They should just fuck off and join the Greens?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 5,499
    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    There was a conversation a bit earlier about another Scotland vote.

    Unlike many on here I don’t take the view that on such critical matters (see also Brexit) one can just decide things with a simple, one-off majority vote. To take the point to absurdity, what if the 2014 referendum had been carried by just one vote?

    Nor do I think that, having voted in 2014, it is appropriate to be having another vote any time soon. Although “once every generation” carries no legal weight, ever twenty years does not seem unreasonable for a question of this magnitude.

    Extending the franchise to 16+ was worth about 0.5% in favour of Indy and I’ve no idea why this was granted.

    I do also think it is worth looking at granting a vote to anyone born in Scotland who wishes to register as such. I do not know whether this would help or hinder independence, but I often wonder how I’d feel if my homeland (NZ) voted for some irrevocable break-up. I would certainly want a say in that, despite not living there for 20 years.

    Quite entitled to hold the views you do: but just one small point: the Scottish franchise has generally been extennded to 16+ as a wider point of public principle - crossparty approval (including Smith Commission). It's Westminster is the holdout here.
    Yes, am aware of that.
    I am personally against votes at 16 on principle, and don’t understand why it seems to have gained traction in parts of this country. Outside of Scotland (and now Wales), is there any country on earth that has votes at 16?

    And then, again, I can see in the Scottish context that it aids the independence movement.

    I think it is constitutionally iffy to allow it for an independence vote.
    As for it being constitutionally iffy, the Tories signed if off nem con, both in the Edinburgh agreement (for indyref) and in the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill. That does surprise me a bit too - LD and Labour and Greens yes, but if the Tories are happy ...?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33173488

    So it's not just a matter of the independence vote - and even in that case there is a strong argument that above all it should be permitted for that if nothing else, given the long term impact. The 16 andf 17 yos will be more affected than old f**ts like me whereas in an ordinary election the diferential is much less (and negligible in recent Westminster elections ...). So I think it a shame it wasn't allowed for the Brexit one.
    Thanks for this. Good insight.
    I still don’t agree with it, but interesting indeed that it has unanimous support in Scotland.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,820

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's rather strange. It really is quite a remarkable jump above the trendline, and I'd have thought quite possibly indicative of some sort of screw-up, though I suppose there is a chance it could be noise. Frankly, it was getting increasingly hard to believe that cases really were remaining steady in the UK.
    It's reporting day stuff - see the graphs I posted towards the bottom of the thread showing the data yesterday and today.
    So what? It's 33,470 cases that we didn't know about until today, so it's news. It means that the cases are most likely rising more quickly than we thought. Frankly, this "oh it's just reporting day stuff" every time cases increase is getting a bit tired now. It's meaningless.
    Except the ONS data has correlated the specimen day case data almost exactly and the specimen day R correlates to hospital R almost exactly as well after a 10 day delay.

    The issue is that R1.1 isn't good enough because cases are still rising. The ZOE app data is probably the best real time indicator we have and that's showing R0.9 nationally and R1.0 in England.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,591
    edited November 12

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's rather strange. It really is quite a remarkable jump above the trendline, and I'd have thought quite possibly indicative of some sort of screw-up, though I suppose there is a chance it could be noise. Frankly, it was getting increasingly hard to believe that cases really were remaining steady in the UK.
    It's reporting day stuff - see the graphs I posted towards the bottom of the thread showing the data yesterday and today.
    So what? It's 33,470 cases that we didn't know about until today, so it's news. It means that the cases are most likely rising more quickly than we thought. Frankly, this "oh it's just reporting day stuff" every time cases increase is getting a bit tired now. It's meaningless.

    Edit: For avoidance of doubt, this doesn't mean that it's a good idea to place too much weight on a single day's figures is a good idea, but I really don't think it makes sense to simply dismiss it as reporting day stuff. As I've pointed out before, the reporting day figures generally correlate pretty well to the final specimen date figures, and so they have predictive power.
    The problem with that logic is this - if you report all the cases in 2021, then we would have no COVID.

    Specimen day data is closer to reality than reporting date.

