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.)
Set against that - is there any pandemic ending around polling day because of a government engineered vaccination programme, allowing people to grasp a return to normality?
It is possible that 21st June slipping because of the Indian variant plays badly for the government. But if (as I expect) it remains on track, the Government should be in a good place by 17th June, when the by-election is held.
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.
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.
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
Out of curiosity I have just dived into the LeanTossup site and looked at the predictions given for the two Pembrokeshire seats Two weeks ago we saw the Wales Assembly elections. Preseli Pembrokeshire is predicted by this site to come out as - Con 51.2 Lab 29.5 PC 11.3 LD 4.7 Grn 2.6. The result there on May 6th was - Con 39 Lab 34.6 PC 19.5 Ref 3.9 LD 3.0.
Pembrokeshire South & West Carmarthen is predicted as - Con 53.2 Lab 25.6 PC 13.2 LD 4.6 Grn 2.6. Result on May 6th - Con 35.5 Lab 32.6 PC 20.9 LD 3.9 UKIP 3.1 Ind 2.7 Ref 1.3.
I fail to see much correlation there at all - rather Garbage In Garbage Out.
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
No - but various people are contorting themselves to avoid saying that the third wave will occur among the unvaccinated.
Because if they say that, and they then agree with going ahead with the unlocking, it will look bad for them.
The government is playing for time and hoping that the various measures to increase vaccination take-up will work and that they won't have to answer than question.
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
No - but various people are contorting themselves to avoid saying that the third wave will occur among the unvaccinated.
Because if they say that, and they then agree with going ahead with the unlocking, it will look bad for them.
The government is playing for time and hoping that the various measures to increase vaccination take-up will work and that they won't have to answer than question.
So that's a Yes not a No, I think. Your fear is the government (as with these 'various people') will be unduly influenced by the ethnic minority angle.
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.)
Set against that - is there any pandemic ending around polling day because of a government engineered vaccination programme, allowing people to grasp a return to normality?
It is possible that 21st June slipping because of the Indian variant plays badly for the government. But if (as I expect) it remains on track, the Government should be in a good place by 17th June, when the by-election is held.
Oh, I expect the Conservatives to win. I just think 20-1 is too skinny on the LDs. The right price is 7 or 8 to 1.
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? That's a big split straightway. 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.
Karma's a bitch.
Alternatively, karma's only a bitch if you are.
I suppose you mean "serves you right for trying to overturn the result". In which case, Not Guilty. My very first post of over 140 characters on PB was arguing against a 2nd EU referendum, saying I'd rather have a No Deal exit than that.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
'The local party position is :
'Where HS2 is breaching commitments, damaging the environment or failing to take measures to reduce climate change, the Liberal Democrats will support and encourage mitigative campaigns and actions by local parties, ensure local consultation with Parish and Town Councils and residents' groups and call upon protesters and HS2 to avoid confrontation'.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
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.
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
To be honest that idea had not entered my thoughts and nor should it
The message is clear that everyone should be vaccinated, and those who reject the message cannot complain if public sentiment towards them becomes angry as they put others in unnecessary danger
My son kept his youngest (7) off school today as he had a normal cold but the teachers asked his sister (9) why he was not in school and when she said he had a sniffle she was sent home, and his father and mother had to go into quarantine pending the results of a test taken on his son late this morning
I still expect Boris to open the economy in June with only the odd tweak
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
To be honest that idea had not entered my thoughts and nor should it
The message is clear that everyone should be vaccinated, and those who reject the message cannot complain if public sentiment towards them becomes angry as they put others in unnecessary danger
My son kept his youngest (7) off school today as he had a normal cold but the teachers asked his sister (9) why he was not in school and when she said he had a sniffle she was sent home, and his father and mother had to go into quarantine pending the results of a test taken on his son late this morning
I still expect Boris to open the economy in June with only the odd tweak
We should just copy what the Drake does, for he is the one who will light the way.
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? That's a big split straightway. 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.
Karma's a bitch.
Alternatively, karma's only a bitch if you are.
I suppose you mean "serves you right for trying to overturn the result". In which case, Not Guilty. My very first post of over 140 characters on PB was arguing against a 2nd EU referendum, saying I'd rather have a No Deal exit than that.
Fair enough for you, but you're not Labour leader are you?
And I seem to recall you were OK with Starmer, Corbyn and Labour positioning as they did as you'd rather not risk losing "Remainian cities" to the Lib Dems - isn't that right?
I praise our lucky stars that Labour didn't abstain on May's exit deal. If that had happened it would have been a terrible BRINO Brexit and a Tory civil war. Instead Remainers in 2017-19 united to ensure the Leave vote united behind the Tories. Thank you so very much for that.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
Also, like I keep saying, I think it's for the birds that the Lib Dems will campaign in the next GE on rejoining the single market, never mind the EU, unless things look like they're going to shit economically.
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
To be honest that idea had not entered my thoughts and nor should it
The message is clear that everyone should be vaccinated, and those who reject the message cannot complain if public sentiment towards them becomes angry as they put others in unnecessary danger
My son kept his youngest (7) off school today as he had a normal cold but the teachers asked his sister (9) why he was not in school and when she said he had a sniffle she was sent home, and his father and mother had to go into quarantine pending the results of a test taken on his son late this morning
I still expect Boris to open the economy in June with only the odd tweak
We should just copy what the Drake does, for he is the one who will light the way.
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Quiz questions. Local identity. Explaining where places are. Cricket. Rugby. All sorts of things. Counties existed long before local government.
Does anyone doubt that in the 2017-2019 Parliament one Keir Starmer did his very best to frustrate Brexit, he shaped Labour's Brexit positioning - which Corbyn had been taking a position of abstaining on early on. If Corbyn had not been convinced to stop abstaining on Brexit by Starmer then the Tories would have been in outright civil war.
Starmer personally bears almost as much responsibility for uniting the Leave vote as Boris does. And then Labour went on to make him their leader (!!!!)
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? That's a big split straightway. 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.
Karma's a bitch.
Alternatively, karma's only a bitch if you are.
