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.
The LDs are the Luis Suarez of politics when it comes to diving in the box....
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.
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!
Ha ha - that's true. I remember going to a match between NottsLincsDerbys (or 'three counties'), and, I think North Midlands (which I was always puzzled by - if we have NottsLincsDerbys and we also have Staffordshire, who are North Midlands? Turns out - and I have only just thought to look this up 23 years after the event - it's Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Birmingham, which is slightly counter-intuitive.
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.
The biggest mistake imo was the Benn Act which set up Parliament v The People. It was then - for Labour - about risk mitigation for an unwinnable election. Hence the pivot to Ref2/Remain. There was no choice. And it worked. It knee capped the LDs and secured a solid and clear 2nd place in seats. Opposition status secured. As for letting May's deal through, that was anything but a no-brainer. Labour belongs to the members and the members were massively for a 2nd referendum and storrrrp Brexit.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
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 !
Point of pedantry: can one express a distance away in square miles?
(I realise you are square root, so you have a love of squares...)
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…
Absolutely stupid policy which will be deeply unpopular, and rightly so. Why does Truss ride these daft hobby horses?
Didn't our PM say something the other day to the effect that it was disgraceful Welsh lamb wasn't exported to the US, implying that it was the fault of the farmers.
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.
Quite possibly, in 1988 Dukakis won 52% of the vote in white working class West Virginia and Bush Snr won 52% of the vote in wealthy upper middle class Connecticut.
By 2020 Trump won West Virginia by a landslide 68% and Biden won Connecticut by a large margin too and with 59% of the vote.
The poor still vote Labour, Democrat but the graduate upper middle class are increasingly moving away from the Republicans and Tories while the skilled white working class and lower middle class have become the Tory and GOP core vote.
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.
Fair enough.
Maybe next time they can campaign as the "eat chocolate, don't exercise and lose weight" party.
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
There are a few parts of West Sussex that have been Labour in the past eg Crawley but yes if it moved away from the Tories it would likely be to the Liberal Democrats rather than Labour
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 !
Point of pedantry: can one express a distance away in square miles?
(I realise you are square root, so you have a love of squares...)
Within a 1000 square mile area seems entirely legitimate to say.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
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.
I disagree:
If you look at the apogee of tactical voting (1997 and 2001), you saw a remarkable efficiency of LD/Lab vote. There were very few seats where Labour and the LDs were in spitting distance of each other: essentially a seat was a Con-Lab one, or a Con-LD one.
That completely unwound in 2015, before coming back slightly in 2017 and then unwinding a bit in 2019.
Don't forget that the LDs almost doubled their vote share between 2017 and 2019, but their seats actually fell.
Lib Dems hoping to drop the constituemncy twice before postal votes start going out, I think next week. Seems a pretty tall order to me but who knows, I guess depends on how many workers they can get in this weekend. Reasonably close to the Metropolis so anything is possible if not probable. I suspect Postal votes hold the key to the final result.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
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…
Letting people have more chose in the food they chose to buy is a good thing, some may like the idea of Australian Beef, others just the cheaper price. Cheaper food benefits everbody rich and poor, old and young, employed and unemployed, pensions, students and disabled.
As imports enable exports, this will also help industry's that we have a competitive advantage in grow, creating wealth prosperities and freedom and happiness.
there my be some economic dislocation for some farmers, but as the New Zealand experience of the 1980s shows that's not necessarily bad for Farmers on the whole, some may have to change the crops they produce, others may chose to sell and more to new professions, or tern there farms in to new things, campsites, paint ball arenas.
The net benefit is massive, Liz Truss is a star, for her achievements and standing up to special interest lobby groups, possible the only front bench MP in any party I actually like.
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 !
Point of pedantry: can one express a distance away in square miles?
(I realise you are square root, so you have a love of squares...)
Within a 1000 square mile area seems entirely legitimate to say.
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)."
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
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 that Saint Non, mother of Saint David?
You really are having to bring out the big guns to defeat him!
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
It was actually the Australian Labor party that was the great cutter of tariffs.
Despite the rise of variants, including Kent and SA, real world efficacy is extremely high.
I have a friend whose 70+ mother is in SA and has no idea when she'll be jabbed and is mightily p*ssed off at the SA government for flogging off their AZ on the basis of a small trial.....
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
It also means work of any kind, not just physical work. Labour are level with people working, but losing heavily with the retired. Labour could move to a decent lead with people working if they focus on work, but work in general, not just their traditional ground of zero hours contracts, minimum wage, public sector pay and benefits. Focus instead on r&d to bring investment to good companies, especially in green tech and updating education to suit the workplace of the 2030s not the 1980s.
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
I like Clear Thinking Progressives. Positive, aspirational, accurate.
The flaw is the acronym doesn't work. CTP sounds too medical. Like an ointment for something.
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
Despite the rise of variants, including Kent and SA, real world efficacy is extremely high.
I have a friend whose 70+ mother is in SA and has no idea when she'll be jabbed and is mightily p*ssed off at the SA government for flogging off their AZ on the basis of a small trial.....
A South African aquaintance wonders who profited when the AZ got sold off.
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
I like Clear Thinking Progressives. Positive, aspirational, accurate.
The flaw is the acronym doesn't work. CTP sounds too medical. Like an ointment for something.
Too many words. Just 'progressive' would do. Who doesn't want to be progressive? I like progress as much as the next man. We might or might not quibble about where we are progressing to, but that's a detail the name doesn't need to trifle with. It would also hoover up the votes of all who want a progressive alliance.
There you go Labour Party, I've solved your problem for you.
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!
Ha ha - that's true. I remember going to a match between NottsLincsDerbys (or 'three counties'), and, I think North Midlands (which I was always puzzled by - if we have NottsLincsDerbys and we also have Staffordshire, who are North Midlands? Turns out - and I have only just thought to look this up 23 years after the event - it's Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Birmingham, which is slightly counter-intuitive.
So what you are saying is that even the much-missed, true Englishman, proper job non-newfangled counties Rugby County Championship didn’t use the ‘proper’ counties?
