Even in the unlikely event that the LDs won the by-election it would be like the LDs winning by-elections in prior Parliaments, it won't create a crisis like Starmer.
First potential challenge for the effectively-tied parliament today - Lib Dems attempting to remove Angus Robertson from the ministerial appointments, as they don't like having a "constitution secretary". *If* the other opposition parties agree, then vote could be tied 64-64... https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1395368230315859968/photo/1
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
Hayward is a lockdown extremist / constantly worst case scenario guy....he was totally anti opening the schools a few months ago as he said it would be a total disaster. At every stage of this pandemic his response is always wooooow, steady on, too soon.
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
Hayward is a lockdown extremist / constantly worst case scenario guy....he was totally anti opening the schools a few months ago as he said it would be a total disaster. At every stage of this pandemic his response is always wooooow, steady on, too soon.
Seems like he should be on "Independent SAGE" not the real one.
Seems decent for a Thursday. Over a quarter million first doses, interesting that first doses seem to be really kicking up a gear now again? Are we near the end of catching up on second doses?
I had thought the same but if we compare with 3 months ago then we were averaging about 350K jabs/day with peak days around 500K. It was mid-March where the average got close to 500K jabs/day. Unless we are getting more doses from somewhere then I would expect 1st jabs to slow down again.
All the reports are big supply incoming. Also remember those needing second doses, most will be AZN, the youngsters turning up for first doses are getting Pfizer / Moderna. Effectively for the near future we will be running a two track vaccination system.
Chesham and Amersham was in the Chiltern local authority area which was 55% Remain.
The Tory vote in the seat was also down 5% at the 2019 general election against the national trend so it is clearly an area not that keen on either Brexit or Boris.
I still expect a Tory hold but the LDs to cut their majority significantly
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
This happens over and over again.
Why do these fuckers never get challenged on this? I don't want to see them ripped to pieces. Just a simple polite 'but why won't vaccines prevent a third wave? In which case why are we bothering with them?'
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
Scientists advising the government really need to be subject to the SpAd rules on public statements.
You have a new match....she describes herself as a life saver, but can be a bit of a prick at times...
Ministers could use TINDER to boost vaccine roll-out in the young: Dating app users may get a 'blue tick' to show they've been jabbed with scheme set to invite all over-18s next month
I was slightly taken aback when watching the Sky News paper review when Kevin Maguire compared it with phone hacking.
I think it's similar in nature, but would appear to be a one off, which means it's not nearly so serious for the BBC as it was for the NOTW (though, not Maguire's Mirror).
Talking of dodgy tactics...this reminds me of the Fake Sheik, which reminds me that there was an interesting snippet in the US media the other day that it is now common for journalists to look through Venmo to search people's payment history and in theory you can set it to private (but by default it is public). They did it for the Bidens.
Reminds me of the early days of phone "hacking". It wasn't illegal (as there was no laws in place that considered it) and most people never changed the default pin, so essentially there answer phone was open.
Can't the Canuck government afford Apple products?
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau busted using fake Mac with Apple sticker
A photograph of Canada's Justin Trudeau shows him using a HP Windows laptop, which wouldn't be remarked upon, but it sporting an Apple sticker will be.
Finally, a genuine use for those logo stickers that Apple keeps on shipping. Apple is the company that wouldn't let Intel put a sticker on its computers, but believes we have a passion for the things.
Maybe some of us do, but there's passion, and there's having an outlet for that passion. Someone has got a sticker from a friend and carefully placed it on a Windows laptop. And, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used it on a virtual meeting.
Whoever placed the sticker got it in the vicinity of where Apple does, if not quite as precise as Apple's placement. Unfortunately, they haven't entirely nailed covering up the Hewlett Packard logo underneath.
And if you want to press for more details about "stickergate," there's another one in shot. Just beneath the keyboard of this HP laptop, there's what is most likely an Intel Inside sticker.
It could be one of those peculiar PC things where there's a sticker on the chassis to tell you the computer's specifications. You know, the ones you already saw on the box, the sales receipt, and when you bought the thing.
But specifications or Intel Inside, this is a PC laptop very poorly masquerading as a Mac. To be fair, Trudeau seems to be enjoying looking like he's a Mac user, and that may also be because of where he's sitting.
Can't the Canuck government afford Apple products?
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau busted using fake Mac with Apple sticker
A photograph of Canada's Justin Trudeau shows him using a HP Windows laptop, which wouldn't be remarked upon, but it sporting an Apple sticker will be.
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
I'd like to see the full context - it can be read in different ways. If the variant is more transmissible then it probably will spread round the country and cause local spikes up until its chains of transmission are intterupted by vaccinated people (evidence so far is limited, but suggests vaccines still very effective against this strain).
So, we could be at the start of a 'third wave', but that wave probably won't be very big (at least in hospitalisations and deaths). And this variant probably will end up spreading around the country, particularly if it's more transmissible (will come to dominate over the other variants).
One thing that is quite alarming (e.g. in the SAGE models from 12 May) is that they appear to be still using the early assumptions on vaccine efficacy, from February or whenver they started (if anyone knows the assumptions have been updated, please correct me - I'd be very happy to learn that). Max was apalled by that back then and I disagreed, arguing there was uncertainty still and they were not completely bonkers for worst case scenario (there were also more optimistic projections). But now, if the same assumptions are still being used, I'm as apalled as Max. From the graphs, it looks as though nothing has been updated and even the more optimistic models are pessimistic compared to where we are in reality today. That's wrong (if it is the case) and I find it both incomprehensible and indefensible.
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
This happens over and over again.
Why do these fuckers never get challenged on this? I don't want to see them ripped to pieces. Just a simple polite 'but why won't vaccines prevent a third wave? In which case why are we bothering with them?'
Hayward is a perennial offender on this very point. It really needs to be put right.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Talking of dodgy tactics...this reminds me of the Fake Sheik, which reminds me that there was an interesting snippet in the US media the other day that it is now common for journalists to look through Venmo to search people's payment history and in theory you can set it to private (but by default it is public). They did it for the Bidens.
Reminds me of the early days of phone "hacking". It wasn't illegal (as there was no laws in place that considered it) and most people never changed the default pin, so essentially there answer phone was open.
There is an expectation of privacy with voicemail, even if it is badly configured and unprotected by law. That's not the case with Venmo where the public feed was a big part of the app's claim to be a social network for spending money.
FWIW.......Reform are running a candidate in this seat and they are running on an anti HS 2 platform.
Indeed, an old university contemporary of mine who was a Tory activist and there was no Brexit Party candidate in 2019 in Chesham and Amersham
Looking down the list of tory targets for 2024, the number 1 target (ultra marginal Bedford) looks a harder ask than Brexity labour seats in the North in the 40s and 50s !
First potential challenge for the effectively-tied parliament today - Lib Dems attempting to remove Angus Robertson from the ministerial appointments, as they don't like having a "constitution secretary". *If* the other opposition parties agree, then vote could be tied 64-64... https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1395368230315859968/photo/1
What ministerial responsibilities does a constitutional secretary have given that matters relating to the constitution are reserved?
