Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

YouGov MRP poll in “red wall” seats finds CON to LAB swing of 4.5% – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 4 in General
imageYouGov MRP poll in “red wall” seats finds CON to LAB swing of 4.5% – politicalbetting.com

We have now got the first YouGov MRP polling of this parliament which focuses on the so called “Red Wall” seats which were the foundation of BoJo’s big victory at GE2019. This is from the YouGov report:

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Aslan said:

    FF43 said:

    isam said:

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed just now:


    'In a separate interview, Nick Allen, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told Sky News that while the government criticised producers for paying low wages, it was happy for meat to be imported from countries that paid low wages. He said:

    "What’s interesting is [the government is] happy to ban the import of non-UK labour in this country, but they continue to actually aid and abet imported food from countries that have got access to this labour.

    At the end of the day someone has to pay for these increased wages and they somewhat get in the way of that by aiding and abetting imported food."'

    Is this person arguing in favour of the UK being self-sufficient in food?
    The key question is whether UKG is in favour of self sufficiency in food. Their actions suggest otherwise, as they prioritise imports over home production. Which is what this person is saying.
    I don't think it's remotely possible for the UK to be self sufficient in food. It's not a question of what anyone is in favour of, it's a question of reality.
    OK. To reiterate my point. UKG by its actions is making the UK less sufficient in food by prioritising imports over home production.
    Why is that a bad thing?

    Was it a bad thing we were less sufficient in coal?
    It isn't necessarily a bad thing if you believe immigration is bad per se, and less important than maintaining home industries. But the consequence of restricting the means to profitably produce food at market prices, while you don't restrict imports of competitor products, is to see imports replace home production.
    I don't think immigration is bad whatsoever. I support as much high-skilled, high-wage immigration as possible.

    I think immigration for minimum wage jobs, deflating our economy and driving up costs combined with giving those who come here for minimum wages jobs housing benefit, universal credit etc because minimum wage isn't enough to live in this nation is bad. Don't you?
    I don't think this, no. Because it ignores market reality. Not an expert, but I don't think slaughtermen were working at minimum wage under FoM anyway.
    Actually they were. We had job details being shared here saying that night shifts in an abattoir in South East England were being paid £9.12 per hour.

    Do you think its feasible or productive to be working for £9.12 per hour for overnight shifts in South East England? Or to be frank anywhere in the UK.
    Glassdoor has average slaughtermen salaries at £31 000, which is about twice minimum wage. I'm sure when you drill down there are big variations. But those apparently reasonably paid jobs will go if we import the products instead, thanks to the government immigration and trade policies.
    No they won't, if they're productive they'll stay.

    What will go is the £9.12 per hour jobs being advertised.

    Do you think its acceptable to expect a night shift job for difficult work to be filled for £9.12 per hour?
    Glassdoor really isn't accurate when looking at wages for UK jobs...
    I agree, but at least a proportion of people will be paid that. £9 an hour isn't the average salary either. The market forces principle still applies, regardless of what the actual average salary is.
    The £9.12ph jobs are now £10.57ph
    Yeah but not all jobs are at that rate. The more skilled jobs get paid higher and is the way of the world, those jobs are more likely to be indigenous workers. Abbatoirs will be looking at their wage bill in the round. If the average wage is uncompetitive, all those jobs will go, including the higher paid ones.
    That's not true. Some abattoirs will go under, others will increase automation/management practices for the basic tasks, and survive. The idea that we should maintain low wage work for the sake of protecting slightly higher paid jobs is a curious one for the left. It never applies to arguments over the minimum wage strangely.
    We don't have enough abattoirs at present even without closures. They're too thinly scattered as it is.
    Agreed.

    There's a big opportunity for some farm based or even mobile abbatoirs.

    Requires us to diverge from some EU regulations, which should imo be a suitable opportunity for this.
    FPT (b ut metaphorically topical for RW Tory MPs?)

    The Rare Breeds Survival Trust have been fretting about abattoir availability for quite some time now. I forget the details. But it is a real problem for some rare breeds, high quality premium food producers, who exemplify the kind of industry we should be encoiuraging (and I can at least afford to do so with my own pocket and patronage).
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,114
    That Green figure looks like one to watch. 1% -> 7% is either a flash in the pan or evidence of a seismic shift in some sections of voters. Suspect the former.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,836
    Leaflet being handed out by the organisers, blaming a combination of Covid, Brexit and government policy. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1444992453635870725/photo/1
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839
    Farooq said:

    That Green figure looks like one to watch. 1% -> 7% is either a flash in the pan or evidence of a seismic shift in some sections of voters. Suspect the former.

    And if you think about it a Green vote is likely a protest Labour vote that will return to Labour when stood in the booth with Labour having a chance of winning.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 43,684
    Duncan Weldon
    @DuncanWeldon
    ·
    5h
    Feels like an, erm, “brave” call for the government to go so big on wages as a political dividing line given the short term inflation outlook.
    Hard not to see real wages falling in the months ahead.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,018
    Hopefully for Labour's sake it performs better than their 2019 MRP - Note Labour ended below the lower bound of outcomes.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    Con 339 {311 - 369} 365
    Lab 231 {206 - 256} 202
    SNP 41 {24 - 55} 48
    LD 15 {11 - 22} 11
    PC 4 {2 - 5} 4
    Green 1 {1 - 1} 1
    Other 1 {1 - 2} 0 ? 1 ? Chorley ?
    BXP 0 {0 - 1} 0
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,683
    Farooq said:

    That Green figure looks like one to watch. 1% -> 7% is either a flash in the pan or evidence of a seismic shift in some sections of voters. Suspect the former.

    Most credible explanation is Tory losing some of its new voters back to Labour at the same time as Labour losing some of its left supporters to the Greens
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839
    edited October 4
    Scott_xP said:

    Leaflet being handed out by the organisers, blaming a combination of Covid, Brexit and government policy. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1444992453635870725/photo/1

    image

    Sorry but that first box makes little sense - what has the second half of the paragraph have to do with anything as all EU meat will be arriving after slaughter - I don't think we have live imports (I'm sure @NickPalmer will know).
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,981
    edited October 4
    Mid-term polls and leader approval ratings are uncorrelated with subsequent general election outcomes.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,114
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leaflet being handed out by the organisers, blaming a combination of Covid, Brexit and government policy. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1444992453635870725/photo/1

    image

    Sorry but that first box makes little sense - what has the second half of the paragraph have to do with anything as all EU meat will be arriving after slaughter - I don't think we have live imports (I'm sure @NickPalmer will know).
    Is it that carcasses are arriving but still need to be butchered? Slaughter and butchering don't have to happen in the same place.
  • Saw new Bond yesterday.

    I have to say the dialogue I thought was absolutely horrendous, the worst of the Craig era for that. So clunky and just didn't flow at all. Flat delivery of the lines also did not help.

    Still not the worst Craig film, that still goes to QoS for me.

    I watched Casino Royale last night, that film is a 10/10 to this day, it's so much better than anything that came after it. I feel like it promised something that the films after never were quite able to match.

    I hope they reboot it and bring it back to Casino Royale's gritty realism.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 43,684
    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    The MRP would see Starmer regain some seats Corbyn lost in 2019 but still as the chart shows fail to recover all the Labour seats Corbyn held in 2017. So Labour needs to do much better in the redwall to even win most seats let alone a majority.

    However as OGH states if the LDs pick up say 20 Tory seats in the South and the SNP gain most of the remaining 6 Tory seats in Scotland then even just 40 Labour gains could make Starmer PM in a hung parliament even if the Tories still win most seats
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,981
    edited October 4

    Saw new Bond yesterday.

    I have to say the dialogue I thought was absolutely horrendous, the worst of the Craig era for that. So clunky and just didn't flow at all. Flat delivery of the lines also did not help.

    Still not the worst Craig film, that still goes to QoS for me.

    I watched Casino Royale last night, that film is a 10/10 to this day, it's so much better than anything that came after it. I feel like it promised something that the films after never were quite able to match.

    I hope they reboot it and bring it back to Casino Royale's gritty realism.

    The book is good too if you haven't read it.

    A very light and easy read. Exactly as a thriller should be.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    Pulpstar said:

    Hopefully for Labour's sake it performs better than their 2019 MRP - Note Labour ended below the lower bound of outcomes.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    Con 339 {311 - 369} 365
    Lab 231 {206 - 256} 202
    SNP 41 {24 - 55} 48
    LD 15 {11 - 22} 11
    PC 4 {2 - 5} 4
    Green 1 {1 - 1} 1
    Other 1 {1 - 2} 0 ? 1 ? Chorley ?
    BXP 0 {0 - 1} 0

    SNP 24? I know it was the low end but blimey.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,485
    Farooq said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leaflet being handed out by the organisers, blaming a combination of Covid, Brexit and government policy. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1444992453635870725/photo/1

    image

    Sorry but that first box makes little sense - what has the second half of the paragraph have to do with anything as all EU meat will be arriving after slaughter - I don't think we have live imports (I'm sure @NickPalmer will know).
    Is it that carcasses are arriving but still need to be butchered? Slaughter and butchering don't have to happen in the same place.
    Indeed. They seem to be saying they are short of butchers, not slaughterers.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 700
    IanB2 said:

    Farooq said:

    That Green figure looks like one to watch. 1% -> 7% is either a flash in the pan or evidence of a seismic shift in some sections of voters. Suspect the former.

    Most credible explanation is Tory losing some of its new voters back to Labour at the same time as Labour losing some of its left supporters to the Greens
    They'll lose some, but 6 percentage points in a GE? There are reasons to think that's unlikely. Firstly, look at Hartlepool - the explicit "Keir's not my real dad, Jeremy is" NIP polled in the 100s. In the 2019 GE, the other way, Labour quite effectively squeezed a portion of its anti-Corbyn/anti-Brexit defectors, and Labour is fairly likely to have quite an obviously green pitch in any election - not least to outdo the Tories there. Unless you are so full of hatred at Corbyn's defenestration you'll happily usher in a Tory government again, then you're probably open to falling back in the Lab camp. There are some people like that, but not very many. Of course some may just be protest voters, but again, Lab will think there's reason to think there's some votes to be squeezed there in a GE.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,114
    MJW said:

    IanB2 said:

    Farooq said:

    That Green figure looks like one to watch. 1% -> 7% is either a flash in the pan or evidence of a seismic shift in some sections of voters. Suspect the former.