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.
I disagree:
If you look at the apogee of tactical voting (1997 and 2001), you saw a remarkable efficiency of LD/Lab vote. There were very few seats where Labour and the LDs were in spitting distance of each other: essentially a seat was a Con-Lab one, or a Con-LD one.
That completely unwound in 2015, before coming back slightly in 2017 and then unwinding a bit in 2019.
Don't forget that the LDs almost doubled their vote share between 2017 and 2019, but their seats actually fell.
The point you make in the last live is a fire one, perhaps when I have some time I will check more detail on my spreadsheet, I had thought that the Lib Dem vote in Con/Lab seats tipical fell slitly (perhaps form 2,000 to 1,500) while they picked up a lot of votes in COT/LD seats, all be it, without taking many, (e.g. 15,000 majorities cut to 5,000)
But I suspect other thing will be bigger, Where does the TBP vote go? how will the new boundaries affect, and the state of the economy, and does Lab have a new leader, to name 4
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.
Fair enough.
Maybe next time they can campaign as the "eat chocolate, don't exercise and lose weight" party.
"My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it."
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
My guess is that they are looking at the numbers of the population currently unprotected and multiplying by historic CFR and CHR numbers.
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.
Fair enough.
Maybe next time they can campaign as the "eat chocolate, don't exercise and lose weight" party.
"My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it."
Pretty dishonest to pretend you can do that, eh?
I've always found the only decent reason to have a cake is to then eat it. 🍰🤷♂️
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…
Letting people have more chose in the food they chose to buy is a good thing, some may like the idea of Australian Beef, others just the cheaper price. Cheaper food benefits everbody rich and poor, old and young, employed and unemployed, pensions, students and disabled.
As imports enable exports, this will also help industry's that we have a competitive advantage in grow, creating wealth prosperities and freedom and happiness.
there my be some economic dislocation for some farmers, but as the New Zealand experience of the 1980s shows that's not necessarily bad for Farmers on the whole, some may have to change the crops they produce, others may chose to sell and more to new professions, or tern there farms in to new things, campsites, paint ball arenas.
The net benefit is massive, Liz Truss is a star, for her achievements and standing up to special interest lobby groups, possible the only front bench MP in any party I actually like.
It's a reasonable argument. What wouldn't be reasonable in my view is to allow Australian and other countries to import stuff tariff free into the UK, that is illegal to produce here. The best approach, it seems to me, is to discuss what standards do we want and apply it to all goods either foreign or domestic.
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)."
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!
Ha ha - that's true. I remember going to a match between NottsLincsDerbys (or 'three counties'), and, I think North Midlands (which I was always puzzled by - if we have NottsLincsDerbys and we also have Staffordshire, who are North Midlands? Turns out - and I have only just thought to look this up 23 years after the event - it's Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Birmingham, which is slightly counter-intuitive.
So what you are saying is that even the much-missed, true Englishman, proper job non-newfangled counties Rugby County Championship didn’t use the ‘proper’ counties?
Well most of them did. I think the other weird one was 'East Midlands' which was, I think, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire. But there was at least the occasional anomaly over which club was affiliated with which county - not least because clubs moved around over time.
Despite the rise of variants, including Kent and SA, real world efficacy is extremely high.
I have a friend whose 70+ mother is in SA and has no idea when she'll be jabbed and is mightily p*ssed off at the SA government for flogging off their AZ on the basis of a small trial.....
Oh, the trial completely missed the fact that efficacy of AZ builds over time. They were including those people who'd got Covid a week after the first dose and including it in the efficacy numbers.
The chart that EVERYONE needs to see is this one:
Efficacy of the adenovirus based vaccines rises substantially over time. It's why real world studies demonstrate much higher efficacy than trials.
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
I like Clear Thinking Progressives. Positive, aspirational, accurate.
The flaw is the acronym doesn't work. CTP sounds too medical. Like an ointment for something.
Too many words. Just 'progressive' would do. Who doesn't want to be progressive? I like progress as much as the next man. We might or might not quibble about where we are progressing to, but that's a detail the name doesn't need to trifle with. It would also hoover up the votes of all who want a progressive alliance.
There you go Labour Party, I've solved your problem for you.
Or just
Progress
(was also the name of a belting house club in Derby in the 1990s, although I sadly never attended)
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 !
Point of pedantry: can one express a distance away in square miles?
(I realise you are square root, so you have a love of squares...)
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
Despite the rise of variants, including Kent and SA, real world efficacy is extremely high.
I have a friend whose 70+ mother is in SA and has no idea when she'll be jabbed and is mightily p*ssed off at the SA government for flogging off their AZ on the basis of a small trial.....
Oh, the trial completely missed the fact that efficacy of AZ builds over time. They were including those people who'd got Covid a week after the first dose and including it in the efficacy numbers.
The chart that EVERYONE needs to see is this one:
Efficacy of the adenovirus based vaccines rises substantially over time. It's why real world studies demonstrate much higher efficacy than trials.
Despite the rise of variants, including Kent and SA, real world efficacy is extremely high.
I have a friend whose 70+ mother is in SA and has no idea when she'll be jabbed and is mightily p*ssed off at the SA government for flogging off their AZ on the basis of a small trial.....
Oh, the trial completely missed the fact that efficacy of AZ builds over time. They were including those people who'd got Covid a week after the first dose and including it in the efficacy numbers.
The chart that EVERYONE needs to see is this one:
Efficacy of the adenovirus based vaccines rises substantially over time. It's why real world studies demonstrate much higher efficacy than trials.
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.
I disagree:
If you look at the apogee of tactical voting (1997 and 2001), you saw a remarkable efficiency of LD/Lab vote. There were very few seats where Labour and the LDs were in spitting distance of each other: essentially a seat was a Con-Lab one, or a Con-LD one.
That completely unwound in 2015, before coming back slightly in 2017 and then unwinding a bit in 2019.
Don't forget that the LDs almost doubled their vote share between 2017 and 2019, but their seats actually fell.