I was slightly taken aback when watching the Sky News paper review when Kevin Maguire compared it with phone hacking.
I think it's similar in nature, but would appear to be a one off, which means it's not nearly so serious for the BBC as it was for the NOTW (though, not Maguire's Mirror).
What I’m a bit confused about - and I only read a very tiny bit about it a month or so ago is there is a suggestion that Bashir used a fake evidence that the Wales’s nanny had an abortion to get Diana to do the interview. Is the implication possibly that the “three people in this marriage” statement was not actually referring to Camilla?
Talking of dodgy tactics...this reminds me of the Fake Sheik, which reminds me that there was an interesting snippet in the US media the other day that it is now common for journalists to look through Venmo to search people's payment history and in theory you can set it to private (but by default it is public). They did it for the Bidens.
Reminds me of the early days of phone "hacking". It wasn't illegal (as there was no laws in place that considered it) and most people never changed the default pin, so essentially there answer phone was open.
There is an expectation of privacy with voicemail, even if it is badly configured and unprotected by law. That's not the case with Venmo where the public feed was a big part of the app's claim to be a social network for spending money.
Yes and no, even if you set payments to private, which the Bidens had done, loads of info about you is exposed (and with digging through your contacts, they can be used to find out much more) i.e. just like the "badly configured" voicemail.
They doesn't seem that different from what journalists did back in the day which is even if somebody had set their phone to a different pin, they could use others unprotected phones to find things out.
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
But local government boundaries don't need to match county boundaries. I have no qualms with dividing Cheshire/Lancashire down the Mersey while letting Trafford Council collect the bins on both sides.
Don't know if there is something major going on that has not hit the news, but almost constant overhead helicopter activity. We live on the flight path between the White House and Camp David. So not situation room stuff, but I wonder if there is some major behind the scenes diplomacy going on. Palestine/Israel?
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
This happens over and over again.
Why do these fuckers never get challenged on this? I don't want to see them ripped to pieces. Just a simple polite 'but why won't vaccines prevent a third wave? In which case why are we bothering with them?'
Yes, a bit frustrating. But there's no media bite in the prosaic truth - that the roadmap is not under threat and people can take 21 June to the bank. Think that's a big part of it. Also an atmosphere of suspense works for Johnson. Nice 'joy and relief' dividend when he confirms the great news.
Leantossup made absolute fucking dicks of themselves with their Scottish Election prediction.
Utter clownshoes.
How?
They predicted an SNP minority, with a 66.4% chance of an SNP minority, 32.9% chance of an SNP majority, SNP 61 seats. The result was SNP 64 seats. That seems reasonably close.
Leantossup had a great 2019 result UK wide. They predicted an 82 seat Tory majority, versus the 80 seat Tory majority that was the result. Best seat prediction by far as far as I know - though they overestimated the Lib Dems.
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
But local government boundaries don't need to match county boundaries. I have no qualms with dividing Cheshire/Lancashire down the Mersey while letting Trafford Council collect the bins on both sides.
It makes no sense for me whatsoever to have Cheshire/Lancashire divided down the Mersey when it comes to eg Warrington which spans both sides of the water now.
Warrington itself originally may be north of the river, but whether north or south of it, its one town, and it makes far more sense for me to consider Warrington as part of Cheshire than Lancashire.
First potential challenge for the effectively-tied parliament today - Lib Dems attempting to remove Angus Robertson from the ministerial appointments, as they don't like having a "constitution secretary". *If* the other opposition parties agree, then vote could be tied 64-64... https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1395368230315859968/photo/1
What ministerial responsibilities does a constitutional secretary have given that matters relating to the constitution are reserved?
Major area of debate.
I see only 4 MSPs agreed with Mr Rennie, presumably including his good self.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Also though they may sound like it Chesham & Amersham are not some fashionable Cotswolds market town with boutique shops a go-go and £100 a head restaurants full of blokes in tweed and red trousers. They're above average Metroland commuter towns with decent but unspectacular high streets and some fairly dull housing stock.
It isn't the most fertile Lib Dem territory the South has to offer (nor the worst) so I would be quite surprised if the Lib Dems got within 3 or 4,000 votes of the Tories unless National circumstances change dramatically in the next few weeks.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit, NIMBY LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
Depends on how much voters use the by election as a protest vote against HS2 and new housing developments in the area and how much the Remain vote (it was 55% Remain) rallies behind the LDs, if it does it could be close. Though the Tories should still narrowly hold it
Leantossup made absolute fucking dicks of themselves with their Scottish Election prediction.
Utter clownshoes.
How?
They predicted an SNP minority, with a 66.4% chance of an SNP minority, 32.9% chance of an SNP majority, SNP 61 seats. The result was SNP 64 seats. That seems reasonably close.
Leantossup had a great 2019 result UK wide. They predicted an 82 seat Tory majority, versus the 80 seat Tory majority that was the result. Best seat prediction by far as far as I know - though they overestimated the Lib Dems.
At least they fixed it before the election and not after it! So overall their prediction wasn't bad.
They've got one of the best models of all predictors I've seen. They called the 2019 GE almost spot on, the last Canadian election almost spot on. Though they were too bullish on Biden.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
CON - first by some way LD - second with a respectable showing but not that close LAB - will they bother?
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
Scientists advising the government really need to be subject to the SpAd rules on public statements.
I'm a bit torn on that one.
They're not employees and - as a scientist - I'd want to be able to speak out if the government was going agaist the evidence, particularly if they claimed to be 'following the science' at the same time. I guess the option would be to resign, but then you're left with the dilemma of whether to stay and keep arguing your case from the inside or leave and give up what influence you have to turn things around. I'd also want to be able to publish the research showing X while the government was loudly proclaiming Y, even if I chose not to talk to the media.
On the other hand, scientists are often (as we've seen) not good at putting science-speak on probabilities and the like into words the public understand and can be naive about how statements are interpreted. It's part of just not being willing to rule things out or make statements that are very general. Are vaccines safe, for example? Well as a scientist I know I can only really say that there's no evidence (other than AZN with the blood clots, which is small) of notable risks and I also know that eating bacon is not absolutely safe and neither is driving a car. But the correct/most true answer, for the media and public use of language is "yes".
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
Depends on how much voters use the by election as a protest vote against HS2 and new housing developments in the area and how much the Remain vote (it was 55% Remain) rallies behind the LDs, if it does it could be close. Though the Tories should still narrowly hold it
It seems to me that one of the things that makes this government strong at the moment is that those who supported Brexit are still quite motivated to support it whilst those who voted remain have lost heart, lost enthusiasm, come to terms etc and don't seem particularly motivated by their earlier views in terms of voting intention. HS2 may strike home more but are the Lib Dems really opposed to that?
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
CON - first by some way LD - second with a respectable showing but not that close LAB - will they bother?
Labour were second by 4,200 from the LibDems in 2017. If they are giving up on such seats....where ARE they fighting?