    Most credible explanation is Tory losing some of its new voters back to Labour at the same time as Labour losing some of its left supporters to the Greens
    They'll lose some, but 6 percentage points in a GE? There are reasons to think that's unlikely. Firstly, look at Hartlepool - the explicit "Keir's not my real dad, Jeremy is" NIP polled in the 100s. In the 2019 GE, the other way, Labour quite effectively squeezed a portion of its anti-Corbyn/anti-Brexit defectors, and Labour is fairly likely to have quite an obviously green pitch in any election - not least to outdo the Tories there. Unless you are so full of hatred at Corbyn's defenestration you'll happily usher in a Tory government again, then you're probably open to falling back in the Lab camp. There are some people like that, but not very many. Of course some may just be protest voters, but again, Lab will think there's reason to think there's some votes to be squeezed there in a GE.
    I wouldn't be surprised if some 2019 Conservative voters are also in that Green 7%.
    "I don't want new houses built in my village, and I've had enough of that filthy piece of toerag, Boris"
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,485
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Aslan said:

    FF43 said:

    isam said:

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed just now:


    'In a separate interview, Nick Allen, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told Sky News that while the government criticised producers for paying low wages, it was happy for meat to be imported from countries that paid low wages. He said:

    "What’s interesting is [the government is] happy to ban the import of non-UK labour in this country, but they continue to actually aid and abet imported food from countries that have got access to this labour.

    At the end of the day someone has to pay for these increased wages and they somewhat get in the way of that by aiding and abetting imported food."'

    Is this person arguing in favour of the UK being self-sufficient in food?
    The key question is whether UKG is in favour of self sufficiency in food. Their actions suggest otherwise, as they prioritise imports over home production. Which is what this person is saying.
    I don't think it's remotely possible for the UK to be self sufficient in food. It's not a question of what anyone is in favour of, it's a question of reality.
    OK. To reiterate my point. UKG by its actions is making the UK less sufficient in food by prioritising imports over home production.
    Why is that a bad thing?

    Was it a bad thing we were less sufficient in coal?
    It isn't necessarily a bad thing if you believe immigration is bad per se, and less important than maintaining home industries. But the consequence of restricting the means to profitably produce food at market prices, while you don't restrict imports of competitor products, is to see imports replace home production.
    I don't think immigration is bad whatsoever. I support as much high-skilled, high-wage immigration as possible.

    I think immigration for minimum wage jobs, deflating our economy and driving up costs combined with giving those who come here for minimum wages jobs housing benefit, universal credit etc because minimum wage isn't enough to live in this nation is bad. Don't you?
    I don't think this, no. Because it ignores market reality. Not an expert, but I don't think slaughtermen were working at minimum wage under FoM anyway.
    Actually they were. We had job details being shared here saying that night shifts in an abattoir in South East England were being paid £9.12 per hour.

    Do you think its feasible or productive to be working for £9.12 per hour for overnight shifts in South East England? Or to be frank anywhere in the UK.
    Glassdoor has average slaughtermen salaries at £31 000, which is about twice minimum wage. I'm sure when you drill down there are big variations. But those apparently reasonably paid jobs will go if we import the products instead, thanks to the government immigration and trade policies.
    No they won't, if they're productive they'll stay.

    What will go is the £9.12 per hour jobs being advertised.

    Do you think its acceptable to expect a night shift job for difficult work to be filled for £9.12 per hour?
    Glassdoor really isn't accurate when looking at wages for UK jobs...
    I agree, but at least a proportion of people will be paid that. £9 an hour isn't the average salary either. The market forces principle still applies, regardless of what the actual average salary is.
    The £9.12ph jobs are now £10.57ph
    Yeah but not all jobs are at that rate. The more skilled jobs get paid higher and is the way of the world, those jobs are more likely to be indigenous workers. Abbatoirs will be looking at their wage bill in the round. If the average wage is uncompetitive, all those jobs will go, including the higher paid ones.
    That's not true. Some abattoirs will go under, others will increase automation/management practices for the basic tasks, and survive. The idea that we should maintain low wage work for the sake of protecting slightly higher paid jobs is a curious one for the left. It never applies to arguments over the minimum wage strangely.
    We don't have enough abattoirs at present even without closures. They're too thinly scattered as it is.
    Agreed.

    There's a big opportunity for some farm based or even mobile abbatoirs.

    Requires us to diverge from some EU regulations, which should imo be a suitable opportunity for this.
    FPT (b ut metaphorically topical for RW Tory MPs?)

    The Rare Breeds Survival Trust have been fretting about abattoir availability for quite some time now. I forget the details. But it is a real problem for some rare breeds, high quality premium food producers, who exemplify the kind of industry we should be encoiuraging (and I can at least afford to do so with my own pocket and patronage).
    As I understand it, small local slaughterhouses, often attached to a butchers', have been closing for some time. This means the animal has to travel further for slaughter and it is a problem for the smaller producer who finds big commercial slaughterhouses aren't interested. Speaking with some experience as I once had a share in a pair of Oxford sandy and blacks and we had neglected to realise how long in advance we had to book them in.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,694

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,018
    edited October 4
    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Aslan said:

    FF43 said:

    isam said:

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed just now:


    'In a separate interview, Nick Allen, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told Sky News that while the government criticised producers for paying low wages, it was happy for meat to be imported from countries that paid low wages. He said:

    "What’s interesting is [the government is] happy to ban the import of non-UK labour in this country, but they continue to actually aid and abet imported food from countries that have got access to this labour.

    At the end of the day someone has to pay for these increased wages and they somewhat get in the way of that by aiding and abetting imported food."'

    Is this person arguing in favour of the UK being self-sufficient in food?
    The key question is whether UKG is in favour of self sufficiency in food. Their actions suggest otherwise, as they prioritise imports over home production. Which is what this person is saying.
    I don't think it's remotely possible for the UK to be self sufficient in food. It's not a question of what anyone is in favour of, it's a question of reality.
    OK. To reiterate my point. UKG by its actions is making the UK less sufficient in food by prioritising imports over home production.
    Why is that a bad thing?

    Was it a bad thing we were less sufficient in coal?
    It isn't necessarily a bad thing if you believe immigration is bad per se, and less important than maintaining home industries. But the consequence of restricting the means to profitably produce food at market prices, while you don't restrict imports of competitor products, is to see imports replace home production.
    I don't think immigration is bad whatsoever. I support as much high-skilled, high-wage immigration as possible.

    I think immigration for minimum wage jobs, deflating our economy and driving up costs combined with giving those who come here for minimum wages jobs housing benefit, universal credit etc because minimum wage isn't enough to live in this nation is bad. Don't you?
    I don't think this, no. Because it ignores market reality. Not an expert, but I don't think slaughtermen were working at minimum wage under FoM anyway.
    Actually they were. We had job details being shared here saying that night shifts in an abattoir in South East England were being paid £9.12 per hour.

    Do you think its feasible or productive to be working for £9.12 per hour for overnight shifts in South East England? Or to be frank anywhere in the UK.
    Glassdoor has average slaughtermen salaries at £31 000, which is about twice minimum wage. I'm sure when you drill down there are big variations. But those apparently reasonably paid jobs will go if we import the products instead, thanks to the government immigration and trade policies.
    No they won't, if they're productive they'll stay.

    What will go is the £9.12 per hour jobs being advertised.

    Do you think its acceptable to expect a night shift job for difficult work to be filled for £9.12 per hour?
    Glassdoor really isn't accurate when looking at wages for UK jobs...
    I agree, but at least a proportion of people will be paid that. £9 an hour isn't the average salary either. The market forces principle still applies, regardless of what the actual average salary is.
    The £9.12ph jobs are now £10.57ph
    Yeah but not all jobs are at that rate. The more skilled jobs get paid higher and is the way of the world, those jobs are more likely to be indigenous workers. Abbatoirs will be looking at their wage bill in the round. If the average wage is uncompetitive, all those jobs will go, including the higher paid ones.
    That's not true. Some abattoirs will go under, others will increase automation/management practices for the basic tasks, and survive. The idea that we should maintain low wage work for the sake of protecting slightly higher paid jobs is a curious one for the left. It never applies to arguments over the minimum wage strangely.
    We don't have enough abattoirs at present even without closures. They're too thinly scattered as it is.
    Agreed.

    There's a big opportunity for some farm based or even mobile abbatoirs.

    Requires us to diverge from some EU regulations, which should imo be a suitable opportunity for this.
    FPT (b ut metaphorically topical for RW Tory MPs?)

    The Rare Breeds Survival Trust have been fretting about abattoir availability for quite some time now. I forget the details. But it is a real problem for some rare breeds, high quality premium food producers, who exemplify the kind of industry we should be encoiuraging (and I can at least afford to do so with my own pocket and patronage).
    As I understand it, small local slaughterhouses, often attached to a butchers', have been closing for some time. This means the animal has to travel further for slaughter and it is a problem for the smaller producer who finds big commercial slaughterhouses aren't interested. Speaking with some experience as I once had a share in a pair of Oxford sandy and blacks and we had neglected to realise how long in advance we had to book them in.
    I hope the pork tasted good when you finally got it.

    BTW pics if anyone doesn't know what they look like -

    https://oxfordsandypigs.co.uk/our-history/
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,102

    Duncan Weldon
    @DuncanWeldon
    ·
    5h
    Feels like an, erm, “brave” call for the government to go so big on wages as a political dividing line given the short term inflation outlook.
    Hard not to see real wages falling in the months ahead.