I suppose you mean "serves you right for trying to overturn the result". In which case, Not Guilty. My very first post of over 140 characters on PB was arguing against a 2nd EU referendum, saying I'd rather have a No Deal exit than that.
Fair enough for you, but you're not Labour leader are you?
And I seem to recall you were OK with Starmer, Corbyn and Labour positioning as they did as you'd rather not risk losing "Remainian cities" to the Lib Dems - isn't that right?
I praise our lucky stars that Labour didn't abstain on May's exit deal. If that had happened it would have been a terrible BRINO Brexit and a Tory civil war. Instead Remainers in 2017-19 united to ensure the Leave vote united behind the Tories. Thank you so very much for that.
Hang on.
Which deal of May's?
The initial one - which involved hanging the Unionists out to dry - was basically identical to the one Boris signed. It was only when the Unionists objected that she tied herself in knots.
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Quiz questions. Local identity. Explaining where places are. Cricket. Rugby. All sorts of things. Counties existed long before local government.
I think if we're going to have counties, we should do them properly.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
'The local party position is :
'Where HS2 is breaching commitments, damaging the environment or failing to take measures to reduce climate change, the Liberal Democrats will support and encourage mitigative campaigns and actions by local parties, ensure local consultation with Parish and Town Councils and residents' groups and call upon protesters and HS2 to avoid confrontation'.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Cricket, obvs.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Is their policy to support free movement though? It was at the last election, but now?
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? That's a big split straightway. 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.
Karma's a bitch.
Alternatively, karma's only a bitch if you are.
I suppose you mean "serves you right for trying to overturn the result". In which case, Not Guilty. My very first post of over 140 characters on PB was arguing against a 2nd EU referendum, saying I'd rather have a No Deal exit than that.
Fair enough for you, but you're not Labour leader are you?
And I seem to recall you were OK with Starmer, Corbyn and Labour positioning as they did as you'd rather not risk losing "Remainian cities" to the Lib Dems - isn't that right?
I praise our lucky stars that Labour didn't abstain on May's exit deal. If that had happened it would have been a terrible BRINO Brexit and a Tory civil war. Instead Remainers in 2017-19 united to ensure the Leave vote united behind the Tories. Thank you so very much for that.
Hang on.
Which deal of May's?
The initial one - which involved hanging the Unionists out to dry - was basically identical to the one Boris signed. It was only when the Unionists objected that she tied herself in knots.
The one that was rejected in the three meaningful votes.
I don't recall any other deal coming before Parliament. Tying herself in knots in response to the Unionists (who had backed Brexit afterall) was the wrong thing to do.
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
To be honest that idea had not entered my thoughts and nor should it
The message is clear that everyone should be vaccinated, and those who reject the message cannot complain if public sentiment towards them becomes angry as they put others in unnecessary danger
My son kept his youngest (7) off school today as he had a normal cold but the teachers asked his sister (9) why he was not in school and when she said he had a sniffle she was sent home, and his father and mother had to go into quarantine pending the results of a test taken on his son late this morning
I still expect Boris to open the economy in June with only the odd tweak
We should just copy what the Drake does, for he is the one who will light the way.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Is their policy to support free movement though? It was at the last election, but now?
I've never seen them say a single thing to suggest they want a reduction in population growth and immigration.
But even if they have, the people who moved here when free movement existed by and large still live here and that has created the housing crisis. Even if we had net migration of 0 going forwards, we still have a shortage of houses caused by years of having net immigration exceeding construction growth.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
Also, like I keep saying, I think it's for the birds that the Lib Dems will campaign in the next GE on rejoining the single market, never mind the EU, unless things look like they're going to shit economically.
Oh, the LDs will probably campaign on "shouldn't we be a bit nicer to those people in Europe?"
Which probably would have resonated better before the whole vaccine thing.
BUT. I don't expect the EU to be a massive issue in 2024. Electorates don't tend to ask "are we doing better than those people over the channel?", they ask "do I feel richer and more optimistic?"
My gut is that (a) people will feel richer, and (b) the Conservatives have a good majority to defend. If I were to make a prediction on 2024, it would be a Conservative majority of 20 to 40, on a 41-42% vote share, with a small increase in tactical voting causing most of the losses.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Look, you may think that's a stupid policy (because it's pretty disastrous for those at the bottom of the property ladder). But it's going to resonate well with people in C&A who own expensive homes, and want the value of those homes to rise.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Look, you may think that's a stupid policy (because it's pretty disastrous for those at the bottom of the property ladder). But it's going to resonate well with people in C&A who own expensive homes, and want the value of those homes to rise.
Oh it can be smart politics, I don't disagree with that.
It is scummy dishonest politics though. Scummy dishonest politics can win votes.
And LD campaigners have the temerity to act like they're whiter than white (can we still use that term) and act like its outrageous that Boris isn't always straight with the truth. Motes and beams come to mind.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Look, you may think that's a stupid policy (because it's pretty disastrous for those at the bottom of the property ladder). But it's going to resonate well with people in C&A who own expensive homes, and want the value of those homes to rise.
If you want the biggest annoyance in Amersham at the moment, it's Aldi's desire to build a supermarket on the edge of Amersham old town where the Jaguar garage was.
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
To be honest that idea had not entered my thoughts and nor should it
The message is clear that everyone should be vaccinated, and those who reject the message cannot complain if public sentiment towards them becomes angry as they put others in unnecessary danger
My son kept his youngest (7) off school today as he had a normal cold but the teachers asked his sister (9) why he was not in school and when she said he had a sniffle she was sent home, and his father and mother had to go into quarantine pending the results of a test taken on his son late this morning
I still expect Boris to open the economy in June with only the odd tweak
We should just copy what the Drake does, for he is the one who will light the way.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
For Tories to be complaining about populism in the pursuit of votes is .... notable.
Just noticed the seven day average for deaths by date of death, allowing for the 12th May (which is the last date its given to allow for lag) is now 6.9, which is lower than it ever got in August. It's now lower than it's been since 10 March 2020.
The net is closing: "The New York attorney general's office has begun a criminal tax investigation into Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg"
Just noticed the seven day average for deaths by date of death, allowing for the 12th May (which is the last date its given to allow for lag) is now 6.9, which is lower than it ever got in August. It's now lower than it's been since 10 March 2020.
