We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
You'll be putting up those links to authoritative sources (as opposed to some anonymous rando on the internet) on the Strathclyde 'opinion poll' not being an advisory referendum shortly?
Why bother? You haven’t provided any actual evidence to show that it merits being called a referendum. Instead, you have cited a website that claims Richard III didn’t usurp the throne of England or murder his nephews, that Legio IX Hispana was wiped out after the manner of Rosemary Sutcliffe’s claims, and gives considerable space to the questions of whether the Holocaust happened, Jesus existed or the Titanic was actually the Olympic.
You may be interested in this, however, as I’ve never seen you cite it:
It argues the same points as Tierney, but comes to the opposite conclusions.
Do you know for sure that Richard III didn't meet his nephews?
I am perfectly certain he met them. Did autocorrect do what it does best there?
Edit - seen the correction, but I’m even more confused. Do you mean, ‘Do you know for sure that Richard III *did* murder his nephews?’
Do you know for sure that Richard III murdered his nephews?
If you are asking for hard proof, then you’re asking the wrong doctor. I don’t have a Tardis.
However, there is a more realistic question, which is, ‘does any other explanation fit the very extensive circumstantial evidence that we have?’
To which the answer is, no.
People have indeed been convicted of murder on flimsier evidence than there is against Richard - Adrian Prout springs to mind. But I am content saying that it is the most likely explanation, rather than that it is ‘proven.’
What really does get up my nostrils are Ricardians claiming ‘he can’t have murdered them because he was too nice.’ Bullshit. He was not nice. He committed four very public murders including two peers of the realm to usurp the throne in the first place, and he had a long history of violence and extortion, including kidnapping the 63 year old dowager countess of Oxford to seize her lands, kidnapping and forcibly marrying the younger daughter of the Earl of Warwick to seize her lands, and dragging a number of Lancastrian refugees out of Tewkesbury Abbey and brutally despatching them without trial.
And unfortunately those delusional twits are the ones who edit his Wikipedia article, which is why it is essentially a tissue of lies.
I'm just stuck on the idea put forth there that a major noble and prince of that period would have been 'too nice'. Granted, I am no expert in these matters, but even if he didn't do all he is thought to have done, it seems unlikely he could have merely held the roles he did by being too nice.
The first real positive from the deal - the compulsory reintroduction of Netscape. Death to Internet Explorer!
Surely nobody still uses Internet Explorer? I mean, even those people weird enough not to use Chrome surely use Edge now?
If you use Windows 10s (which is sometimes the simplest thing to do), so you can't use Chrome, then Edge drops you across to IE for ancient websites. One of the exam board marker portals does it. In case we ever have exams again.
My hospital system uses a couple of IE based apps, not least the clunky NHS referral portal, but also the actually quite good ICE system for results.
There do seem to be major problems in the system, and a focus on the wrong things instead of fixing them.
Goodness me have I converted you into a leftie? Or have I gone to the right, I find myself agreeing with you a lot these days.
I would consider myself centrist to centre right, generally (to the extent left-right labels means anything), which means there are plenty of matters on the left that are good ideas (not that properly funding and resolving issues in the criminal justice system is left or right). I'm not even opposed to nationalising things like water or power as a principle, though it's not an issue of dogma either but would depend.
There's a reason I even read all the manifestoes at GE time, and it isn't just for kicks.
Great post, I have immeasurable respect for you and consider you one of the highlights of this site. I really do.
The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.
In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.
So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD
Yes, why not keep on speculating about a subject on which you clearly know very little.
Well what makes you the oracle of German politics then if you want to make such a pompous, patronising comment?
Every time you comment on Germany you talk about the possibility of the CDU and the Afd doing a deal.
It's as if a German keeps commenting on British politics and every time says "if the LibDems fail to get an absolute majority at the next election...."
Where? Where did I mention that, nowhere.
However if say Merz is CDU chancellor candidate I think it is unlikely the Greens will do a deal with him and vice versa and if the only viable alternatives are a Green and SPD and Linke deal or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal who knows what would happen.
You're unbelievable, literally in the post I replied to you said
"Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the Afd"
And now again
"or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal"
It's not going to happen. I'll indulge you: Say Merz becomes CDU chair (possible though far from certain) And say the CDU/CSU are the largest group after the next election (probable) And say the only 2 party coalition that can mathematically command a majority is with the Greens(which seems to be what you are suggesting) or Union plus AfD (which looks unlikely) And say the CDU first choice chancellor candidate is Merz And say the price for the Greens going into coalition is Merz not being chancellor Then we know what won't happen: the CDU won't go into coalition with the AfD. Either there will be a Union Green coalition with someone else as chancellor, or the CDU will go into coalition with FDP SPD, or there will be a CDU minority government, or there will be fresh elections (in that order of likelihood).
You suggest the possibility of a Green SPD Linke coalition, but as I think you will realise on reflection, if Union plus AfD (plus FDP) is a majority then Green plus SPD plus Linke isn't.
Wrong, if the CDU /CSU will not do a deal with the AfD and the Greens plus SPD plus Linke has more seats than the CDU/CSU and FDP then the Greens plus SPD plus Linke can form a government without a majority if say Merz is leader and the Greens refuse to do a deal with a Merz led CDU and the SPD prefer the Greens to Merz.
That would be even with the CDU/CSU still the largest party in the Bundestag
You are, with respect, talking out of your arse. A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
Given Merz is relatively sceptical about climate change policies compared to Merkel and concerned about their impact on business if he is CDU leader the idea there could be any CDU and Green deal is not very likely at all and quite possibly not a CDU/CSU and SPD deal either.
In which case if the CDU refuse also to do a deal with the AfD and there is no majority for the CDU/CSU and FDP either then the only alternative would be a Green, SPD and Linke no matter how patronising and rude you wish to be
I moved back to the UK from Germany in 2008, and I don't really follow German politics any more, but I remember Merkel being quite hostile to Green policies before she became Chancellor. So it wouldn't surprise me if Merz's antipathy to greenery were also to soften considerably if/when he no longer needs to wear his right-wing credentials on his sleeve. Politicians are often more pragmatic than you'd think.
HYUFD is himself reasonably pragmatic each time the party leadership changes.
On the report upto 60 Labour mps will defy the whip and vote against the deal it does affirm the point that Starmer in an effort to appease the red wall leave areas is risking losing votes to the lib dems in the remain voting areas and in particular in London
Will Europe fracture Labour when it was always said it would fracture the conservatives who to a large part are now united following the deal
No, I don't think so. Europe is simply not such a divisive issue in Labour, or for that matter Lib Dems or Greens.
Let's see how it works out on the ground before sering if the Tory civil war is over.
There do seem to be major problems in the system, and a focus on the wrong things instead of fixing them.
Goodness me have I converted you into a leftie? Or have I gone to the right, I find myself agreeing with you a lot these days.
I would consider myself centrist to centre right, generally (to the extent left-right labels means anything), which means there are plenty of matters on the left that are good ideas (not that properly funding and resolving issues in the criminal justice system is left or right). I'm not even opposed to nationalising things like water or power as a principle, though it's not an issue of dogma either but would depend.
There's a reason I even read all the manifestoes at GE time, and it isn't just for kicks.
Great post, I have immeasurable respect for you and consider you one of the highlights of this site. I really do.