    I can definitely see inflation being a thing again in the near future. Boris has essentially given firms cover for passing all manner of price increases onto the consumer, whether they actually need to or not - their excuse now is that they're just doing their bit for the new reality of having a high-wage economy. But the spurious price rises will vastly outweigh those required to fund non-immigrant workers. This could get messy.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,475
    HYUFD said:

    The MRP would see Starmer regain some seats Corbyn lost in 2019 but still as the chart shows fail to recover all the Labour seats Corbyn held in 2017. So Labour needs to do much better in the redwall to even win most seats let alone a majority.

    However as OGH states if the LDs pick up say 20 Tory seats in the South and the SNP gain most of the remaining 6 Tory seats in Scotland then even just 40 Labour gains could make Starmer PM in a hung parliament even if the Tories still win most seats

    This doesn't take into account the boundary changes that will probably give the Tories 10 to 15 extra seats.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,731
    malcolmg said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed just now:


    'In a separate interview, Nick Allen, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told Sky News that while the government criticised producers for paying low wages, it was happy for meat to be imported from countries that paid low wages. He said:

    "What’s interesting is [the government is] happy to ban the import of non-UK labour in this country, but they continue to actually aid and abet imported food from countries that have got access to this labour.

    At the end of the day someone has to pay for these increased wages and they somewhat get in the way of that by aiding and abetting imported food."'

    Is this person arguing in favour of the UK being self-sufficient in food?
    The key question is whether UKG is in favour of self sufficiency in food. Their actions suggest otherwise, as they prioritise imports over home production. Which is what this person is saying.
    I don't think it's remotely possible for the UK to be self sufficient in food. It's not a question of what anyone is in favour of, it's a question of reality.
    OK. To reiterate my point. UKG by its actions is making the UK less sufficient in food by prioritising imports over home production.
    Why is that a bad thing?

    Was it a bad thing we were less sufficient in coal?
    It isn't necessarily a bad thing if you believe immigration is bad per se, and less important than maintaining home industries. But the consequence of restricting the means to profitably produce food at market prices, while you don't restrict imports of competitor products, is to see imports replace home production.
    I don't think immigration is bad whatsoever. I support as much high-skilled, high-wage immigration as possible.

    I think immigration for minimum wage jobs, deflating our economy and driving up costs combined with giving those who come here for minimum wages jobs housing benefit, universal credit etc because minimum wage isn't enough to live in this nation is bad. Don't you?
    I don't think this, no. Because it ignores market reality. Not an expert, but I don't think slaughtermen were working at minimum wage under FoM anyway.
    Actually they were. We had job details being shared here saying that night shifts in an abattoir in South East England were being paid £9.12 per hour.

    Do you think its feasible or productive to be working for £9.12 per hour for overnight shifts in South East England? Or to be frank anywhere in the UK.
    Glassdoor has average slaughtermen salaries at £31 000, which is about twice minimum wage. I'm sure when you drill down there are big variations. But those apparently reasonably paid jobs will go if we import the products instead, thanks to the government immigration and trade policies.
    No they won't, if they're productive they'll stay.

    What will go is the £9.12 per hour jobs being advertised.

    Do you think its acceptable to expect a night shift job for difficult work to be filled for £9.12 per hour?
    Are you really as stupid as you make out. You actually think they will keep the ones on £30K + and bag the £9 an hour ones. FFS how can anyone be so thick.
    If they wish to stay trading then yes absolutely they will need to pay a decent wage.

    If they can't trade without paying £9 per hour for a night shift and since it is you I'm responding to ...
    image
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed just now:


    'In a separate interview, Nick Allen, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told Sky News that while the government criticised producers for paying low wages, it was happy for meat to be imported from countries that paid low wages. He said:

    "What’s interesting is [the government is] happy to ban the import of non-UK labour in this country, but they continue to actually aid and abet imported food from countries that have got access to this labour.

    At the end of the day someone has to pay for these increased wages and they somewhat get in the way of that by aiding and abetting imported food."'

    The revealing bit of that Boris interview was what he said about this being a transition. We are about to destructively test the drive of the last 20 years where consumers actively choose British products. Frankly a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign is the obvious thing missing from the government's strategy - why aren't they doing so?

    Instead we are going to see our stuff get a lot more expensive, making imports more appealing than ever. People want to buy local but if they can't because it costs too much then the choice of import vs nothing will push import for many.

    Which will literally fuck farming to death. Philip and some free market ideologues may welcome this, most people won't. The government will try and blame farmers until as with all the other "lets blame industry" attempts the actual numbers get published and the minister is shown up to be an absolute spanner. At which point the government caves in.
    Exactly, I can't work out if the government are autarkists (like Germany in 1930s) or free range marketeers (like the UK in the C19 and early C20, which wrecked farming also).
    Why the heck should the government get involved in a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign? How is that the government's responsibility? Advertising and marketing is not the government's responsibility, that's not what we pay our taxes for.

    Buying British when its economically competitive so why not buy British is easy to do. Buying British when it costs a premium ... that's actually then up to the consumers to make their choice.

    If British farming gets fucked to death, then quite frankly I don't see why we should care - any more than when British mining got fucked to death. How are farmers any different to miners?

    Farming takes up 70% of this countries land, but agriculture represents 0.59% of GDP. I'm not sure if that includes the 0.1% of GDP that the fisheries represent.

    If we import more, we import more, but what we should not be importing is slaves serfs peasants minimum wage employees.
    That's what the Tories and free market liberals said until the Great War. Which the UK very nearly lost if the Germans hadn't been so pusillanimous with the U-boats.

    Amazing the Brexiters love to go on about Spitfires but forget the Battle of the Atlantic.

    Yes and the liberals were right then and even more right now.

    We didn't lose the war and we're not at any real risk in the 21st century of being blockaded so get real. We are a wealthy nation, especially if we stop deflating our economy by importing from the third world, or dedicating 70% of land to 0.49% of GDP.

    We spent decades relying upon imported coal for our electricity and we didn't get impoverished as a nation or blockaded by U-Boats when that happened. Special pleading by vested interests should be treated with the same amount of respect as the NUM got in the 80s.
    Plenty of hostages to fortune there.
    Why was it OK to import coal for our electricity but not import meat?

    In the modern world electricity is just as important as food.
    Miners voted Labour.

    Farmers vote Conservative. And put bloody big signs in their fields during election campaigns.
    I think PT has forgotten the Tory Party was the party who introduced the Corn Laws in 1815.

    Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of the Whigs. Most of his party still backed them and so his fellow free trading Peelites who were a minority in the Tory party ended up forming the Liberal party with the Whigs and Radicals in the 1850s
    The Tories implemented them, and the Conservatives repealed them. The old Tory party you back is dead, it died in the 19th century.

    I would be a Whig if we had Tory v Whig old-school. But the Conservatives absorbed a lot of the old Whig thinking.
    No the Conservatives did not repeal them.

    Most Tory MPs voted against repealing the Corn Laws, as I said Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of Whig MPs.

    Brexit has revived the protectionist Tory party in terms of the party's core vote. Many middle class professional, pro free trade Remainers who voted for Cameron are now voting LD or Starmer Labour. Most protectionist working class UKIP voters from 2015 are now voting Conservative
    Some very interesting content in this series of posts, which has got me thinking more about the journey the conservatives have been on.

    Yesterday you made some - seemingly tongue in cheek - remarks along the lines of ladies cycling to holy communion, farms shops and so on. There is a rich and long established mercantilist, anti-free trade tradition in the Tory party dating back to the corn laws and beyond. This is the traditional ideology of the landed class on which the party was based. Some of the rhetoric now (possibly accidentally) coming from ministers could arguably look like a return to the old roots. This would make the politics our version of Gaullism - protect the domestic producers, don't be shy of red tape, and encourage a society of artisan production, with state control over heavy industry.

    At the same time other forces are at work in the party too. The populism that sees the EU as the enemy (e.g. Truss neglecting even to mention the bloc among the UK's allies), rails against the urban elites and seeks out a bonfire of regulations. That's a different tradition - to keep with the French theme it's what they would call Poujadisme - the politics of Pierre Poujade. Its British archetype is the White Van Man. That + a hint of cronyism and we're also in the world of Berlusconi. This is a very different tradition from the old Tory one above.

    Both of these share one thing in common though which is the protection of the small producer - the artisan, the yeoman farmer, the tradesman - and the skilled manual employee. The trouble is, as people have noted, for this to work for the client group it represents you need protection from both imported labour and imported goods, otherwise the latter will undercut domestic production. At the moment we have one and not the other and that feels inherently unstable. Either you go the free trade route and keep labour on tap, or you go properly protectionist.

    There is one magic bullet that would resolve the conundrum, which is automation and technological innovation. Then you see wage growth and margin growth while costs remain competitive. I'm just not sure where and how that will come about here, but we do desperately need it and for that we need major catch up capital investment by business.
    Personally I consider myself a British Gaullist to some extent. Trump combined some elements of Gaullist economics with Poujadist populism. That is now largely the conservative coalition in much of the western world.

    Automation is effective if it keeps down costs without rising unemployment.

    Andrew Neil talking about the new Tory coalition on BBC2 now
    No true Tory/Brit would ever compare themselves to any French person, least of all De Gaulle.
    Some of my ancestors were French Huguenots, I am a little bit French genetically
    After 40 generations, statistically any one ancestor represents 1 trillionth of your DNA. Which is to say, nil.
    FPT but I have to point out that that is so unfair to HYUFD - we're not talking about the Norman Conquest but French Protestants in the early modern era

    1. For him a generation is 50 years
    2. Epping, so probably a Spitalfields Huguenot - who came over here in 1570s or 1680s.