But - Sky are using experts ( admittedly their preferred ones) to tell us we are facing a third wave and travel should be stopped
Just noticed the seven day average for deaths by date of death, allowing for the 12th May (which is the last date its given to allow for lag) is now 6.9, which is lower than it ever got in August. It's now lower than it's been since 10 March 2020.
Yup. In fact the spike on the 16th has pushed the average up.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
For Tories to be complaining about populism in the pursuit of votes is .... notable.
We usually complain about the dodgy bar charts and "Lib Dems winning here" slogans when there isn't another Lib Dem within 1000 Square miles !
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Look, you may think that's a stupid policy (because it's pretty disastrous for those at the bottom of the property ladder). But it's going to resonate well with people in C&A who own expensive homes, and want the value of those homes to rise.
If you want the biggest annoyance in Amersham at the moment, it's Aldi's desire to build a supermarket on the edge of Amersham old town where the Jaguar garage was.
Is there not anything more important to worry about? 🤦♂️
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Look, you may think that's a stupid policy (because it's pretty disastrous for those at the bottom of the property ladder). But it's going to resonate well with people in C&A who own expensive homes, and want the value of those homes to rise.
Oh it can be smart politics, I don't disagree with that.
It is scummy dishonest politics though. Scummy dishonest politics can win votes.
And LD campaigners have the temerity to act like they're whiter than white (can we still use that term) and act like its outrageous that Boris isn't always straight with the truth. Motes and beams come to mind.
BiB (1). Yes, as the vote-winning machine you favour is only too well aware. BJ is a shameless master of the trade. BiB (2). 'Boris lies' uses fewer words.
Is there much greenfield scrub development land near Amersham? It's in the Chiltern Hills, much of which is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Certainly much of the area is a beauty spot.
P.S. I once stayed at the King's Arms – lovely pub.
Just noticed the seven day average for deaths by date of death, allowing for the 12th May (which is the last date its given to allow for lag) is now 6.9, which is lower than it ever got in August. It's now lower than it's been since 10 March 2020.
But - Sky are using experts ( admittedly their preferred ones) to tell us we are facing a third wave and travel should be stopped
It's well worth watching Professor Tim Spector's recent video (you can find it on his Twitter feed). We need to see more of him on the telly and less of the various Zerovid nonentities.
A fungus that emits a kind of amphetamine is infecting some cicadas and causing their genitals to fall off — while prolonging their sexual stamina and making them want to obsessively mate with everyone."
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Cricket, obvs.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
It may be a niche interest, but I regret the sidelining of the rugby county championship. Before professionalism, it was quite a big deal. The 1980 England grand slam winning side was basically built around the Lancashire County side - Beaumont, Uttley, Colclough, Slemen, Smith, Cotton, Neary ...
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Look, you may think that's a stupid policy (because it's pretty disastrous for those at the bottom of the property ladder). But it's going to resonate well with people in C&A who own expensive homes, and want the value of those homes to rise.
Oh it can be smart politics, I don't disagree with that.
It is scummy dishonest politics though. Scummy dishonest politics can win votes.
And LD campaigners have the temerity to act like they're whiter than white (can we still use that term) and act like its outrageous that Boris isn't always straight with the truth. Motes and beams come to mind.
BiB (1). Yes, as the vote-winning machine you favour is only too well aware. BJ is a shameless master of the trade. BiB (2). 'Boris lies' uses fewer words.
Yes, but BJ is also doing the right thing so 🤷♂️. Plus people are always banging on about Boris's "lies", but not the other way around talking about LD or other ones.
Do you honestly think being dishonest, trying to ensure people don't have somewhere to live that they can afford, in order to win votes from the already well off who own their own homes is better than any lies that BJ has said?
By-elections are great opportunities for dog-whistles, and I wonder if there are a few subtle dog-whistles that could be at play in this one.
We associate the term with hidden appeals to the bigoted views on race or culture but that needn't be the case. A dog whistle can be useful any time you want to appeal to the instincts of certain voters but can't publicly say so in such terms for fear of atracting opprobrium.
NIMBYism is a perennial example. So is remainerism - you needn't promise to rejoin or re-enter the single market, and seeing as the LDs are nowhere near government it would be pointless anyway. You just need to indicate through your language and demeanour that you are, at heart, one of "us".
And alongside the remainer dog whistle there's the even subtler, but possibly powerful in the home counties, snobbery dog-whistle. That the Tories have of late become a bit non-U. A tad vulgar, with their red wall obsession and that tasteless wallpaper and slandering of John Lewis. Slightly spivvy. Not to mention that awful Gavin Williamson with his dislike of "dead end subjects".
Will be interesting to see if any of that plays a part.
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Cricket, obvs.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
It may be a niche interest, but I regret the sidelining of the rugby county championship. Before professionalism, it was quite a big deal. The 1980 England grand slam winning side was basically built around the Lancashire County side - Beaumont, Uttley, Colclough, Slemen, Smith, Cotton, Neary ...
You see, I'm nearly 30, am reasonably interested in rugby, and yet I didn't even have any idea that was a thing.
Just noticed the seven day average for deaths by date of death, allowing for the 12th May (which is the last date its given to allow for lag) is now 6.9, which is lower than it ever got in August. It's now lower than it's been since 10 March 2020.
But - Sky are using experts ( admittedly their preferred ones) to tell us we are facing a third wave and travel should be stopped
It's well worth watching Professor Tim Spector's recent video (you can find it on his Twitter feed). We need to see more of him on the telly and less of the various Zerovid nonentities.
In recent weeks the media, and Sky in particular, seem to promote at every opportunity the zero covid anti HMG so called experts, often from independent sage, to the point that when they are proved wrong their creditabilty will be shredded
The media should be required to provide balanced interviews
Rhodes Commission report. Interestingly, a majority of Oxford alumni and of present university staff and academics were opposed to its removal - which surprised me - as well as a clear majority of the public. Only 15% of the 511 enrolled Oriel students replied, and only 62 supported removal about 10%.