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
Depends on how much voters use the by election as a protest vote against HS2 and new housing developments in the area and how much the Remain vote (it was 55% Remain) rallies behind the LDs, if it does it could be close. Though the Tories should still narrowly hold it
It seems to me that one of the things that makes this government strong at the moment is that those who supported Brexit are still quite motivated to support it whilst those who voted remain have lost heart, lost enthusiasm, come to terms etc and don't seem particularly motivated by their earlier views in terms of voting intention. HS2 may strike home more but are the Lib Dems really opposed to that?
The big projects that impact Amersham for HS2 have already been kicked off - there is nothing left to stop..
Chesham and most of the constituency aren't impacted at all, it really is only Amersham Old Town and Great Missenden that will see building work.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
CON - first by some way LD - second with a respectable showing but not that close LAB - will they bother?
Labour were second by 4,200 from the LibDems in 2017. If they are giving up on such seats....where ARE they fighting?
That is the exception though - Historically (even when I voted there in the 93 election) the anti-tory vote was Lib Dem,.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
Depends on how much voters use the by election as a protest vote against HS2 and new housing developments in the area and how much the Remain vote (it was 55% Remain) rallies behind the LDs, if it does it could be close. Though the Tories should still narrowly hold it
C&A will see the LibDem Luddites wrapped in their Cloak of Nimbyism.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
CON - first by some way LD - second with a respectable showing but not that close LAB - will they bother?
Labour were second by 4,200 from the LibDems in 2017. If they are giving up on such seats....where ARE they fighting?
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
Depends on how much voters use the by election as a protest vote against HS2 and new housing developments in the area and how much the Remain vote (it was 55% Remain) rallies behind the LDs, if it does it could be close. Though the Tories should still narrowly hold it
It seems to me that one of the things that makes this government strong at the moment is that those who supported Brexit are still quite motivated to support it whilst those who voted remain have lost heart, lost enthusiasm, come to terms etc and don't seem particularly motivated by their earlier views in terms of voting intention. HS2 may strike home more but are the Lib Dems really opposed to that?
Depends, the Tories saw losses in the local elections in Remain areas like Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Tunbridge Wells and Surrey
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
Scientists advising the government really need to be subject to the SpAd rules on public statements.
I'm a bit torn on that one.
They're not employees and - as a scientist - I'd want to be able to speak out if the government was going agaist the evidence, particularly if they claimed to be 'following the science' at the same time. I guess the option would be to resign, but then you're left with the dilemma of whether to stay and keep arguing your case from the inside or leave and give up what influence you have to turn things around. I'd also want to be able to publish the research showing X while the government was loudly proclaiming Y, even if I chose not to talk to the media.
On the other hand, scientists are often (as we've seen) not good at putting science-speak on probabilities and the like into words the public understand and can be naive about how statements are interpreted. It's part of just not being willing to rule things out or make statements that are very general. Are vaccines safe, for example? Well as a scientist I know I can only really say that there's no evidence (other than AZN with the blood clots, which is small) of notable risks and I also know that eating bacon is not absolutely safe and neither is driving a car. But the correct/most true answer, for the media and public use of language is "yes".
Yes, it’s a difficult line to draw.
The actual problem is the nature of the media, rather than the nature of the scientists. They’re having political journalists interview scientists, who really aren’t used to that.
If a media organisation were to spend half an hour with a SAGE member and a scientific journalist, and then air the interview unedited or with the permission of the interview subject, that would of course be fine.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
Depends on how much voters use the by election as a protest vote against HS2 and new housing developments in the area and how much the Remain vote (it was 55% Remain) rallies behind the LDs, if it does it could be close. Though the Tories should still narrowly hold it
It seems to me that one of the things that makes this government strong at the moment is that those who supported Brexit are still quite motivated to support it whilst those who voted remain have lost heart, lost enthusiasm, come to terms etc and don't seem particularly motivated by their earlier views in terms of voting intention. HS2 may strike home more but are the Lib Dems really opposed to that?
I think that's right. Much of Boris's steadfast popularity must be because Leave voters still regard him as a saint - a veritable Gandhi or Mandela figure - who delivered what many never thought possible. That's a heady political place to be. There are no such figures on the Remain side, of course, whose politicians carry their failures like sacks of coal.
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
But local government boundaries don't need to match county boundaries. I have no qualms with dividing Cheshire/Lancashire down the Mersey while letting Trafford Council collect the bins on both sides.
Sure, I'd be up for that – just have the cricket counties for those who want them but given them no administrative power. However, I'm not sure younger people even identify with the old counties nowadays.
The OP was about Gateshead. My friend is originally from Gateshead. Does she consider it part of County Durham? No. Do many people under the age of 50? I doubt it.
Can't the Canuck government afford Apple products?
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau busted using fake Mac with Apple sticker
A photograph of Canada's Justin Trudeau shows him using a HP Windows laptop, which wouldn't be remarked upon, but it sporting an Apple sticker will be.
Finally, a genuine use for those logo stickers that Apple keeps on shipping. Apple is the company that wouldn't let Intel put a sticker on its computers, but believes we have a passion for the things.
Maybe some of us do, but there's passion, and there's having an outlet for that passion. Someone has got a sticker from a friend and carefully placed it on a Windows laptop. And, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used it on a virtual meeting.
Whoever placed the sticker got it in the vicinity of where Apple does, if not quite as precise as Apple's placement. Unfortunately, they haven't entirely nailed covering up the Hewlett Packard logo underneath.
And if you want to press for more details about "stickergate," there's another one in shot. Just beneath the keyboard of this HP laptop, there's what is most likely an Intel Inside sticker.
It could be one of those peculiar PC things where there's a sticker on the chassis to tell you the computer's specifications. You know, the ones you already saw on the box, the sales receipt, and when you bought the thing.
But specifications or Intel Inside, this is a PC laptop very poorly masquerading as a Mac. To be fair, Trudeau seems to be enjoying looking like he's a Mac user, and that may also be because of where he's sitting.
I still can’t decide whether they have genuine pace, or if they’re just turning their engines up on Friday Thursday to appease the sponsors.
Turning the engine up doesn't accomplish very much at Monaco. They are quick enough to be in contention (& v impressive from Leclerc to get up to speed so quickly).
Of course no one knows exactly how much fuel everyone was carrying.
Leantossup made absolute fucking dicks of themselves with their Scottish Election prediction.
Utter clownshoes.
How?
They predicted an SNP minority, with a 66.4% chance of an SNP minority, 32.9% chance of an SNP majority, SNP 61 seats. The result was SNP 64 seats. That seems reasonably close.
Leantossup had a great 2019 result UK wide. They predicted an 82 seat Tory majority, versus the 80 seat Tory majority that was the result. Best seat prediction by far as far as I know - though they overestimated the Lib Dems.
At least they fixed it before the election and not after it! So overall their prediction wasn't bad.
They've got one of the best models of all predictors I've seen. They called the 2019 GE almost spot on, the last Canadian election almost spot on. Though they were too bullish on Biden.
The thing that gets me (and the rest of Scottish politics twitter) is that they gave a list seat to the Lib Dems in Glasgow and that didn't cause them to go "Hmmm, maybe some issues here?"
The Lib Dems got 2.5% of the vote in 2016 in Glasgow and were down nationally in the polling yet somehow leantossup gave them the 5th list seat. They would have had to quadruple their polling to get that
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
Scientists advising the government really need to be subject to the SpAd rules on public statements.
