On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
That would likely require a Labour popular vote lead and hard to see any LD gains anywhere near 40.
Not jabbing kids over the summer holidays is a massive own goal, as will be if we don't start boosters for oldies extremely sharpish.
Given that JCVI have been right on the two really big calls they made why are you so convinced they are wrong on this one?
The downside of the UK doing so is basically zero.
Isn't the downside "dead unvaccinated people in the Third World for marginal benefit in the UK"?
I doubt that's a question for the JCVI but to say there's "zero" downside is misplaced.
For booster shots there is zero downside for the UK. 35m additional doses for developing nations will make no difference to the overall picture and given its all coming from our Pfizer stock the viability of it in developing nations is low as well so we'd actually have to give it to second world countries that have the means to procure it themselves but have failed to do so such as South Africa or Brazil.
There is simply no reason not to have a 54m booster dose programme with eligibility 6 months after a person's second dose. Why take the risk of a lockdown when the downside risk of doing it is so low.
I think everyone on the flu list should get theirs on the state & the rest of us have an option for private 3rd dose. If it works, it works; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Evidence from the US and Israel that a 3rd jab would improve things though. We can help other nations through the Covax program - but jabs procured by the UK should be used for our best advantage. The JCVI obviously has a fair chunk of bleeding hearts that think the UK is being greedy when it comes to vaccines. They should recuse themselves, it is not the question they are asked.
MARION Millar, the Scottish feminist charged with a hate crime, has been met by crowds of supporters as she arrived for her first court appearance this morning.
Scores of women chanting “Women won’t wheest” and “I stand with Marion Millar” gathered outside Glasgow Sheriff Court ahead of a preliminary bail hearing.
For those of us whose first language is English what does 'wheest' mean?
Strictly speaking it should be 'wheesht'.
Ah thanks. Probably not going to be a word that I will add to my vocabulary. Honestly I said it out loud a few moments ago and the cat came towards me.
I'll stick with roasters.
“Haud your wheesht” is barely more polite than STFU in Scotland.
There's a twitter hashtag "WheeshtForIndy" originally used by supporters to "avoid confusing the message" but latterly by opponents pointing out the suppression of bad news/obfuscation by its proponents.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
That is a very good question. Do you have any theories?
I have to laugh at @bigjohnowls obsessive hatred for serkeir. As if Keir is the problem and that all Labour need to do is remove him and all their problems go away.
Go on then. He announces his resignation at 1pm today. Who is the available candidate who will lead from the front, pronounce the big picture policy agenda that lights up people's imaginations and delivers the killer blow to the evil Tories?
"Let's consider the problem 15x14 modulo 11. It reduces to 4x3=1 mod 11.
Now let's use base 19. 15x14=-4x-5=1 mod 19. We have proved that the answer to 15x14 has remainder 1 when divided by either 11 or 19. How does this help?
Apply the Chinese Remainder Theorem, of course! The multiplicative inverse of 11 mod 19 is 7 (you have learned your modular multiplicative inverse tables, I hope?) and similarly the inverse of 19 mod 11 is 7. So it must be the case that
15x14=1x11x7+1x19x7=210 (mod 209).
We have determined the answer up to its remainder on division by 209. Unfortunately, to pin it down more closely requires mathematics that you aren't ready for, so we will have to postpone that to next year.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
I have to laugh at @bigjohnowls obsessive hatred for serkeir. As if Keir is the problem and that all Labour need to do is remove him and all their problems go away.
Go on then. He announces his resignation at 1pm today. Who is the available candidate who will lead from the front, pronounce the big picture policy agenda that lights up people's imaginations and delivers the killer blow to the evil Tories?
He's already told you. Burnham...oh wait he's unavailable. So Burgon it is then. Job done!
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
Remember: Immunological memory consists of antibodies, memory B-cells, memory CD8+ T-cells, and memory CD4+ T-cells. These responses are what give us enduring protection even against newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Finally, by examining individuals with pre-existing-immunity following natural infection, researchers were able to gain insights into the possible effects of booster vaccination. In this setting, boosting of pre-existing immunity with mRNA vaccination mainly resulted in a transient benefit to antibody titers with little-to long-term impact on cellular immune memory.
Antibody decay rates were similar in SARS-CoV-2 naïve and recovered vaccinees, suggesting that an additional vaccine dose will temporarily prolong antibody-mediated protection without fundamentally altering the underlying landscape of SARS-CoV-2 immune memory, which is characterized by durable memory B- and CD4+ T-cells EVEN when antibody responses begin to wane.
Seems to me that were it not for Kent Covid, we might have reached herd immunity after last winter with no vaccine. Then the vaccines came along and gave us herd immunity even to Kent Covid. But it was short lived because in came Delta.
Your argument seems to be that we shouldn’t care about antibody protection because of the wider immune response. But there’s plenty of people for whom the wider immune response will be only weakly effective at best, and we don’t yet know enough to identify them. So just give fresh antibodies to everyone over 50 now.
Further, the virus is nasty enough and causes loss of economic output even in the non-hospitalised cohort. It is therefore a noble enough goal for everyone to want good antibody protection as we go into winter.
In short, you and I have paid for these doses already. Bloody well let me have it. At least let my elderly parents have it for goodness sake, who stand a reasonably high chance of having a weaker T Cell response on top of waning antibodies.
Govt dropping the ball on this because of the Taliban, and lack of continuity at the Health brief. And because they’re incompetent w@nkers obvs.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
That would likely require a Labour popular vote lead and hard to see any LD gains anywhere near 40.
Most likely way the Tories lose power is if they lose about 30 seats to Labour, 20 to the Lib Dems and another few to the SNP which is perfectly plausible even if Labour is say 5% behind the Tories in the popular vote. Something like Con 40% Lab 35% LD 15%. The polls are all over the place and are not the main reason I think Starmer will struggle to become PM more his lack of judgement and terrible advisors etc.