    So let's say he's 21 and that gives us 6-8 generations = 1/2exp8 = 3.9 x 10exp-3 at worst = 0.4% say

    That also assumes no endogamy within the Huguenot community, but there was in fact, so that could easily be doubled or quadrupled.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,074
    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed just now:


    'In a separate interview, Nick Allen, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told Sky News that while the government criticised producers for paying low wages, it was happy for meat to be imported from countries that paid low wages. He said:

    "What’s interesting is [the government is] happy to ban the import of non-UK labour in this country, but they continue to actually aid and abet imported food from countries that have got access to this labour.

    At the end of the day someone has to pay for these increased wages and they somewhat get in the way of that by aiding and abetting imported food."'

    The revealing bit of that Boris interview was what he said about this being a transition. We are about to destructively test the drive of the last 20 years where consumers actively choose British products. Frankly a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign is the obvious thing missing from the government's strategy - why aren't they doing so?

    Instead we are going to see our stuff get a lot more expensive, making imports more appealing than ever. People want to buy local but if they can't because it costs too much then the choice of import vs nothing will push import for many.

    Which will literally fuck farming to death. Philip and some free market ideologues may welcome this, most people won't. The government will try and blame farmers until as with all the other "lets blame industry" attempts the actual numbers get published and the minister is shown up to be an absolute spanner. At which point the government caves in.
    Exactly, I can't work out if the government are autarkists (like Germany in 1930s) or free range marketeers (like the UK in the C19 and early C20, which wrecked farming also).
    Why the heck should the government get involved in a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign? How is that the government's responsibility? Advertising and marketing is not the government's responsibility, that's not what we pay our taxes for.

    Buying British when its economically competitive so why not buy British is easy to do. Buying British when it costs a premium ... that's actually then up to the consumers to make their choice.

    If British farming gets fucked to death, then quite frankly I don't see why we should care - any more than when British mining got fucked to death. How are farmers any different to miners?

    Farming takes up 70% of this countries land, but agriculture represents 0.59% of GDP. I'm not sure if that includes the 0.1% of GDP that the fisheries represent.

    If we import more, we import more, but what we should not be importing is slaves serfs peasants minimum wage employees.
    That's what the Tories and free market liberals said until the Great War. Which the UK very nearly lost if the Germans hadn't been so pusillanimous with the U-boats.

    Amazing the Brexiters love to go on about Spitfires but forget the Battle of the Atlantic.

    Yes and the liberals were right then and even more right now.

    We didn't lose the war and we're not at any real risk in the 21st century of being blockaded so get real. We are a wealthy nation, especially if we stop deflating our economy by importing from the third world, or dedicating 70% of land to 0.49% of GDP.

    We spent decades relying upon imported coal for our electricity and we didn't get impoverished as a nation or blockaded by U-Boats when that happened. Special pleading by vested interests should be treated with the same amount of respect as the NUM got in the 80s.
    Plenty of hostages to fortune there.
    Why was it OK to import coal for our electricity but not import meat?

    In the modern world electricity is just as important as food.
    Miners voted Labour.

    Farmers vote Conservative. And put bloody big signs in their fields during election campaigns.
    I think PT has forgotten the Tory Party was the party who introduced the Corn Laws in 1815.

    Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of the Whigs. Most of his party still backed them and so his fellow free trading Peelites who were a minority in the Tory party ended up forming the Liberal party with the Whigs and Radicals in the 1850s
    The Tories implemented them, and the Conservatives repealed them. The old Tory party you back is dead, it died in the 19th century.

    I would be a Whig if we had Tory v Whig old-school. But the Conservatives absorbed a lot of the old Whig thinking.
    The populism that sees the EU as the enemy (e.g. Truss neglecting even to mention the bloc among the UK's allies),
    That seems a strange comment.

    The President of the European Commission herself, Ursula von der Leyen, is of the opinion that we are not amongst the EU's closest allies.

    This is the relevant section from her "State of the EU 2021" speech, made on 15/9/2021.

    https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/soteu_2021_address_en_0.pdf
    Honourable Members,
    In a more contested world, protecting your interests is not only about defending yourself.
    It is about forging strong and reliable partnerships. This is not a luxury – it is essential for
    our future stability, security and prosperity.
    This work starts by deepening our partnership with our closest allies.
    With the US we will develop our new agenda for global change – from the new Trade and
    Technology Council to health security and sustainability.
    The EU and the US will always be stronger – together.
    The same is true of our neighbours in the Western Balkans.
    Before the end of the month, I will travel to the region to send a strong signal of our
    commitment to the accession process. We owe it to all those young people who
    believe in a European future.
    This is why we are ramping up our support through our new investment and economic plan,
    worth around a third of the region’s GDP. Because an investment in the future of the
    Western Balkans is an investment in the future of the EU.
    And we will also continue investing in our partnerships across our neighbourhood – from
    stepping up our engagement in the Eastern Partnership to implementing the new Agenda
    for the Mediterranean and continuing to work on the different aspects of our relationship
    with Turkey.


    Note that this is not part of the French submarine tantrum, and Brussels cutting its nose off in support, as AUKUS was announced on the 16/9/2021.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,209
    edited October 4
    Latest Baxter prediction:

    Con 335
    Lab 230
    SNP 55
    DUP 8
    SF 7
    LD 7
    PC 4
    SDLP 2
    All 1
    Grn 1

    Conservative majority of 20

    Also… New Welsh Boundaries 2023: “Electoral Calculus has completed our analysis of these proposed new seats, including predictions, maps and key demographic and political indicators for each one.”

    Lab -4
    Con -2
    PC -2
    Wales -8

    Dreadful for Plaid Cymru. Down 50%.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/bdy2023_wales_summary.html

    “Please note that initial proposals for Scotland and Northern Ireland have not been published yet.”
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819

    Latest Baxter prediction:

    Con 335
    Lab 230
    SNP 55
    DUP 8
    SF 7
    LD 7
    PC 4
    SDLP 2
    All 1
    Grn 1

    Conservative majority of 20

    Also… New Welsh Boundaries 2023: “Electoral Calculus has completed our analysis of these proposed new seats, including predictions, maps and key demographic and political indicators for each one.”

    Lab -4
    Con -2
    PC -2
    Wales -8

    Dreadful for Plaid Cymru. Down 50%.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/bdy2023_wales_summary.html

    “Please note that initial proposals for Scotland and Northern Ireland have not been published yet.”

    Not sure the Tories will be delighted with net 2 on Labour either when they first contemplated a cut of 8.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    edited October 4
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    The MRP would see Starmer regain some seats Corbyn lost in 2019 but still as the chart shows fail to recover all the Labour seats Corbyn held in 2017. So Labour needs to do much better in the redwall to even win most seats let alone a majority.

    However as OGH states if the LDs pick up say 20 Tory seats in the South and the SNP gain most of the remaining 6 Tory seats in Scotland then even just 40 Labour gains could make Starmer PM in a hung parliament even if the Tories still win most seats

    This doesn't take into account the boundary changes that will probably give the Tories 10 to 15 extra seats.
    Unlikely. They might have done under Cameron, they won't under Boris given most of the seat gains from the boundary review will be in London and the South East where Brexit and Boris are less popular
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,320
    Carnyx said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed just now:


    'In a separate interview, Nick Allen, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told Sky News that while the government criticised producers for paying low wages, it was happy for meat to be imported from countries that paid low wages. He said:

    "What’s interesting is [the government is] happy to ban the import of non-UK labour in this country, but they continue to actually aid and abet imported food from countries that have got access to this labour.

    At the end of the day someone has to pay for these increased wages and they somewhat get in the way of that by aiding and abetting imported food."'

    The revealing bit of that Boris interview was what he said about this being a transition. We are about to destructively test the drive of the last 20 years where consumers actively choose British products. Frankly a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign is the obvious thing missing from the government's strategy - why aren't they doing so?

    Instead we are going to see our stuff get a lot more expensive, making imports more appealing than ever. People want to buy local but if they can't because it costs too much then the choice of import vs nothing will push import for many.

    Which will literally fuck farming to death. Philip and some free market ideologues may welcome this, most people won't. The government will try and blame farmers until as with all the other "lets blame industry" attempts the actual numbers get published and the minister is shown up to be an absolute spanner. At which point the government caves in.
    Exactly, I can't work out if the government are autarkists (like Germany in 1930s) or free range marketeers (like the UK in the C19 and early C20, which wrecked farming also).
    Why the heck should the government get involved in a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign? How is that the government's responsibility? Advertising and marketing is not the government's responsibility, that's not what we pay our taxes for.

    Buying British when its economically competitive so why not buy British is easy to do. Buying British when it costs a premium ... that's actually then up to the consumers to make their choice.

    If British farming gets fucked to death, then quite frankly I don't see why we should care - any more than when British mining got fucked to death. How are farmers any different to miners?

    Farming takes up 70% of this countries land, but agriculture represents 0.59% of GDP. I'm not sure if that includes the 0.1% of GDP that the fisheries represent.

    If we import more, we import more, but what we should not be importing is slaves serfs peasants minimum wage employees.
    That's what the Tories and free market liberals said until the Great War. Which the UK very nearly lost if the Germans hadn't been so pusillanimous with the U-boats.

    Amazing the Brexiters love to go on about Spitfires but forget the Battle of the Atlantic.

    Yes and the liberals were right then and even more right now.

    We didn't lose the war and we're not at any real risk in the 21st century of being blockaded so get real. We are a wealthy nation, especially if we stop deflating our economy by importing from the third world, or dedicating 70% of land to 0.49% of GDP.

    We spent decades relying upon imported coal for our electricity and we didn't get impoverished as a nation or blockaded by U-Boats when that happened. Special pleading by vested interests should be treated with the same amount of respect as the NUM got in the 80s.
    Plenty of hostages to fortune there.
    Why was it OK to import coal for our electricity but not import meat?

    In the modern world electricity is just as important as food.
    Miners voted Labour.