I'm a bit torn on that one.
They're not employees and - as a scientist - I'd want to be able to speak out if the government was going agaist the evidence, particularly if they claimed to be 'following the science' at the same time. I guess the option would be to resign, but then you're left with the dilemma of whether to stay and keep arguing your case from the inside or leave and give up what influence you have to turn things around. I'd also want to be able to publish the research showing X while the government was loudly proclaiming Y, even if I chose not to talk to the media.
On the other hand, scientists are often (as we've seen) not good at putting science-speak on probabilities and the like into words the public understand and can be naive about how statements are interpreted. It's part of just not being willing to rule things out or make statements that are very general. Are vaccines safe, for example? Well as a scientist I know I can only really say that there's no evidence (other than AZN with the blood clots, which is small) of notable risks and I also know that eating bacon is not absolutely safe and neither is driving a car. But the correct/most true answer, for the media and public use of language is "yes".
Do they not have to resign the government body before doing so though, that alone would also signal how seriously said scientist takes what they are alleging.
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
I'd like to see the full context - it can be read in different ways. If the variant is more transmissible then it probably will spread round the country and cause local spikes up until its chains of transmission are intterupted by vaccinated people (evidence so far is limited, but suggests vaccines still very effective against this strain).
So, we could be at the start of a 'third wave', but that wave probably won't be very big (at least in hospitalisations and deaths). And this variant probably will end up spreading around the country, particularly if it's more transmissible (will come to dominate over the other variants).
One thing that is quite alarming (e.g. in the SAGE models from 12 May) is that they appear to be still using the early assumptions on vaccine efficacy, from February or whenver they started (if anyone knows the assumptions have been updated, please correct me - I'd be very happy to learn that). Max was apalled by that back then and I disagreed, arguing there was uncertainty still and they were not completely bonkers for worst case scenario (there were also more optimistic projections). But now, if the same assumptions are still being used, I'm as apalled as Max. From the graphs, it looks as though nothing has been updated and even the more optimistic models are pessimistic compared to where we are in reality today. That's wrong (if it is the case) and I find it both incomprehensible and indefensible.
Part of the issue is, I think, that the third wave will largely hit the unvaccinated.
Saying that out loud then gets into a the issue of who the unvaccinated are.
Since the seat was created in 1974, at every election the Conservative vote has been in a relatively narrow band of between 50% (1974, 1997) and 63% (1992).
Just sayin'...... Sir Ed Davey's LibDems getting the win needs some serious special pleading.
Also very glad to see the vaccine surge is on. From here we need to do another 12m first doses to complete our first dose programme to ~90% we have got just under 5 weeks, IMO, to do that. We should be able to hit that number and if we do the government will have no excuse not to unlockdown fully and get rid of all pandemic related restrictions domestically and by the end of July make having the vaccine mandatory to fly anywhere with only medical exemptions allowed for those few thousand people who can't have the vaccine until it undergoes even more extensive P4 trials.
We can do this, on June 21st I think we should be one of the only places in the world to have a fully open country that doesn't rely on zero COVID measures like NZ or Oz.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit, NIMBY LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
The Romsey by-election gain in a deep blue seat happened under Kennedy.
There were basically just very few by-elections in Tory seats in Kennedy's time as leader simply because the Tories had relatively few MPs - aside from that, I think it was just Kensington & Chelsea right at the start of his term (Cheadle was a yellow v blue contest in a Lib Dem seat, which was held).
In terms of General Elections, the picture differed in 2001 and 2005 under Kennedy. 2001 Kennedy gains were mainly from the Conservatives (six from them, plus holding Romsey, one from Labour - balanced by two losses to the Tories). 2005 were mainly from Labour (nine from them, with two gains from and three losses to the Tories).
For Ashdown, his leadership was basically at the fag end of a Tory Government - of course the by-election gains and 1997 gains were from them.
So I don't think you can say Kennedy was just fundamentally more appealing to urban lefties. It's just that's where most of the opportunities came from during his time in office.
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
Scientists advising the government really need to be subject to the SpAd rules on public statements.
I'm a bit torn on that one.
They're not employees and - as a scientist - I'd want to be able to speak out if the government was going agaist the evidence, particularly if they claimed to be 'following the science' at the same time. I guess the option would be to resign, but then you're left with the dilemma of whether to stay and keep arguing your case from the inside or leave and give up what influence you have to turn things around. I'd also want to be able to publish the research showing X while the government was loudly proclaiming Y, even if I chose not to talk to the media.
On the other hand, scientists are often (as we've seen) not good at putting science-speak on probabilities and the like into words the public understand and can be naive about how statements are interpreted. It's part of just not being willing to rule things out or make statements that are very general. Are vaccines safe, for example? Well as a scientist I know I can only really say that there's no evidence (other than AZN with the blood clots, which is small) of notable risks and I also know that eating bacon is not absolutely safe and neither is driving a car. But the correct/most true answer, for the media and public use of language is "yes".
Do they not have to resign the government body before doing so though, that alone would also signal how seriously said scientist takes what they are alleging.
That’s the problem. Dissenting scientists are mouthing off to political journalists with no comeback, and the hacks are either treating their words as gospel (if they disagree with the official line) or editing them out of context (if they agree with it).
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
CON - first by some way LD - second with a respectable showing but not that close LAB - will they bother?
49 Con 42 LD
Would be my guess.
I think that makes almost 20-1 for the LDs good value. Indeed, I'd probably back them down to about 8-1.
That being said, you wouldn't want to do it for lots of money, but the current odds are too long.
Speaking of which, Sainz still looking genuinely quick in FP2.
Leclerc showing the signs of having missed FP1.
If I win one in every seven of these 20-1 shots, I'll end up a winner overall. And that's what this is. A good value long shot bet that you don't expect to win, but you think is more likely than the current odds suggest.
I think the Tories will win, but it's perfectly possible that some local issue will resonate and which will enable the LDs to snatch the seat.
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit, NIMBY LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
The Romsey by-election gain in a deep blue seat happened under Kennedy.
There were basically just very few by-elections in Tory seats in Kennedy's time as leader simply because the Tories had relatively few MPs - aside from that, I think it was just Kensington & Chelsea right at the start of his term (Cheadle was a yellow v blue contest in a Lib Dem seat, which was held).
In terms of General Elections, the picture differed in 2001 and 2005 under Kennedy. 2001 Kennedy gains were mainly from the Conservatives (six from them, plus holding Romsey, one from Labour - balanced by two losses to the Tories). 2005 were mainly from Labour (nine from them, with two gains from and three losses to the Tories).
For Ashdown, his leadership was basically at the fag end of a Tory Government - of course the by-election gains and 1997 gains were from them.
So I don't think you can say Kennedy was just fundamentally more appealing to urban lefties. It's just that's where most of the opportunities came from during his time in office.
Ironically a lot of voters who voted for Kennedy's LDs in 2005 voted Labour in 2019, while a lot of voters who voted for Blair's Labour in 2005 voted Tory in 2019.