People forget what a strange election 2019 was. In particular, how many people looked at Johnson, didn't like what they saw, but then looked at Nasty Jez and decided that Bozza was the lesser of two evils.
Not Being Corbyn isn't enough to win, of course, but it allows for an improved anti-Conservative tactical effect; and one which has more potential to expand- whereas the BXP-Conservative shift is pretty much done.
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
I like Clear Thinking Progressives. Positive, aspirational, accurate.
The flaw is the acronym doesn't work. CTP sounds too medical. Like an ointment for something.
Too many words. Just 'progressive' would do. Who doesn't want to be progressive? I like progress as much as the next man. We might or might not quibble about where we are progressing to, but that's a detail the name doesn't need to trifle with. It would also hoover up the votes of all who want a progressive alliance.
There you go Labour Party, I've solved your problem for you.
Maurice Glasman. He says something along the lines of ‘when you go to the doctor , the last thing you want to hear is “it’s progressive” ‘
Lib Dems hoping to drop the constituemncy twice before postal votes start going out, I think next week. Seems a pretty tall order to me but who knows, I guess depends on how many workers they can get in this weekend. Reasonably close to the Metropolis so anything is possible if not probable. I suspect Postal votes hold the key to the final result.
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 !
Point of pedantry: can one express a distance away in square miles?
(I realise you are square root, so you have a love of squares...)
Within a 1000 square mile area seems entirely legitimate to say.
Fair enough
I do like regularity.. I think I must be somewhere on the autistic spectrum(we all are to some extent or other ) as I cannot abide non.matching clothes pegs on the line...
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
I'm not the one who plays the "you're not a true Tory" game, am I?
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
It also means work of any kind, not just physical work. Labour are level with people working, but losing heavily with the retired. Labour could move to a decent lead with people working if they focus on work, but work in general, not just their traditional ground of zero hours contracts, minimum wage, public sector pay and benefits. Focus instead on r&d to bring investment to good companies, especially in green tech and updating education to suit the workplace of the 2030s not the 1980s.
The Tory domination of the grey vote is a massive barrier to La ... to the Progressives winning an election.
I rack my brains for killer policies to turn this around (untory ones which therefore wouldn't be stolen) but to no avail as yet.
Despite the rise of variants, including Kent and SA, real world efficacy is extremely high.
I have a friend whose 70+ mother is in SA and has no idea when she'll be jabbed and is mightily p*ssed off at the SA government for flogging off their AZ on the basis of a small trial.....
Oh, the trial completely missed the fact that efficacy of AZ builds over time. They were including those people who'd got Covid a week after the first dose and including it in the efficacy numbers.
The chart that EVERYONE needs to see is this one:
Efficacy of the adenovirus based vaccines rises substantially over time. It's why real world studies demonstrate much higher efficacy than trials.
Looks like hard data - that might convince our resident flint-knapper.
On second thoughts, don't show any of the SeanTs that graph.
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
Having a go at some workings of my own:
Peak in January was about 4,000 hospitalisations a day with no vaccinations. Deaths peaked at roughly 1,250 a day.
Let's assume a 0.7% fatality rate, since that seems to be the number I've seen floating around.
That gives approximately 180,000 infections per day (1,250/0.007).
So, in an unvaccinated population you would need around 450,000 infections per day to get 10,000 admissions.
Let's say vaccination is about 75% effective at preventing hospitalisation across the population. It's a bit finger in the air, but basically discounting actual effectiveness by a bit to account for the young not being vaccinated and a low level of vaccine hesitancy.
That means you then need approximately 1,800,000 infections per day to get 10,000 hospitalisations. So a little under 3% of the population needing to be infected every day. This feels... implausible even with no restrictions (or self-imposed restrictions given people would react to rising case rates and hospitalisations).
Even if you say our current level of vaccination would only prevent 50% of hospitalisations across the population (hugely pessimistic I'd think). You'd still need to see 900,000 people a day being infected to get 10,000 a day hospitalisations.
Of course, all of the above is based on vaccinations having 0% efficacy in preventing infections, which is stupid.
It also doesn't take into account that the unvaccinated population will be considerably smaller in a few weeks' time.
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
What's particularly infuriating is that the EU is opening up now, despite not having anywhere near the vaccine protection we do.
We had this massive lead, that we're in the process of squandering due to a bunch of zero Covid nutters.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
It was actually the Australian Labor party that was the great cutter of tariffs.
The 2 most reforming 'Economically liberal' administrations where IMHO the New Zealand Labour party and the Carter (Democrat) administration in the US. Lefty's didn't normally get Free markets, but when they do they implement them with a Zeal, not normally seen with 'right wing' party's.
The Chrétien Liberals in candida and the Truman administration in the US being 2 more examples.
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
What's particularly infuriating is that the EU is opening up now, despite not having anywhere near the vaccine protection we do.
We had this massive lead, that we're in the process of squandering due to a bunch of zero Covid nutters.
I don’t think it matters that much. My commute to uni in the mornings is seeing traffic at pre pandemic levels. Pubs etc are open. There’s not much left restricted (enough to be annoying, I’ll grant you). I’d happily stop all restrictions right now, just after the weather at 6.30. And I suspect the continent will see more deaths than us as they open as their cases are still far higher.
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
What's particularly infuriating is that the EU is opening up now, despite not having anywhere near the vaccine protection we do.
We had this massive lead, that we're in the process of squandering due to a bunch of zero Covid nutters.
We eliminated deaths months ago and have absolutely pissed it away. We eliminated deaths in March, and were running three months ahead of the EU, so we chose to unlock in June - the same time as the EU can.
Its infuriating.
And what's even more infuriating is the "impartial" media are only challenging decision making by giving airtime to the Zero Covid idiots like Independent SAGE.
Where is the airtime given the Great Barrington scientists to say we've protected the vulnerable so lets open up immediately? Should be given as equal prominence as the Independent SAGE zealots.