    Farmers vote Conservative. And put bloody big signs in their fields during election campaigns.
    I think PT has forgotten the Tory Party was the party who introduced the Corn Laws in 1815.

    Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of the Whigs. Most of his party still backed them and so his fellow free trading Peelites who were a minority in the Tory party ended up forming the Liberal party with the Whigs and Radicals in the 1850s
    The Tories implemented them, and the Conservatives repealed them. The old Tory party you back is dead, it died in the 19th century.

    I would be a Whig if we had Tory v Whig old-school. But the Conservatives absorbed a lot of the old Whig thinking.
    No the Conservatives did not repeal them.

    Most Tory MPs voted against repealing the Corn Laws, as I said Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of Whig MPs.

    Brexit has revived the protectionist Tory party in terms of the party's core vote. Many middle class professional, pro free trade Remainers who voted for Cameron are now voting LD or Starmer Labour. Most protectionist working class UKIP voters from 2015 are now voting Conservative
    Some very interesting content in this series of posts, which has got me thinking more about the journey the conservatives have been on.

    Yesterday you made some - seemingly tongue in cheek - remarks along the lines of ladies cycling to holy communion, farms shops and so on. There is a rich and long established mercantilist, anti-free trade tradition in the Tory party dating back to the corn laws and beyond. This is the traditional ideology of the landed class on which the party was based. Some of the rhetoric now (possibly accidentally) coming from ministers could arguably look like a return to the old roots. This would make the politics our version of Gaullism - protect the domestic producers, don't be shy of red tape, and encourage a society of artisan production, with state control over heavy industry.

    At the same time other forces are at work in the party too. The populism that sees the EU as the enemy (e.g. Truss neglecting even to mention the bloc among the UK's allies), rails against the urban elites and seeks out a bonfire of regulations. That's a different tradition - to keep with the French theme it's what they would call Poujadisme - the politics of Pierre Poujade. Its British archetype is the White Van Man. That + a hint of cronyism and we're also in the world of Berlusconi. This is a very different tradition from the old Tory one above.

    Both of these share one thing in common though which is the protection of the small producer - the artisan, the yeoman farmer, the tradesman - and the skilled manual employee. The trouble is, as people have noted, for this to work for the client group it represents you need protection from both imported labour and imported goods, otherwise the latter will undercut domestic production. At the moment we have one and not the other and that feels inherently unstable. Either you go the free trade route and keep labour on tap, or you go properly protectionist.

    There is one magic bullet that would resolve the conundrum, which is automation and technological innovation. Then you see wage growth and margin growth while costs remain competitive. I'm just not sure where and how that will come about here, but we do desperately need it and for that we need major catch up capital investment by business.
    Personally I consider myself a British Gaullist to some extent. Trump combined some elements of Gaullist economics with Poujadist populism. That is now largely the conservative coalition in much of the western world.

    Automation is effective if it keeps down costs without rising unemployment.

    Andrew Neil talking about the new Tory coalition on BBC2 now
    No true Tory/Brit would ever compare themselves to any French person, least of all De Gaulle.
    Some of my ancestors were French Huguenots, I am a little bit French genetically
    After 40 generations, statistically any one ancestor represents 1 trillionth of your DNA. Which is to say, nil.
    FPT but I have to point out that that is so unfair to HYUFD - we're not talking about the Norman Conquest but French Protestants in the early modern era

    1. For him a generation is 50 years
    2. Epping, so probably a Spitalfields Huguenot - who came over here in 1570s or 1680s.

    So let's say he's 21 and that gives us 6-8 generations = 1/2exp8 = 3.9 x 10exp-3 at worst = 0.4% say

    That also assumes no endogamy within the Huguenot community, but there was in fact, so that could easily be doubled or quadrupled.
    Very catty - "let's say he's 21".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    edited October 4
    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    Only if the GOP take the House and Senate next year as they need control of both chambers in 2024 to successfully object to the EC results.

    If the GOP win both the House and Senate next year Trump might even win the EC anyway without needing objections
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,915
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    The MRP would see Starmer regain some seats Corbyn lost in 2019 but still as the chart shows fail to recover all the Labour seats Corbyn held in 2017. So Labour needs to do much better in the redwall to even win most seats let alone a majority.

    However as OGH states if the LDs pick up say 20 Tory seats in the South and the SNP gain most of the remaining 6 Tory seats in Scotland then even just 40 Labour gains could make Starmer PM in a hung parliament even if the Tories still win most seats

    This doesn't take into account the boundary changes that will probably give the Tories 10 to 15 extra seats.
    Unlikely. They might have done under Cameron, they won't under Boris given most of the seat gains from the boundary review will be in London and the South East where Brexit and Boris are less popular
    Very good point
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    The MRP would see Starmer regain some seats Corbyn lost in 2019 but still as the chart shows fail to recover all the Labour seats Corbyn held in 2017. So Labour needs to do much better in the redwall to even win most seats let alone a majority.

    However as OGH states if the LDs pick up say 20 Tory seats in the South and the SNP gain most of the remaining 6 Tory seats in Scotland then even just 40 Labour gains could make Starmer PM in a hung parliament even if the Tories still win most seats

    This doesn't take into account the boundary changes that will probably give the Tories 10 to 15 extra seats.
    Unlikely. They might have done under Cameron, they won't under Boris given most of the seat gains from the boundary review will be in London and the South East where Brexit and Boris are less popular
    Very good point
    Plus some red wall seats could disappear
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 14,991
    FPT: "Plenty of religious people only date religious people too."

    Like priests and nuns.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819
    edited October 4
    Very important re EC and Wales assessment. They are changes BASED ON 2019 VOTES.
    So. Clwyd has 5 seats, all nominally now Conservative. But they are all marginals. As is Ynys Mon.
    On current PREDICTION, three Clwyd seats are Labour. As is Ynys Mon. The other two are ultra marginals.
    So. It may be Con -2, Lab -4. But that changes rapidly with small swings.

    Edit. Apologies for caps. Am not shouting. Couldn't get bold to work for some reason. :)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,475
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    The MRP would see Starmer regain some seats Corbyn lost in 2019 but still as the chart shows fail to recover all the Labour seats Corbyn held in 2017. So Labour needs to do much better in the redwall to even win most seats let alone a majority.

    However as OGH states if the LDs pick up say 20 Tory seats in the South and the SNP gain most of the remaining 6 Tory seats in Scotland then even just 40 Labour gains could make Starmer PM in a hung parliament even if the Tories still win most seats

    This doesn't take into account the boundary changes that will probably give the Tories 10 to 15 extra seats.
    Unlikely. They might have done under Cameron, they won't under Boris given most of the seat gains from the boundary review will be in London and the South East where Brexit and Boris are less popular
    I think you're exaggerating the point a bit. A lot of the new seats may be in places like East Anglia, the south west, the East Midlands where the Tories will benefit. (I know the figures have been released). Quite a lot of the south-east is still very Tory.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,134
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Hopefully for Labour's sake it performs better than their 2019 MRP - Note Labour ended below the lower bound of outcomes.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/final-2019-general-election-mrp-model-small-

    Con 339 {311 - 369} 365
    Lab 231 {206 - 256} 202
    SNP 41 {24 - 55} 48
    LD 15 {11 - 22} 11
    PC 4 {2 - 5} 4
    Green 1 {1 - 1} 1
    Other 1 {1 - 2} 0 ? 1 ? Chorley ?
    BXP 0 {0 - 1} 0

    SNP 24? I know it was the low end but blimey.
    Ipsos MORI nailed 2019 in Scotland - they projected
    Con: 6
    Lab: 1
    SNP: 48
    Lib Dems: 4

    Which is exactly what happened.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    edited October 4
    Fumido Kushida has been formally sworn in as Japan's new PM having won the LDP leadership election ahead of elections at the end of the month.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58784635
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 24,519

    Duncan Weldon
    @DuncanWeldon
    ·
    5h
    Feels like an, erm, “brave” call for the government to go so big on wages as a political dividing line given the short term inflation outlook.
    Hard not to see real wages falling in the months ahead.

    I can definitely see inflation being a thing again in the near future. Boris has essentially given firms cover for passing all manner of price increases onto the consumer, whether they actually need to or not - their excuse now is that they're just doing their bit for the new reality of having a high-wage economy. But the spurious price rises will vastly outweigh those required to fund non-immigrant workers. This could get messy.
    It could, but Johnson is already positioning. His latest wheeze is to focus on wages in sectors hit by emergency scale labour shortages and make the claim that Brexit, a project of the reactionary right in politics, is all about raising the living standards of the working class.

    "Workers of England unite! You have nothing to lose but your prospects being blighted by cheapo immigrants coming over here and depressing your pay and clogging up housing lists and GP surgeries!"

    It's quite the play. Will the base swallow it? What about floaters? We will see.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,134
    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
  • FPT: "Plenty of religious people only date religious people too."

    Like priests and nuns.

    I've seen quite a few films featuring nuns keen to, ahem, 'date.'
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    edited October 4
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    The MRP would see Starmer regain some seats Corbyn lost in 2019 but still as the chart shows fail to recover all the Labour seats Corbyn held in 2017. So Labour needs to do much better in the redwall to even win most seats let alone a majority.

    However as OGH states if the LDs pick up say 20 Tory seats in the South and the SNP gain most of the remaining 6 Tory seats in Scotland then even just 40 Labour gains could make Starmer PM in a hung parliament even if the Tories still win most seats

    This doesn't take into account the boundary changes that will probably give the Tories 10 to 15 extra seats.
    Unlikely. They might have done under Cameron, they won't under Boris given most of the seat gains from the boundary review will be in London and the South East where Brexit and Boris are less popular
    I think you're exaggerating the point a bit. A lot of the new seats may be in places like East Anglia, the south west, the East Midlands where the Tories will benefit. (I know the figures have been released). Quite a lot of the south-east is still very Tory.
    Under the boundary changes the NE and NW and Wales lose seats as does the WM where Boris is particularly popular.