In 2005 do not forget the LDs were left of Labour effectively which is not the case now post Blair and post Coalition
What is the basis of the Leantossup methodology? Prima facie their forecasts seem odd. On what basis do they claim a 6% Lab to Con swing in Hemsworth since December 2019? Recent Local Elections appear to be the only evidence available - but many of the swings shown imply a national Tory poll lead of circa 25%! Not been seen for over 12 months now.
Since the seat was created in 1974, at every election the Conservative vote has been in a relatively narrow band of between 50% (1974, 1997) and 63% (1992).
Just sayin'...... Sir Ed Davey's LibDems getting the win needs some serious special pleading.
Well you'd say the same about Hartlepool. Cons are doing pretty well in the polls... but absolutely spectacularly in places like Hartlepool and Walsall. Results which by UNS would imply they were on 55% + nationally. So they must be doing quite badly some places too. We thought that was London, but actually in the mayoral vote Con didn't do that badly. So my assumption is that the places where the Con vote has fallen quite a lot to balance the red wall is Shire Remainia.
I'm on the LDs here. I don't expect them to win, but I think anything better than 6-1 is good value.
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
The problem with pretending the new fangled authorities are counties are that you end up with madness where York isn't in North Yorkshire.
Barnoldswick - like Saddlesworth - is Yorkshire. Regardless of which LA they are now in. Go ask the people who live there.
Since the seat was created in 1974, at every election the Conservative vote has been in a relatively narrow band of between 50% (1974, 1997) and 63% (1992).
Just sayin'...... Sir Ed Davey's LibDems getting the win needs some serious special pleading.
The same was true of Witney in every general election in the same period. And the Conservative vote dropped to 45% in the byelection.
Is there some local housing development that is quite unpopular that the LibDems can exploit? Is the local A&E being cut? The LibDems win these kind of seats (at byelections) by finding something local that people want to protest. (And remember that, with a majority of 80, this is very much a free hit. There's no danger of letting Corbyn in.)
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
But local government boundaries don't need to match county boundaries. I have no qualms with dividing Cheshire/Lancashire down the Mersey while letting Trafford Council collect the bins on both sides.
Sure, I'd be up for that – just have the cricket counties for those who want them but given them no administrative power. However, I'm not sure younger people even identify with the old counties nowadays.
The OP was about Gateshead. My friend is originally from Gateshead. Does she consider it part of County Durham? No. Do many people under the age of 50? I doubt it.
Young people perhaps don't identify with counties because we have had this vague over-the-top layer also calling itself counties and in many cases having the same name as the 'real' counties. But there's no obvious reason that the unit of sub-geography that someone associates with should be the local government unit.
It's not just cricket. Lots of organisations still associate with the pre-1974 counties - because why change to reflect local government?
Really, I just want to be able to have a set of units we can all understand and stick to and which are immutable. I don't necessarily want this to mean anything beyond a set of lines on a map - I just want to be able to ask a quiz question like 'name the 9 teams from Cheshire which have ever been in the football league' without having to issue a subsequent explanation of what I mean by 'Cheshire'.
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
The problem with pretending the new fangled authorities are counties are that you end up with madness where York isn't in North Yorkshire.
Barnoldswick - like Saddlesworth - is Yorkshire. Regardless of which LA they are now in. Go ask the people who live there.
I have literally just quoted a book doing exactly that – a book written by a red-blooded supporter of the trad counties. Just because the Yorkshire Ridings Society (who?) want it to be in Yorkshire doesn't make it immutable fact. Read the post again:
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
How extraordinary. Yes, it's his own Twatter feed. It's about the future of railways.
And he, or a minion, has it illustrated with a classic Stephensonian locomotive (by the look of it, a Royal Scot or Princess). That's a bit like illustrating an announcement on broadband/internet interconnectivity with the Admiralty semaphore station on Telegraph Hill.
I suppose it saves the day when they screw up electrification yet again, like they did with the GWR main line.
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
But local government boundaries don't need to match county boundaries. I have no qualms with dividing Cheshire/Lancashire down the Mersey while letting Trafford Council collect the bins on both sides.
Sure, I'd be up for that – just have the cricket counties for those who want them but given them no administrative power. However, I'm not sure younger people even identify with the old counties nowadays.
The OP was about Gateshead. My friend is originally from Gateshead. Does she consider it part of County Durham? No. Do many people under the age of 50? I doubt it.
Young people perhaps don't identify with counties because we have had this vague over-the-top layer also calling itself counties and in many cases having the same name as the 'real' counties. But there's no obvious reason that the unit of sub-geography that someone associates with should be the local government unit.
It's not just cricket. Lots of organisations still associate with the pre-1974 counties - because why change to reflect local government?
Really, I just want to be able to have a set of units we can all understand and stick to and which are immutable. I don't necessarily want this to mean anything beyond a set of lines on a map - I just want to be able to ask a quiz question like 'name the 9 teams from Cheshire which have ever been in the football league' without having to issue a subsequent explanation of what I mean by 'Cheshire'.
Its actually a simple enough thing to fix these days - counties have been removed from postal addresses. What drives the good Yorkshire folk of Saddlesworth bonkers is having "Oldham Lancashire" as their address. They can be part of Oldham MBC but in Yorkshire. Same withe the prannocks I used to sit around the council table with in Thornaby - part of Stockton BC but in Yorkshire.
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
I'd like to see the full context - it can be read in different ways. If the variant is more transmissible then it probably will spread round the country and cause local spikes up until its chains of transmission are intterupted by vaccinated people (evidence so far is limited, but suggests vaccines still very effective against this strain).
So, we could be at the start of a 'third wave', but that wave probably won't be very big (at least in hospitalisations and deaths). And this variant probably will end up spreading around the country, particularly if it's more transmissible (will come to dominate over the other variants).
One thing that is quite alarming (e.g. in the SAGE models from 12 May) is that they appear to be still using the early assumptions on vaccine efficacy, from February or whenver they started (if anyone knows the assumptions have been updated, please correct me - I'd be very happy to learn that). Max was apalled by that back then and I disagreed, arguing there was uncertainty still and they were not completely bonkers for worst case scenario (there were also more optimistic projections). But now, if the same assumptions are still being used, I'm as apalled as Max. From the graphs, it looks as though nothing has been updated and even the more optimistic models are pessimistic compared to where we are in reality today. That's wrong (if it is the case) and I find it both incomprehensible and indefensible.
Part of the issue is, I think, that the third wave will largely hit the unvaccinated.
Saying that out loud then gets into a the issue of who the unvaccinated are.
But it should be said out loud. It should be shouted from the rooftops. I haven't seen the data on this, but any areas with below-par vaccine take up (the suggestion being mainly areas with higher numbers in minority ethnic groups? but it doesn't matter really - wherever there is low take up for whatever reason) should be intensively targeted with information campaigns and it should be made plain that there is the potential for pretty shocking local impacts among the unprotected if someone brings in an infection. The vaccinated don't need to be scared unecessarily. The unvaccinated need to be given the facts.