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
It also means work of any kind, not just physical work. Labour are level with people working, but losing heavily with the retired. Labour could move to a decent lead with people working if they focus on work, but work in general, not just their traditional ground of zero hours contracts, minimum wage, public sector pay and benefits. Focus instead on r&d to bring investment to good companies, especially in green tech and updating education to suit the workplace of the 2030s not the 1980s.
The Tory domination of the grey vote is a massive barrier to La ... to the Progressives winning an election.
I rack my brains for killer policies to turn this around (untory ones which therefore wouldn't be stolen) but to no avail as yet.
Defend the BBC. Apparently I'm the only person under 70 who watches it. (Big fan of Frock-Off). Labour should say that the Tories want to shut it down and force everyone to subscribe to a whole load of complex web-based content providers that cost a fortune.
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
What's particularly infuriating is that the EU is opening up now, despite not having anywhere near the vaccine protection we do.
We had this massive lead, that we're in the process of squandering due to a bunch of zero Covid nutters.
It is not the zero Covid nutters influencing policy it is the result of the PM being too slow to act in 2020, especially over Christmas, and therefore too slow to open now as he does not want the blame again.
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
It also means work of any kind, not just physical work. Labour are level with people working, but losing heavily with the retired. Labour could move to a decent lead with people working if they focus on work, but work in general, not just their traditional ground of zero hours contracts, minimum wage, public sector pay and benefits. Focus instead on r&d to bring investment to good companies, especially in green tech and updating education to suit the workplace of the 2030s not the 1980s.
The Tory domination of the grey vote is a massive barrier to La ... to the Progressives winning an election.
I rack my brains for killer policies to turn this around (untory ones which therefore wouldn't be stolen) but to no avail as yet.
Defend the BBC. Apparently I'm the only person under 70 who watches it. (Big fan of Frock-Off). Labour should say that the Tories want to shut it down and force everyone to subscribe to a whole load of complex web-based content providers that cost a fortune.
Lib Dems hoping to drop the constituemncy twice before postal votes start going out, I think next week. Seems a pretty tall order to me but who knows, I guess depends on how many workers they can get in this weekend. Reasonably close to the Metropolis so anything is possible if not probable. I suspect Postal votes hold the key to the final result.
I'll be delivering in Amersham on Saturday.
I am getting daily emails asking for help. Have sent a donation and may go down if the weather improves.
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
What's particularly infuriating is that the EU is opening up now, despite not having anywhere near the vaccine protection we do.
We had this massive lead, that we're in the process of squandering due to a bunch of zero Covid nutters.
It is not the zero Covid nutters influencing policy it is the result of the PM being too slow to act in 2020, especially over Christmas, and therefore too slow to open now as he does not want the blame again.
The fact that the media only ever challenge the policy from the "are you unlocking too fast" perspective and never from the "there's no deaths, no hospitalisations and the NHS isn't under threat - why the heck are we locked down" perspective doesn't help.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
I'm not the one who plays the "you're not a true Tory" game, am I?
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
It is not just for libertarians who want to concrete all over the greenbelt like you either
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.
The only reason I can't see that happening is the word 'labour'. It's not a nice word. It's not a cheery 'could-mean-anything' word. It means either hard physical work, or the painful process women go through when giving birth. It's not a word which can easily be transitioned for other uses like 'Democrat'. I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
It also means work of any kind, not just physical work. Labour are level with people working, but losing heavily with the retired. Labour could move to a decent lead with people working if they focus on work, but work in general, not just their traditional ground of zero hours contracts, minimum wage, public sector pay and benefits. Focus instead on r&d to bring investment to good companies, especially in green tech and updating education to suit the workplace of the 2030s not the 1980s.
The Tory domination of the grey vote is a massive barrier to La ... to the Progressives winning an election.
I rack my brains for killer policies to turn this around (untory ones which therefore wouldn't be stolen) but to no avail as yet.
Defend the BBC. Apparently I'm the only person under 70 who watches it. (Big fan of Frock-Off). Labour should say that the Tories want to shut it down and force everyone to subscribe to a whole load of complex web-based content providers that cost a fortune.
Which web based provider costs more than the BBC?
All of them for the oldies with a free TV licence.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
I'm not the one who plays the "you're not a true Tory" game, am I?
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
It is not just for libertarians who want to concrete all over the greenbelt like you either
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
What's particularly infuriating is that the EU is opening up now, despite not having anywhere near the vaccine protection we do.
We had this massive lead, that we're in the process of squandering due to a bunch of zero Covid nutters.
Unfortunately, that's a consequence of the history of the last year in the UK.
Those who have argued for earlier, harder lockdowns have been shown to be right last March, last autumn, last December. Anti-lockdown types called it wrong each time, to tragic effect.
So on the occasion where we probably do have leeway to unlock faster, the public confidence isn't there- and one has to wonder if the PM has the confidence to go faster.
It's kind of the boy who cried wolf in reverse.
(The three month vaccination lead the UK had was always going to close a fair bit, but even I'm surprised at how much the reopening gap is closing.)
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
Having a go at some workings of my own:
Peak in January was about 4,000 hospitalisations a day with no vaccinations. Deaths peaked at roughly 1,250 a day.
Let's assume a 0.7% fatality rate, since that seems to be the number I've seen floating around.
That gives approximately 180,000 infections per day (1,250/0.007).
So, in an unvaccinated population you would need around 450,000 infections per day to get 10,000 admissions.
Let's say vaccination is about 75% effective at preventing hospitalisation across the population. It's a bit finger in the air, but basically discounting actual effectiveness by a bit to account for the young not being vaccinated and a low level of vaccine hesitancy.
That means you then need approximately 1,800,000 infections per day to get 10,000 hospitalisations. So a little under 3% of the population needing to be infected every day. This feels... implausible even with no restrictions (or self-imposed restrictions given people would react to rising case rates and hospitalisations).
Even if you say our current level of vaccination would only prevent 50% of hospitalisations across the population (hugely pessimistic I'd think). You'd still need to see 900,000 people a day being infected to get 10,000 a day hospitalisations.
Of course, all of the above is based on vaccinations having 0% efficacy in preventing infections, which is stupid.