    The SE gains more seats than the East Midlands, East and SW combined and a lot of those new SE seats will likely be LD target seats if the boundary changes are implemented. Under Cameron those extra SE seats would likely all be safe Tory seats, they will be more marginal under Boris as Chesham and Amersham showed.

    Labour London also gains 2 seats.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57400901
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819
    kinabalu said:

    Duncan Weldon
    @DuncanWeldon
    ·
    5h
    Feels like an, erm, “brave” call for the government to go so big on wages as a political dividing line given the short term inflation outlook.
    Hard not to see real wages falling in the months ahead.

    I can definitely see inflation being a thing again in the near future. Boris has essentially given firms cover for passing all manner of price increases onto the consumer, whether they actually need to or not - their excuse now is that they're just doing their bit for the new reality of having a high-wage economy. But the spurious price rises will vastly outweigh those required to fund non-immigrant workers. This could get messy.
    It could, but Johnson is already positioning. His latest wheeze is to focus on wages in sectors hit by emergency scale labour shortages and make the claim that Brexit, a project of the reactionary right in politics, is all about raising the living standards of the working class.

    "Workers of England unite! You have nothing to lose but your prospects being blighted by cheapo immigrants coming over here and depressing your pay and clogging up housing lists and GP surgeries!"

    It's quite the play. Will the base swallow it? What about floaters? We will see.
    What about nurses, council employees and teachers?
    I know they aren't the "real" working class, of course, but hey.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,604
    kinabalu said:

    Duncan Weldon
    @DuncanWeldon
    ·
    5h
    Feels like an, erm, “brave” call for the government to go so big on wages as a political dividing line given the short term inflation outlook.
    Hard not to see real wages falling in the months ahead.

    I can definitely see inflation being a thing again in the near future. Boris has essentially given firms cover for passing all manner of price increases onto the consumer, whether they actually need to or not - their excuse now is that they're just doing their bit for the new reality of having a high-wage economy. But the spurious price rises will vastly outweigh those required to fund non-immigrant workers. This could get messy.
    It could, but Johnson is already positioning. His latest wheeze is to focus on wages in sectors hit by emergency scale labour shortages and make the claim that Brexit, a project of the reactionary right in politics, is all about raising the living standards of the working class.

    "Workers of England unite! You have nothing to lose but your prospects being blighted by cheapo immigrants coming over here and depressing your pay and clogging up housing lists and GP surgeries!"

    It's quite the play. Will the base swallow it? What about floaters? We will see.
    I wouldn't date any of the swallowers for sure. Gullibility aint sexy.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 903
    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    I think that's right, but I also think that not just him who decides whether to try again, or the USA itself, but there is the Grim Reaper who'll get a say in this.
    It's been said elsewhere. He's overweight and will be fighting the next election at the age of 78. I'm not convinced that William Sadler won't have a say in Trump's decision to run or not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    edited October 4

    FPT: "Plenty of religious people only date religious people too."

    Like priests and nuns.

    There are religious dating sites, non Catholic Christian clergy are also allowed to date and get married as are Jewish rabbis and Muslim imams
  • HYUFD said:

    FPT: "Plenty of religious people only date religious people too."

    Like priests and nuns.

    There are religious dating sites, non Catholic Christian clergy are also allowed to date and get married as are Jewish rabbis and Muslim imams
    Do you have a link to these Muslim dating sites, as an excellent Muslim who observes all the traditions, that website sounds perfect for me.
  • So Michael Gove was introduced to conference with Dancing Queen blaring.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    edited October 4
    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    The GOP may only need 5 gains to take the House in 2022 but in the Senate they need to gain seats in an election year when 20 of the 34 Senate seats up are already held by the GOP.

    If the GOP win both chambers in a midterms landslide, then there is a strong chance Trump would win the 2024 election anyway even without needing both chambers to object to the EC results
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    FPT @Selebian. I think you're blind to the issue here - I'll highlight two main points the article makes:

    (1) "In a recent report on academic freedom in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, I found that 40 percent of American academics would not hire a known Trump supporter, and 33 percent of British academics would avoid hiring a known Brexit supporter. When it comes to refereeing papers, grant bids, and promotion applications, my own work and that of others indicates that the likelihood of an academic’s discriminating against an openly conservative submission is as high as 45 percent. On a four-person panel, that makes discrimination a near certainty."

    (2) "In the 1960s there were only one and a half journalists and academics on the left for every one on the right. Today that ratio is between four to one and six to one, and considerably higher among political journalists and social-science and humanities academics. In a report on academia for the Manhattan Institute, I noted that left-leaning social-science and humanities academics now outnumber those on the right in Britain by nine to one, and in the U.S. by 14 to one. Work by Mitchell Langbert using voter-registration data for the top liberal-arts colleges and universities (for five disciplines) also shows lopsided ratios. At Harvard, for instance, a recent inquiry reported a $250-to-$1 Democrat-to-Republican donation ratio among the staff."

    It's not enough for there to be "legal" protections - hard to access, prove and leverage - because an institutional culture of intolerance creates an environment that is suffocating to those already employed and inhibits any future recruitment to correct it. This means even fewer conservatives apply in the first place and thus reinforces a monoculture.

    Those that are employed (like my friend at the University of Bath, for example, or me at the Woke firm I've just left) "fear losing (their) job or missing out on job opportunities if (their) political views became known.” And so, as in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification. This has been precisely my experience.

    It's a problem for all of us because these institutions form a large part of our civic society - arbitrating between the citizen and the state - and thus contributes to polarisation within it.

    It needs to be addressed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,018
    edited October 4
    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular; she could vote the same way as Kelly on everything and probably get back in.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819
    edited October 4
    dixiedean said:

    Very important re EC and Wales assessment. They are changes BASED ON 2019 VOTES.
    So. Clwyd has 5 seats, all nominally now Conservative. But they are all marginals. As is Ynys Mon.
    On current PREDICTION, three Clwyd seats are Labour. As is Ynys Mon. The other two are ultra marginals.
    So. It may be Con -2, Lab -4. But that changes rapidly with small swings.

    Edit. Apologies for caps. Am not shouting. Couldn't get bold to work for some reason. :)

    As indeed is Vale of Glamorgan.

    So current EC prediction on new boundaries is
    Lab +1, PC -2, Con -7 in Wales.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,713

    So Michael Gove was introduced to conference with Dancing Queen blaring.

    "Only seventeen" is a bit tactless these days.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - her state is a blue state now, she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular.
    Manchin and Sinema are right.

    Remember Trump actually got a higher voteshare in 2020 than 2016, Biden only won by squeezing the over 3% Libertarian vote in 2016 to 1% in 2020 with almost all those fiscally conservative Libertarian voters voting for him.

    If Biden had not won those 2016 Libertarian voters he would have lost Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and the EC so the Democrats cannot afford to be too tax and spend or they will lose them again
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158

    HYUFD said:

    FPT: "Plenty of religious people only date religious people too."

    Like priests and nuns.

    There are religious dating sites, non Catholic Christian clergy are also allowed to date and get married as are Jewish rabbis and Muslim imams
    Do you have a link to these Muslim dating sites, as an excellent Muslim who observes all the traditions, that website sounds perfect for me.
    https://www.muslima.com/en/landing/paid?ovchn=GGL&ovcpn=English+UK&ovcrn=muslim dating&ovmtc=e&ovraw=g&ovtac=PPC&gclid=CjwKCAjwzOqKBhAWEiwArQGwaGP_-oHxsDbTmqjxJc3N_dO13XIEnx8mxc8UgbJJKHSq2QiBINi2vxoCPxcQAvD_BwE
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,209
    IshmaelZ said:

    So Michael Gove was introduced to conference with Dancing Queen blaring.

    "Only seventeen" is a bit tactless these days.
    Ladytron had it right...

    They only want you when you're seventeen,
    When you're 21, you're no fun.
    They take a Polaroid and let you go
    Say they'll let you know, so come on.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,713

    FPT: "Plenty of religious people only date religious people too."

    Like priests and nuns.

    during choirboy shortages.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,018
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - her state is a blue state now, she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular.
    Manchin and Sinema are right.

    Remember Trump actually got a higher voteshare in 2020 than 2016, Biden only won by squeezing the over 3% Libertarian vote in 2016 to 1% in 2020 with almost all those fiscally conservative Libertarian voters voting for him.

    If Biden had not won those 2016 Libertarian voters he would have lost Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and the EC so the Democrats cannot afford to be too tax and spend or they will lose them again
    Trumpism is about many things, a small state is not one of them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - her state is a blue state now, she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular.
    Manchin and Sinema are right.

    Remember Trump actually got a higher voteshare in 2020 than 2016, Biden only won by squeezing the over 3% Libertarian vote in 2016 to 1% in 2020 with almost all those fiscally conservative Libertarian voters voting for him.

    If Biden had not won those 2016 Libertarian voters he would have lost Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and the EC so the Democrats cannot afford to be too tax and spend or they will lose them again
    Trumpism is about many things, a small state is not one of them.
    No but Biden didn't win by winning Trump voters from 2016, as I said Trump even increased his voteshare on 2016 in 2020.

    Biden only won in 2020 by getting small state voters who voted Libertarian Party in 2016 to vote for him in 2020
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 24,519
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    The MRP would see Starmer regain some seats Corbyn lost in 2019 but still as the chart shows fail to recover all the Labour seats Corbyn held in 2017. So Labour needs to do much better in the redwall to even win most seats let alone a majority.

    However as OGH states if the LDs pick up say 20 Tory seats in the South and the SNP gain most of the remaining 6 Tory seats in Scotland then even just 40 Labour gains could make Starmer PM in a hung parliament even if the Tories still win most seats

    This doesn't take into account the boundary changes that will probably give the Tories 10 to 15 extra seats.
    Unlikely. They might have done under Cameron, they won't under Boris given most of the seat gains from the boundary review will be in London and the South East where Brexit and Boris are less popular
    I think you're exaggerating the point a bit. A lot of the new seats may be in places like East Anglia, the south west, the East Midlands where the Tories will benefit. (I know the figures have been released). Quite a lot of the south-east is still very Tory.
    Under the boundary changes the NE and NW and Wales lose seats as does the WM where Boris is particularly popular.