In other words, it was always just a few loudmouths:
"5.52: Contributions were initially requested by 30 September 2020, but the Commission decided to continue accepting submissions as its work continued. The total number of submissions from all sources received was 1447, (not all of which took an explicit position on the future of the memorials.) These included 338 submissions from alumni, of which 95 supported and 222 opposed moving the statue; 83 submissions from students, of which 62 supported, and 15 opposed removing the statue, and 37 submissions from academics and staff, of which 15 supported and 20 opposed moving the statue. Seven submissions were made by organisations, five of which opposed moving the statue. 982 submissions were made by members of the general public, of which 966 opposed moving the statue. 490 of these were received on two days in March 2021 following an appeal to its supporters by the organisation Save Our Statues (which had issued a similar appeal to its supporters at the end of the initial consultation period)."
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Look, you may think that's a stupid policy (because it's pretty disastrous for those at the bottom of the property ladder). But it's going to resonate well with people in C&A who own expensive homes, and want the value of those homes to rise.
Oh it can be smart politics, I don't disagree with that.
It is scummy dishonest politics though. Scummy dishonest politics can win votes.
And LD campaigners have the temerity to act like they're whiter than white (can we still use that term) and act like its outrageous that Boris isn't always straight with the truth. Motes and beams come to mind.
Be fair. Our current PM's relationship with the truth can hardly be described as tenuous. It's much weaker than that.
I'm starting to wonder about the government's strategy now. Is it deliberately giving the zerovidians enough rope? Crank up pressure on the antivaxxers and discredit the zerovidians when their tales of doom fail to materialise.
Almost certainly a daft conspiracy theory too far. But given hospitalisation rates? Hmm.
10% of all UK reported cases today are from Bolton. WIthout them, or even if they were half that, we'd still be in the green. As it is we're slightly in the red.
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 spent a happy evening in Saddleworth a few years ago when I was chairman of a neighbouring town council and a guest at their civic dinner and dance. The town hall has a mosaic of the white rose of Yorkshire in the floor.
Just noticed the seven day average for deaths by date of death, allowing for the 12th May (which is the last date its given to allow for lag) is now 6.9, which is lower than it ever got in August. It's now lower than it's been since 10 March 2020.
But - Sky are using experts ( admittedly their preferred ones) to tell us we are facing a third wave and travel should be stopped
It's well worth watching Professor Tim Spector's recent video (you can find it on his Twitter feed). We need to see more of him on the telly and less of the various Zerovid nonentities.
In recent weeks the media, and Sky in particular, seem to promote at every opportunity the zero covid anti HMG so called experts, often from independent sage, to the point that when they are proved wrong their creditabilty will be shredded
The media should be required to provide balanced interviews
They don't do a good job of vetting their so-called "experts". They once had me on to talk about employment law, which was a rookie error.
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Cricket, obvs.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
It may be a niche interest, but I regret the sidelining of the rugby county championship. Before professionalism, it was quite a big deal. The 1980 England grand slam winning side was basically built around the Lancashire County side - Beaumont, Uttley, Colclough, Slemen, Smith, Cotton, Neary ...
You see, I'm nearly 30, am reasonably interested in rugby, and yet I didn't even have any idea that was a thing.
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Cricket, obvs.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
It may be a niche interest, but I regret the sidelining of the rugby county championship. Before professionalism, it was quite a big deal. The 1980 England grand slam winning side was basically built around the Lancashire County side - Beaumont, Uttley, Colclough, Slemen, Smith, Cotton, Neary ...
As recently as the 90s it was a fun day out at Twickenham when Cornwall reached the final.
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Cricket, obvs.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
It may be a niche interest, but I regret the sidelining of the rugby county championship. Before professionalism, it was quite a big deal. The 1980 England grand slam winning side was basically built around the Lancashire County side - Beaumont, Uttley, Colclough, Slemen, Smith, Cotton, Neary ...
The championship wasn't strictly counties, though, was it. I have fond memories of a reporter remarking on a young spectator shouting 'Come on NottsLincsandDerby!
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Cricket, obvs.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
It may be a niche interest, but I regret the sidelining of the rugby county championship. Before professionalism, it was quite a big deal. The 1980 England grand slam winning side was basically built around the Lancashire County side - Beaumont, Uttley, Colclough, Slemen, Smith, Cotton, Neary ...
You see, I'm nearly 30, am reasonably interested in rugby, and yet I didn't even have any idea that was a thing.
Ditto. I'd never heard of it.
The game changed beyond all recognition when it went pro.
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Cricket, obvs.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
It may be a niche interest, but I regret the sidelining of the rugby county championship. Before professionalism, it was quite a big deal. The 1980 England grand slam winning side was basically built around the Lancashire County side - Beaumont, Uttley, Colclough, Slemen, Smith, Cotton, Neary ...
You see, I'm nearly 30, am reasonably interested in rugby, and yet I didn't even have any idea that was a thing.
Ditto. I'd never heard of it.
The game changed beyond all recognition when it went pro.
Weren't Bristol and Bath still a thing even in the county era?
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Cricket, obvs.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
It may be a niche interest, but I regret the sidelining of the rugby county championship. Before professionalism, it was quite a big deal. The 1980 England grand slam winning side was basically built around the Lancashire County side - Beaumont, Uttley, Colclough, Slemen, Smith, Cotton, Neary ...
You see, I'm nearly 30, am reasonably interested in rugby, and yet I didn't even have any idea that was a thing.
It was very much a feature of the amateur era. You played for your club - of which there were a decent smattering of fairly senior ones in each county - and if you were good you had trials for your county. And if you were picked for your county you then might get a trial for North of England, and thereby come to the attention of the England selectors. But counties commanded a fair degree of loyalty themselves. Particularly Cornwall, which never had a single particularly big club but which used to take 30,000 to Twickenham for the county championship final.
Since professionalism, professional players didn't have the time - and weren't being paid - to go off and play for their county, and the England selectors knew who they were anyway. So increasingly it became a thing for tier three clubs and below.
*cough* represented Cheshire at fullback *cough* (at under 16 level) *cough*.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Look, you may think that's a stupid policy (because it's pretty disastrous for those at the bottom of the property ladder). But it's going to resonate well with people in C&A who own expensive homes, and want the value of those homes to rise.