There was also a suggestion (on here, I think) that low take up in some areas was due to work schedules and a lack of local vaccination centres. Well, get the centres in there to make it easy. Use the local contacts. I don't know whether Bradford is a problem area, but the Born In Bradford research and Better Start Bradford interventions mean that there is a network of scientists, doctors and the public that know each other, trust each other and are used to working together. That - and things like it elsewhere - can and should be used.
Speaking of which, Sainz still looking genuinely quick in FP2.
Leclerc showing the signs of having missed FP1.
If I win one in every seven of these 20-1 shots, I'll end up a winner overall. And that's what this is. A good value long shot bet that you don't expect to win, but you think is more likely than the current odds suggest.
I think the Tories will win, but it's perfectly possible that some local issue will resonate and which will enable the LDs to snatch the seat.
Sounds about right to me. Helps when you get on at even longer odds.
Value losers aren't always losers, as you point out, but you do need to back them regularly to benefit in the way you suggest.
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
The problem with pretending the new fangled authorities are counties are that you end up with madness where York isn't in North Yorkshire.
Barnoldswick - like Saddlesworth - is Yorkshire. Regardless of which LA they are now in. Go ask the people who live there.
You aren't very good at this are you?
York itself never was in the North Riding or indeed any riding. It was an enclave of its own.
York is the traditional county town of Yorkshire, and therefore did not form part of any of its three historic ridings, or divisions
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
But local government boundaries don't need to match county boundaries. I have no qualms with dividing Cheshire/Lancashire down the Mersey while letting Trafford Council collect the bins on both sides.
Sure, I'd be up for that – just have the cricket counties for those who want them but given them no administrative power. However, I'm not sure younger people even identify with the old counties nowadays.
The OP was about Gateshead. My friend is originally from Gateshead. Does she consider it part of County Durham? No. Do many people under the age of 50? I doubt it.
Young people perhaps don't identify with counties because we have had this vague over-the-top layer also calling itself counties and in many cases having the same name as the 'real' counties. But there's no obvious reason that the unit of sub-geography that someone associates with should be the local government unit.
It's not just cricket. Lots of organisations still associate with the pre-1974 counties - because why change to reflect local government?
Really, I just want to be able to have a set of units we can all understand and stick to and which are immutable. I don't necessarily want this to mean anything beyond a set of lines on a map - I just want to be able to ask a quiz question like 'name the 9 teams from Cheshire which have ever been in the football league' without having to issue a subsequent explanation of what I mean by 'Cheshire'.
Indeed, young people are clearly suffering from false consciousness. The fact that the under 50s have never known Gateshead to be in County Durham or Barnoldswick to be in Yorkshire might have something to do with that!
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
Of course the problem with outsiders telling locals that they are no longer Lancastrians / Yorkshire / Durham is that it tends to provoke all kinds of nasty reactions. Durham runs from the Tyne to the Tees, always has, always will do. Yorkshire is North, West and East despite South also being a new Ceremonial county. Same thing with T&W - giving it a Lord Lieutenant doesn't suddenly give it value.
A ceremonial county is not a historic country. Twatting around with borders is a touchy subject in my part of England that seems to drive the natives absolutely mental. Did have to laugh though when His Eminence the Mayor for Life of Thornaby-on-Tees gobbed off about county names and had his sizeable arse handed to him by the Chair of the Yorkshire Ridings Socirty.
LOL. Wishful thinking.
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
But local government boundaries don't need to match county boundaries. I have no qualms with dividing Cheshire/Lancashire down the Mersey while letting Trafford Council collect the bins on both sides.
Sure, I'd be up for that – just have the cricket counties for those who want them but given them no administrative power. However, I'm not sure younger people even identify with the old counties nowadays.
The OP was about Gateshead. My friend is originally from Gateshead. Does she consider it part of County Durham? No. Do many people under the age of 50? I doubt it.
Young people perhaps don't identify with counties because we have had this vague over-the-top layer also calling itself counties and in many cases having the same name as the 'real' counties. But there's no obvious reason that the unit of sub-geography that someone associates with should be the local government unit.
It's not just cricket. Lots of organisations still associate with the pre-1974 counties - because why change to reflect local government?
Really, I just want to be able to have a set of units we can all understand and stick to and which are immutable. I don't necessarily want this to mean anything beyond a set of lines on a map - I just want to be able to ask a quiz question like 'name the 9 teams from Cheshire which have ever been in the football league' without having to issue a subsequent explanation of what I mean by 'Cheshire'.
Its actually a simple enough thing to fix these days - counties have been removed from postal addresses. What drives the good Yorkshire folk of Saddlesworth bonkers is having "Oldham Lancashire" as their address. They can be part of Oldham MBC but in Yorkshire. Same withe the prannocks I used to sit around the council table with in Thornaby - part of Stockton BC but in Yorkshire.
Do you consider Walthamstow part of Essex, Brixton part of Surrey and Tottenham part of Middlesex?
A Lib Dem party led by Paddy or Charlie could have had a real punt at this. A Lib Dem party led by Ed really struggles for impact. Personally, I think 6% is quite generous.
Paddy maybe but Charlie appealed more to left leaning graduates in urban areas, which was where most of the LD gains came from in 2001 and 2005.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
Charlie and Paddy were both brilliant campaigners who could create a buzz and some momentum. Ed, not so much. I expect this to be a comfortable Conservative hold on a lowish turnout.
Depends on how much voters use the by election as a protest vote against HS2 and new housing developments in the area and how much the Remain vote (it was 55% Remain) rallies behind the LDs, if it does it could be close. Though the Tories should still narrowly hold it
It seems to me that one of the things that makes this government strong at the moment is that those who supported Brexit are still quite motivated to support it whilst those who voted remain have lost heart, lost enthusiasm, come to terms etc and don't seem particularly motivated by their earlier views in terms of voting intention. HS2 may strike home more but are the Lib Dems really opposed to that?
I think that's right. Much of Boris's steadfast popularity must be because Leave voters still regard him as a saint - a veritable Gandhi or Mandela figure - who delivered what many never thought possible. That's a heady political place to be. There are no such figures on the Remain side, of course, whose politicians carry their failures like sacks of coal.
Yep. The Remain identity is so weak and fractured right now cf the Leave one. Do we argue it was a mistake and we should feel our way back via the Single Market? Or do we accept it as done for a generation and leave it be for now? That's a big split straightway right there. And even if we get an agreed and sorted line on this, there's the question of which party to support. It's a piece of cake on the Leave side. Regardless of left or right or apolitical, it's Con/Bluekip. Under Johnson, Leavers see what they want to see in it. But on our side, no such clarity. Labour, the LDs, the Greens. They're all in the game. It's a right bugger.
Covid - Professor Andrew Hayward of SAGE told the BBC - "we could be at the start of a third wave. I can't think of any reason why this variant won't spread around the country in the same way as the currently infected areas. It's very transmissable"
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
I'd like to see the full context - it can be read in different ways. If the variant is more transmissible then it probably will spread round the country and cause local spikes up until its chains of transmission are intterupted by vaccinated people (evidence so far is limited, but suggests vaccines still very effective against this strain).
So, we could be at the start of a 'third wave', but that wave probably won't be very big (at least in hospitalisations and deaths). And this variant probably will end up spreading around the country, particularly if it's more transmissible (will come to dominate over the other variants).