I have to laugh at @bigjohnowls obsessive hatred for serkeir. As if Keir is the problem and that all Labour need to do is remove him and all their problems go away.
Go on then. He announces his resignation at 1pm today. Who is the available candidate who will lead from the front, pronounce the big picture policy agenda that lights up people's imaginations and delivers the killer blow to the evil Tories?
He's already told you. Burnham...oh wait he's unavailable. So Burgon it is then. Job done!
Indeed yes. Fourth to second. Astonishing achievement.
Not jabbing kids over the summer holidays is a massive own goal, as will be if we don't start boosters for oldies extremely sharpish.
Given that JCVI have been right on the two really big calls they made why are you so convinced they are wrong on this one?
The downside of the UK doing so is basically zero.
Isn't the downside "dead unvaccinated people in the Third World for marginal benefit in the UK"?
I doubt that's a question for the JCVI but to say there's "zero" downside is misplaced.
For booster shots there is zero downside for the UK. 35m additional doses for developing nations will make no difference to the overall picture and given its all coming from our Pfizer stock the viability of it in developing nations is low as well so we'd actually have to give it to second world countries that have the means to procure it themselves but have failed to do so such as South Africa or Brazil.
There is simply no reason not to have a 54m booster dose programme with eligibility 6 months after a person's second dose. Why take the risk of a lockdown when the downside risk of doing it is so low.
There's an argument that the UK should look after its own people first but it would only "make no difference to the overall picture" if you can't see tens or hundreds of thousands of dead people. OK, maybe you can't see those people among the millions who will still die, but just because you can't see them doesn't mean they're not there. The world is still bottlenecked by vaccine supply and most of the people who will die if they can't get the vaccine will live if they can get the vaccine. If you were standing next to them when they died you'd definitely be able to see them.
Saving vaccines for people who otherwise can't get them also not purely altruistic, because if you leave more people unvaccinated for longer you give the virus more chances to mutate.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
Is that because of his dumb comments on testing or just on general principles?
YouGov @YouGov · 23m Latest government approval rating (29 Aug)
Approve: 27% (n/c on 23 Aug) Disapprove: 50% (n/c)
So people don’t approve of the government but plan to vote for them anyway, because the alternatives are worse?
Situation normal
... all fucked up
No. The Opposition is all fucked up. If they were any good they would have been streets ahead by now, irrespective of Covid.
I don't disagree about the Opposition, but I stand by my assessment on the situation too, as a situation without a convincing opposition is not good (particularly so when the government are also not seen as particularly good, per the poll). We should have at least one good option to vote for, preferable two or more.
But really, my comment was just taking advantage of Flatlander teeing up but not completing snafu
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
I suspect that I agree with that post, although I am always wary of the times table test. I have a maths degree but have never learnt my times tables. Seemed pointless to me so didn't do it. It means I can't give an instant answer, but one a second or two later. I would rather see someone work it out quickly than have learnt it by rote, because you then know they can cope with stuff they haven't memorised. Still they should be able to do 11 x 12 pretty quickly and a non answer is not a good sign for the future.
Just remember darts players who can do the calculations quickly aren't mathematicians, they just play darts a lot.
Maybe a 'fact' to give HYUFD when he comes up with his next assumption from a statistic.
I've never 'learnt' my times tables, but I can work them out in ... well, quickly. Some I just know, others just pop into my head. I always found the seven times table the hardest. The good thing about not learning by rote is that the tricks to calculate them in your head help with larger sums, e.g. 27*36.
My little 'un is seven, and about to start year 3. He knows the square numbers, the 1,23,4,5, and 10 times tables pretty much off by heart. He can calculate all the rest in his head in a few seconds. He can also do (say) 15x14, but it takes him half a minute or so (15x10 + 10x4 + 5x4). It's been interesting seeing him learn maths, and how he tackles problems.
Even with the ubiquity of calculators, I think calculating many sums in your head is a useful skill. Estimation, as well.
A feel for quantities is very useful. 15x14, btw is much quicker as 140 +70.
Another way is 15 x 14 = 15 x (15-1) = 15^2 - 15 = 225 - 15 =210. Most pure mathematicians know off the top of their head that 15 squared is 225.
At my first (analyst) job interview a question was what is 7% of 7. He wanted to know how people's minds worked wrt such calcs ie "7x7 and adjust for the dps" or "well 10% of 7 is.."
I have to laugh at @bigjohnowls obsessive hatred for serkeir. As if Keir is the problem and that all Labour need to do is remove him and all their problems go away.
Go on then. He announces his resignation at 1pm today. Who is the available candidate who will lead from the front, pronounce the big picture policy agenda that lights up people's imaginations and delivers the killer blow to the evil Tories?
He's already told you. Burnham...oh wait he's unavailable. So Burgon it is then. Job done!
Indeed yes. Fourth to second. Astonishing achievement.
By the Liberal Democrats.
Labour's problem is not that Keir is bland and undynamic, no matter how angry the Corbynites may be when they spit it in impotent rage. Yes he is a bit dull, but the idea that Labour aren't making progress only because of him is absurd.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
Is that because of his dumb comments on testing or just on general principles?
Do we need a reason to be annoyed with Gavin Williamson?
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
Yes, you make this point and although I don't fully agree - imo the Con maj should be odds on - I do think the largest party bet is the stronger one.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
Is that because of his dumb comments on testing or just on general principles?
Both, it is the high and mighty way he said it is the job of parents to stop a fourth wave.
Well you complete numpty you could have jabbed kids during the summer.