If you want the biggest annoyance in Amersham at the moment, it's Aldi's desire to build a supermarket on the edge of Amersham old town where the Jaguar garage was.
Presumably they are annoyed because it is Aldi, rather than Waitrose?
I'm starting to wonder about the government's strategy now. Is it deliberately giving the zerovidians enough rope? Crank up pressure on the antivaxxers and discredit the zerovidians when their tales of doom fail to materialise.
Almost certainly a daft conspiracy theory too far. But given hospitalisation rates? Hmm.
I think they are. It seems to have got a lot of people in Bolton out to get the vaccine that were previously refusing and they will also get to discredit these doom modellers once and for all. It's not even a high risk strategy given what we know about the AZ vaccine having 90% efficacy against infection and Pfizer at 91%. Almost every single person in groups 1-9 will have had both doses in advance of June 21st. Exactly who will end up in hospital?!
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
To be honest that idea had not entered my thoughts and nor should it
The message is clear that everyone should be vaccinated, and those who reject the message cannot complain if public sentiment towards them becomes angry as they put others in unnecessary danger
My son kept his youngest (7) off school today as he had a normal cold but the teachers asked his sister (9) why he was not in school and when she said he had a sniffle she was sent home, and his father and mother had to go into quarantine pending the results of a test taken on his son late this morning
I still expect Boris to open the economy in June with only the odd tweak
We should just copy what the Drake does, for he is the one who will light the way.
He is presently following Boris
WRONG
Where The Drake leads, the world follows.
Quake in the wake of the Drake.
I heard him on the radio this morning. The guy can certainly communicate. I wasn't particularly fascinated by the topic, yet I was shushing my wife as she tried to tell me her plans for the day.
Just noticed the seven day average for deaths by date of death, allowing for the 12th May (which is the last date its given to allow for lag) is now 6.9, which is lower than it ever got in August. It's now lower than it's been since 10 March 2020.
But - Sky are using experts ( admittedly their preferred ones) to tell us we are facing a third wave and travel should be stopped
It's well worth watching Professor Tim Spector's recent video (you can find it on his Twitter feed). We need to see more of him on the telly and less of the various Zerovid nonentities.
In recent weeks the media, and Sky in particular, seem to promote at every opportunity the zero covid anti HMG so called experts, often from independent sage, to the point that when they are proved wrong their creditabilty will be shredded
The media should be required to provide balanced interviews
They don't do a good job of vetting their so-called "experts". They once had me on to talk about employment law, which was a rookie error.
By-elections are great opportunities for dog-whistles, and I wonder if there are a few subtle dog-whistles that could be at play in this one.
We associate the term with hidden appeals to the bigoted views on race or culture but that needn't be the case. A dog whistle can be useful any time you want to appeal to the instincts of certain voters but can't publicly say so in such terms for fear of atracting opprobrium.
NIMBYism is a perennial example. So is remainerism - you needn't promise to rejoin or re-enter the single market, and seeing as the LDs are nowhere near government it would be pointless anyway. You just need to indicate through your language and demeanour that you are, at heart, one of "us".
And alongside the remainer dog whistle there's the even subtler, but possibly powerful in the home counties, snobbery dog-whistle. That the Tories have of late become a bit non-U. A tad vulgar, with their red wall obsession and that tasteless wallpaper and slandering of John Lewis. Slightly spivvy. Not to mention that awful Gavin Williamson with his dislike of "dead end subjects".
Will be interesting to see if any of that plays a part.
Yes, if you are a snobby small c voter in the Home Counties, even in 1997 while you were a minority nationally you knew you were still in the low tax, posh party of the South, idllyic country life villages etc.
Now you may be in power but have to share it with Northern working class oiks, while the government seems to want to expand building over the fields surrounding said idyllic country life villages and take more of your funds in tax to fund spending on working class ex industrial towns in the North you would not be seen dead going anywhere near, the only parts of the North you have ever visited being Harrogate and the Lake District and dropping your son off at Durham.
Gaining the RedWall has certainly boosted the Tories overall but as the locals showed there is some backlash in the posher parts of the South
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.
Then what is the point of a "county"?
Cricket, obvs.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
It may be a niche interest, but I regret the sidelining of the rugby county championship. Before professionalism, it was quite a big deal. The 1980 England grand slam winning side was basically built around the Lancashire County side - Beaumont, Uttley, Colclough, Slemen, Smith, Cotton, Neary ...
You see, I'm nearly 30, am reasonably interested in rugby, and yet I didn't even have any idea that was a thing.
Ditto. I'd never heard of it.
The game changed beyond all recognition when it went pro.
Weren't Bristol and Bath still a thing even in the county era?
Oh yes, absolutely, but it wasn't an "either/or" thing. There was still room for things like the County Championships. Before the leagues were introduced in the late 80s the CC and the John Player/Pilkington Cup were the only nationally organised tournaments.
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
To be honest that idea had not entered my thoughts and nor should it
The message is clear that everyone should be vaccinated, and those who reject the message cannot complain if public sentiment towards them becomes angry as they put others in unnecessary danger
My son kept his youngest (7) off school today as he had a normal cold but the teachers asked his sister (9) why he was not in school and when she said he had a sniffle she was sent home, and his father and mother had to go into quarantine pending the results of a test taken on his son late this morning
I still expect Boris to open the economy in June with only the odd tweak
We should just copy what the Drake does, for he is the one who will light the way.
He is presently following Boris
WRONG
Where The Drake leads, the world follows.
Quake in the wake of the Drake.
I heard him on the radio this morning. The guy can certainly communicate. I wasn't particularly fascinated by the topic, yet I was shushing my wife as she tried to tell me her plans for the day.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Look, you may think that's a stupid policy (because it's pretty disastrous for those at the bottom of the property ladder). But it's going to resonate well with people in C&A who own expensive homes, and want the value of those homes to rise.
If you want the biggest annoyance in Amersham at the moment, it's Aldi's desire to build a supermarket on the edge of Amersham old town where the Jaguar garage was.