    Today

    image

    Yesterday

    image
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,031
    edited November 12
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    They should just fuck off and join the Greens?
    That won't help Labour win the election, which I suspect is what Starmer will be pondering about this week.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,887
    edited November 12

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    They should just fuck off and join the Greens?
    That won't help Labour win the election, which I suspect is what Starmer will be pondering about this week.
    There’s a certain delicious irony though given that many Labour members were asking ‘what’s the point of the Green Party other than to take votes from us?’

    I would also remind everyone that whatever I disagree with them on the Greens have Views on racism.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,941

    Carnyx said:

    There was a conversation a bit earlier about another Scotland vote.

    Unlike many on here I don’t take the view that on such critical matters (see also Brexit) one can just decide things with a simple, one-off majority vote. To take the point to absurdity, what if the 2014 referendum had been carried by just one vote?

    Nor do I think that, having voted in 2014, it is appropriate to be having another vote any time soon. Although “once every generation” carries no legal weight, ever twenty years does not seem unreasonable for a question of this magnitude.

    Extending the franchise to 16+ was worth about 0.5% in favour of Indy and I’ve no idea why this was granted.

    I do also think it is worth looking at granting a vote to anyone born in Scotland who wishes to register as such. I do not know whether this would help or hinder independence, but I often wonder how I’d feel if my homeland (NZ) voted for some irrevocable break-up. I would certainly want a say in that, despite not living there for 20 years.

    Quite entitled to hold the views you do: but just one small point: the Scottish franchise has generally been extennded to 16+ as a wider point of public principle - crossparty approval (including Smith Commission). It's Westminster is the holdout here.
    Yes, am aware of that.
    I am personally against votes at 16 on principle, and don’t understand why it seems to have gained traction in parts of this country. Outside of Scotland (and now Wales), is there any country on earth that has votes at 16?

    And then, again, I can see in the Scottish context that it aids the independence movement.

    I think it is constitutionally iffy to allow it for an independence vote.
    From Wikipedia
    Nicaragua: Estonia (previously for 2 years) Brazil:
    Isle of Man Austria
    Guernsey:
    Jersey:
    Ecuador:
    Argentina:

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,591
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    They should just fuck off and join the Greens?
    That won't help Labour win the election, which I suspect is what Starmer will be pondering about this week.
    There’s a certain delicious irony though given that many Labour members were asking ‘what’s the point of the Green Party other than to take votes from us?’

    I would also remind everyone that whatever I disagree with them on the Greens have Views on racism.
    It will be interesting to see the effect that such individuals have on the Green Party...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 621

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's rather strange. It really is quite a remarkable jump above the trendline, and I'd have thought quite possibly indicative of some sort of screw-up, though I suppose there is a chance it could be noise. Frankly, it was getting increasingly hard to believe that cases really were remaining steady in the UK.
    For the nth time - date of test, not date of reporting...
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's a reporting day figure. The specimen day trend is still actually R~1-1.1 nationally.
    See graphs in post below for the cases comparison between yesterday and today.... and R (according to your forumula :-) )

    image

    image
    Indeed, I've made an automatically updating dashboard in Looker.
    The Leeds ODI hex maps have recently been updated (but check the date on each map). The hex maps make it easier to see clusters. At first glance there seems to be a discrepancy between more cases up north and more money spent in the south but the dates are months apart.
    https://odileeds.github.io/covid-19/LocalAuthorities/hexmap.html

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 4,396
    ydoethur said:

    The government says there was no backlog of tests that were processed which could explain it.
    The mass testing in Liverpool is not thought to be feeding into the figure yet.

    It's rather strange. It really is quite a remarkable jump above the trendline, and I'd have thought quite possibly indicative of some sort of screw-up, though I suppose there is a chance it could be noise. Frankly, it was getting increasingly hard to believe that cases really were remaining steady in the UK.
    It's reporting day stuff - see the graphs I posted towards the bottom of the thread showing the data yesterday and today.
    So what? It's 33,470 cases that we didn't know about until today, so it's news. It means that the cases are most likely rising more quickly than we thought. Frankly, this "oh it's just reporting day stuff" every time cases increase is getting a bit tired now. It's meaningless.
    It’s not looking terribly encouraging all around. I had hoped half term would see a dampening of cases, but round here at least it seems to have had the opposite effect.
    A theory is, this is last-chance-to-party-party infections showing up (today is Nov 4th + 8 days).
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,031
    edited November 12

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    They should just fuck off and join the Greens?
    That won't help Labour win the election, which I suspect is what Starmer will be pondering about this week.
    There’s a certain delicious irony though given that many Labour members were asking ‘what’s the point of the Green Party other than to take votes from us?’