All that stuff about world beating vaccine rollout could turn out to be a shitshow by the autumn,
MARION Millar, the Scottish feminist charged with a hate crime, has been met by crowds of supporters as she arrived for her first court appearance this morning.
Scores of women chanting “Women won’t wheest” and “I stand with Marion Millar” gathered outside Glasgow Sheriff Court ahead of a preliminary bail hearing.
For those of us whose first language is English what does 'wheest' mean?
Strictly speaking it should be 'wheesht'.
Ah thanks. Probably not going to be a word that I will add to my vocabulary. Honestly I said it out loud a few moments ago and the cat came towards me.
I'll stick with roasters.
“Haud your wheesht” is barely more polite than STFU in Scotland.
There's a twitter hashtag "WheeshtForIndy" originally used by supporters to "avoid confusing the message" but latterly by opponents pointing out the suppression of bad news/obfuscation by its proponents.
Afaicr no indy supporter ever used Wheesht4Indy as an instruction, it seemed to be adopted entirely by those who felt their non approved opinions were being silenced for the greater good. That they demonstrate the opposite by repeatedly bellowing those opinions through a megaphone (sometimes literally) is by the by.
Remember: Immunological memory consists of antibodies, memory B-cells, memory CD8+ T-cells, and memory CD4+ T-cells. These responses are what give us enduring protection even against newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Finally, by examining individuals with pre-existing-immunity following natural infection, researchers were able to gain insights into the possible effects of booster vaccination. In this setting, boosting of pre-existing immunity with mRNA vaccination mainly resulted in a transient benefit to antibody titers with little-to long-term impact on cellular immune memory.
Antibody decay rates were similar in SARS-CoV-2 naïve and recovered vaccinees, suggesting that an additional vaccine dose will temporarily prolong antibody-mediated protection without fundamentally altering the underlying landscape of SARS-CoV-2 immune memory, which is characterized by durable memory B- and CD4+ T-cells EVEN when antibody responses begin to wane.
At least let my elderly parents have it for goodness sake, who stand a reasonably high chance of having a weaker T Cell response on top of waning antibodies.
I think there's a good case for jabbing the clinically vulnerable - because the cost/benefit ratio is so much higher. I'm less clear that the rest of us need it - unless we're going to get into a continual panic jabbing everyone every time anti-bodies decay (which they do naturally for all illnesses which we vaccinate against).
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
Can't be the old 'rich people hedging against socialism' monkey business since that will not be on the table this time.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
That would likely require a Labour popular vote lead and hard to see any LD gains anywhere near 40.
Most likely way the Tories lose power is if they lose about 30 seats to Labour, 20 to the Lib Dems and another few to the SNP which is perfectly plausible even if Labour is say 5% behind the Tories in the popular vote. Something like Con 40% Lab 35% LD 15%. The polls are all over the place and are not the main reason I think Starmer will struggle to become PM more his lack of judgement and terrible advisors etc.
Agree. Labour majority virtually impossible; Labour led rainbow government - nearly a 50% chance - say 47%, about the same as a Tory majority. That is on what we know now! Which will change.
Margaret Thatcher would have killed for numbers like these. The difference was that she faced Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock. These men were giants in comparison to Starmer. Could Labour have made a worse choice?
Foot a giant compared to Starmer? Longest suicide note in history.
Foot was an intellectual, almost academic, famously traduced for his (not) duffel coat at the Cenotaph, whereas these days the Tory BBC would just substitute a different video. Were it not for the Falklands (and arguably the SDP split) the Conservatives would have lost in 1983 (or more likely 84) and Foot would have been Prime Minister, but those things did happen and we are where we are.
Foot was undoubtedly intellectual but Starmer is also no slouch. But Foot was not a winner, by any stretch of the imagination. Kaufman's description of the longest suicide note in history was very apt. Obviously other factors apply.
The non-duffel coat attack was typical of the attacks he left himself open to. It didn't matter that it wasn't a duffel coat, the similarity allowed the attacks because of the perception of Foot that he allowed by not looking like a prime minister in waiting which was exploited ruthlessly by his opponents.
Those two words from the last sentence 'exploited ruthlessly' say it all. We have a popular press in UK which, when the chips are down, will ALWAYS support the Tories. The Mail, Sun and Express might be critical on occasion, and many people may no longer read newspapers but the headlines are there on every newsstand beside the place when lottery tickets or whatever are bought. And, particularly at election time, any half slip by a Labour leader will be exploited ruthlessly by the headline writers, which is what will be seen.
Nobody aged under 65 has ever voted in a British general election that wasn't won by the party backed by the Sun newspaper.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Remember: Immunological memory consists of antibodies, memory B-cells, memory CD8+ T-cells, and memory CD4+ T-cells. These responses are what give us enduring protection even against newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Finally, by examining individuals with pre-existing-immunity following natural infection, researchers were able to gain insights into the possible effects of booster vaccination. In this setting, boosting of pre-existing immunity with mRNA vaccination mainly resulted in a transient benefit to antibody titers with little-to long-term impact on cellular immune memory.
Antibody decay rates were similar in SARS-CoV-2 naïve and recovered vaccinees, suggesting that an additional vaccine dose will temporarily prolong antibody-mediated protection without fundamentally altering the underlying landscape of SARS-CoV-2 immune memory, which is characterized by durable memory B- and CD4+ T-cells EVEN when antibody responses begin to wane.
At least let my elderly parents have it for goodness sake, who stand a reasonably high chance of having a weaker T Cell response on top of waning antibodies.
I think there's a good case for jabbing the clinically vulnerable - because the cost/benefit ratio is so much higher. I'm less clear that the rest of us need it - unless we're going to get into a continual panic jabbing everyone every time anti-bodies decay (which they do naturally for all illnesses which we vaccinate against).