    The SE gains more seats than the East Midlands, East and SW combined and a lot of those new SE seats will likely be LD target seats if the boundary changes are implemented. Under Cameron those extra SE seats would likely all be safe Tory seats, they will be more marginal under Boris as Chesham and Amersham showed.

    Labour London also gains 2 seats.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57400901
    Not sure the Midlands should have any seats at all until they start behaving.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613

    kinabalu said:

    Duncan Weldon
    @DuncanWeldon
    ·
    5h
    Feels like an, erm, “brave” call for the government to go so big on wages as a political dividing line given the short term inflation outlook.
    Hard not to see real wages falling in the months ahead.

    I can definitely see inflation being a thing again in the near future. Boris has essentially given firms cover for passing all manner of price increases onto the consumer, whether they actually need to or not - their excuse now is that they're just doing their bit for the new reality of having a high-wage economy. But the spurious price rises will vastly outweigh those required to fund non-immigrant workers. This could get messy.
    It could, but Johnson is already positioning. His latest wheeze is to focus on wages in sectors hit by emergency scale labour shortages and make the claim that Brexit, a project of the reactionary right in politics, is all about raising the living standards of the working class.

    "Workers of England unite! You have nothing to lose but your prospects being blighted by cheapo immigrants coming over here and depressing your pay and clogging up housing lists and GP surgeries!"

    It's quite the play. Will the base swallow it? What about floaters? We will see.
    I wouldn't date any of the swallowers for sure. Gullibility aint sexy.
    Rather unfortunate double entendre.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,604
    edited October 4

    FPT: "Plenty of religious people only date religious people too."

    Like priests and nuns.

    I've seen quite a few films featuring nuns keen to, ahem, 'date.'
    Hail Raquel!


  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,134
    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular; she could vote the same way as Kelly on everything and probably get back in.
    Yeah, Manchin seems to be actively voting against things that would be good for West Virginia at this point - but at least they seem to be consistent with a set of principles.

    Sinema is just an absolute WTF! She stood on a platform of reducing Medicare prices by allowing medicare to negotiate with drugs companies. She is now saying she will vote against exactly that if it is the Reconciliation package.

    It makes absolutely no sense unless she is doing it for pure narcissism to show show she has the power to blow anything up.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 745

    FPT @Selebian. I think you're blind to the issue here - I'll highlight two main points the article makes:

    (1) "In a recent report on academic freedom in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, I found that 40 percent of American academics would not hire a known Trump supporter, and 33 percent of British academics would avoid hiring a known Brexit supporter. When it comes to refereeing papers, grant bids, and promotion applications, my own work and that of others indicates that the likelihood of an academic’s discriminating against an openly conservative submission is as high as 45 percent. On a four-person panel, that makes discrimination a near certainty."

    (2) "In the 1960s there were only one and a half journalists and academics on the left for every one on the right. Today that ratio is between four to one and six to one, and considerably higher among political journalists and social-science and humanities academics. In a report on academia for the Manhattan Institute, I noted that left-leaning social-science and humanities academics now outnumber those on the right in Britain by nine to one, and in the U.S. by 14 to one. Work by Mitchell Langbert using voter-registration data for the top liberal-arts colleges and universities (for five disciplines) also shows lopsided ratios. At Harvard, for instance, a recent inquiry reported a $250-to-$1 Democrat-to-Republican donation ratio among the staff."

    It's not enough for there to be "legal" protections - hard to access, prove and leverage - because an institutional culture of intolerance creates an environment that is suffocating to those already employed and inhibits any future recruitment to correct it. This means even fewer conservatives apply in the first place and thus reinforces a monoculture.

    Those that are employed (like my friend at the University of Bath, for example, or me at the Woke firm I've just left) "fear losing (their) job or missing out on job opportunities if (their) political views became known.” And so, as in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification. This has been precisely my experience.

    It's a problem for all of us because these institutions form a large part of our civic society - arbitrating between the citizen and the state - and thus contributes to polarisation within it.

    It needs to be addressed.

    I recall having this discussion before, as I recall @Selebian is of the view that it is a non-issue because (they) work in a university, their is viewpoint diversity, and in (their) experience such discrimination relating to political views does not exist. I find this incredibly difficult to reconcile with what is described by people such as Jon Haidt, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose; and indeed the progressive polemics which appear on university websites; but accept it as one persons experience.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed just now:


    'In a separate interview, Nick Allen, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told Sky News that while the government criticised producers for paying low wages, it was happy for meat to be imported from countries that paid low wages. He said:

    "What’s interesting is [the government is] happy to ban the import of non-UK labour in this country, but they continue to actually aid and abet imported food from countries that have got access to this labour.

    At the end of the day someone has to pay for these increased wages and they somewhat get in the way of that by aiding and abetting imported food."'

    The revealing bit of that Boris interview was what he said about this being a transition. We are about to destructively test the drive of the last 20 years where consumers actively choose British products. Frankly a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign is the obvious thing missing from the government's strategy - why aren't they doing so?

    Instead we are going to see our stuff get a lot more expensive, making imports more appealing than ever. People want to buy local but if they can't because it costs too much then the choice of import vs nothing will push import for many.

    Which will literally fuck farming to death. Philip and some free market ideologues may welcome this, most people won't. The government will try and blame farmers until as with all the other "lets blame industry" attempts the actual numbers get published and the minister is shown up to be an absolute spanner. At which point the government caves in.
    Exactly, I can't work out if the government are autarkists (like Germany in 1930s) or free range marketeers (like the UK in the C19 and early C20, which wrecked farming also).
    Why the heck should the government get involved in a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign? How is that the government's responsibility? Advertising and marketing is not the government's responsibility, that's not what we pay our taxes for.

    Buying British when its economically competitive so why not buy British is easy to do. Buying British when it costs a premium ... that's actually then up to the consumers to make their choice.

    If British farming gets fucked to death, then quite frankly I don't see why we should care - any more than when British mining got fucked to death. How are farmers any different to miners?

    Farming takes up 70% of this countries land, but agriculture represents 0.59% of GDP. I'm not sure if that includes the 0.1% of GDP that the fisheries represent.

    If we import more, we import more, but what we should not be importing is slaves serfs peasants minimum wage employees.
    That's what the Tories and free market liberals said until the Great War. Which the UK very nearly lost if the Germans hadn't been so pusillanimous with the U-boats.

    Amazing the Brexiters love to go on about Spitfires but forget the Battle of the Atlantic.

    Yes and the liberals were right then and even more right now.

    We didn't lose the war and we're not at any real risk in the 21st century of being blockaded so get real. We are a wealthy nation, especially if we stop deflating our economy by importing from the third world, or dedicating 70% of land to 0.49% of GDP.

    We spent decades relying upon imported coal for our electricity and we didn't get impoverished as a nation or blockaded by U-Boats when that happened. Special pleading by vested interests should be treated with the same amount of respect as the NUM got in the 80s.
    Plenty of hostages to fortune there.
    Why was it OK to import coal for our electricity but not import meat?

    In the modern world electricity is just as important as food.
    Miners voted Labour.

    Farmers vote Conservative. And put bloody big signs in their fields during election campaigns.
    I think PT has forgotten the Tory Party was the party who introduced the Corn Laws in 1815.

    Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of the Whigs. Most of his party still backed them and so his fellow free trading Peelites who were a minority in the Tory party ended up forming the Liberal party with the Whigs and Radicals in the 1850s
    The Tories implemented them, and the Conservatives repealed them. The old Tory party you back is dead, it died in the 19th century.

    I would be a Whig if we had Tory v Whig old-school. But the Conservatives absorbed a lot of the old Whig thinking.
    No the Conservatives did not repeal them.

    Most Tory MPs voted against repealing the Corn Laws, as I said Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of Whig MPs.

    Brexit has revived the protectionist Tory party in terms of the party's core vote. Many middle class professional, pro free trade Remainers who voted for Cameron are now voting LD or Starmer Labour. Most protectionist working class UKIP voters from 2015 are now voting Conservative
    Some very interesting content in this series of posts, which has got me thinking more about the journey the conservatives have been on.

    Yesterday you made some - seemingly tongue in cheek - remarks along the lines of ladies cycling to holy communion, farms shops and so on. There is a rich and long established mercantilist, anti-free trade tradition in the Tory party dating back to the corn laws and beyond. This is the traditional ideology of the landed class on which the party was based. Some of the rhetoric now (possibly accidentally) coming from ministers could arguably look like a return to the old roots. This would make the politics our version of Gaullism - protect the domestic producers, don't be shy of red tape, and encourage a society of artisan production, with state control over heavy industry.

    At the same time other forces are at work in the party too. The populism that sees the EU as the enemy (e.g. Truss neglecting even to mention the bloc among the UK's allies), rails against the urban elites and seeks out a bonfire of regulations. That's a different tradition - to keep with the French theme it's what they would call Poujadisme - the politics of Pierre Poujade. Its British archetype is the White Van Man. That + a hint of cronyism and we're also in the world of Berlusconi. This is a very different tradition from the old Tory one above.

    Both of these share one thing in common though which is the protection of the small producer - the artisan, the yeoman farmer, the tradesman - and the skilled manual employee. The trouble is, as people have noted, for this to work for the client group it represents you need protection from both imported labour and imported goods, otherwise the latter will undercut domestic production. At the moment we have one and not the other and that feels inherently unstable. Either you go the free trade route and keep labour on tap, or you go properly protectionist.