*shuffles awkwardly in embarrassment* Very kind, sir, very kind.
The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.
In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.
So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD
Yes, why not keep on speculating about a subject on which you clearly know very little.
Well what makes you the oracle of German politics then if you want to make such a pompous, patronising comment?
Every time you comment on Germany you talk about the possibility of the CDU and the Afd doing a deal.
It's as if a German keeps commenting on British politics and every time says "if the LibDems fail to get an absolute majority at the next election...."
Where? Where did I mention that, nowhere.
However if say Merz is CDU chancellor candidate I think it is unlikely the Greens will do a deal with him and vice versa and if the only viable alternatives are a Green and SPD and Linke deal or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal who knows what would happen.
You're unbelievable, literally in the post I replied to you said
"Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the Afd"
And now again
"or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal"
It's not going to happen. I'll indulge you: Say Merz becomes CDU chair (possible though far from certain) And say the CDU/CSU are the largest group after the next election (probable) And say the only 2 party coalition that can mathematically command a majority is with the Greens(which seems to be what you are suggesting) or Union plus AfD (which looks unlikely) And say the CDU first choice chancellor candidate is Merz And say the price for the Greens going into coalition is Merz not being chancellor Then we know what won't happen: the CDU won't go into coalition with the AfD. Either there will be a Union Green coalition with someone else as chancellor, or the CDU will go into coalition with FDP SPD, or there will be a CDU minority government, or there will be fresh elections (in that order of likelihood).
You suggest the possibility of a Green SPD Linke coalition, but as I think you will realise on reflection, if Union plus AfD (plus FDP) is a majority then Green plus SPD plus Linke isn't.
Wrong, if the CDU /CSU will not do a deal with the AfD and the Greens plus SPD plus Linke has more seats than the CDU/CSU and FDP then the Greens plus SPD plus Linke can form a government without a majority if say Merz is leader and the Greens refuse to do a deal with a Merz led CDU and the SPD prefer the Greens to Merz.
That would be even with the CDU/CSU still the largest party in the Bundestag
You are, with respect, talking out of your arse. A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
Given Merz is relatively sceptical about climate change policies compared to Merkel and concerned about their impact on business if he is CDU leader the idea there could be any CDU and Green deal is not very likely at all and quite possibly not a CDU/CSU and SPD deal either.
In which case if the CDU refuse also to do a deal with the AfD and there is no majority for the CDU/CSU and FDP either then the only alternative would be a Green, SPD and Linke no matter how patronising and rude you wish to be
I moved back to the UK from Germany in 2008, and I don't really follow German politics any more, but I remember Merkel being quite hostile to Green policies before she became Chancellor. So it wouldn't surprise me if Merz's antipathy to greenery were also to soften considerably if/when he no longer needs to wear his right-wing credentials on his sleeve. Politicians are often more pragmatic than you'd think.
HYUFD is himself reasonably pragmatic each time the party leadership changes.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
You'll be putting up those links to authoritative sources (as opposed to some anonymous rando on the internet) on the Strathclyde 'opinion poll' not being an advisory referendum shortly?
Why bother? You haven’t provided any actual evidence to show that it merits being called a referendum. Instead, you have cited a website that claims Richard III didn’t usurp the throne of England or murder his nephews, that Legio IX Hispana was wiped out after the manner of Rosemary Sutcliffe’s claims, and gives considerable space to the questions of whether the Holocaust happened, Jesus existed or the Titanic was actually the Olympic.
You may be interested in this, however, as I’ve never seen you cite it:
It argues the same points as Tierney, but comes to the opposite conclusions.
Do you know for sure that Richard III didn't meet his nephews?
I am perfectly certain he met them. Did autocorrect do what it does best there?
Edit - seen the correction, but I’m even more confused. Do you mean, ‘Do you know for sure that Richard III *did* murder his nephews?’
Do you know for sure that Richard III murdered his nephews?
If you are asking for hard proof, then you’re asking the wrong doctor. I don’t have a Tardis.
However, there is a more realistic question, which is, ‘does any other explanation fit the very extensive circumstantial evidence that we have?’
To which the answer is, no.
People have indeed been convicted of murder on flimsier evidence than there is against Richard - Adrian Prout springs to mind. But I am content saying that it is the most likely explanation, rather than that it is ‘proven.’
What really does get up my nostrils are Ricardians claiming ‘he can’t have murdered them because he was too nice.’ Bullshit. He was not nice. He committed four very public murders including two peers of the realm to usurp the throne in the first place, and he had a long history of violence and extortion, including kidnapping the 63 year old dowager countess of Oxford to seize her lands, kidnapping and forcibly marrying the younger daughter of the Earl of Warwick to seize her lands, and dragging a number of Lancastrian refugees out of Tewkesbury Abbey and brutally despatching them without trial.
And unfortunately those delusional twits are the ones who edit his Wikipedia article, which is why it is essentially a tissue of lies.
I'm just stuck on the idea put forth there that a major noble and prince of that period would have been 'too nice'. Granted, I am no expert in these matters, but even if he didn't do all he is thought to have done, it seems unlikely he could have merely held the roles he did by being too nice.
Henry VI was far too nice. Kind to animals, devoted to children, respectful to women, generous to all.
That’s one reason among several why he was an epically shite king.
On the report upto 60 Labour mps will defy the whip and vote against the deal it does affirm the point that Starmer in an effort to appease the red wall leave areas is risking losing votes to the lib dems in the remain voting areas and in particular in London
Will Europe fracture Labour when it was always said it would fracture the conservatives who to a large part are now united following the deal
No, I don't think so. Europe is simply not such a divisive issue in Labour, or for that matter Lib Dems or Greens.
Let's see how it works out on the ground before sering if the Tory civil war is over.
I am not sure how it is not divisive for Labour if 60 mps threaten the whip on a vote of this magnitude
I do agree the Lib Dems and Greens (or Plaid) have no problem voting no as they are not trying to ride two horses at once
The first real positive from the deal - the compulsory reintroduction of Netscape. Death to Internet Explorer!
Surely nobody still uses Internet Explorer? I mean, even those people weird enough not to use Chrome surely use Edge now?
If you use Windows 10s (which is sometimes the simplest thing to do), so you can't use Chrome, then Edge drops you across to IE for ancient websites. One of the exam board marker portals does it. In case we ever have exams again.
Blinks, what makes you think you can't use chrome on windows 10?
The first real positive from the deal - the compulsory reintroduction of Netscape. Death to Internet Explorer!
Surely nobody still uses Internet Explorer? I mean, even those people weird enough not to use Chrome surely use Edge now?
Still in widespread use in the health service
Wasn’t the NHS among those organisations paying Microsoft for extended XP support a few years back, as they still had a bunch of internal web apps stuck in IE6 Hell?
Wonder why not Monday....also slightly concerning this is all leaking. So far they have done their work and announcement come with zero knowledge beforehand.
Bank holiday... plus not starting until jan 4th so no hurry...
The first real positive from the deal - the compulsory reintroduction of Netscape. Death to Internet Explorer!
Surely nobody still uses Internet Explorer? I mean, even those people weird enough not to use Chrome surely use Edge now?
If you use Windows 10s (which is sometimes the simplest thing to do), so you can't use Chrome, then Edge drops you across to IE for ancient websites. One of the exam board marker portals does it. In case we ever have exams again.