I’d pay quite a bit to get an annual or twice annual set of antibodies against the common cold. I’d pay even more to get the same against Covid, which is a more unpleasant condition. Don’t know why that should be considered panic jabbing.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
Can't be the old 'rich people hedging against socialism' monkey business since that will not be on the table this time.
Those bettors, and they do exist at the margins, would surely have their money invested elsewhere until shortly before an election. Betting now, makes no sense.
Margaret Thatcher would have killed for numbers like these. The difference was that she faced Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock. These men were giants in comparison to Starmer. Could Labour have made a worse choice?
Foot a giant compared to Starmer? Longest suicide note in history.
Foot was an intellectual, almost academic, famously traduced for his (not) duffel coat at the Cenotaph, whereas these days the Tory BBC would just substitute a different video. Were it not for the Falklands (and arguably the SDP split) the Conservatives would have lost in 1983 (or more likely 84) and Foot would have been Prime Minister, but those things did happen and we are where we are.
Foot was undoubtedly intellectual but Starmer is also no slouch. But Foot was not a winner, by any stretch of the imagination. Kaufman's description of the longest suicide note in history was very apt. Obviously other factors apply.
The non-duffel coat attack was typical of the attacks he left himself open to. It didn't matter that it wasn't a duffel coat, the similarity allowed the attacks because of the perception of Foot that he allowed by not looking like a prime minister in waiting which was exploited ruthlessly by his opponents.
Those two words from the last sentence 'exploited ruthlessly' say it all. We have a popular press in UK which, when the chips are down, will ALWAYS support the Tories. The Mail, Sun and Express might be critical on occasion, and many people may no longer read newspapers but the headlines are there on every newsstand beside the place when lottery tickets or whatever are bought. And, particularly at election time, any half slip by a Labour leader will be exploited ruthlessly by the headline writers, which is what will be seen.
Nobody aged under 65 has ever voted in a British general election that wasn't won by the party backed by the Sun newspaper.
Although their influence was much less in the early 1970s.
Not jabbing kids over the summer holidays is a massive own goal, as will be if we don't start boosters for oldies extremely sharpish.
Given that JCVI have been right on the two really big calls they made why are you so convinced they are wrong on this one?
The downside of the UK doing so is basically zero.
Isn't the downside "dead unvaccinated people in the Third World for marginal benefit in the UK"?
I doubt that's a question for the JCVI but to say there's "zero" downside is misplaced.
For booster shots there is zero downside for the UK. 35m additional doses for developing nations will make no difference to the overall picture and given its all coming from our Pfizer stock the viability of it in developing nations is low as well so we'd actually have to give it to second world countries that have the means to procure it themselves but have failed to do so such as South Africa or Brazil.
There is simply no reason not to have a 54m booster dose programme with eligibility 6 months after a person's second dose. Why take the risk of a lockdown when the downside risk of doing it is so low.
There's an argument that the UK should look after its own people first but it would only "make no difference to the overall picture" if you can't see tens or hundreds of thousands of dead people. OK, maybe you can't see those people among the millions who will still die, but just because you can't see them doesn't mean they're not there. The world is still bottlenecked by vaccine supply and most of the people who will die if they can't get the vaccine will live if they can get the vaccine. If you were standing next to them when they died you'd definitely be able to see them.
Saving vaccines for people who otherwise can't get them also not purely altruistic, because if you leave more people unvaccinated for longer you give the virus more chances to mutate.
The chance of somewhere else in the world avoiding another variant because the UK flies it's doses off to Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone is remote. If we're going along this path it needs agreement at a G7 level. The USA and the EU are quite happy to booster indefinitely, that forces our hand on the issue I'd say. Like anything to do with climate change, the UK acting on it's own would be a gnat's fart in a storm. Besides didn't Jamaica's index delta cases come from the UK ? Poorer countries are not as well connected as richer ones so have less initial seed. Besides, this argument is outside the JCVI's remit. If that sort of decision is going to be taken it needs to be at a ministerial level - the Saj.
Remember: Immunological memory consists of antibodies, memory B-cells, memory CD8+ T-cells, and memory CD4+ T-cells. These responses are what give us enduring protection even against newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Finally, by examining individuals with pre-existing-immunity following natural infection, researchers were able to gain insights into the possible effects of booster vaccination. In this setting, boosting of pre-existing immunity with mRNA vaccination mainly resulted in a transient benefit to antibody titers with little-to long-term impact on cellular immune memory.
Antibody decay rates were similar in SARS-CoV-2 naïve and recovered vaccinees, suggesting that an additional vaccine dose will temporarily prolong antibody-mediated protection without fundamentally altering the underlying landscape of SARS-CoV-2 immune memory, which is characterized by durable memory B- and CD4+ T-cells EVEN when antibody responses begin to wane.
At least let my elderly parents have it for goodness sake, who stand a reasonably high chance of having a weaker T Cell response on top of waning antibodies.
I think there's a good case for jabbing the clinically vulnerable - because the cost/benefit ratio is so much higher. I'm less clear that the rest of us need it - unless we're going to get into a continual panic jabbing everyone every time anti-bodies decay (which they do naturally for all illnesses which we vaccinate against).
I’d pay quite a bit to get an annual or twice annual set of antibodies against the common cold. I’d pay even more to get the same against Covid, which is a more unpleasant condition. Don’t know why that should be considered panic jabbing.
We just need to get on with the booster vaccines NOW. And vaccinations for 12 to 15s. We know what's coming. Schools will be open in a few days, universities are opening soon and the cold weather is coming. Cases will be up and away and we need to do what we can to mitigate this.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
That is a very good question. Do you have any theories?
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
That would likely require a Labour popular vote lead and hard to see any LD gains anywhere near 40.