    I would also remind everyone that whatever I disagree with them on the Greens have Views on racism.
    It will be interesting to see the effect that such individuals have on the Green Party...
    I don't think most or all the individuals swapping alllegiance will be doing it on the basis of anti-jewish prejudice. To many people on the left, Corbyn simply symbolises Labour's era of the Left , far beyond this particular issue . That's what Starmer must, and I think knows, he must be very careful of, if he wants to sustain an election-winning coalition.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    Carnyx said:

    There was a conversation a bit earlier about another Scotland vote.

    Unlike many on here I don’t take the view that on such critical matters (see also Brexit) one can just decide things with a simple, one-off majority vote. To take the point to absurdity, what if the 2014 referendum had been carried by just one vote?

    Nor do I think that, having voted in 2014, it is appropriate to be having another vote any time soon. Although “once every generation” carries no legal weight, ever twenty years does not seem unreasonable for a question of this magnitude.

    Extending the franchise to 16+ was worth about 0.5% in favour of Indy and I’ve no idea why this was granted.

    I do also think it is worth looking at granting a vote to anyone born in Scotland who wishes to register as such. I do not know whether this would help or hinder independence, but I often wonder how I’d feel if my homeland (NZ) voted for some irrevocable break-up. I would certainly want a say in that, despite not living there for 20 years.

    Quite entitled to hold the views you do: but just one small point: the Scottish franchise has generally been extennded to 16+ as a wider point of public principle - crossparty approval (including Smith Commission). It's Westminster is the holdout here.
    Yes, am aware of that.
    I am personally against votes at 16 on principle, and don’t understand why it seems to have gained traction in parts of this country. Outside of Scotland (and now Wales), is there any country on earth that has votes at 16?

    And then, again, I can see in the Scottish context that it aids the independence movement.

    I think it is constitutionally iffy to allow it for an independence vote.
    I'm also opposed to it on principle, and many of the arguments used to argue in favour of it I find far from convincing. It's well known we are inconsistent in how we set rules of adulthood for various things, and in fairness there may be scope for some inconsistency, but I do think our general approach to young people argues against giving 16 year olds the vote.

    However, I think the battle has already been lost. If you have it for some votes for some parts of the country, I think it is pretty hard to resist the argument for another vote or other parts of the country.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,641

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,735
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly after Corbyn's suspension and a bit from Tories to Farage post lockdown 2, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    MoE.
    Free money from Sunak.
    Boris discovering a vaccine.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with Corbyn being thrown out. Keep Corbyn out!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,782
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    In fairness it should be pointed out that the Greens in Scotland are a different lot completely from Ms Lucas's lot (not a pretend party like SLAB etc). Holyrood voting system means more MSPs with some distinctive individuals - Andy Wightman has made a real name on land ownership issues for instance (admittedly partly why he was elected I think). He certainly knows what he is talking about, for instance. But no Green MPs.

    Not sure about Wales or NI.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 336
    HYUFD said:

    I agree, Boris will likely compromise with the EU on state aid after Biden's win and a trade deal will be agreed before the end of the year

    Why were they so prepared to die in a ditch for pre Thatcher socialism anyway?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 422
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    I'm not even sure they know the Green bit. They seem to be more Women's studies than Ecology.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,031
    edited November 12

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly after Corbyn's suspension and a bit from Tories to Farage post lockdown 2, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    MoE.
    Free money from Sunak.
    Boris discovering a vaccine.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with Corbyn being thrown out. Keep Corbyn out!
    I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of these suggested would be more obviously reasons for a rise in Conservative support, rather than a fall in Labour support, and don't forget also that Sunak being associated with free money isn't new.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,860
    HYUFD said:

    I imagine Mr Fox's $4 million net worth probably also helps him do what he is doing and give up acting


    https://www.networthlist.org/laurence-fox-net-worth-81584
    He’s just taking his self regard to a different sphere.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,735

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly after Corbyn's suspension and a bit from Tories to Farage post lockdown 2, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    MoE.
    Free money from Sunak.
    Boris discovering a vaccine.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with Corbyn being thrown out. Keep Corbyn out!
    I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of these suggested would be more obviously reasons for a rise in Conservative support, rather than a fall in Labour support, and don't forget also that Sunak being associated with free money isn't new.
    In the longer term, Corbyn's ejection is great news. Burgon, RLB and Len following hot in his heels would be even better.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    I'm honestly surprised they continue to poll as high as they do, since to a greater or lesser degree most of the parties engage with Green issues, sometimes very strongly, and so they don't appear necessary to focus attention on the subject, and even if they would claim to be the most committed to it 'We are a bit more Green than X' is not much of a pitch compated to 'We're the only ones who care about Green issues' (and if they do try the latter, it is not believable).

    So they don't have that much resonance even on Green issues, and what else do they have? Well, more people are talking about Universal Basic Income now, but since they lack even the LDs slim chances in most seats, and not much of a local presence in most places, it's hard for them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly after Corbyn's suspension and a bit from Tories to Farage post lockdown 2, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    MoE.
    Free money from Sunak.
    Boris discovering a vaccine.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with Corbyn being thrown out. Keep Corbyn out!
    I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of these suggested would be more obviously reasons for a rise in Conservative support, rather than a fall in Labour support, and don't forget also that Sunak being associated with free money isn't new.
    In the longer term, Corbyn's ejection is great news. Burgon, RLB and Len following hot in his heels would be even better.
    They won't. Corbyn stewed on the backbenches for decades, quite happily doing all his side projects and voting against the party, why would they be more ambitious?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,887

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly after Corbyn's suspension and a bit from Tories to Farage post lockdown 2, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    MoE.
    Free money from Sunak.
    Boris discovering a vaccine.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with Corbyn being thrown out. Keep Corbyn out!
    I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of these suggested would be more obviously reasons for a rise in Conservative support, rather than a fall in Labour support, and don't forget also that Sunak being associated with free money isn't new.
    In the longer term, Corbyn's ejection is great news. Burgon, RLB and Len following hot in his heels would be even better.
    What about Lavery, McDonnell and Gardiner?

    Or indeed Drakeford...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 35,436
    edited November 12

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed very obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative becomes more entrenched.
    The LibDems really are moribund, aren't they? If they can't benefit at all from Labour's anti-semitism woes, then when can they?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed very obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative becomes more entrenched.
    The LibDems really are moribund, aren't they? If they can't benefit at all from Labour's anti-semitism woes, then when can they?
    It was the critical question in December 2019 and still is.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 336

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly after Corbyn's suspension and a bit from Tories to Farage post lockdown 2, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    MoE.
    Free money from Sunak.
    Boris discovering a vaccine.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with Corbyn being thrown out. Keep Corbyn out!
    I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of these suggested would be more obviously reasons for a rise in Conservative support, rather than a fall in Labour support, and don't forget also that Sunak being associated with free money isn't new.
    As well as Corbyns mere suspension there was the publication of the thing which led to it, which Leading labour members, like Corbin, were immediately trashing and discrediting. If antisemitism played a part in labour dropping to barely 200 seats, what have they actually done to make a clear break with that? The current polling covers a reminder to voters of what Labour as a whole movement still are, not reminder of clear change from it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 15,691
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly after Corbyn's suspension and a bit from Tories to Farage post lockdown 2, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    MoE.
    Free money from Sunak.
    Boris discovering a vaccine.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with Corbyn being thrown out. Keep Corbyn out!
    I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of these suggested would be more obviously reasons for a rise in Conservative support, rather than a fall in Labour support, and don't forget also that Sunak being associated with free money isn't new.
    In the longer term, Corbyn's ejection is great news. Burgon, RLB and Len following hot in his heels would be even better.
    They won't. Corbyn stewed on the backbenches for decades, quite happily doing all his side projects and voting against the party, why would they be more ambitious?
    He kept the red flag flying there.