Blinks, what makes you think you can't use chrome on windows 10?
Windows 10S, he said. That's a cut-down version of Windows 10 that can only run apps from the Windows Store, so not Chrome.
The first real positive from the deal - the compulsory reintroduction of Netscape. Death to Internet Explorer!
Surely nobody still uses Internet Explorer? I mean, even those people weird enough not to use Chrome surely use Edge now?
Still in widespread use in the health service
Wasn’t the NHS among those organisations paying Microsoft for extended XP support a few years back, as they still had a bunch of internal web apps stuck in IE6 Hell?
Hmmm not too sure it isn't the other way round to be honest. We have to support IE because some hospitals won't move off it.
Wonder why not Monday....also slightly concerning this is all leaking. So far they have done their work and announcement come with zero knowledge beforehand.
Bank holiday... plus not starting until jan 4th so no hurry...
I can't disagree with most of DavidL's predictions.
Here are a few of my own:
UK politics: much of the gloss will come off Sunak as he has to make hard choices. Also Starmer, as people realise an analytical but cautious and plodding lawyer is not the right person to be an LotO in the fast-moving, cutthroat world of British politics. Sturgeon will continue to walk on water north of the border. The Government won't give her her second referendum next year. Boris will still be PM in December.
UK economics: the fast growth this year will mean that the Government papers over cracks, rather than implementing root and branch reforms. Our fundamental problems of disappointing productivity, too much red tape, insufficient competition, expensive housing and mediocre skills will continue to hold us back, and indeed some will be made worse.
Brexit: won't be as bad as doomsters fear, or as great as leavers hope. Most people will discover plenty in the agreement they don't like, just as the Norwegians and Swiss don't love their deals with the EU. But people will grumble and put up with it.
France: Macron will test new lows of unpopularity as he heads towards reelection in '22. But the evisceration of the other parties at the last election will mean that the only alternative will be Le Pen. So it'll look like the French electorate will hold its nose and reelect him. If he stands, of course.
US: As David says, Biden will disappoint. The gloss of being not-Trump will be gone by the end of the year and the Dems will head for a very poor showing in the midterms. Biden's age will be more and more of an issue, but he'll still be there in a year.
pb.com: will continue to entertain, inform aod sometimes infuriate.
Wonder why not Monday....also slightly concerning this is all leaking. So far they have done their work and announcement come with zero knowledge beforehand.
Bank holiday... plus not starting until jan 4th so no hurry...
Sounds a bit like their schools policy, tbh.
Speaking of schools policy, do you face the rumoured prospect of a Cabinet reshuffle with joy or dread?
Wonder why not Monday....also slightly concerning this is all leaking. So far they have done their work and announcement come with zero knowledge beforehand.
Bank holiday... plus not starting until jan 4th so no hurry...
Sounds a bit like their schools policy, tbh.
Speaking of schools policy, do you face the rumoured prospect of a Cabinet reshuffle with joy or dread?
Whoever gets in, Spielmann and her acolytes will still be running the show and still be more useless than a chocolate kettle.
So although Williamson and Gibb are spectacularly awful, I doubt if their successors would make a noticeable difference.
The one faintly comforting thought is it’s hard to see how it could be worse.
It will be very interesting to hear Sadiq Khan's views on labour voting with HMG on the deal
What does he do, agree with Starmer and risk his re-election or reject Starmer and go against Labour policy
While It is obvious that you enjoy sowing division, actually being seen as independent of their party leadership doesn't do a regional mayor any harm at all.
For the first time in five years there will be no Brexit cliff-edge next year. This does change the dynamics.
The cliff edge moves to Scotland. If there is a referendum, I have a hard time believing No will win. Who will lead for No? I guess Douglas Ross (representing 20% of the electorate) will do his best ...
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Indeed - but Labour can expect to win back many of those seats whilst also being stronger in the South - eg Canterbury, Putney and Enfield Southgate were Tory - held in 2005.
The first real positive from the deal - the compulsory reintroduction of Netscape. Death to Internet Explorer!
Surely nobody still uses Internet Explorer? I mean, even those people weird enough not to use Chrome surely use Edge now?
Still in widespread use in the health service
Wasn’t the NHS among those organisations paying Microsoft for extended XP support a few years back, as they still had a bunch of internal web apps stuck in IE6 Hell?
Hmmm not too sure it isn't the other way round to be honest. We have to support IE because some hospitals won't move off it.
NHS IT has always been a nightmare, but the importance of continuity makes compatability with legacy systems essential. The HISS system is a key part of the spine, and essentially unchanged for the 30 years of my career in the NHS.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Indeed - but Labour can expect to win back many of those seats whilst also being stronger in the South - eg Canterbury, Putney and Enfield Southgate were Tory - held in 2005.
Really? What makes you think they will win those seats back?
To provide some context on the CDU leadership election next month.
Armin Laschet is Merkel's designated successor but seems to lack her political nous and ability to avoid bad publicity. The latest scandal involving a PPE Contract awarded to a firm which employs his son albeit in a fairly minor capacity. Laschet hasn't dealt with this well and polls third of the candidates among the German public and, more importantly, CDU members but 30% of the delegates at the Party meeting next month come from his state, Nord Rhein-Westfalen.
Freidrich Merz is the free market candidate. He narrowly lost in the 2018 leadership election but the CDU was struggling politically and Merz might have seemed the answer then to a problem that doesn't exist now. I'm not as convinced as some he can win over AfD Voters but could certainly work with the FDP. However, Merz leads currently with the German public and with CDU members.
Norbert Rottgen has been Chair of the Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee since 2014. As Environment Minister, he co-authored the German plan to move away from nuclear energy and while his record on the environment isn't perfect he may be more amenable to working with the Greens in coalition.
The first real positive from the deal - the compulsory reintroduction of Netscape. Death to Internet Explorer!
Surely nobody still uses Internet Explorer? I mean, even those people weird enough not to use Chrome surely use Edge now?
If you use Windows 10s (which is sometimes the simplest thing to do), so you can't use Chrome, then Edge drops you across to IE for ancient websites. One of the exam board marker portals does it. In case we ever have exams again.
What makes you think you can't use Chrome with Windows 10? I have done for ages. Or do you mean "and you can't" ?
I do hope that Buttler becomes England captain. For some time I've suspected that he's the best candidate.
I think they're more likely to give it to Stokes though. It's the sort of stupid decision the people in charge of English cricket make.
After Flintoff and Botham’s disastrous tenures, they’ll be wary of an allrounder as captain, although unlike those two Stokes is primarily a batsman these days. For the same reason, I think we can rule out Woakes.
But I think they will be even more wary of a wicketkeeper as captain, Dhoni, Paine and de Kock not forgotten, particularly since it surely won’t be long before Buttler becomes white ball captain.
The one to watch if Root goes is probably Dominic Sibley. He needs to establish himself a bit more firmly, but he is otherwise the obvious front runner currently in the side.
For the first time in five years there will be no Brexit cliff-edge next year. This does change the dynamics.
The cliff edge moves to Scotland. If there is a referendum, I have a hard time believing No will win. Who will lead for No? I guess Douglas Ross (representing 20% of the electorate) will do his best ...