Most likely way the Tories lose power is if they lose about 30 seats to Labour, 20 to the Lib Dems and another few to the SNP which is perfectly plausible even if Labour is say 5% behind the Tories in the popular vote. Something like Con 40% Lab 35% LD 15%. The polls are all over the place and are not the main reason I think Starmer will struggle to become PM more his lack of judgement and terrible advisors etc.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
..the case was continued for a hearing on 4th of October, so that the court can consider a number of preliminary legal issues, including the compatibility of this prosecution with Ms Millar’s human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.
“Since this case is sub judice, Marion Millar will not be making any statements at this time.”.....
Gender-critical feminists such as Ms Millar disagree with those LGBT activists who think gender identity should be prioritised over biological sex in government policy and the law.
The former fear the advance of transgender rights is at the expense of hard-won women’s rights, while the latter see the focus on biological sex as transphobic.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
Zugzwang - any policy move is deleterious for Labour. Wheesht is the answer.
The last couple of PMQs were Starmer wins. The Labour leader was on top of his game, witty and forensic.
If PMQs herald a new dawn then all is not lost. To conference! But even with new, improved Keir, what is to be Labour's retail offer. Like Drakeford and Sturgeon and Macron and Merkel, Labour would have had vaccines and lockdowns but better than Boris's. Support for the economy too. But no-one will be converted to Labour on this sort of managerialist nit-picking. What is Labour for?
You could equally ask what the Conservative party is for. Both major parties seem to be mainly about keeping the other one out of power. The Tories have done much better in corralling the anti-Labour vote than Labour has done in corralling the anti-Tory vote. Or, put another way, more people prioritise not wanting a Labour government than prioritise not wanting a Tory one. It's been the same story for most of the last 70 years.
An interesting thing about the 2019 GE was that both leaders promised something different: in Labour's case, Corbyn's vision for the country was very different from the consensus of the last forty years. In Johnson's, it promised an ideas vacuum with little pretence of keeping any promises aside from Brexit (he is Johnson, after all).
Covid has utterly derailed everything. Both Starmer and Johnson have a great opportunity to unveil a positive vision for the future of the country post-Covid and post-Brexit. The next few months are key (assuming the Covid crisis is declining, that is).
I don't think either will do it. Johnson because he will bluster; he will unveil big-project ideas that are inconsequential to the problems facing the country. Starmer because I don't think he has the imagination.
For me, a key thing is literacy and numeracy. Far too many people are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate, and this is an individual and national tragedy. I'd give a lot of time for any leader who makes this a key point in their plans. This sort of thing, rather than bridges, is key to future prosperity.
Are you suggesting "education, education, education" might be a good slogan?
Nope.
Education, as I'm sure Dr Y would agree, is difficult. The easiest measure of progress is exam results, however meaningless some may think they're becoming. Therefore governments concentrate on the ever-increasing (nearly) pass grade and the top end.
The real problem lies at the bottom. The kids who leave school without the functional skills they require in life and work. The issues of why they are failing will be complex, and only a tiny part will be schooling and formal education.
I don't know what the answers are - but I do know it's a problem that is being ignored as too difficult.
Radio 4 did something on illiteracy recently, e.g. : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57025677 . I'd love to see similar on innumeracy. The stories in the short article above are interesting, especially on a forum where everyone is literate (even if there may be some dyslexics amongst us).
"An estimated nine million adults in the UK have low-level literacy skills. That means they find it hard to do things most people take for granted - such as filling out a job application."
It's a national scandal.
Part of the problem may well be the focus on exams that are not well geared to the necessary skills.
To take your example, surely the best measure of basic literacy might be to write a job application to a job description/person spec and consider how likely that candidate would be to get it.
But AFAICS you don’t get that on any English Language syllabus.
In 2005 i was made redundant and I went for the easiest interview I have ever had ...postman over xmas rush ...inc doing a small numeracy test that any ten yr old could have done...something akin to how much does four second class and two first class stams cost. Values were given for each. I was stunned at how few knew how to do so a simple sum. Handwriting on app forms that i saw on a table was shockingly bad with spelling errors a 5 yr old would not make.. and that was 16 yrs ago.. I suspect its worse now despite the ludicrous exam pass "success"
From my experience of school leavers who apply for apprenticeships, their written and numeracy skills are very poor despite them having achieved Grade C or now 4 In English & Maths.
I know its easy to say it was better in my day, but in the early eighties if you got a C or above at O Level in Maths then you were pretty good at maths. If you get a grade 4 now in Maths it does not mean that at all. One of the questions we ask at interview for Apprenticeships is what is 11 x 12. A blank look is normally the answer, and we only interview those with Grade 4 or better in maths.
I suspect that I agree with that post, although I am always wary of the times table test. I have a maths degree but have never learnt my times tables. Seemed pointless to me so didn't do it. It means I can't give an instant answer, but one a second or two later. I would rather see someone work it out quickly than have learnt it by rote, because you then know they can cope with stuff they haven't memorised. Still they should be able to do 11 x 12 pretty quickly and a non answer is not a good sign for the future.
Just remember darts players who can do the calculations quickly aren't mathematicians, they just play darts a lot.
Maybe a 'fact' to give HYUFD when he comes up with his next assumption from a statistic.
I have to laugh at @bigjohnowls obsessive hatred for serkeir. As if Keir is the problem and that all Labour need to do is remove him and all their problems go away.
Go on then. He announces his resignation at 1pm today. Who is the available candidate who will lead from the front, pronounce the big picture policy agenda that lights up people's imaginations and delivers the killer blow to the evil Tories?
He's already told you. Burnham...oh wait he's unavailable. So Burgon it is then. Job done!