One thing that is quite alarming (e.g. in the SAGE models from 12 May) is that they appear to be still using the early assumptions on vaccine efficacy, from February or whenver they started (if anyone knows the assumptions have been updated, please correct me - I'd be very happy to learn that). Max was apalled by that back then and I disagreed, arguing there was uncertainty still and they were not completely bonkers for worst case scenario (there were also more optimistic projections). But now, if the same assumptions are still being used, I'm as apalled as Max. From the graphs, it looks as though nothing has been updated and even the more optimistic models are pessimistic compared to where we are in reality today. That's wrong (if it is the case) and I find it both incomprehensible and indefensible.
Part of the issue is, I think, that the third wave will largely hit the unvaccinated.
Saying that out loud then gets into a the issue of who the unvaccinated are.
But it should be said out loud. It should be shouted from the rooftops. I haven't seen the data on this, but any areas with below-par vaccine take up (the suggestion being mainly areas with higher numbers in minority ethnic groups? but it doesn't matter really - wherever there is low take up for whatever reason) should be intensively targeted with information campaigns and it should be made plain that there is the potential for pretty shocking local impacts among the unprotected if someone brings in an infection. The vaccinated don't need to be scared unecessarily. The unvaccinated need to be given the facts.
There was also a suggestion (on here, I think) that low take up in some areas was due to work schedules and a lack of local vaccination centres. Well, get the centres in there to make it easy. Use the local contacts. I don't know whether Bradford is a problem area, but the Born In Bradford research and Better Start Bradford interventions mean that there is a network of scientists, doctors and the public that know each other, trust each other and are used to working together. That - and things like it elsewhere - can and should be used.
It is my understanding that the government is trying a variety of avenues - reaching out via social media, getting buy in from community leaders etc etc
The question is how persuadable people are - once they have bullshit in their heads, it's often hard to get it out again.
In some cases, the problem *is* the community leaders....
The problem is that if you start down the road of a message that be seen by idiots as "it's all the fault of them'uns"....
Comments
Even in the unlikely event that the LDs won the by-election it would be like the LDs winning by-elections in prior Parliaments, it won't create a crisis like Starmer.
4th like Labour in C&A?
Speaking of which, Sainz still looking genuinely quick in FP2.
Leclerc showing the signs of having missed FP1.
What ANY reason? None at all? Not the fact that it seems to be predominant in areas with relatively low vaccine take-up? And probably with a reasonable number of people who actually caught it in India and are now spreading it amongst their families in a load of mini "super spreader" events. And may find more resistance elsewhere?
And anyway what is "a third wave"? Large numbers of cases everywhere? Or actually a significant effect on public health? The almost complete lack of discussion about the (quite high likelihood) that high transmission does not equal serious public health problem is incredibly frustrating. Ministers keep referencing hospitalisations to be fair. But day after day we just get SAGE scientists appearing on the news saying that the main criteria to judge the risk of the variant is transmissibility.
The Tory vote in the seat was also down 5% at the 2019 general election against the national trend so it is clearly an area not that keen on either Brexit or Boris.
I still expect a Tory hold but the LDs to cut their majority significantly
https://twitter.com/bbcscotland/status/1395116801810305024?s=21
Why do these fuckers never get challenged on this?
I don't want to see them ripped to pieces. Just a simple polite 'but why won't vaccines prevent a third wave? In which case why are we bothering with them?'
Ministers could use TINDER to boost vaccine roll-out in the young: Dating app users may get a 'blue tick' to show they've been jabbed with scheme set to invite all over-18s next month
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9600165/Covid-19-UK-Ministers-use-TINDER-boost-vaccine-roll-young.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57189371
Does anyone actually care though?
https://twitter.com/f365/status/1395314422202212353?s=21
I think it's similar in nature, but would appear to be a one off, which means it's not nearly so serious for the BBC as it was for the NOTW (though, not Maguire's Mirror).
Reminds me of the early days of phone "hacking". It wasn't illegal (as there was no laws in place that considered it) and most people never changed the default pin, so essentially there answer phone was open.
Can't the Canuck government afford Apple products?
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau busted using fake Mac with Apple sticker
A photograph of Canada's Justin Trudeau shows him using a HP Windows laptop, which wouldn't be remarked upon, but it sporting an Apple sticker will be.
Finally, a genuine use for those logo stickers that Apple keeps on shipping. Apple is the company that wouldn't let Intel put a sticker on its computers, but believes we have a passion for the things.
Maybe some of us do, but there's passion, and there's having an outlet for that passion. Someone has got a sticker from a friend and carefully placed it on a Windows laptop. And, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used it on a virtual meeting.
Whoever placed the sticker got it in the vicinity of where Apple does, if not quite as precise as Apple's placement. Unfortunately, they haven't entirely nailed covering up the Hewlett Packard logo underneath.
And if you want to press for more details about "stickergate," there's another one in shot. Just beneath the keyboard of this HP laptop, there's what is most likely an Intel Inside sticker.
It could be one of those peculiar PC things where there's a sticker on the chassis to tell you the computer's specifications. You know, the ones you already saw on the box, the sales receipt, and when you bought the thing.
But specifications or Intel Inside, this is a PC laptop very poorly masquerading as a Mac. To be fair, Trudeau seems to be enjoying looking like he's a Mac user, and that may also be because of where he's sitting.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05/19/canadian-pm-justin-trudeau-busted-using-fake-mac-with-apple-sticker
I actually have a lot of time for the traditional counties but putting boundaries down the middle of rivers in the middle of big cities is senseless. Just as London is rightfully one unit (rather than split between Surrey and Middlesex) so should be Newcastle.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick* was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
(*It's been in Lancashire since 1974, whatever the 'Yorkshire Riding Society' – er, who? – might wish to be the case)
So, we could be at the start of a 'third wave', but that wave probably won't be very big (at least in hospitalisations and deaths). And this variant probably will end up spreading around the country, particularly if it's more transmissible (will come to dominate over the other variants).
One thing that is quite alarming (e.g. in the SAGE models from 12 May) is that they appear to be still using the early assumptions on vaccine efficacy, from February or whenver they started (if anyone knows the assumptions have been updated, please correct me - I'd be very happy to learn that). Max was apalled by that back then and I disagreed, arguing there was uncertainty still and they were not completely bonkers for worst case scenario (there were also more optimistic projections). But now, if the same assumptions are still being used, I'm as apalled as Max. From the graphs, it looks as though nothing has been updated and even the more optimistic models are pessimistic compared to where we are in reality today. That's wrong (if it is the case) and I find it both incomprehensible and indefensible.
Ferrari definitely quick. (And Verstappen getting sweary about his car balance.)
They doesn't seem that different from what journalists did back in the day which is even if somebody had set their phone to a different pin, they could use others unprotected phones to find things out.
https://twitter.com/UK_Polling/status/1387887746505715715?s=19
Credit to them for revising their model.
Warrington itself originally may be north of the river, but whether north or south of it, its one town, and it makes far more sense for me to consider Warrington as part of Cheshire than Lancashire.
I see only 4 MSPs agreed with Mr Rennie, presumably including his good self.