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Indeed - but Labour can expect to win back many of those seats whilst also being stronger in the South - eg Canterbury, Putney and Enfield Southgate were Tory - held in 2005.
Really? What makes you think they will win those seats back?
Some of the seats lost were not 'Red Wall' seats anyway . I would include both Bury seats here - both of which had bigger Tory majorities in 1992 than in 2019. Beyond that many of the seats lost - Leigh, Burnley , Durham NW, Workington. etc - are highly unlikely to remain Tory other than in elections with a big popular vote lead.Grimsby voters may not be too impressed with the Fish Deal either.
I do hope that Buttler becomes England captain. For some time I've suspected that he's the best candidate.
I think they're more likely to give it to Stokes though. It's the sort of stupid decision the people in charge of English cricket make.
After Flintoff and Botham’s disastrous tenures, they’ll be wary of an allrounder as captain, although unlike those two Stokes is primarily a batsman these days. For the same reason, I think we can rule out Woakes.
But I think they will be even more wary of a wicketkeeper as captain, Dhoni, Paine and de Kock not forgotten, particularly since it surely won’t be long before Buttler becomes white ball captain.
The one to watch if Root goes is probably Dominic Sibley. He needs to establish himself a bit more firmly, but he is otherwise the obvious front runner currently in the side.
They made Stokes captain for the one West Indies Test last summer that Root missed.
The next England captain is nearly always the best player in the top five, regardless of whether they'd be a good captain. That's now Stokes.
"Hospitals have been ordered to free up every possible bed for the growing number of Covid patients amid fears of a high death toll from the disease in January.
NHS England warned that the entire health service will have to stay on its highest state of alert until at least the end of March because of the ongoing influx of very sick patients, exacerbated by the new strain of coronavirus.
...
In a vivid illustration of the pressures hospitals are facing, London’s Royal Free hospital – which is receiving about 12 new Covid inpatients every day – has cancelled all non-emergency surgery until mid-February and restricted staff holidays.
It has become “overwhelmed”, one doctor there said. “Every staff group, from porters to surgeons, have had their leave cancelled from 21 December. Only a maximum of a five-day-run, including bank holidays, is permitted from now on. Essentially cancelled the staff Christmas holidays. They have also cancelled all non-emergency surgery again until the middle of February. So the hospital is not coping really. The 12 Covid admissions a day has quickly overwhelmed the place,” they said.
...
Dr Sonia Adesara, a doctor in London, tweeted: “My hospital has currently no ITU beds. No spare CPAP (non-invasive ventilation) capacity. Spent the past 12 hours caring for people in their 50s, 60s, 70s who are on the highest oxygen we can give. Trying to keep them breathing until we can free up capacity.”
"Hospitals have been ordered to free up every possible bed for the growing number of Covid patients amid fears of a high death toll from the disease in January.
NHS England warned that the entire health service will have to stay on its highest state of alert until at least the end of March because of the ongoing influx of very sick patients, exacerbated by the new strain of coronavirus.
...
In a vivid illustration of the pressures hospitals are facing, London’s Royal Free hospital – which is receiving about 12 new Covid inpatients every day – has cancelled all non-emergency surgery until mid-February and restricted staff holidays.
It has become “overwhelmed”, one doctor there said. “Every staff group, from porters to surgeons, have had their leave cancelled from 21 December. Only a maximum of a five-day-run, including bank holidays, is permitted from now on. Essentially cancelled the staff Christmas holidays. They have also cancelled all non-emergency surgery again until the middle of February. So the hospital is not coping really. The 12 Covid admissions a day has quickly overwhelmed the place,” they said.
...
Dr Sonia Adesara, a doctor in London, tweeted: “My hospital has currently no ITU beds. No spare CPAP (non-invasive ventilation) capacity. Spent the past 12 hours caring for people in their 50s, 60s, 70s who are on the highest oxygen we can give. Trying to keep them breathing until we can free up capacity.”
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Indeed - but Labour can expect to win back many of those seats whilst also being stronger in the South - eg Canterbury, Putney and Enfield Southgate were Tory - held in 2005.
Really? What makes you think they will win those seats back?
Looking at the regional breakdown in the latest yougov, the swing to Labour seems particularly high in the North.
Yes, I know, subsamples...but until we have firmer data from the May elections that is pretty much all we have for the moment.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Indeed - but Labour can expect to win back many of those seats whilst also being stronger in the South - eg Canterbury, Putney and Enfield Southgate were Tory - held in 2005.
Really? What makes you think they will win those seats back?
Some of the seats lost were not 'Red Wall' seats anyway . I would include both Bury seats here - both of which had bigger Tory majorities in 1992 than in 2019. Beyond that many of the seats lost - Leigh, Burnley , Durham NW, Workington. etc - are highly unlikely to remain Tory other than in elections with a big popular vote lead.Grimsby voters may not be too impressed with the Fish Deal either.
I really think you are being optimistic about Labour’s prospects. Demographics in those seats are not on their side, and have been drifting against them for years. They are increasingly occupied by the semi-affluent retired that are the bedrock of Tory support, while the remaining working age poor simply don’t bother to vote in large numbers.
Far from Durham North West being recaptured (for instance) I can foresee Wansbeck falling. Mansfield is a warning here. Narrowly captured in 2017 by a controversial and ineffectual Tory MP, held in 2019 with a majority of more than 16,000.
At the same time, I do agree that they will be more competitive in many southern seats. I can see Worcester coming into play, for example. Whether the two effects will cancel each other out is another question.
The first real positive from the deal - the compulsory reintroduction of Netscape. Death to Internet Explorer!
Surely nobody still uses Internet Explorer? I mean, even those people weird enough not to use Chrome surely use Edge now?
If you use Windows 10s (which is sometimes the simplest thing to do), so you can't use Chrome, then Edge drops you across to IE for ancient websites. One of the exam board marker portals does it. In case we ever have exams again.
What makes you think you can't use Chrome with Windows 10? I have done for ages. Or do you mean "and you can't" ?
10s, not 10. And while it would be possible to move from one to another, for what I use the devices for, it would be more trouble than it would be worth.
However, the minister is also critical. He writes, for example, that the British have been tough during the talks about fishing rights; with the result that the Netherlands and the other EU member states are allowed to catch considerably less fish in British waters. The minister says he understands the disappointment among fishermen, but he says that these agreements were necessary to reach an agreement. He emphasizes that it would have been even more detrimental if no trade agreement had been concluded at all.
"Hospitals have been ordered to free up every possible bed for the growing number of Covid patients amid fears of a high death toll from the disease in January.
NHS England warned that the entire health service will have to stay on its highest state of alert until at least the end of March because of the ongoing influx of very sick patients, exacerbated by the new strain of coronavirus.
...
In a vivid illustration of the pressures hospitals are facing, London’s Royal Free hospital – which is receiving about 12 new Covid inpatients every day – has cancelled all non-emergency surgery until mid-February and restricted staff holidays.
It has become “overwhelmed”, one doctor there said. “Every staff group, from porters to surgeons, have had their leave cancelled from 21 December. Only a maximum of a five-day-run, including bank holidays, is permitted from now on. Essentially cancelled the staff Christmas holidays. They have also cancelled all non-emergency surgery again until the middle of February. So the hospital is not coping really. The 12 Covid admissions a day has quickly overwhelmed the place,” they said.
...