Nobody has been able to tell me why Andy "Red Tory" Burnham would be better than Starmer. "Not Starmer" is not an attribute.
How can the Corbynites even want Burnham, when they were calling him a Tory just a year or two ago? They have fewer principles than the Labour right they accuse of being Tories!
Regardless of one's opinion on the French 'health pass', there's one thing everyone will have to agree on: the effect on vaccination coverage in the country has been absolutely striking.
Really? It looks like a 5% increase in vaccine take up. I suspect that it is hardenening vaccine hesitancy in the 50% who haven't been vaccinated.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think you are right its an issue, but it shouldnt be.
Say nothing/fudge/carry on Boris, are essentially the same, and what we will have for the next decade regardless of the next GE result. EFTA/Membership/New ref are no longer on the table at all.
The difference in UK-EU relations between a Starmer and Johnson one are a matter of tone. Most people who feel strongly about it actually prefer the aggressive bombastic version of fudge we get from Johnson, rather than the pragmatic, quieter version of fudge from Starmer.
Regrettably my cancer has progressed. Am starting a new line of treatment this week & receiving great care from the team at @GSTTnhs. Unwelcome news but keeping upbeat. Cathy & the kids have been amazing & appreciate all the kind messages. Now need space to focus on treatment.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I generally agree with this but the other way is for a right-populist party to show up again and split the brexit vote. Generally right-populists can find something to hit the government with, even if the government is itself pretty right-populist, since the point of populism is things that sound good when you talk about them regardless of how well they work when you do them.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
When the time comes Labour have to propose something more practical than Johnson's deal. It has to be some EEA with or without freedom of movement. Good luck with that SKS!
Even an ardent Remainer like me knows EURef2 and Manifesto rejoining is for the birds.
Yep, the Tory odds currently are a steal. I very openly admit I have no idea why Johnson and co are so popular, but they have cemented in 40% of the vote and that means Labour cannot win. The one hope for those of us who favour a less mendacious, more competent government running the country is that on 40% or so the Tories can lose their overall majority if all the tactical voting winds blow in the right direction. That. though, is highly unlikely.
Let me help you out: you've posted on here more than once that the Tories are prosecuting a "culture war" when they object to left-wing radicalism, which many voters find objectionable.
As Tony Blair said in his New Statesman article in the absence of the centre-left providing their own narrative on this the position of non-Tories is being defined by the radical Left and, as they are remaining silent, people assume the Labour leadership sympathises with them.
You want to win again?
A Labour Government that looked like it was about to win would be coming up with more effective solutions to stopping boats crossing the Channel, (b) extolling a progressive, patriotic and inclusive narrative about British history, and (c) an inspiring Unionist vision for the future that outflanks all nationalisms and identity groups.
That's what you need to do to be a Government in waiting. You don't do it, you won't win.
It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants
US CENTCOM has 6,000 troops in Africa. 20 x more than the UK.
It is France which still has troops in the Sahel protecting against IS and AQ, it is the UK which has sent troops to Mali to tackle extremists.
Any US troops in Africa will be the legacy of previous US administrations and as the Biden administration continues its pattern of withdrawal and isolationism they may not last there long either
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I generally agree with this but the other way is for a right-populist party to show up again and split the brexit vote. Generally right-populists can find something to hit the government with, even if the government is itself pretty right-populist, since the point of populism is things that sound good when you talk about them regardless of how well they work when you do them.
Regrettably my cancer has progressed. Am starting a new line of treatment this week & receiving great care from the team at @GSTTnhs. Unwelcome news but keeping upbeat. Cathy & the kids have been amazing & appreciate all the kind messages. Now need space to focus on treatment.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military and counter terrorism matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants
US CENTCOM has 6,000 troops in Africa. 20 x more than the UK.
It is France which still has troops in the Sahel protecting against IS and AQ, it is the UK which has sent troops to Mali to tackle extremists.
Any US troops in Africa will be the legacy of previous US administrations and as the Biden administration continues its pattern of withdrawal and isolationism they may not last there long either
Macron has shown a degree of wobbliness about France’s commitment in Africa, indicating a drawdown of troops from Operation Barkhane. State of flux in the Sahel, Mali has had two coups in a year and Chad’s president of 30 years was killed in battle in April. Tough to judge whether this is just words by Macron for domestic political consumption, with a mild reallocation rather than hard drawdown of troops, or if he really means it.
It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants
US CENTCOM has 6,000 troops in Africa. 20 x more than the UK.
It is France which still has troops in the Sahel protecting against IS and AQ, it is the UK which has sent troops to Mali to tackle extremists.
Any US troops in Africa will be the legacy of previous US administrations and as the Biden administration continues its pattern of withdrawal and isolationism they may not last there long either
Macron has shown a degree of wobbliness about France’s commitment in Africa, indicating a drawdown of troops from Operation Barkhane. State of flux in the Sahel, Mali has had two coups in a year and Chad’s president of 30 years was killed in battle in April. Tough to judge whether this is just words by Macron for domestic political consumption, with a mild reallocation rather than hard drawdown of troops, or if he really means it.
There will still be 2,500 French troops staying in Sahel under Macron's plan
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I generally agree with this but the other way is for a right-populist party to show up again and split the brexit vote. Generally right-populists can find something to hit the government with, even if the government is itself pretty right-populist, since the point of populism is things that sound good when you talk about them regardless of how well they work when you do them.
Farage to Labour's rescue scenario?
Yup, or if the man himself doesn't want to do it, there must be a lot of would-be-Farages out there. I know it's harder without European Parliament elections but nature abhors a vacuum.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I generally agree with this but the other way is for a right-populist party to show up again and split the brexit vote. Generally right-populists can find something to hit the government with, even if the government is itself pretty right-populist, since the point of populism is things that sound good when you talk about them regardless of how well they work when you do them.