    Not a leader though. Protest politician.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,641
    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    I'm honestly surprised they continue to poll as high as they do, since to a greater or lesser degree most of the parties engage with Green issues, sometimes very strongly, and so they don't appear necessary to focus attention on the subject, and even if they would claim to be the most committed to it 'We are a bit more Green than X' is not much of a pitch compated to 'We're the only ones who care about Green issues' (and if they do try the latter, it is not believable).

    So they don't have that much resonance even on Green issues, and what else do they have? Well, more people are talking about Universal Basic Income now, but since they lack even the LDs slim chances in most seats, and not much of a local presence in most places, it's hard for them.
    Universal basic income is not really such a left-wing thing.

    I'm really very right indeed economically (but very liberal mostly), but I think it's a very interesting idea. What I like about it is that it gets rid of a whole load of bureaucracy, and removes most of the cheating.

    I even wonder whether you could just plough back the savings from not asking about disability etc into it so that you could get rid of all that unnecessary government too.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 4,396
    HYUFD said:

    I imagine Mr Fox's $4 million net worth probably also helps him do what he is doing and give up acting


    https://www.networthlist.org/laurence-fox-net-worth-81584
    I am not going to click that link, but point one it isn't easy to know anyone's net worth unless you actually know it, in which case you are almost certainly professionally obliged not to disclose it, and point two $4m is not retirement money for a 42 year old, esp if most of it is a London house which he wants to actually live in.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,591

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    I'm not even sure they know the Green bit. They seem to be more Women's studies than Ecology.
    All Green parties in the countries I know of started as an aggregation of people campaigning against different, individual things. So the Nuke Haters teamed up with the Road Haters and the Wind Turbine Haters etc etc

    As a result they started out being anti pretty much everything.

    In many countries - such as Germany, the Green parties have gone beyond this, to the point of being prepared to upset some factions by being in favour of things.

    This doesn't seem to have happened in the UK Green party.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 15,170
    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    I'm honestly surprised they continue to poll as high as they do, since to a greater or lesser degree most of the parties engage with Green issues, sometimes very strongly, and so they don't appear necessary to focus attention on the subject, and even if they would claim to be the most committed to it 'We are a bit more Green than X' is not much of a pitch compated to 'We're the only ones who care about Green issues' (and if they do try the latter, it is not believable).

    So they don't have that much resonance even on Green issues, and what else do they have? Well, more people are talking about Universal Basic Income now, but since they lack even the LDs slim chances in most seats, and not much of a local presence in most places, it's hard for them.
    As I arguably lost my seat because of Green intervention (to a candidate (who then decided to join Labour, not that it rankles or anything :)) you'd expect me to be pretty anti-Green, but I think they're in general a fairly reasonable repository for the counter-culture left-wing vote, people who want out of capitalism but don't fancy the harsh tones of the SWP and other far-left groups. Their policies were extremely similar to Labour under Corbyn but their conference has a totally different feel - a movement uninterested in conventional politics (you'll see more about organic farming at their events than about, say, housing benefit) rather than a party hoping to form government. In practice they usually don't compete in Con-Lab marginals.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,735
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly after Corbyn's suspension and a bit from Tories to Farage post lockdown 2, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    MoE.
    Free money from Sunak.
    Boris discovering a vaccine.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with Corbyn being thrown out. Keep Corbyn out!
    I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of these suggested would be more obviously reasons for a rise in Conservative support, rather than a fall in Labour support, and don't forget also that Sunak being associated with free money isn't new.
    In the longer term, Corbyn's ejection is great news. Burgon, RLB and Len following hot in his heels would be even better.
    What about Lavery, McDonnell and Gardiner?

    Or indeed Drakeford...
    Hasn't Lavery already gone, damn, he just said he was going. McDonnell, an unpleasant busted flush, Gardiner just unpleasant. I only hold Shaky Draky in a fraction of the contempt I do Corbyn.