Presumably they are annoyed because it is Aldi, rather than Waitrose?
You might think that I can't possibly comment.
There is a small Waitrose in Amersham on the Hill where (from memory) Woolworths was.
It's not Booths so I'm not particularly bothered about shopping there...
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
To be honest that idea had not entered my thoughts and nor should it
The message is clear that everyone should be vaccinated, and those who reject the message cannot complain if public sentiment towards them becomes angry as they put others in unnecessary danger
My son kept his youngest (7) off school today as he had a normal cold but the teachers asked his sister (9) why he was not in school and when she said he had a sniffle she was sent home, and his father and mother had to go into quarantine pending the results of a test taken on his son late this morning
I still expect Boris to open the economy in June with only the odd tweak
We should just copy what the Drake does, for he is the one who will light the way.
He is presently following Boris
WRONG
Where The Drake leads, the world follows.
Quake in the wake of the Drake.
I heard him on the radio this morning. The guy can certainly communicate. I wasn't particularly fascinated by the topic, yet I was shushing my wife as she tried to tell me her plans for the day.
When the Drake speaks, the world listens.
You can't fake the Drake.
Non of the above are far more popular in Wales than Drakeford
I'm starting to wonder about the government's strategy now. Is it deliberately giving the zerovidians enough rope? Crank up pressure on the antivaxxers and discredit the zerovidians when their tales of doom fail to materialise.
Almost certainly a daft conspiracy theory too far. But given hospitalisation rates? Hmm.
I think they are. It seems to have got a lot of people in Bolton out to get the vaccine that were previously refusing and they will also get to discredit these doom modellers once and for all. It's not even a high risk strategy given what we know about the AZ vaccine having 90% efficacy against infection and Pfizer at 91%. Almost every single person in groups 1-9 will have had both doses in advance of June 21st. Exactly who will end up in hospital?!
Please note I'm not calling for restrictions past 21st June.
Or Novavax. Though I do wonder how that graph looks with AZ measured 2 weeks after the second dose with a 10-12 week gap. The trial data was done with a 4 week gap.
By-elections are great opportunities for dog-whistles, and I wonder if there are a few subtle dog-whistles that could be at play in this one.
We associate the term with hidden appeals to the bigoted views on race or culture but that needn't be the case. A dog whistle can be useful any time you want to appeal to the instincts of certain voters but can't publicly say so in such terms for fear of atracting opprobrium.
NIMBYism is a perennial example. So is remainerism - you needn't promise to rejoin or re-enter the single market, and seeing as the LDs are nowhere near government it would be pointless anyway. You just need to indicate through your language and demeanour that you are, at heart, one of "us".
And alongside the remainer dog whistle there's the even subtler, but possibly powerful in the home counties, snobbery dog-whistle. That the Tories have of late become a bit non-U. A tad vulgar, with their red wall obsession and that tasteless wallpaper and slandering of John Lewis. Slightly spivvy. Not to mention that awful Gavin Williamson with his dislike of "dead end subjects".
Will be interesting to see if any of that plays a part.
Yes, if you are a snobby small c voter in the Home Counties, even in 1997 while you were a minority nationally you knew you were still in the low tax, posh party of the South, idllyic country life villages etc.
Now you may be in power but have to share it with Northern working class oiks, while the government seems to want to expand building over the fields surrounding said idyllic country life villages and take more of your funds in tax to fund spending on working class ex industrial towns in the North you would not be seen dead going anywhere near, the only parts of the North you have ever visited being Harrogate and the Lake District and dropping your son off at Durham.
Gaining the RedWall has certainly boosted the Tories overall but as the locals showed there is some backlash in the posher parts of the South
I wonder if we're going through a similar re-alignment as happened in the US with the GOP and Dems. In thirty years people may be amazed to learn that Labour West Sussex was once a Tory stronghold.
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.
Are you fearing that the government will delay the roadmap because if they don't they leave themselves open to accusations of racism when the people who die of Covid in the ensuing period turn out to be mainly from ethnic minorities?
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
To be honest that idea had not entered my thoughts and nor should it
The message is clear that everyone should be vaccinated, and those who reject the message cannot complain if public sentiment towards them becomes angry as they put others in unnecessary danger
My son kept his youngest (7) off school today as he had a normal cold but the teachers asked his sister (9) why he was not in school and when she said he had a sniffle she was sent home, and his father and mother had to go into quarantine pending the results of a test taken on his son late this morning
I still expect Boris to open the economy in June with only the odd tweak
We should just copy what the Drake does, for he is the one who will light the way.
He is presently following Boris
WRONG
Where The Drake leads, the world follows.
Quake in the wake of the Drake.
I heard him on the radio this morning. The guy can certainly communicate. I wasn't particularly fascinated by the topic, yet I was shushing my wife as she tried to tell me her plans for the day.
When the Drake speaks, the world listens.
You can't fake the Drake.
Non of the above are far more popular in Wales than Drakeford
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
Also, like I keep saying, I think it's for the birds that the Lib Dems will campaign in the next GE on rejoining the single market, never mind the EU, unless things look like they're going to shit economically.
Oh, the LDs will probably campaign on "shouldn't we be a bit nicer to those people in Europe?"
Which probably would have resonated better before the whole vaccine thing.
BUT. I don't expect the EU to be a massive issue in 2024. Electorates don't tend to ask "are we doing better than those people over the channel?", they ask "do I feel richer and more optimistic?"
My gut is that (a) people will feel richer, and (b) the Conservatives have a good majority to defend. If I were to make a prediction on 2024, it would be a Conservative majority of 20 to 40, on a 41-42% vote share, with a small increase in tactical voting causing most of the losses.
I cant see there being much additional tactical voting at the next election compared to the last, There where a lot of people passing it lots of websites, and many did, ether to stop BREXIT or Stop the Torys, or both.
With the exception of 2-4 seats its clear who the main challenger to the Tories was gong to be in most marginals, the Lib or Lab vote being quite hollowed out now.
If anything the the new boundary's, may confuse the matter as it may not be quite as clear who is the best to vote for to get the torys out, in at least some seats.