Farage to Labour's rescue scenario?
Yup, or if the man himself doesn't want to do it, there must be a lot of would-be-Farages out there. I know it's harder without European Parliament elections but nature abhors a vacuum.
I think you underestimate just how much harder it is without the European Parliament.
Without dodgy electoral systems designed to boost minor parties, FPTP helps consolidate votes behind big tent platforms.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
When the time comes Labour have to propose something more practical than Johnson's deal. It has to be some EEA with or without freedom of movement. Good luck with that SKS!
Even an ardent Remainer like me knows EURef2 and Manifesto rejoining is for the birds.
If EEA/EFTA without FoM were an option once, now or ever we would not be where we are and neither the Referendum nor Brexit would have occurred.
Labour's difficulty is to have a policy which is: not a unicorn, within the UK government's power, popular with its core vote, popular with the 2 million new votes it needs and differentiates Labour from other parties.
I don't think such a policy exists and as this question isn't going away it will become a bit of an issue (not only for Labour but all parties) as we get cl;oser to election time - which may not of course be all that long.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military and counter terrorism matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
I'm sorry, H, but "Boris driving NATO" is spoiling this post for me. I can't react properly to it.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants
US CENTCOM has 6,000 troops in Africa. 20 x more than the UK.
It is France which still has troops in the Sahel protecting against IS and AQ, it is the UK which has sent troops to Mali to tackle extremists.
Any US troops in Africa will be the legacy of previous US administrations and as the Biden administration continues its pattern of withdrawal and isolationism they may not last there long either
Macron has shown a degree of wobbliness about France’s commitment in Africa, indicating a drawdown of troops from Operation Barkhane. State of flux in the Sahel, Mali has had two coups in a year and Chad’s president of 30 years was killed in battle in April. Tough to judge whether this is just words by Macron for domestic political consumption, with a mild reallocation rather than hard drawdown of troops, or if he really means it.
There will still be 2,500 French troops staying in Sahel under Macron's plan
Indeed but almost all in a non combat role. Interesting as well the noises that the forces that came over the Libyan border which killed Chad’s president may have been backed by Russian money/arms.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
I say ‘possibly’ because I’m aware there’s some dispute as to whether Sydney Barnes was a fast bowler.
But I think Steyn would be just ahead of Malcolm Marshall as the greatest out and out quick. What a bowler he was.
Did he suffer with injuries, I note Ntini & Kallis played just over 9 tests a year whereas Steyn was involved in 6. This looks to be the primary reason he isn't higher up the total wicket chart.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
I say ‘possibly’ because I’m aware there’s some dispute as to whether Sydney Barnes was a fast bowler.
But I think Steyn would be just ahead of Malcolm Marshall as the greatest out and out quick. What a bowler he was.
Did he suffer with injuries, I note Ntini & Kallis played just over 9 tests a year whereas Steyn was involved in 6. This looks to be the primary reason he isn't higher up the total wicket chart.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
I'd say various EU policies can be considered with the one proviso that Free Movement doesn't get into the conversation. That's radioactive and its half-life is more than 5 years.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Vaccines do protect against transmission.
e.g
"the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients; the findings were similar for the two vaccines."
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Pre Delta it looked like the vaccines did prevent spread. Governments are slow and stupid and have still not changed course with the new info in hand.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
They do prevent infection and transmission of the virus. This is proven in multiple studies, across millions of people, in multiple countries.
They prevent infection and transmission less than they prevent serious illness and death.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Vaccines do protect against transmission.
e.g
"the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients; the findings were similar for the two vaccines."
So they seem to reduce the transmissability and infection associated with the virus - but don't actually prevent it. Is this definetly true of the delta variant though?
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
Comments
For example if the Tories and Labour are tied on 37% each and the LD vote is up to 14%, the Tories would still win most seats, on 280 to 271 for Labour and 21 for the LDs absent any Labour gains in Scotland and even if the Tories lost all their last 6 Scottish seats to the SNP
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=37&LAB=37&LIB=14&Reform=2&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23.6&SCOTLAB=19.2&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.3&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/aug/31/afghanistan-womens-cricketers-left-feeling-abandoned-authorities-the-spin
https://twitter.com/jonmillsphoto/status/1432652901088997380
We can help other nations through the Covax program - but jabs procured by the UK should be used for our best advantage.
The JCVI obviously has a fair chunk of bleeding hearts that think the UK is being greedy when it comes to vaccines. They should recuse themselves, it is not the question they are asked.
But yes, they took their fucking time.
If any farmer loses cattle to TB in the area I hope DEFRA send Geronimo’s owner the bill.
To cockwombles.
Go on then. He announces his resignation at 1pm today. Who is the available candidate who will lead from the front, pronounce the big picture policy agenda that lights up people's imaginations and delivers the killer blow to the evil Tories?
"Let's consider the problem 15x14 modulo 11. It reduces to 4x3=1 mod 11.
Now let's use base 19. 15x14=-4x-5=1 mod 19. We have proved that the answer to 15x14 has remainder 1 when divided by either 11 or 19. How does this help?
Apply the Chinese Remainder Theorem, of course! The multiplicative inverse of 11 mod 19 is 7 (you have learned your modular multiplicative inverse tables, I hope?) and similarly the inverse of 19 mod 11 is 7. So it must be the case that
15x14=1x11x7+1x19x7=210 (mod 209).
We have determined the answer up to its remainder on division by 209. Unfortunately, to pin it down more closely requires mathematics that you aren't ready for, so we will have to postpone that to next year.
Class dismissed!"