It isn't the most fertile Lib Dem territory the South has to offer (nor the worst) so I would be quite surprised if the Lib Dems got within 3 or 4,000 votes of the Tories unless National circumstances change dramatically in the next few weeks.
Chesham and Amersham however is a wealthy and fiscally conservative but pro Remain Home Counties seat with an aversion to HS2 and new housing, the type of seat an anti hard Brexit, NIMBY LDs led by the Orange Book Ed Davey should be doing well in
FridayThursday to appease the sponsors.They've got one of the best models of all predictors I've seen. They called the 2019 GE almost spot on, the last Canadian election almost spot on. Though they were too bullish on Biden.
LD - second with a respectable showing but not that close
LAB - will they bother?
They're not employees and - as a scientist - I'd want to be able to speak out if the government was going agaist the evidence, particularly if they claimed to be 'following the science' at the same time. I guess the option would be to resign, but then you're left with the dilemma of whether to stay and keep arguing your case from the inside or leave and give up what influence you have to turn things around. I'd also want to be able to publish the research showing X while the government was loudly proclaiming Y, even if I chose not to talk to the media.
On the other hand, scientists are often (as we've seen) not good at putting science-speak on probabilities and the like into words the public understand and can be naive about how statements are interpreted. It's part of just not being willing to rule things out or make statements that are very general. Are vaccines safe, for example? Well as a scientist I know I can only really say that there's no evidence (other than AZN with the blood clots, which is small) of notable risks and I also know that eating bacon is not absolutely safe and neither is driving a car. But the correct/most true answer, for the media and public use of language is "yes".
Chesham and most of the constituency aren't impacted at all, it really is only Amersham Old Town and Great Missenden that will see building work.
Makes no sense for me to divide towns down the middle.
The actual problem is the nature of the media, rather than the nature of the scientists.
They’re having political journalists interview scientists, who really aren’t used to that.
If a media organisation were to spend half an hour with a SAGE member and a scientific journalist, and then air the interview unedited or with the permission of the interview subject, that would of course be fine.
The OP was about Gateshead. My friend is originally from Gateshead. Does she consider it part of County Durham? No. Do many people under the age of 50? I doubt it.
They are quick enough to be in contention (& v impressive from Leclerc to get up to speed so quickly).
Of course no one knows exactly how much fuel everyone was carrying.
The Lib Dems got 2.5% of the vote in 2016 in Glasgow and were down nationally in the polling yet somehow leantossup gave them the 5th list seat. They would have had to quadruple their polling to get that
Saying that out loud then gets into a the issue of who the unvaccinated are.
Just sayin'...... Sir Ed Davey's LibDems getting the win needs some serious special pleading.
We can do this, on June 21st I think we should be one of the only places in the world to have a fully open country that doesn't rely on zero COVID measures like NZ or Oz.
There were basically just very few by-elections in Tory seats in Kennedy's time as leader simply because the Tories had relatively few MPs - aside from that, I think it was just Kensington & Chelsea right at the start of his term (Cheadle was a yellow v blue contest in a Lib Dem seat, which was held).
In terms of General Elections, the picture differed in 2001 and 2005 under Kennedy. 2001 Kennedy gains were mainly from the Conservatives (six from them, plus holding Romsey, one from Labour - balanced by two losses to the Tories). 2005 were mainly from Labour (nine from them, with two gains from and three losses to the Tories).
For Ashdown, his leadership was basically at the fag end of a Tory Government - of course the by-election gains and 1997 gains were from them.
So I don't think you can say Kennedy was just fundamentally more appealing to urban lefties. It's just that's where most of the opportunities came from during his time in office.
Seriously, I wonder if Ms Green could actually lose because voters are confused which party she's standing for.
42 LD
Would be my guess.
I think that makes almost 20-1 for the LDs good value. Indeed, I'd probably back them down to about 8-1.
That being said, you wouldn't want to do it for lots of money, but the current odds are too long.
I think the Tories will win, but it's perfectly possible that some local issue will resonate and which will enable the LDs to snatch the seat.
In 2005 do not forget the LDs were left of Labour effectively which is not the case now post Blair and post Coalition
https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1395295480704380930?s=21
Cons are doing pretty well in the polls... but absolutely spectacularly in places like Hartlepool and Walsall. Results which by UNS would imply they were on 55% + nationally. So they must be doing quite badly some places too. We thought that was London, but actually in the mayoral vote Con didn't do that badly. So my assumption is that the places where the Con vote has fallen quite a lot to balance the red wall is Shire Remainia.
I'm on the LDs here. I don't expect them to win, but I think anything better than 6-1 is good value.
Barnoldswick - like Saddlesworth - is Yorkshire. Regardless of which LA they are now in. Go ask the people who live there.
Is there some local housing development that is quite unpopular that the LibDems can exploit? Is the local A&E being cut? The LibDems win these kind of seats (at byelections) by finding something local that people want to protest. (And remember that, with a majority of 80, this is very much a free hit. There's no danger of letting Corbyn in.)
But there's no obvious reason that the unit of sub-geography that someone associates with should be the local government unit.
It's not just cricket. Lots of organisations still associate with the pre-1974 counties - because why change to reflect local government?
Really, I just want to be able to have a set of units we can all understand and stick to and which are immutable. I don't necessarily want this to mean anything beyond a set of lines on a map - I just want to be able to ask a quiz question like 'name the 9 teams from Cheshire which have ever been in the football league' without having to issue a subsequent explanation of what I mean by 'Cheshire'.
By the way, guess what, it's generational? In his excellent book Engel's England Matthew Engels was dismayed to find younger people baffled by the idea that Barnoldswick was in Yorkshire.
Engels asked 10 people which county it was in:
Four said Lancashire, three said Yorkshire and three didn't care... A teenage girl kindly switched off her iPad to talk to me and looked disgusted."Yorkshire? It's just the elderly people who think that."
And he, or a minion, has it illustrated with a classic Stephensonian locomotive (by the look of it, a Royal Scot or Princess). That's a bit like illustrating an announcement on broadband/internet interconnectivity with the Admiralty semaphore station on Telegraph Hill.
I suppose it saves the day when they screw up electrification yet again, like they did with the GWR main line.
There was also a suggestion (on here, I think) that low take up in some areas was due to work schedules and a lack of local vaccination centres. Well, get the centres in there to make it easy. Use the local contacts. I don't know whether Bradford is a problem area, but the Born In Bradford research and Better Start Bradford interventions mean that there is a network of scientists, doctors and the public that know each other, trust each other and are used to working together. That - and things like it elsewhere - can and should be used.
Helps when you get on at even longer odds.
Value losers aren't always losers, as you point out, but you do need to back them regularly to benefit in the way you suggest.
York itself never was in the North Riding or indeed any riding. It was an enclave of its own.
York is the traditional county town of Yorkshire, and therefore did not form part of any of its three historic ridings, or divisions
The question is how persuadable people are - once they have bullshit in their heads, it's often hard to get it out again.
In some cases, the problem *is* the community leaders....
The problem is that if you start down the road of a message that be seen by idiots as "it's all the fault of them'uns"....