Dr Sonia Adesara, a doctor in London, tweeted: “My hospital has currently no ITU beds. No spare CPAP (non-invasive ventilation) capacity. Spent the past 12 hours caring for people in their 50s, 60s, 70s who are on the highest oxygen we can give. Trying to keep them breathing until we can free up capacity.”
Things are very grim and going to get worse.
This sounds really bad.
It’s not like everything was rosy and the staff were all rested and contented before this surge.
One other factor we may need to consider even after this pandemic is brought under control is how many NHS staff will need prolonged respite to get back to full energy.
I can't disagree with most of DavidL's predictions.
Here are a few of my own:
UK politics: much of the gloss will come off Sunak as he has to make hard choices. Also Starmer, as people realise an analytical but cautious and plodding lawyer is not the right person to be an LotO in the fast-moving, cutthroat world of British politics. Sturgeon will continue to walk on water north of the border. The Government won't give her her second referendum next year. Boris will still be PM in December.
UK economics: the fast growth this year will mean that the Government papers over cracks, rather than implementing root and branch reforms. Our fundamental problems of disappointing productivity, too much red tape, insufficient competition, expensive housing and mediocre skills will continue to hold us back, and indeed some will be made worse.
Brexit: won't be as bad as doomsters fear, or as great as leavers hope. Most people will discover plenty in the agreement they don't like, just as the Norwegians and Swiss don't love their deals with the EU. But people will grumble and put up with it.
France: Macron will test new lows of unpopularity as he heads towards reelection in '22. But the evisceration of the other parties at the last election will mean that the only alternative will be Le Pen. So it'll look like the French electorate will hold its nose and reelect him. If he stands, of course.
US: As David says, Biden will disappoint. The gloss of being not-Trump will be gone by the end of the year and the Dems will head for a very poor showing in the midterms. Biden's age will be more and more of an issue, but he'll still be there in a year.
pb.com: will continue to entertain, inform aod sometimes infuriate.
Happy New Year.
That’s a really boring set of predictions.
So probably that is what will happen. And I suppose a boring year would make a welcome change.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Indeed - but Labour can expect to win back many of those seats whilst also being stronger in the South - eg Canterbury, Putney and Enfield Southgate were Tory - held in 2005.
Really? What makes you think they will win those seats back?
Some of the seats lost were not 'Red Wall' seats anyway . I would include both Bury seats here - both of which had bigger Tory majorities in 1992 than in 2019. Beyond that many of the seats lost - Leigh, Burnley , Durham NW, Workington. etc - are highly unlikely to remain Tory other than in elections with a big popular vote lead.Grimsby voters may not be too impressed with the Fish Deal either.
I really think you are being optimistic about Labour’s prospects. Demographics in those seats are not on their side, and have been drifting against them for years. They are increasingly occupied by the semi-affluent retired that are the bedrock of Tory support, while the remaining working age poor simply don’t bother to vote in large numbers.
Far from Durham North West being recaptured (for instance) I can foresee Wansbeck falling. Mansfield is a warning here. Narrowly captured in 2017 by a controversial and ineffectual Tory MP, held in 2019 with a majority of more than 16,000.
At the same time, I do agree that they will be more competitive in many southern seats. I can see Worcester coming into play, for example. Whether the two effects will cancel each other out is another question.
What's their objection to the replacement scheme, which will cost less?
Its not as good? Replacing a 2-way scheme that allows exchange students with a 1-way scheme where no-one comes to Scotland. Remember that unlike in England, Scotland actively encourages migration...
"Hospitals have been ordered to free up every possible bed for the growing number of Covid patients amid fears of a high death toll from the disease in January.
NHS England warned that the entire health service will have to stay on its highest state of alert until at least the end of March because of the ongoing influx of very sick patients, exacerbated by the new strain of coronavirus.
...
In a vivid illustration of the pressures hospitals are facing, London’s Royal Free hospital – which is receiving about 12 new Covid inpatients every day – has cancelled all non-emergency surgery until mid-February and restricted staff holidays.
It has become “overwhelmed”, one doctor there said. “Every staff group, from porters to surgeons, have had their leave cancelled from 21 December. Only a maximum of a five-day-run, including bank holidays, is permitted from now on. Essentially cancelled the staff Christmas holidays. They have also cancelled all non-emergency surgery again until the middle of February. So the hospital is not coping really. The 12 Covid admissions a day has quickly overwhelmed the place,” they said.
...
Dr Sonia Adesara, a doctor in London, tweeted: “My hospital has currently no ITU beds. No spare CPAP (non-invasive ventilation) capacity. Spent the past 12 hours caring for people in their 50s, 60s, 70s who are on the highest oxygen we can give. Trying to keep them breathing until we can free up capacity.”
Things are very grim and going to get worse.
This sounds really bad.
It’s not like everything was rosy and the staff were all rested and contented before this surge.
One other factor we may need to consider even after this pandemic is brought under control is how many NHS staff will need prolonged respite to get back to full energy.
From the beginning my Trust has realised this, and asked us to keep to our leave as far as possible to prevent burnout. We have a shadow rota for back up if anyone calls in sick or self isolating, but otherwise leave is respected.
They've all been continuity deals - a new trade agreement to preserve the status quo. Whilst I absolutely support getting these signed (as leaving the EU tears up every trade agreement we had as a member of the EU), a continuity deal doesn't prove as suggested that trade deals are quick and easy to negotiate.
A copy paste from one document into another isn't negotiation beyond "can we copy and paste that into this", "yeah alright"
"Hospitals have been ordered to free up every possible bed for the growing number of Covid patients amid fears of a high death toll from the disease in January.
NHS England warned that the entire health service will have to stay on its highest state of alert until at least the end of March because of the ongoing influx of very sick patients, exacerbated by the new strain of coronavirus.
...
In a vivid illustration of the pressures hospitals are facing, London’s Royal Free hospital – which is receiving about 12 new Covid inpatients every day – has cancelled all non-emergency surgery until mid-February and restricted staff holidays.
It has become “overwhelmed”, one doctor there said. “Every staff group, from porters to surgeons, have had their leave cancelled from 21 December. Only a maximum of a five-day-run, including bank holidays, is permitted from now on. Essentially cancelled the staff Christmas holidays. They have also cancelled all non-emergency surgery again until the middle of February. So the hospital is not coping really. The 12 Covid admissions a day has quickly overwhelmed the place,” they said.
...
Dr Sonia Adesara, a doctor in London, tweeted: “My hospital has currently no ITU beds. No spare CPAP (non-invasive ventilation) capacity. Spent the past 12 hours caring for people in their 50s, 60s, 70s who are on the highest oxygen we can give. Trying to keep them breathing until we can free up capacity.”
Things are very grim and going to get worse.
This sounds really bad.
It’s not like everything was rosy and the staff were all rested and contented before this surge.
One other factor we may need to consider even after this pandemic is brought under control is how many NHS staff will need prolonged respite to get back to full energy.
From the beginning my Trust has realised this, and asked us to keep to our leave as far as possible to prevent burnout. We have a shadow rota for back up if anyone calls in sick or self isolating, but otherwise leave is respected.
For the first time in five years there will be no Brexit cliff-edge next year. This does change the dynamics.