--AS
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
Your argument seems to be that we shouldn’t care about antibody protection because of the wider immune response. But there’s plenty of people for whom the wider immune response will be only weakly effective at best, and we don’t yet know enough to identify them. So just give fresh antibodies to everyone over 50 now.
Further, the virus is nasty enough and causes loss of economic output even in the non-hospitalised cohort. It is therefore a noble enough goal for everyone to want good antibody protection as we go into winter.
In short, you and I have paid for these doses already. Bloody well let me have it. At least let my elderly parents have it for goodness sake, who stand a reasonably high chance of having a weaker T Cell response on top of waning antibodies.
Govt dropping the ball on this because of the Taliban, and lack of continuity at the Health brief. And because they’re incompetent w@nkers obvs.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
By the Liberal Democrats.
Saving vaccines for people who otherwise can't get them also not purely altruistic, because if you leave more people unvaccinated for longer you give the virus more chances to mutate.
But really, my comment was just taking advantage of Flatlander teeing up but not completing snafu
Watch this space.
Well you complete numpty you could have jabbed kids during the summer.
All that stuff about world beating vaccine rollout could turn out to be a shitshow by the autumn,
Possibly the second greatest fast bowler of all time has retired.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/south-africa-legend-dale-steyn-brings-curtain-down-on-illustrious-career-1275498
I say ‘possibly’ because I’m aware there’s some dispute as to whether Sydney Barnes was a fast bowler.
But I think Steyn would be just ahead of Malcolm Marshall as the greatest out and out quick. What a bowler he was.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Spain 91% would be supportive
United Kingdom 85%
Italy 82%
Denmark 80%
Sweden 77%
Germany 75%
United States 66%
France 57%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1432662671388778499?s=20
Slightly surprised at the France response....
Meanwhile, in that Scandinavia paradise:
Two thirds of Swedes (65%) don’t have any close friend or family member who is LGBTQ+ - the highest proportion among the countries in the survey.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2021/08/31/international-survey-how-supportive-would-britons-
Besides didn't Jamaica's index delta cases come from the UK
Poorer countries are not as well connected as richer ones so have less initial seed.
Besides, this argument is outside the JCVI's remit. If that sort of decision is going to be taken it needs to be at a ministerial level - the Saj.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=40&LAB=35&LIB=15&Reform=2&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23.6&SCOTLAB=19.2&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.3&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1432662678724653060?s=20
Say nothing/fudge (as now)
Efta
EU membership
New referendum
Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on.
Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else
The fifth is no improvement
..the case was continued for a hearing on 4th of October, so that the court can consider a number of preliminary legal issues, including the compatibility of this prosecution with Ms Millar’s human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.
“Since this case is sub judice, Marion Millar will not be making any statements at this time.”.....
Gender-critical feminists such as Ms Millar disagree with those LGBT activists who think gender identity should be prioritised over biological sex in government policy and the law.
The former fear the advance of transgender rights is at the expense of hard-won women’s rights, while the latter see the focus on biological sex as transphobic.
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1432665811999678465?s=20
Wheesht is the answer.
How can the Corbynites even want Burnham, when they were calling him a Tory just a year or two ago? They have fewer principles than the Labour right they accuse of being Tories!
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
Say nothing/fudge/carry on Boris, are essentially the same, and what we will have for the next decade regardless of the next GE result.
EFTA/Membership/New ref are no longer on the table at all.
The difference in UK-EU relations between a Starmer and Johnson one are a matter of tone. Most people who feel strongly about it actually prefer the aggressive bombastic version of fudge we get from Johnson, rather than the pragmatic, quieter version of fudge from Starmer.
https://twitter.com/JBrokenshire/status/1432664230063378445?s=20
Are there any surveys of negative vs positive votes from elections? I suppose that's a difficult question to get answered truthfully.
Even an ardent Remainer like me knows EURef2 and Manifesto rejoining is for the birds.
As Tony Blair said in his New Statesman article in the absence of the centre-left providing their own narrative on this the position of non-Tories is being defined by the radical Left and, as they are remaining silent, people assume the Labour leadership sympathises with them.
You want to win again?
A Labour Government that looked like it was about to win would be coming up with more effective solutions to stopping boats crossing the Channel, (b) extolling a progressive, patriotic and inclusive narrative about British history, and (c) an inspiring Unionist vision for the future that outflanks all nationalisms and identity groups.
That's what you need to do to be a Government in waiting. You don't do it, you won't win.
Simple.
Any US troops in Africa will be the legacy of previous US administrations and as the Biden administration continues its pattern of withdrawal and isolationism they may not last there long either
@BorisJohnson is "away" with his family in the west country.
But says it's *not* a "holiday".
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1432667355516112898?s=20
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
This is us taking our share of refugees.
This is not a holiday.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
Without dodgy electoral systems designed to boost minor parties, FPTP helps consolidate votes behind big tent platforms.
Labour's difficulty is to have a policy which is: not a unicorn, within the UK government's power, popular with its core vote, popular with the 2 million new votes it needs and differentiates Labour from other parties.
I don't think such a policy exists and as this question isn't going away it will become a bit of an issue (not only for Labour but all parties) as we get cl;oser to election time - which may not of course be all that long.
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1OdKrVDPwOXKX
With no ATC the Afghan civil flights which were flying yesterday from Mazar-I-Sharif in the north (KamAir) are no longer flying
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/11/brexit-undoing-some-of-the-damage-part-2-from-principles-to-policies/
(It's slightly out of date now, and more things need to be added, such as recognising CE marks permanently, but the principles are sound I think).
Right up your ulitsa. You should fucking love them.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
e.g
"the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients; the findings were similar for the two vaccines."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717
Lab is finished under SKS.
Get KotN a seat get him as leader
Then they can stop the decline
They prevent infection and transmission less than they prevent serious illness and death.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.