It also doesn't take into account that the unvaccinated population will be considerably smaller in a few weeks' time.
Also.
0.7% is for the population as a whole. Which is something like 10% for the 80+ group, and 0.05% for the under 20s.
The most vulnerable people are all vaccinated. And efficacy against hospitalisation and death is much higher than 91% - it's more like 99%.
So, I simply can't see how they can possibly have the assumptions they do - even ignoring the other massive elephant in the room, which is that the virus can't spread *that* quickly as there aren't that many people for it to infect any more.
Does anyone actually give a feck about this Diana interview shit that appears to be wall-to-wall on the news channels today?
Why can't they be discussing UAPs or the shite weather like us normal folk.
Been pissing it down in this part of the West Riding of Yorkshire for the past 7 hours, btw.
Actually it is a story of a BBC journalist acting disgracefully and the consequences are still being played out even today with Harry's serious issues
Does anyone seriously think Diana would have publically said 'there are three people in my marriage' without this interview
Diana was brilliant at manipulating the media. That interview is a great example. She dropped exactly what she wanted to say, at the precise moment she wanted to say it.
The notion that she was the naive victim of a predatory journo is fanciful.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
I'm not the one who plays the "you're not a true Tory" game, am I?
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
It is not just for libertarians who want to concrete all over the greenbelt like you either
It is a wide church and you are part of it, but by no means the dominant part, especially as I do not know any conservative who wants to send tanks to the Scottish border
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
What's particularly infuriating is that the EU is opening up now, despite not having anywhere near the vaccine protection we do.
We had this massive lead, that we're in the process of squandering due to a bunch of zero Covid nutters.
It is not the zero Covid nutters influencing policy it is the result of the PM being too slow to act in 2020, especially over Christmas, and therefore too slow to open now as he does not want the blame again.
The fact that the media only ever challenge the policy from the "are you unlocking too fast" perspective and never from the "there's no deaths, no hospitalisations and the NHS isn't under threat - why the heck are we locked down" perspective doesn't help.
Impartial media my arse.
Unfounded fear sells news. Hence popularist political parties.....
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
What's particularly infuriating is that the EU is opening up now, despite not having anywhere near the vaccine protection we do.
We had this massive lead, that we're in the process of squandering due to a bunch of zero Covid nutters.
It is not the zero Covid nutters influencing policy it is the result of the PM being too slow to act in 2020, especially over Christmas, and therefore too slow to open now as he does not want the blame again.
The fact that the media only ever challenge the policy from the "are you unlocking too fast" perspective and never from the "there's no deaths, no hospitalisations and the NHS isn't under threat - why the heck are we locked down" perspective doesn't help.
Impartial media my arse.
Unfounded fear sells news. Hence popularist political parties.....
True. It explains everything, the BBC, Sky, Labour, Lib Dems ... 😕
R4 "AZ highly effective against the Indian variant" - real world data from India.
So AZ is a top-notch vaccine, effective against current variants, and the 12 week dosing was a very good idea. Of course AZ is also cheap and easy to deploy. Could the many critics of the UK's approach to vaccination — including all sorts of prestigous bodies — have been more wrong? No, they are chumps.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
I'm not the one who plays the "you're not a true Tory" game, am I?
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
It is not just for libertarians who want to concrete all over the greenbelt like you either
It is a wide church and you are part of it, but by no means the dominant part, especially as I do not know any conservative who wants to send tanks to the Scottish border
It is not me who actively advocates breaking up the Union as Philip Thompson does and given the SNP did not win a majority at Holyrood and Unionist parties won most votes on the constituency vote there is no need for any indyref2 to be allowed by this Tory government anyway
Does anyone actually give a feck about this Diana interview shit that appears to be wall-to-wall on the news channels today?
Why can't they be discussing UAPs or the shite weather like us normal folk.
Been pissing it down in this part of the West Riding of Yorkshire for the past 7 hours, btw.
Actually it is a story of a BBC journalist acting disgracefully and the consequences are still being played out even today with Harry's serious issues
Does anyone seriously think Diana would have publically said 'there are three people in my marriage' without this interview
Diana was brilliant at manipulating the media. That interview is a great example. She dropped exactly what she wanted to say, at the precise moment she wanted to say it.
The notion that she was the naive victim of a predatory journo is fanciful.
Of course she was not naive and she was very media savvy
However , there can be no excuse for Bashir and the BBC's behaviour
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
I'm not the one who plays the "you're not a true Tory" game, am I?
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
It is not just for libertarians who want to concrete all over the greenbelt like you either
It is a wide church and you are part of it, but by no means the dominant part, especially as I do not know any conservative who wants to send tanks to the Scottish border
It is not me who actively advocates breaking up the Union as Philip Thompson does and given the SNP did not win a majority at Holyrood and Unionist parties won most votes on the constituency vote there is no need for any indyref2 to be allowed by this Tory government anyway
More Tories would be content to let the SNP go than to send tanks to suppress them.
R4 "AZ highly effective against the Indian variant" - real world data from India.
So AZ is a top-notch vaccine, effective against current variants, and the 12 week dosing was a very good idea. Of course AZ is also cheap and easy to deploy. Could the many critics of the UK's approach to vaccination — including all sorts of prestigous bodies — have been more wrong? No, they are chumps.
Be quiet spreading all your pseudo-science.....we all know it is only quasi effective.
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
Having a go at some workings of my own:
Peak in January was about 4,000 hospitalisations a day with no vaccinations. Deaths peaked at roughly 1,250 a day.
Let's assume a 0.7% fatality rate, since that seems to be the number I've seen floating around.
That gives approximately 180,000 infections per day (1,250/0.007).
So, in an unvaccinated population you would need around 450,000 infections per day to get 10,000 admissions.
Let's say vaccination is about 75% effective at preventing hospitalisation across the population. It's a bit finger in the air, but basically discounting actual effectiveness by a bit to account for the young not being vaccinated and a low level of vaccine hesitancy.