    Back to the poll. Without wishing to appear like HYUFD, I think Johnson has smashed it out of the park this week, excellent Covid figures, a vaccine and with a trade deal at the weekend, the Conservatives will be 5 to 8 points plus ahead by December Granted, it will all be downhill in the New Year, but credit where it is due.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286
    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    I'm honestly surprised they continue to poll as high as they do, since to a greater or lesser degree most of the parties engage with Green issues, sometimes very strongly, and so they don't appear necessary to focus attention on the subject, and even if they would claim to be the most committed to it 'We are a bit more Green than X' is not much of a pitch compated to 'We're the only ones who care about Green issues' (and if they do try the latter, it is not believable).

    So they don't have that much resonance even on Green issues, and what else do they have? Well, more people are talking about Universal Basic Income now, but since they lack even the LDs slim chances in most seats, and not much of a local presence in most places, it's hard for them.
    Universal basic income is not really such a left-wing thing.
    The point was they were the first I remember talking about it, I think it was in their last manifesto, rather thanit being inherently left wing. But how many ideas, left or right, do they have to differentiate themselves?
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,228
    Quincel said:

    I might have a lemon sobeit next time I'm out for dinner. Refreshing.

    Amen to that.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,591
    HYUFD said:
    Interesting Twitter handle for the Pope. A reminder that he holds the same post that Julius Caesar did.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,887
    edited November 12
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    I imagine Mr Fox's $4 million net worth probably also helps him do what he is doing and give up acting


    https://www.networthlist.org/laurence-fox-net-worth-81584
    I am not going to click that link, but point one it isn't easy to know anyone's net worth unless you actually know it, in which case you are almost certainly professionally obliged not to disclose it, and point two $4m is not retirement money for a 42 year old, esp if most of it is a London house which he wants to actually live in.
    It strikes me as the highest degree improbable that Fox could get to $4 million in 20-odd years of acting on British TV programmes and in classical stage plays. Even if his father owned a house in London and deeded it to him, which isn’t improbable.

    I doubt if even his uncle’s worth that after a distinguished career in film spanning 60 years.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,561
    This is kind of interesting from Stanford computer science department
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2923-3

    "Derived from cell phone data, our mobility networks map the hourly movements of 98 million people from neighborhoods (census block groups, or CBGs) to points of interest (POIs) such as restaurants and religious establishments, connecting 57k CBGs to 553k POIs with 5.4 billion hourly edges. We show that by integrating these networks, a relatively simple SEIR model can accurately fit the real case trajectory, despite substantial changes in population behavior over time. Our model predicts that a small minority of “superspreader” POIs account for a large majority of infections and that restricting maximum occupancy at each POI is more effective than uniformly reducing mobility. Our model also correctly predicts higher infection rates among disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic groups2–8 solely from differences in mobility: we find that disadvantaged groups have not been able to reduce mobility as sharply, and that the POIs they visit are more crowded and therefore higher-risk... "
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,328
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    I imagine Mr Fox's $4 million net worth probably also helps him do what he is doing and give up acting


    https://www.networthlist.org/laurence-fox-net-worth-81584
    I am not going to click that link, but point one it isn't easy to know anyone's net worth unless you actually know it, in which case you are almost certainly professionally obliged not to disclose it, and point two $4m is not retirement money for a 42 year old, esp if most of it is a London house which he wants to actually live in.
    On what planet is 4m not retirement money? That's 100k a year for the next 40 years, and that's assuming he just keeps it all in a bank and draws out a hundred grand each year, rather than invests it and takes money from dividends etc.

    Most people would be extremely lucky to retire on such terms!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286

    HYUFD said:
    Interesting Twitter handle for the Pope. A reminder that he holds the same post that Julius Caesar did.
    Presumably it has changed at least a little :)
  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,561
    eristdoof said:

    Carnyx said:

    There was a conversation a bit earlier about another Scotland vote.

    Unlike many on here I don’t take the view that on such critical matters (see also Brexit) one can just decide things with a simple, one-off majority vote. To take the point to absurdity, what if the 2014 referendum had been carried by just one vote?

    Nor do I think that, having voted in 2014, it is appropriate to be having another vote any time soon. Although “once every generation” carries no legal weight, ever twenty years does not seem unreasonable for a question of this magnitude.