The cliff edge moves to Scotland. If there is a referendum, I have a hard time believing No will win. Who will lead for No? I guess Douglas Ross (representing 20% of the electorate) will do his best ...
Gordon Brown will lead for labour
He has shot his bolt with his comspicuous promises of devomax the last time round.
Also, his Tory chums have spent the last decade saying how ****ing awful he was, blaming him for all the economic ills of the current decade, etc., and worse. Which will do nothing for his or their credibility should they be in alliance.
I see the Yoons have got another bullet from that dud pile. I wonder how long the really dumb ones will be looking down the barrel while frustratedly pulling the trigger? It was about three days after that genius move of the Sun staking out a funeral for a scoop.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Indeed - but Labour can expect to win back many of those seats whilst also being stronger in the South - eg Canterbury, Putney and Enfield Southgate were Tory - held in 2005.
Really? What makes you think they will win those seats back?
Some of the seats lost were not 'Red Wall' seats anyway . I would include both Bury seats here - both of which had bigger Tory majorities in 1992 than in 2019. Beyond that many of the seats lost - Leigh, Burnley , Durham NW, Workington. etc - are highly unlikely to remain Tory other than in elections with a big popular vote lead.Grimsby voters may not be too impressed with the Fish Deal either.
I really think you are being optimistic about Labour’s prospects. Demographics in those seats are not on their side, and have been drifting against them for years. They are increasingly occupied by the semi-affluent retired that are the bedrock of Tory support, while the remaining working age poor simply don’t bother to vote in large numbers.
Far from Durham North West being recaptured (for instance) I can foresee Wansbeck falling. Mansfield is a warning here. Narrowly captured in 2017 by a controversial and ineffectual Tory MP, held in 2019 with a majority of more than 16,000.
At the same time, I do agree that they will be more competitive in many southern seats. I can see Worcester coming into play, for example. Whether the two effects will cancel each other out is another question.
But in the context of an election which has the parties close to neck and neck in vote share it is difficult to see those seats remaining Tory.The two major issues which appeared to drive voters - Corbyn and Brexit - will no longer be relevant and much of the swing they generated is likely to be reversed.The Bury seats have not moved demographically against Labour - indeed the party did well to come so close to holding them.Halifax was Tory 1983 - 87 and 1955 - 64 yet stayed Labour in 2019.Seats such as Colne Valley and Darlington are also likely Labour gains.
"Hospitals have been ordered to free up every possible bed for the growing number of Covid patients amid fears of a high death toll from the disease in January.
NHS England warned that the entire health service will have to stay on its highest state of alert until at least the end of March because of the ongoing influx of very sick patients, exacerbated by the new strain of coronavirus.
...
In a vivid illustration of the pressures hospitals are facing, London’s Royal Free hospital – which is receiving about 12 new Covid inpatients every day – has cancelled all non-emergency surgery until mid-February and restricted staff holidays.
It has become “overwhelmed”, one doctor there said. “Every staff group, from porters to surgeons, have had their leave cancelled from 21 December. Only a maximum of a five-day-run, including bank holidays, is permitted from now on. Essentially cancelled the staff Christmas holidays. They have also cancelled all non-emergency surgery again until the middle of February. So the hospital is not coping really. The 12 Covid admissions a day has quickly overwhelmed the place,” they said.
...
Dr Sonia Adesara, a doctor in London, tweeted: “My hospital has currently no ITU beds. No spare CPAP (non-invasive ventilation) capacity. Spent the past 12 hours caring for people in their 50s, 60s, 70s who are on the highest oxygen we can give. Trying to keep them breathing until we can free up capacity.”
Things are very grim and going to get worse.
This sounds really bad.
It’s not like everything was rosy and the staff were all rested and contented before this surge.
One other factor we may need to consider even after this pandemic is brought under control is how many NHS staff will need prolonged respite to get back to full energy.
From the beginning my Trust has realised this, and asked us to keep to our leave as far as possible to prevent burnout. We have a shadow rota for back up if anyone calls in sick or self isolating, but otherwise leave is respected.
I’m glad to hear it, but how typical is that?
No idea, but the strain is telling on our Respiratory medicine dept. Literally half the nurses are absent at present, at a time where we have 25% more admissions than the first wave.
What's their objection to the replacement scheme, which will cost less?
Its not as good? Replacing a 2-way scheme that allows exchange students with a 1-way scheme where no-one comes to Scotland. Remember that unlike in England, Scotland actively encourages migration...
I see the Yoons have got another bullet from that dud pile. I wonder how long the really dumb ones will be looking down the barrel while frustratedly pulling the trigger? It was about three days after that genius move of the Sun staking out a funeral for a scoop.
Happy the SNP are voting for "a disastrous" No Deal?
For the first time in five years there will be no Brexit cliff-edge next year. This does change the dynamics.
The cliff edge moves to Scotland. If there is a referendum, I have a hard time believing No will win. Who will lead for No? I guess Douglas Ross (representing 20% of the electorate) will do his best ...
Gordon Brown will lead for labour
He has shot his bolt with his comspicuous promises of devomax the last time round.
Also, his Tory chums have spent the last decade saying how ****ing awful he was, blaming him for all the economic ills of the current decade, etc., and worse. Which will do nothing for his or their credibility should they be in alliance.
Were you around when Broonie gave his defence of the Union speeches in 2014? The Tories here were virtually liquescent. I'm sure they could come to a similar accommodation..
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Indeed - but Labour can expect to win back many of those seats whilst also being stronger in the South - eg Canterbury, Putney and Enfield Southgate were Tory - held in 2005.
Really? What makes you think they will win those seats back?
Some of the seats lost were not 'Red Wall' seats anyway . I would include both Bury seats here - both of which had bigger Tory majorities in 1992 than in 2019. Beyond that many of the seats lost - Leigh, Burnley , Durham NW, Workington. etc - are highly unlikely to remain Tory other than in elections with a big popular vote lead.Grimsby voters may not be too impressed with the Fish Deal either.
I really think you are being optimistic about Labour’s prospects. Demographics in those seats are not on their side, and have been drifting against them for years. They are increasingly occupied by the semi-affluent retired that are the bedrock of Tory support, while the remaining working age poor simply don’t bother to vote in large numbers.
Far from Durham North West being recaptured (for instance) I can foresee Wansbeck falling. Mansfield is a warning here. Narrowly captured in 2017 by a controversial and ineffectual Tory MP, held in 2019 with a majority of more than 16,000.
At the same time, I do agree that they will be more competitive in many southern seats. I can see Worcester coming into play, for example. Whether the two effects will cancel each other out is another question.
But in the context of an election which has the parties close to neck and neck in vote share it is difficult to see those seats remaining Tory.The two major issues which appeared to drive voters - Corbyn and Brexit - will no longer be relevant and much of the swing they generated is likely to be reversed.The Bury seats have not moved demographically against Labour - indeed the party dod well to come so close to holding them.Halifax was Tory 1983 - 87 and 1955 - 64 yet stayed Labour in 2019.Seats such as Colne Valley and Darlington are also likely Labour gains.
Pidcock got 52% of the vote in 2017 in Durham NW so the demographics haven't shifted that much against Labour. That was higher than the 87 election in the aftermath of the Miners strike.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Indeed - but Labour can expect to win back many of those seats whilst also being stronger in the South - eg Canterbury, Putney and Enfield Southgate were Tory - held in 2005.