That means you then need approximately 1,800,000 infections per day to get 10,000 hospitalisations. So a little under 3% of the population needing to be infected every day. This feels... implausible even with no restrictions (or self-imposed restrictions given people would react to rising case rates and hospitalisations).
Even if you say our current level of vaccination would only prevent 50% of hospitalisations across the population (hugely pessimistic I'd think). You'd still need to see 900,000 people a day being infected to get 10,000 a day hospitalisations.
Of course, all of the above is based on vaccinations having 0% efficacy in preventing infections, which is stupid.
It also doesn't take into account that the unvaccinated population will be considerably smaller in a few weeks' time.
Also.
0.7% is for the population as a whole. Which is something like 10% for the 80+ group, and 0.05% for the under 20s.
The most vulnerable people are all vaccinated. And efficacy against hospitalisation and death is much higher than 91% - it's more like 99%.
So, I simply can't see how they can possibly have the assumptions they do - even ignoring the other massive elephant in the room, which is that the virus can't spread *that* quickly as there aren't that many people for it to infect any more.
I deliberately chose pessimistic figures for hospitalisation and death rates. As you say, it's difficult to see how you can get to 10,000 admissions a day unless your assumptions are basically:
a) Everyone is a perfect sphere in a single room. b) Vaccines have no effect on tranmission. c) Indian variant is super deadly.
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
Having a go at some workings of my own:
Peak in January was about 4,000 hospitalisations a day with no vaccinations. Deaths peaked at roughly 1,250 a day.
Let's assume a 0.7% fatality rate, since that seems to be the number I've seen floating around.
That gives approximately 180,000 infections per day (1,250/0.007).
So, in an unvaccinated population you would need around 450,000 infections per day to get 10,000 admissions.
Let's say vaccination is about 75% effective at preventing hospitalisation across the population. It's a bit finger in the air, but basically discounting actual effectiveness by a bit to account for the young not being vaccinated and a low level of vaccine hesitancy.
That means you then need approximately 1,800,000 infections per day to get 10,000 hospitalisations. So a little under 3% of the population needing to be infected every day. This feels... implausible even with no restrictions (or self-imposed restrictions given people would react to rising case rates and hospitalisations).
Even if you say our current level of vaccination would only prevent 50% of hospitalisations across the population (hugely pessimistic I'd think). You'd still need to see 900,000 people a day being infected to get 10,000 a day hospitalisations.
Of course, all of the above is based on vaccinations having 0% efficacy in preventing infections, which is stupid.
It also doesn't take into account that the unvaccinated population will be considerably smaller in a few weeks' time.
Also.
0.7% is for the population as a whole. Which is something like 10% for the 80+ group, and 0.05% for the under 20s.
The most vulnerable people are all vaccinated. And efficacy against hospitalisation and death is much higher than 91% - it's more like 99%.
So, I simply can't see how they can possibly have the assumptions they do - even ignoring the other massive elephant in the room, which is that the virus can't spread *that* quickly as there aren't that many people for it to infect any more.
I deliberately chose pessimistic figures for hospitalisation and death rates. As you say, it's difficult to see how you can get to 10,000 admissions a day unless your assumptions are basically:
a) Everyone is a perfect sphere in a single room. b) Vaccines have no effect on tranmission. c) Indian variant is super deadly.
D) You've done no modelling and are just fear mongering.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
I'm not the one who plays the "you're not a true Tory" game, am I?
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
It is not just for libertarians who want to concrete all over the greenbelt like you either
It is a wide church and you are part of it, but by no means the dominant part, especially as I do not know any conservative who wants to send tanks to the Scottish border
It is not me who actively advocates breaking up the Union as Philip Thompson does and given the SNP did not win a majority at Holyrood and Unionist parties won most votes on the constituency vote there is no need for any indyref2 to be allowed by this Tory government anyway
There is one thing about the rights and wrongs of allowing indyref2, but I do not know any conservative who has threatened Scotland with tanks other than yourself
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
Having a go at some workings of my own:
Peak in January was about 4,000 hospitalisations a day with no vaccinations. Deaths peaked at roughly 1,250 a day.
Let's assume a 0.7% fatality rate, since that seems to be the number I've seen floating around.
That gives approximately 180,000 infections per day (1,250/0.007).
So, in an unvaccinated population you would need around 450,000 infections per day to get 10,000 admissions.
Let's say vaccination is about 75% effective at preventing hospitalisation across the population. It's a bit finger in the air, but basically discounting actual effectiveness by a bit to account for the young not being vaccinated and a low level of vaccine hesitancy.
That means you then need approximately 1,800,000 infections per day to get 10,000 hospitalisations. So a little under 3% of the population needing to be infected every day. This feels... implausible even with no restrictions (or self-imposed restrictions given people would react to rising case rates and hospitalisations).
Even if you say our current level of vaccination would only prevent 50% of hospitalisations across the population (hugely pessimistic I'd think). You'd still need to see 900,000 people a day being infected to get 10,000 a day hospitalisations.
Of course, all of the above is based on vaccinations having 0% efficacy in preventing infections, which is stupid.
It also doesn't take into account that the unvaccinated population will be considerably smaller in a few weeks' time.
Yes and then plug in 90% efficacy for AZ and 91% efficacy for Pfizer against infection and 95%+ for both against hospitalisations and a cumulative reduction of about 98% once you take into account average spread reduction of 45% with a single dose of either and modelled spread reduction of 75% with two doses of either.
Those are the real efficacy figures from the PHE report today other than modelled efficacy which comes from some private research I've read.
There's simply not enough people that could go to hospital for a third wave of they types they're talking about.
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?!
Not just in hospital but 10,000 A DAY in hospital. And that wasn’t even the worst case scenario!
SAGE should be made to show their workings. Use both sides of the paper.
Having a go at some workings of my own:
Peak in January was about 4,000 hospitalisations a day with no vaccinations. Deaths peaked at roughly 1,250 a day.
Let's assume a 0.7% fatality rate, since that seems to be the number I've seen floating around.
That gives approximately 180,000 infections per day (1,250/0.007).
So, in an unvaccinated population you would need around 450,000 infections per day to get 10,000 admissions.