    Extending the franchise to 16+ was worth about 0.5% in favour of Indy and I’ve no idea why this was granted.

    I do also think it is worth looking at granting a vote to anyone born in Scotland who wishes to register as such. I do not know whether this would help or hinder independence, but I often wonder how I’d feel if my homeland (NZ) voted for some irrevocable break-up. I would certainly want a say in that, despite not living there for 20 years.

    Quite entitled to hold the views you do: but just one small point: the Scottish franchise has generally been extennded to 16+ as a wider point of public principle - crossparty approval (including Smith Commission). It's Westminster is the holdout here.
    Yes, am aware of that.
    I am personally against votes at 16 on principle, and don’t understand why it seems to have gained traction in parts of this country. Outside of Scotland (and now Wales), is there any country on earth that has votes at 16?

    And then, again, I can see in the Scottish context that it aids the independence movement.

    I think it is constitutionally iffy to allow it for an independence vote.
    From Wikipedia
    Nicaragua: Estonia (previously for 2 years) Brazil:
    Isle of Man Austria
    Guernsey:
    Jersey:
    Ecuador:
    Argentina:

    Parts of Germany have votes at 16 for state elections, and most of Germany for municipal elections.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 9,214
    Are any of the lawyers for Trump expecting to work again?

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,591
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Interesting Twitter handle for the Pope. A reminder that he holds the same post that Julius Caesar did.
    Presumably it has changed at least a little :)
    Still Pontifex Maximus..... Same job title.....


  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 15,170

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed very obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative becomes more entrenched.
    The details in the link are interesting - Starmer's rating has risen again post-Corbyn's suspension, though I think it's also true that it will have lost some support on the left edge. Generally, though, left-wingers are sticking with the party - we've lost one member out of 700 in my CLP, and I gather the picture is similar elsewhere. There isn't anyone actively urging people to quit, but leftists feel a bit like most of Bernie's supporters about Biden - "Not inspiring, but oh well, better than the alternative if he can win".

    That said, Starmer needs to show he is actually pulling voters over - it's nice that 25% of Tory voters think well of him, but unless some actually vote accordingly it's actually irrelevant in terms of winning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286
    Scott_xP said:

    Are any of the lawyers for Trump expecting to work again?

    Not sure why this needed pointing out to them, but then a lot of the 'just asking questions' school of Trump defence seems to take it as read that an unsupported allegation should be believed until it is disproved, rather than proved.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,641
    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    I'm honestly surprised they continue to poll as high as they do, since to a greater or lesser degree most of the parties engage with Green issues, sometimes very strongly, and so they don't appear necessary to focus attention on the subject, and even if they would claim to be the most committed to it 'We are a bit more Green than X' is not much of a pitch compated to 'We're the only ones who care about Green issues' (and if they do try the latter, it is not believable).

    So they don't have that much resonance even on Green issues, and what else do they have? Well, more people are talking about Universal Basic Income now, but since they lack even the LDs slim chances in most seats, and not much of a local presence in most places, it's hard for them.
    Universal basic income is not really such a left-wing thing.
    The point was they were the first I remember talking about it, I think it was in their last manifesto, rather thanit being inherently left wing. But how many ideas, left or right, do they have to differentiate themselves?
    Perhaps, although I'd have certainly been airing such ideas 30 years ago, and as said above I'm an arch-Tory, and always have been.

    So far as I understand it the experiments along these lines haven't worked, but then if the left are in charge they can fuck up even the best ideas.

    In my view the idea that you never have to tell the state anything - if you're employed, lost a leg, feeling a bit ill and can't go in to work that day, doctors certificate, union official strike - who knows. The state won't care. Huge savings.

    And then you tax income from penny one.
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary.
    The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level.
    I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,243
    The Vatican has decided Biden has won. And given the size of their cash reserves, I imagine they'll be smashing the Betfair markets shortly...