Really? What makes you think they will win those seats back?
Some of the seats lost were not 'Red Wall' seats anyway . I would include both Bury seats here - both of which had bigger Tory majorities in 1992 than in 2019. Beyond that many of the seats lost - Leigh, Burnley , Durham NW, Workington. etc - are highly unlikely to remain Tory other than in elections with a big popular vote lead.Grimsby voters may not be too impressed with the Fish Deal either.
I really think you are being optimistic about Labour’s prospects. Demographics in those seats are not on their side, and have been drifting against them for years. They are increasingly occupied by the semi-affluent retired that are the bedrock of Tory support, while the remaining working age poor simply don’t bother to vote in large numbers.
Far from Durham North West being recaptured (for instance) I can foresee Wansbeck falling. Mansfield is a warning here. Narrowly captured in 2017 by a controversial and ineffectual Tory MP, held in 2019 with a majority of more than 16,000.
At the same time, I do agree that they will be more competitive in many southern seats. I can see Worcester coming into play, for example. Whether the two effects will cancel each other out is another question.
But in the context of an election which has the parties close to neck and neck in vote share it is difficult to see those seats remaining Tory.The two major issues which appeared to drive voters - Corbyn and Brexit - will no longer be relevant and much of the swing they generated is likely to be reversed.The Bury seats have not moved demographically against Labour - indeed the party dod well to come so close to holding them.Halifax was Tory 1983 - 87 and 1955 - 64 yet stayed Labour in 2019.Seats such as Colne Valley and Darlington are also likely Labour gains.
No, it really isn’t difficult to see them staying Tory. As I have said, demographics are not Labour’s friend in those seats. Even in 2010 and 2015, there were signs that they were gradually leaking away from Labour (Morley and Outwood being the most notable).
I think an element of normalcy bias is coming into play here. Because they have often (always) been Labour, they will go back.
Just to add a parallel, I would point out until 1945 Bootle was a Tory seat, and had with brief exceptions been considered a safe Tory seat. Since 1945 no Labour candidate has got less than 50% of the vote there and more usually they’ve exceeded 60%.
For the first time in five years there will be no Brexit cliff-edge next year. This does change the dynamics.
The cliff edge moves to Scotland. If there is a referendum, I have a hard time believing No will win. Who will lead for No? I guess Douglas Ross (representing 20% of the electorate) will do his best ...
Gordon Brown will lead for labour
He has shot his bolt with his comspicuous promises of devomax the last time round.
Also, his Tory chums have spent the last decade saying how ****ing awful he was, blaming him for all the economic ills of the current decade, etc., and worse. Which will do nothing for his or their credibility should they be in alliance.
Were you around when Broonie gave his defence of the Union speeches in 2014? The Tories here were possibly liquescent. I'm sure they could come to a similar accommodation..
I was. Trouble is he gives so many INTERRRRRVENTIONS that they tend to blur in the memory. But basically they were on the lines of if we voted No we'd be loved to bits and get all the new powers short of actual independence.*
I also recall that SLAB were careful to keep him on the leash in private venues such as Miner's Clubs [yes, for other Pbers, they still exist, like the hatred against Mrs T and for not entirely unconnected reasons] and not let anyone actually question him.
*Edit: FEDERRRALISM featured an alwful lot. Bit as you and I know, there's about as much hope of that happening as Adam Tomkins supporting Ra Celtic.
Remember all things being equal the May locals will consist of elections which were last contested in 2016 when the Tories did meh, and 2017 where the Tories absolutely smashed it and Labour were beaten like morning wood.
So the council results should be bad for the government, they usually are for parties that have been in power for eleven years.
What's their objection to the replacement scheme, which will cost less?
Its not as good? Replacing a 2-way scheme that allows exchange students with a 1-way scheme where no-one comes to Scotland. Remember that unlike in England, Scotland actively encourages migration...
Exactly so.
So we must have a higher % of migrants up here in Scotland then right?
Oh no, that's right, it's actually sparsely populated and overwhelmingly white here, allowing people to wave '#Refugeeswelcome' signs whilst having not a shred of experience of actual migration.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Labour's position in England in 2019 was not far off its 1992 performance - though the distribution of its support was very different. Moreover, Labour won a majority of seats there in 2005 despite only enjoying a 3% lead across GB - with the Tories ahead in popular vote terms. Last week Yougov had Labour 4% ahead in GB.
2005 was however based on winning a number of smaller seats in the North of England on low turnouts.
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Indeed - but Labour can expect to win back many of those seats whilst also being stronger in the South - eg Canterbury, Putney and Enfield Southgate were Tory - held in 2005.
Really? What makes you think they will win those seats back?
Some of the seats lost were not 'Red Wall' seats anyway . I would include both Bury seats here - both of which had bigger Tory majorities in 1992 than in 2019. Beyond that many of the seats lost - Leigh, Burnley , Durham NW, Workington. etc - are highly unlikely to remain Tory other than in elections with a big popular vote lead.Grimsby voters may not be too impressed with the Fish Deal either.
I really think you are being optimistic about Labour’s prospects. Demographics in those seats are not on their side, and have been drifting against them for years. They are increasingly occupied by the semi-affluent retired that are the bedrock of Tory support, while the remaining working age poor simply don’t bother to vote in large numbers.
Far from Durham North West being recaptured (for instance) I can foresee Wansbeck falling. Mansfield is a warning here. Narrowly captured in 2017 by a controversial and ineffectual Tory MP, held in 2019 with a majority of more than 16,000.
At the same time, I do agree that they will be more competitive in many southern seats. I can see Worcester coming into play, for example. Whether the two effects will cancel each other out is another question.
But in the context of an election which has the parties close to neck and neck in vote share it is difficult to see those seats remaining Tory.The two major issues which appeared to drive voters - Corbyn and Brexit - will no longer be relevant and much of the swing they generated is likely to be reversed.The Bury seats have not moved demographically against Labour - indeed the party dod well to come so close to holding them.Halifax was Tory 1983 - 87 and 1955 - 64 yet stayed Labour in 2019.Seats such as Colne Valley and Darlington are also likely Labour gains.
Pidcock got 52% of the vote in 2017 in Durham NW so the demographics haven't shifted that much against Labour. That was higher than the 87 election in the aftermath of the Miners strike.
On the other hand, Labour's GB vote share in 1987 was only 31.8% - whereas in 2019 it reached 41%.
Comments
Quite a lot of them are no longer in the red column...
Let's see how it works out on the ground before sering if the Tory civil war is over.
What does he do, agree with Starmer and risk his re-election or reject Starmer and go against Labour policy
That’s one reason among several why he was an epically shite king.
I do agree the Lib Dems and Greens (or Plaid) have no problem voting no as they are not trying to ride two horses at once
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/26/sadiq-khan-cronyism-row-untendered-contracts/
Here are a few of my own:
UK politics: much of the gloss will come off Sunak as he has to make hard choices. Also Starmer, as people realise an analytical but cautious and plodding lawyer is not the right person to be an LotO in the fast-moving, cutthroat world of British politics. Sturgeon will continue to walk on water north of the border. The Government won't give her her second referendum next year. Boris will still be PM in December.