That's not to say a 20-40 seat majority, won't happen, seems very credible to me, just not because of additional tactical voting.
Is it official LibDem policy to be against HS2 and new housing development or is it just for the C & A by election?
It seems to be Lib Dem position to support free movement and increasing the UK's population, but to be in favour of NIMBYism and against having houses or infrastructure built for the people they want to live here.
It's the LibDem policy to support whichever local policies are most likely to result in them winning a byelection.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
I do. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Look, you may think that's a stupid policy (because it's pretty disastrous for those at the bottom of the property ladder). But it's going to resonate well with people in C&A who own expensive homes, and want the value of those homes to rise.
Oh it can be smart politics, I don't disagree with that.
It is scummy dishonest politics though. Scummy dishonest politics can win votes.
And LD campaigners have the temerity to act like they're whiter than white (can we still use that term) and act like its outrageous that Boris isn't always straight with the truth. Motes and beams come to mind.
It's not dishonest: it's shit for people who aren't wealthy middle class homeowners. But if you target market is wealthy middle class home owners, then you want to have policies that work for them.
Free movement and no local development is exactly what these people want. That's not dishonest, that's catering to a market niche.
Now, I happen to think it's a stupid policy, that stores up lots of trouble for the long term. But there's nothing inherently contradictory about being in favour of both.
I'm starting to wonder about the government's strategy now. Is it deliberately giving the zerovidians enough rope? Crank up pressure on the antivaxxers and discredit the zerovidians when their tales of doom fail to materialise.
Almost certainly a daft conspiracy theory too far. But given hospitalisation rates? Hmm.
I think they are. It seems to have got a lot of people in Bolton out to get the vaccine that were previously refusing and they will also get to discredit these doom modellers once and for all. It's not even a high risk strategy given what we know about the AZ vaccine having 90% efficacy against infection and Pfizer at 91%. Almost every single person in groups 1-9 will have had both doses in advance of June 21st. Exactly who will end up in hospital?!
It's a win-win scenario for them.
Hmm.
I must stop indulging these notions!
I think it’s certainly the case that the Government has carved out room to sit back and watch. I think Governments only really lose power when they seem to be reacting to events and powerless to affect them. The vaccine rollout and the roadmap provide a sense of control and unless or until there’s another 180 on something, I think the Government is now being given benefit of the doubt.
Comments
It is possible that 21st June slipping because of the Indian variant plays badly for the government. But if (as I expect) it remains on track, the Government should be in a good place by 17th June, when the by-election is held.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/03/07/is-33-1-galloway-a-good-bet-for-the-bradford-by-election/
I might just reinvest some of the proceeds in your tip.
If so, I think that's unfounded. I'm not picking that up at all.
Preseli Pembrokeshire is predicted by this site to come out as - Con 51.2 Lab 29.5 PC 11.3 LD 4.7 Grn 2.6.
The result there on May 6th was - Con 39 Lab 34.6 PC 19.5 Ref 3.9 LD 3.0.
Pembrokeshire South & West Carmarthen is predicted as - Con 53.2 Lab 25.6 PC 13.2 LD 4.6 Grn 2.6.
Result on May 6th - Con 35.5 Lab 32.6 PC 20.9 LD 3.9 UKIP 3.1 Ind 2.7 Ref 1.3.
I fail to see much correlation there at all - rather Garbage In Garbage Out.
Because if they say that, and they then agree with going ahead with the unlocking, it will look bad for them.
The government is playing for time and hoping that the various measures to increase vaccination take-up will work and that they won't have to answer than question.
Alternatively, karma's only a bitch if you are.
I'll watch out for that happening.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
'Where HS2 is breaching commitments, damaging the environment or failing to take measures to reduce climate change, the Liberal Democrats will support and encourage mitigative campaigns and actions by local parties, ensure local consultation with Parish and Town Councils and residents' groups and call upon protesters and HS2 to avoid confrontation'.
Local residents, the majority of whom are vehemently opposed to the HS2 project, remain deeply concerned and frustrated about its prolonged and damaging impact on local surroundings and the environment. In a survey conducted by Chesham & Amersham Liberal Democrats, the impact of HS2 was one of the biggest priorities for local residents.'
https://cheshamandamershamlibdems.org.uk/en/event/detail/2021-05-05/lib-dems-say-hs2-must-be-held-to-account-and-meet-obligations-to-local-communities
On planning they say 'The Government's planning reforms will rip powers away from local people and give them to wealthy property developers.
They must scrap them now.'
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1394556385250140166?s=20
So basically local LD policy to win the by election is to go full NIMBY!
The message is clear that everyone should be vaccinated, and those who reject the message cannot complain if public sentiment towards them becomes angry as they put others in unnecessary danger
My son kept his youngest (7) off school today as he had a normal cold but the teachers asked his sister (9) why he was not in school and when she said he had a sniffle she was sent home, and his father and mother had to go into quarantine pending the results of a test taken on his son late this morning
I still expect Boris to open the economy in June with only the odd tweak
And I seem to recall you were OK with Starmer, Corbyn and Labour positioning as they did as you'd rather not risk losing "Remainian cities" to the Lib Dems - isn't that right?
I praise our lucky stars that Labour didn't abstain on May's exit deal. If that had happened it would have been a terrible BRINO Brexit and a Tory civil war. Instead Remainers in 2017-19 united to ensure the Leave vote united behind the Tories. Thank you so very much for that.
I don't think that is particularly nefarious.
Starmer personally bears almost as much responsibility for uniting the Leave vote as Boris does. And then Labour went on to make him their leader (!!!!)
Now he's reaping what he sowed 2017-2019.
Karma.
Which deal of May's?
The initial one - which involved hanging the Unionists out to dry - was basically identical to the one Boris signed. It was only when the Unionists objected that she tied herself in knots.
It is utterly amazing and any idea this project will be cancelled considering how far it has come into being is wholly unrealistic
Indeed the tunnel under the Chilterns commenced boring this week required 3 years continuous work to complete the 10 miles
Their policy is to strongly support free movement - but to oppose constructing houses for people that come to live here to live in.