  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,031
    edited November 12

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed very obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative becomes more entrenched.
    The details in the link are interesting - Starmer's rating has risen again post-Corbyn's suspension, though I think it's also true that it will have lost some support on the left edge. Generally, though, left-wingers are sticking with the party - we've lost one member out of 700 in my CLP, and I gather the picture is similar elsewhere. There isn't anyone actively urging people to quit, but leftists feel a bit like most of Bernie's supporters about Biden - "Not inspiring, but oh well, better than the alternative if he can win".

    That said, Starmer needs to show he is actually pulling voters over - it's nice that 25% of Tory voters think well of him, but unless some actually vote accordingly it's actually irrelevant in terms of winning.
    Much I agree with here , but as HYUFD noticed too in the polls, the fact that parts of this recent loss of support post-Corbyn suspension are to the Greens may be significant.
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Are any of the lawyers for Trump expecting to work again?

    Not sure why this needed pointing out to them, but then a lot of the 'just asking questions' school of Trump defence seems to take it as read that an unsupported allegation should be believed until it is disproved, rather than proved.
    Your honor, between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,201
    edited November 12
    Scott_xP said:
    I seemed to remember 100,000s of people in 2016 not agreeing with such a flow chart, claiming Trump wasn't their president.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 43,213
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286
    Quincel said:

    The Vatican has decided Biden has won. And given the size of their cash reserves, I imagine they'll be smashing the Betfair markets shortly...

    Probably more moral and honest than some of the operations of the Vatican bank.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Are any of the lawyers for Trump expecting to work again?

    Not sure why this needed pointing out to them, but then a lot of the 'just asking questions' school of Trump defence seems to take it as read that an unsupported allegation should be believed until it is disproved, rather than proved.
    Your honor, between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.
    You are Bertrand Russell and I claim my cup of tea :+1:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 35,436

    Scott_xP said:
    I seemed to remember 100,000s of people in 2016 not agreeing with such a flow chart, claiming Trump wasn't their president.
    Ditto Brexit.
  • FlannerFlanner Posts: 294
    Quincel said:

    The Vatican has decided Biden has won. And given the size of their cash reserves, I imagine they'll be smashing the Betfair markets shortly...


    You all do realise, don't you, that this is the first time in history that the head of both the British and the US government are baptised Catholics?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 58,286
    New conpspiracy theory - Democrats didn't rig the presidential election, so confident they were of winning, but they pretended they did so the Republicans in Georgia would lose their minds and no one would take them seriously as the Democrats rigged the Senatorial runoffs they were confident would occur.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,641
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary.
    The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level.
    I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
    Yep - I'd agree, and thanks for making a clearer case.

    There is some small hope with nuclear power that fusion energy might suddenly work. Admittedly some small risk too that half the country might disappear in a crater - when there was talk of creating a mini-black-hole at Cern you have to start to worry.

    To my mind the future is technology and we should see where it takes us. We should also make sure that the 'us' bit is as rich as it can be - the future should be better for all the species of the Earth (not wasps or crocodiles though).

  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed very obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative becomes more entrenched.
    The details in the link are interesting - Starmer's rating has risen again post-Corbyn's suspension, though I think it's also true that it will have lost some support on the left edge. Generally, though, left-wingers are sticking with the party - we've lost one member out of 700 in my CLP, and I gather the picture is similar elsewhere. There isn't anyone actively urging people to quit, but leftists feel a bit like most of Bernie's supporters about Biden - "Not inspiring, but oh well, better than the alternative if he can win".

    That said, Starmer needs to show he is actually pulling voters over - it's nice that 25% of Tory voters think well of him, but unless some actually vote accordingly it's actually irrelevant in terms of winning.
    [Waves] I'm thinking of voting Labour next time. Never have done before. Starmer is the real deal in my eyes, and the way the far left have reacted to him is healthy confirmation for me that I'm on the right track.
    But we'll see. Plenty of time before the next election for me to make up my mind. If a pollster phoned me today, you'd find me in the "2019 Lib Dem / VI Labour" part of the table.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,624
    edited November 12
    Scott_xP said:
    If that happens they are finally and absolutely f*cked. Out of office for a generation. Goodbye.

    Edit:

    STEPHEN GLOVER: A successful roll-out of the vaccine is Boris Johnson's last chance to show he's up to the job - or he's finished

    (Daily Mail)
Sign In or Register to comment.