UK economics: the fast growth this year will mean that the Government papers over cracks, rather than implementing root and branch reforms. Our fundamental problems of disappointing productivity, too much red tape, insufficient competition, expensive housing and mediocre skills will continue to hold us back, and indeed some will be made worse.
Brexit: won't be as bad as doomsters fear, or as great as leavers hope. Most people will discover plenty in the agreement they don't like, just as the Norwegians and Swiss don't love their deals with the EU. But people will grumble and put up with it.
France: Macron will test new lows of unpopularity as he heads towards reelection in '22. But the evisceration of the other parties at the last election will mean that the only alternative will be Le Pen. So it'll look like the French electorate will hold its nose and reelect him. If he stands, of course.
US: As David says, Biden will disappoint. The gloss of being not-Trump will be gone by the end of the year and the Dems will head for a very poor showing in the midterms. Biden's age will be more and more of an issue, but he'll still be there in a year.
pb.com: will continue to entertain, inform aod sometimes infuriate.
Happy New Year.
So although Williamson and Gibb are spectacularly awful, I doubt if their successors would make a noticeable difference.
The one faintly comforting thought is it’s hard to see how it could be worse.
Instead you bang on about Brexit day in day out.
The cliff edge moves to Scotland. If there is a referendum, I have a hard time believing No will win. Who will lead for No? I guess Douglas Ross (representing 20% of the electorate) will do his best ...
I think they're more likely to give it to Stokes though. It's the sort of stupid decision the people in charge of English cricket make.
https://twitter.com/RaoulRuparel/status/1343245811598176256?s=20
https://twitter.com/RaoulRuparel/status/1343245817117892615?s=20
To provide some context on the CDU leadership election next month.
Armin Laschet is Merkel's designated successor but seems to lack her political nous and ability to avoid bad publicity. The latest scandal involving a PPE Contract awarded to a firm which employs his son albeit in a fairly minor capacity. Laschet hasn't dealt with this well and polls third of the candidates among the German public and, more importantly, CDU members but 30% of the delegates at the Party meeting next month come from his state, Nord Rhein-Westfalen.
Freidrich Merz is the free market candidate. He narrowly lost in the 2018 leadership election but the CDU was struggling politically and Merz might have seemed the answer then to a problem that doesn't exist now. I'm not as convinced as some he can win over AfD Voters but could certainly work with the FDP. However, Merz leads currently with the German public and with CDU members.
Norbert Rottgen has been Chair of the Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee since 2014. As Environment Minister, he co-authored the German plan to move away from nuclear energy and while his record on the environment isn't perfect he may be more amenable to working with the Greens in coalition.
Perhaps a chat with someone like Caroline Flint might help them see the error of their ways.
But I think they will be even more wary of a wicketkeeper as captain, Dhoni, Paine and de Kock not forgotten, particularly since it surely won’t be long before Buttler becomes white ball captain.
The one to watch if Root goes is probably Dominic Sibley. He needs to establish himself a bit more firmly, but he is otherwise the obvious front runner currently in the side.
What do you think they should do ?
https://twitter.com/kacnutt/status/1343211614577823744?s=20
The next England captain is nearly always the best player in the top five, regardless of whether they'd be a good captain. That's now Stokes.
"Hospitals have been ordered to free up every possible bed for the growing number of Covid patients amid fears of a high death toll from the disease in January.
NHS England warned that the entire health service will have to stay on its highest state of alert until at least the end of March because of the ongoing influx of very sick patients, exacerbated by the new strain of coronavirus.
...
In a vivid illustration of the pressures hospitals are facing, London’s Royal Free hospital – which is receiving about 12 new Covid inpatients every day – has cancelled all non-emergency surgery until mid-February and restricted staff holidays.
It has become “overwhelmed”, one doctor there said. “Every staff group, from porters to surgeons, have had their leave cancelled from 21 December. Only a maximum of a five-day-run, including bank holidays, is permitted from now on. Essentially cancelled the staff Christmas holidays. They have also cancelled all non-emergency surgery again until the middle of February. So the hospital is not coping really. The 12 Covid admissions a day has quickly overwhelmed the place,” they said.
...
Dr Sonia Adesara, a doctor in London, tweeted: “My hospital has currently no ITU beds. No spare CPAP (non-invasive ventilation) capacity. Spent the past 12 hours caring for people in their 50s, 60s, 70s who are on the highest oxygen we can give. Trying to keep them breathing until we can free up capacity.”
Things are very grim and going to get worse.
Choose a better candidate next time Tories
Yes, I know, subsamples...but until we have firmer data from the May elections that is pretty much all we have for the moment.
Far from Durham North West being recaptured (for instance) I can foresee Wansbeck falling. Mansfield is a warning here. Narrowly captured in 2017 by a controversial and ineffectual Tory MP, held in 2019 with a majority of more than 16,000.
At the same time, I do agree that they will be more competitive in many southern seats. I can see Worcester coming into play, for example. Whether the two effects will cancel each other out is another question.
Remind anyone of anything?
However, the minister is also critical. He writes, for example, that the British have been tough during the talks about fishing rights; with the result that the Netherlands and the other EU member states are allowed to catch considerably less fish in British waters. The minister says he understands the disappointment among fishermen, but he says that these agreements were necessary to reach an agreement. He emphasizes that it would have been even more detrimental if no trade agreement had been concluded at all.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/12/25/het-handelsakkoord-the-day-after-hoe-gaat-brexit-nu-verder-a4025197
https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1343279033161834496?s=20
It’s not like everything was rosy and the staff were all rested and contented before this surge.
One other factor we may need to consider even after this pandemic is brought under control is how many NHS staff will need prolonged respite to get back to full energy.
So probably that is what will happen. And I suppose a boring year would make a welcome change.
It's not enough though
https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1343215123083767808
I'm kinda optimistic for 2021.
A copy paste from one document into another isn't negotiation beyond "can we copy and paste that into this", "yeah alright"
Also, his Tory chums have spent the last decade saying how ****ing awful he was, blaming him for all the economic ills of the current decade, etc., and worse. Which will do nothing for his or their credibility should they be in alliance.
https://twitter.com/RaoulRuparel/status/1343248371876847616?s=20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope,_Derbyshire
I'd be happy to do the judging, but I've already submitted my own set below.
Righto......
I think an element of normalcy bias is coming into play here. Because they have often (always) been Labour, they will go back.
Just to add a parallel, I would point out until 1945 Bootle was a Tory seat, and had with brief exceptions been considered a safe Tory seat. Since 1945 no Labour candidate has got less than 50% of the vote there and more usually they’ve exceeded 60%.
I also recall that SLAB were careful to keep him on the leash in private venues such as Miner's Clubs [yes, for other Pbers, they still exist, like the hatred against Mrs T and for not entirely unconnected reasons] and not let anyone actually question him.
*Edit: FEDERRRALISM featured an alwful lot. Bit as you and I know, there's about as much hope of that happening as Adam Tomkins supporting Ra Celtic.
Remember all things being equal the May locals will consist of elections which were last contested in 2016 when the Tories did meh, and 2017 where the Tories absolutely smashed it and Labour were beaten like morning wood.
So the council results should be bad for the government, they usually are for parties that have been in power for eleven years.
Oh no, that's right, it's actually sparsely populated and overwhelmingly white here, allowing people to wave '#Refugeeswelcome' signs whilst having not a shred of experience of actual migration.