Let's say vaccination is about 75% effective at preventing hospitalisation across the population. It's a bit finger in the air, but basically discounting actual effectiveness by a bit to account for the young not being vaccinated and a low level of vaccine hesitancy.
That means you then need approximately 1,800,000 infections per day to get 10,000 hospitalisations. So a little under 3% of the population needing to be infected every day. This feels... implausible even with no restrictions (or self-imposed restrictions given people would react to rising case rates and hospitalisations).
Even if you say our current level of vaccination would only prevent 50% of hospitalisations across the population (hugely pessimistic I'd think). You'd still need to see 900,000 people a day being infected to get 10,000 a day hospitalisations.
Of course, all of the above is based on vaccinations having 0% efficacy in preventing infections, which is stupid.
It also doesn't take into account that the unvaccinated population will be considerably smaller in a few weeks' time.
AND you’ve even missed out the reasonable probability that “unvaccinated” does not equal “unprotected” given that many will have probably gained a measure of protection through prior infection.
And there’s the big unknown that a proportion of the population may have some level of base immunity in the first place!
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
I'm not the one who plays the "you're not a true Tory" game, am I?
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
It is not just for libertarians who want to concrete all over the greenbelt like you either
It is a wide church and you are part of it, but by no means the dominant part, especially as I do not know any conservative who wants to send tanks to the Scottish border
It is not me who actively advocates breaking up the Union as Philip Thompson does and given the SNP did not win a majority at Holyrood and Unionist parties won most votes on the constituency vote there is no need for any indyref2 to be allowed by this Tory government anyway
More Tories would be content to let the SNP go than to send tanks to suppress them.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
I'm not the one who plays the "you're not a true Tory" game, am I?
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
It is not just for libertarians who want to concrete all over the greenbelt like you either
It is a wide church and you are part of it, but by no means the dominant part, especially as I do not know any conservative who wants to send tanks to the Scottish border
It is not me who actively advocates breaking up the Union as Philip Thompson does and given the SNP did not win a majority at Holyrood and Unionist parties won most votes on the constituency vote there is no need for any indyref2 to be allowed by this Tory government anyway
More Tories would be content to let the SNP go than to send tanks to suppress them.
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.
You mean the Party's names will be nearly as descriptive of their actual policies and supporters as Australia's Liberals?
Australia's Liberals aren't misnamed.
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Only briefly under Turnbull, Scott Morrison is a social conservative even if an economic liberal
Yes, but economic liberalism is what unites the party.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
The UK Conservatives are not just a party for liberals like you.
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
I'm not the one who plays the "you're not a true Tory" game, am I?
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
It is not just for libertarians who want to concrete all over the greenbelt like you either
It is a wide church and you are part of it, but by no means the dominant part, especially as I do not know any conservative who wants to send tanks to the Scottish border
It is not me who actively advocates breaking up the Union as Philip Thompson does and given the SNP did not win a majority at Holyrood and Unionist parties won most votes on the constituency vote there is no need for any indyref2 to be allowed by this Tory government anyway
There is one thing about the rights and wrongs of allowing indyref2, but I do not know any conservative who has threatened Scotland with tanks other than yourself
I never actually threatened the SNP with tanks, I did say the government could go down the Madrid route with Catalonia, though even that did not involve tanks.
However as it is without even an SNP majority I expect a simple No from the UK government will do given Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998
Comments
Hancock's plan for schoolchildren to have a single dose https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/02/school-pupils-could-offered-covid-vaccines-september/
looks to be a smart use of resources too.
You could do it something like:
70+ 3 doses - Even if the first 2 were mRNA
41 - 70, 2 doses Astra & 1 dose mRNA or 2 doses mRNA
18 - 40, 2 doses Any
12 - 17, 1 dose mRNA
(I realise you are square root, so you have a love of squares...)
By 2020 Trump won West Virginia by a landslide 68% and Biden won Connecticut by a large margin too and with 59% of the vote.
The poor still vote Labour, Democrat but the graduate upper middle class are increasingly moving away from the Republicans and Tories while the skilled white working class and lower middle class have become the Tory and GOP core vote.
As, um, many of us have been saying on here.
Maybe next time they can campaign as the "eat chocolate, don't exercise and lose weight" party.
I often think this is a fundamental branding issue the Labour Party have. That and their horrible red and yellow colour schemes (use red and white - much less angry looking).
Like me they are right wing free market liberals.
Great policy too.
If you look at the apogee of tactical voting (1997 and 2001), you saw a remarkable efficiency of LD/Lab vote. There were very few seats where Labour and the LDs were in spitting distance of each other: essentially a seat was a Con-Lab one, or a Con-LD one.
That completely unwound in 2015, before coming back slightly in 2017 and then unwinding a bit in 2019.
Don't forget that the LDs almost doubled their vote share between 2017 and 2019, but their seats actually fell.
I suspect Postal votes hold the key to the final result.
There are social conservatives and social liberals within the party, but its a party for economic liberals. So its an apt name.
Unlike the name Conservatives in the UK. Many UK Conservatives are liberals like myself, who aren't remotely conservative.
As imports enable exports, this will also help industry's that we have a competitive advantage in grow, creating wealth prosperities and freedom and happiness.
there my be some economic dislocation for some farmers, but as the New Zealand experience of the 1980s shows that's not necessarily bad for Farmers on the whole, some may have to change the crops they produce, others may chose to sell and more to new professions, or tern there farms in to new things, campsites, paint ball arenas.
The net benefit is massive, Liz Truss is a star, for her achievements and standing up to special interest lobby groups, possible the only front bench MP in any party I actually like.
Part 18,531,902
You really are having to bring out the big guns to defeat him!
I've always equated a 5pc chance as about 20/1 (100 divided by 20 = 5).
How wrong am I?
The flaw is the acronym doesn't work. CTP sounds too medical. Like an ointment for something.
Just 'progressive' would do. Who doesn't want to be progressive? I like progress as much as the next man. We might or might not quibble about where we are progressing to, but that's a detail the name doesn't need to trifle with.