I am OK with mass immigration every bit as much as the LDs are. But I support constructing homes and infrastructure to go with that. To support one without the other is dishonest.
Essex, cricket wise, includes those parts between the M25 and River Lea, such as Romford and Leyton, which are now part of London
I don't recall any other deal coming before Parliament. Tying herself in knots in response to the Unionists (who had backed Brexit afterall) was the wrong thing to do.
Where The Drake leads, the world follows.
Quake in the wake of the Drake.
But even if they have, the people who moved here when free movement existed by and large still live here and that has created the housing crisis. Even if we had net migration of 0 going forwards, we still have a shortage of houses caused by years of having net immigration exceeding construction growth.
Which probably would have resonated better before the whole vaccine thing.
BUT. I don't expect the EU to be a massive issue in 2024. Electorates don't tend to ask "are we doing better than those people over the channel?", they ask "do I feel richer and more optimistic?"
My gut is that (a) people will feel richer, and (b) the Conservatives have a good majority to defend. If I were to make a prediction on 2024, it would be a Conservative majority of 20 to 40, on a 41-42% vote share, with a small increase in tactical voting causing most of the losses.
It is scummy dishonest politics though. Scummy dishonest politics can win votes.
And LD campaigners have the temerity to act like they're whiter than white (can we still use that term) and act like its outrageous that Boris isn't always straight with the truth. Motes and beams come to mind.
https://www.axios.com/new-york-investigation-trump-organization-cfo-reports-a301f03e-55ff-446b-b8ed-a60e9fa192c3.html
BiB (2). 'Boris lies' uses fewer words.
P.S. I once stayed at the King's Arms – lovely pub.
"NPR
@NPR
A fungus that emits a kind of amphetamine is infecting some cicadas and causing their genitals to fall off — while prolonging their sexual stamina and making them want to obsessively mate with everyone."
https://trib.al/6mrq9IG
Do you honestly think being dishonest, trying to ensure people don't have somewhere to live that they can afford, in order to win votes from the already well off who own their own homes is better than any lies that BJ has said?
Oxford/AstraZeneca vax, post 14 days from 2nd dose (will be vs predominantly B117)
Well that's certainly good news, much higher than trial data. Avg dose interval longer here.
https://twitter.com/DevanSinha/status/1395369672992870406?s=20
We associate the term with hidden appeals to the bigoted views on race or culture but that needn't be the case. A dog whistle can be useful any time you want to appeal to the instincts of certain voters but can't publicly say so in such terms for fear of atracting opprobrium.
NIMBYism is a perennial example. So is remainerism - you needn't promise to rejoin or re-enter the single market, and seeing as the LDs are nowhere near government it would be pointless anyway. You just need to indicate through your language and demeanour that you are, at heart, one of "us".
And alongside the remainer dog whistle there's the even subtler, but possibly powerful in the home counties, snobbery dog-whistle. That the Tories have of late become a bit non-U. A tad vulgar, with their red wall obsession and that tasteless wallpaper and slandering of John Lewis. Slightly spivvy. Not to mention that awful Gavin Williamson with his dislike of "dead end subjects".
Will be interesting to see if any of that plays a part.
The media should be required to provide balanced interviews
In other words, it was always just a few loudmouths:
"5.52: Contributions were initially requested by 30 September 2020, but the Commission decided to continue accepting submissions as its work continued. The total number of submissions from all sources received was 1447, (not all of which took an explicit position on the future of the memorials.) These included 338 submissions from alumni, of which 95 supported and 222 opposed moving the statue; 83 submissions from students, of which 62 supported, and 15 opposed removing the statue, and 37 submissions from academics and staff, of which 15 supported and 20 opposed moving the statue. Seven submissions were made by organisations, five of which opposed moving the statue. 982 submissions were made by members of the general public, of which 966 opposed moving the statue. 490 of these were received on two days in March 2021 following an appeal to its supporters by the organisation Save Our Statues (which had issued a similar appeal to its supporters at the end of the initial consultation period)."
https://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/oriel_rhodes_commission_full_report.pdf
It's much weaker than that.
Almost certainly a daft conspiracy theory too far. But given hospitalisation rates? Hmm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Championship_(rugby_union)
Since professionalism, professional players didn't have the time - and weren't being paid - to go off and play for their county, and the England selectors knew who they were anyway. So increasingly it became a thing for tier three clubs and below.
*cough* represented Cheshire at fullback *cough* (at under 16 level) *cough*.
Eclipsed only by the Beeb!
I love the way this chap actually gave it his best shot despite the fact that he'd just turned up for a job interview and was not the right 'Guy'.
Now you may be in power but have to share it with Northern working class oiks, while the government seems to want to expand building over the fields surrounding said idyllic country life villages and take more of your funds in tax to fund spending on working class ex industrial towns in the North you would not be seen dead going anywhere near, the only parts of the North you have ever visited being Harrogate and the Lake District and dropping your son off at Durham.
Gaining the RedWall has certainly boosted the Tories overall but as the locals showed there is some backlash in the posher parts of the South
You can't fake the Drake.
There is a small Waitrose in Amersham on the Hill where (from memory) Woolworths was.
It's not Booths so I'm not particularly bothered about shopping there...
https://twitter.com/TricckyLab/status/1370203615340621825
Please note I'm not calling for restrictions past 21st June.
It's a win-win scenario for them.
Hmm.
I must stop indulging these notions!
Not convinced screwing our farmers with mountains of imports of cheap hormone-injected Australian beef and lamb is a good idea.
Another bad policy/idea bought to you by Liz Truss.
It’s becoming a pattern…
With the exception of 2-4 seats its clear who the main challenger to the Tories was gong to be in most marginals, the Lib or Lab vote being quite hollowed out now.
If anything the the new boundary's, may confuse the matter as it may not be quite as clear who is the best to vote for to get the torys out, in at least some seats.
That's not to say a 20-40 seat majority, won't happen, seems very credible to me, just not because of additional tactical voting.
Free movement and no local development is exactly what these people want. That's not dishonest, that's catering to a market niche.
Now, I happen to think it's a stupid policy, that stores up lots of trouble for the long term. But there's nothing inherently contradictory about being in favour of both.