It would also hoover up the votes of all who want a progressive alliance.
There you go Labour Party, I've solved your problem for you.
But I suspect other thing will be bigger, Where does the TBP vote go? how will the new boundaries affect, and the state of the economy, and does Lab have a new leader, to name 4
Pretty dishonest to pretend you can do that, eh?
Glad I wasn't that off target but I still haven't quite got the thing of things yet.
20/1 = 21 decimal.
But when I divide 100 by 21;
I get 4.7619
What am I getting wrong?
The issue is more about standards than tariffs.
But there was at least the occasional anomaly over which club was affiliated with which county - not least because clubs moved around over time.
The chart that EVERYONE needs to see is this one:
Efficacy of the adenovirus based vaccines rises substantially over time. It's why real world studies demonstrate much higher efficacy than trials.
Progress
(was also the name of a belting house club in Derby in the 1990s, although I sadly never attended)
Northern Red Wall Conservatives want more spending for them and their services and their area and back a harder Brexit and tight immigration controls, southern Conservatives tend to support lower tax and spending and many even if they backed Brexit were happy to stay in the single market.
Wealthy property developers who are big donors to the Tory Party want no restrictions on development, traditional Home Counties Tories tend to be Nimbys and want no development near their house or village at all.
Even on the Australian trade deal there are differences of opinion between George Eustice representing traditional farmers who are wary of cheap Australian food imports if all tariffs are removed and Liz Truss who is a liberal free trader.
Plus even in Australia the Liberals are in coalition with the Nationals who tend to be more protectionist and dependent on the farming vote.
Not Being Corbyn isn't enough to win, of course, but it allows for an improved anti-Conservative tactical effect; and one which has more potential to expand- whereas the BXP-Conservative shift is pretty much done.
, the last thing you want to hear is “it’s
progressive” ‘
Why can't they be discussing UAPs or the shite weather like us normal folk.
Been pissing it down in this part of the West Riding of Yorkshire for the past 7 hours, btw.
The party is a big tent. Its not just a party for socially conservative NIMBYs like you either.
I rack my brains for killer policies to turn this around (untory ones which therefore wouldn't be stolen) but to no avail as yet.
On second thoughts, don't show any of the SeanTs that graph.
Peak in January was about 4,000 hospitalisations a day with no vaccinations.
Deaths peaked at roughly 1,250 a day.
Let's assume a 0.7% fatality rate, since that seems to be the number I've seen floating around.
That gives approximately 180,000 infections per day (1,250/0.007).
So, in an unvaccinated population you would need around 450,000 infections per day to get 10,000 admissions.
Let's say vaccination is about 75% effective at preventing hospitalisation across the population. It's a bit finger in the air, but basically discounting actual effectiveness by a bit to account for the young not being vaccinated and a low level of vaccine hesitancy.
That means you then need approximately 1,800,000 infections per day to get 10,000 hospitalisations. So a little under 3% of the population needing to be infected every day. This feels... implausible even with no restrictions (or self-imposed restrictions given people would react to rising case rates and hospitalisations).
Even if you say our current level of vaccination would only prevent 50% of hospitalisations across the population (hugely pessimistic I'd think). You'd still need to see 900,000 people a day being infected to get 10,000 a day hospitalisations.
Of course, all of the above is based on vaccinations having 0% efficacy in preventing infections, which is stupid.
It also doesn't take into account that the unvaccinated population will be considerably smaller in a few weeks' time.
We had this massive lead, that we're in the process of squandering due to a bunch of zero Covid nutters.
The Chrétien Liberals in candida and the Truman administration in the US being 2 more examples.
Its infuriating.
And what's even more infuriating is the "impartial" media are only challenging decision making by giving airtime to the Zero Covid idiots like Independent SAGE.
Where is the airtime given the Great Barrington scientists to say we've protected the vulnerable so lets open up immediately? Should be given as equal prominence as the Independent SAGE zealots.
Does anyone seriously think Diana would have publically said 'there are three people in my marriage' without this interview
So to translate fractional odds into decimals, you need to calculate (numerator/denominator)+1
So 20/1 becomes (20/1)+1 = 21
Decimal odds are much easier to work with!
The percentage chance of this happening is 100%* 1/decimal - therefore 100%*1/21 = 4.76%
So to turn fractional odds into percentages, it's
100%*1/(denominator/(numerator+1))
This is helpful when you get odds like 13/8 which aren't quite so intuitively graspable.
Impartial media my arse.
Those who have argued for earlier, harder lockdowns have been shown to be right last March, last autumn, last December. Anti-lockdown types called it wrong each time, to tragic effect.
So on the occasion where we probably do have leeway to unlock faster, the public confidence isn't there- and one has to wonder if the PM has the confidence to go faster.
It's kind of the boy who cried wolf in reverse.
(The three month vaccination lead the UK had was always going to close a fair bit, but even I'm surprised at how much the reopening gap is closing.)
0.7% is for the population as a whole. Which is something like 10% for the 80+ group, and 0.05% for the under 20s.
The most vulnerable people are all vaccinated. And efficacy against hospitalisation and death is much higher than 91% - it's more like 99%.
So, I simply can't see how they can possibly have the assumptions they do - even ignoring the other massive elephant in the room, which is that the virus can't spread *that* quickly as there aren't that many people for it to infect any more.
The notion that she was the naive victim of a predatory journo is fanciful.
However , there can be no excuse for Bashir and the BBC's behaviour
a) Everyone is a perfect sphere in a single room.
b) Vaccines have no effect on tranmission.
c) Indian variant is super deadly.
Those are the real efficacy figures from the PHE report today other than modelled efficacy which comes from some private research I've read.
There's simply not enough people that could go to hospital for a third wave of they types they're talking about.
And there’s the big unknown that a proportion of the population may have some level of base immunity in the first place!
https://leftfootforward.org/2021/05/exclusive-scots-have-right-to-another-indy-referendum-say-voters-in-england/
However as it is without even an SNP majority I expect a simple No from the UK government will do given Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998