    There is one magic bullet that would resolve the conundrum, which is automation and technological innovation. Then you see wage growth and margin growth while costs remain competitive. I'm just not sure where and how that will come about here, but we do desperately need it and for that we need major catch up capital investment by business.
    Personally I consider myself a British Gaullist to some extent. Trump combined some elements of Gaullist economics with Poujadist populism. That is now largely the conservative coalition in much of the western world.

    Automation is effective if it keeps down costs without rising unemployment.

    Andrew Neil talking about the new Tory coalition on BBC2 now
    No true Tory/Brit would ever compare themselves to any French person, least of all De Gaulle.
    Some of my ancestors were French Huguenots, I am a little bit French genetically
    After 40 generations, statistically any one ancestor represents 1 trillionth of your DNA. Which is to say, nil.
    FPT but I have to point out that that is so unfair to HYUFD - we're not talking about the Norman Conquest but French Protestants in the early modern era

    1. For him a generation is 50 years
    2. Epping, so probably a Spitalfields Huguenot - who came over here in 1570s or 1680s.

    So let's say he's 21 and that gives us 6-8 generations = 1/2exp8 = 3.9 x 10exp-3 at worst = 0.4% say

    That also assumes no endogamy within the Huguenot community, but there was in fact, so that could easily be doubled or quadrupled.
    Very catty - "let's say he's 21".
    It was just for arithmetic convenience! 2021 -21 = 2000, which is easy to bite back 50 years at a time to some twenty or thirtysomething expat in Spitalfields or Soho having a baby in 1600 or 1700.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,114
    Carnyx said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed just now:


    'In a separate interview, Nick Allen, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told Sky News that while the government criticised producers for paying low wages, it was happy for meat to be imported from countries that paid low wages. He said:

    "What’s interesting is [the government is] happy to ban the import of non-UK labour in this country, but they continue to actually aid and abet imported food from countries that have got access to this labour.

    At the end of the day someone has to pay for these increased wages and they somewhat get in the way of that by aiding and abetting imported food."'

    The revealing bit of that Boris interview was what he said about this being a transition. We are about to destructively test the drive of the last 20 years where consumers actively choose British products. Frankly a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign is the obvious thing missing from the government's strategy - why aren't they doing so?

    Instead we are going to see our stuff get a lot more expensive, making imports more appealing than ever. People want to buy local but if they can't because it costs too much then the choice of import vs nothing will push import for many.

    Which will literally fuck farming to death. Philip and some free market ideologues may welcome this, most people won't. The government will try and blame farmers until as with all the other "lets blame industry" attempts the actual numbers get published and the minister is shown up to be an absolute spanner. At which point the government caves in.
    Exactly, I can't work out if the government are autarkists (like Germany in 1930s) or free range marketeers (like the UK in the C19 and early C20, which wrecked farming also).
    Why the heck should the government get involved in a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign? How is that the government's responsibility? Advertising and marketing is not the government's responsibility, that's not what we pay our taxes for.

    Buying British when its economically competitive so why not buy British is easy to do. Buying British when it costs a premium ... that's actually then up to the consumers to make their choice.

    If British farming gets fucked to death, then quite frankly I don't see why we should care - any more than when British mining got fucked to death. How are farmers any different to miners?

    Farming takes up 70% of this countries land, but agriculture represents 0.59% of GDP. I'm not sure if that includes the 0.1% of GDP that the fisheries represent.

    If we import more, we import more, but what we should not be importing is slaves serfs peasants minimum wage employees.
    That's what the Tories and free market liberals said until the Great War. Which the UK very nearly lost if the Germans hadn't been so pusillanimous with the U-boats.

    Amazing the Brexiters love to go on about Spitfires but forget the Battle of the Atlantic.

    Yes and the liberals were right then and even more right now.

    We didn't lose the war and we're not at any real risk in the 21st century of being blockaded so get real. We are a wealthy nation, especially if we stop deflating our economy by importing from the third world, or dedicating 70% of land to 0.49% of GDP.

    We spent decades relying upon imported coal for our electricity and we didn't get impoverished as a nation or blockaded by U-Boats when that happened. Special pleading by vested interests should be treated with the same amount of respect as the NUM got in the 80s.
    Plenty of hostages to fortune there.
    Why was it OK to import coal for our electricity but not import meat?

    In the modern world electricity is just as important as food.
    Miners voted Labour.

    Farmers vote Conservative. And put bloody big signs in their fields during election campaigns.
    I think PT has forgotten the Tory Party was the party who introduced the Corn Laws in 1815.

    Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of the Whigs. Most of his party still backed them and so his fellow free trading Peelites who were a minority in the Tory party ended up forming the Liberal party with the Whigs and Radicals in the 1850s
    The Tories implemented them, and the Conservatives repealed them. The old Tory party you back is dead, it died in the 19th century.

    I would be a Whig if we had Tory v Whig old-school. But the Conservatives absorbed a lot of the old Whig thinking.
    No the Conservatives did not repeal them.

    Most Tory MPs voted against repealing the Corn Laws, as I said Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of Whig MPs.

    Brexit has revived the protectionist Tory party in terms of the party's core vote. Many middle class professional, pro free trade Remainers who voted for Cameron are now voting LD or Starmer Labour. Most protectionist working class UKIP voters from 2015 are now voting Conservative
    Some very interesting content in this series of posts, which has got me thinking more about the journey the conservatives have been on.

    Yesterday you made some - seemingly tongue in cheek - remarks along the lines of ladies cycling to holy communion, farms shops and so on. There is a rich and long established mercantilist, anti-free trade tradition in the Tory party dating back to the corn laws and beyond. This is the traditional ideology of the landed class on which the party was based. Some of the rhetoric now (possibly accidentally) coming from ministers could arguably look like a return to the old roots. This would make the politics our version of Gaullism - protect the domestic producers, don't be shy of red tape, and encourage a society of artisan production, with state control over heavy industry.

    At the same time other forces are at work in the party too. The populism that sees the EU as the enemy (e.g. Truss neglecting even to mention the bloc among the UK's allies), rails against the urban elites and seeks out a bonfire of regulations. That's a different tradition - to keep with the French theme it's what they would call Poujadisme - the politics of Pierre Poujade. Its British archetype is the White Van Man. That + a hint of cronyism and we're also in the world of Berlusconi. This is a very different tradition from the old Tory one above.

    Both of these share one thing in common though which is the protection of the small producer - the artisan, the yeoman farmer, the tradesman - and the skilled manual employee. The trouble is, as people have noted, for this to work for the client group it represents you need protection from both imported labour and imported goods, otherwise the latter will undercut domestic production. At the moment we have one and not the other and that feels inherently unstable. Either you go the free trade route and keep labour on tap, or you go properly protectionist.

    There is one magic bullet that would resolve the conundrum, which is automation and technological innovation. Then you see wage growth and margin growth while costs remain competitive. I'm just not sure where and how that will come about here, but we do desperately need it and for that we need major catch up capital investment by business.
    Personally I consider myself a British Gaullist to some extent. Trump combined some elements of Gaullist economics with Poujadist populism. That is now largely the conservative coalition in much of the western world.

    Automation is effective if it keeps down costs without rising unemployment.

    Andrew Neil talking about the new Tory coalition on BBC2 now
    No true Tory/Brit would ever compare themselves to any French person, least of all De Gaulle.
    Some of my ancestors were French Huguenots, I am a little bit French genetically
    After 40 generations, statistically any one ancestor represents 1 trillionth of your DNA. Which is to say, nil.
    FPT but I have to point out that that is so unfair to HYUFD - we're not talking about the Norman Conquest but French Protestants in the early modern era

    1. For him a generation is 50 years
    2. Epping, so probably a Spitalfields Huguenot - who came over here in 1570s or 1680s.

    So let's say he's 21 and that gives us 6-8 generations = 1/2exp8 = 3.9 x 10exp-3 at worst = 0.4% say

    That also assumes no endogamy within the Huguenot community, but there was in fact, so that could easily be doubled or quadrupled.
    Where the fuck did I get 40 from? I was assuming 400 years at 25 year generations, and I somehow got 40? Basic maths fail.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    edited October 4
    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular; she could vote the same way as Kelly on everything and probably get back in.
    Yeah, Manchin seems to be actively voting against things that would be good for West Virginia at this point - but at least they seem to be consistent with a set of principles.

    Sinema is just an absolute WTF! She stood on a platform of reducing Medicare prices by allowing medicare to negotiate with drugs companies. She is now saying she will vote against exactly that if it is the Reconciliation package.

    It makes absolutely no sense unless she is doing it for pure narcissism to show show she has the power to blow anything up.
    Sinema is from small state, libertarian Arizona, a state that even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 over LBJ.

    Biden only won Arizona in 2020 by 0.3% over Trump by squeezing the 4% Libertarian Party vote from 2016 down to 1.5% in 2020 and Sinema knows that. To be re elected she needs Libertarian Party voters and fiscally conservative Independents to vote for her.

    Manchin is from West Virginia, a state that voted for Trump even in 2020.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,674
    Farooq said:

    That Green figure looks like one to watch. 1% -> 7% is either a flash in the pan or evidence of a seismic shift in some sections of voters. Suspect the former.

    I think it's typical of mid-term protest voting. The Greens would probably do really well if we had another European election around now - but the next one isn't until 2024, and the UK won't be taking part.

    If the voters were thinking about turfing the government out they would be largely swinging behind the Opposition - as under FPTP there's no other way to be rid of the government.

    I stick by my prediction of an increased majority for the Tories at the next election. The opinion polls during this recent fuel crisis and Labour conference seem to bolster the case.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,018
    edited October 4
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular; she could vote the same way as Kelly on everything and probably get back in.
    Yeah, Manchin seems to be actively voting against things that would be good for West Virginia at this point - but at least they seem to be consistent with a set of principles.

    Sinema is just an absolute WTF! She stood on a platform of reducing Medicare prices by allowing medicare to negotiate with drugs companies. She is now saying she will vote against exactly that if it is the Reconciliation package.

    It makes absolutely no sense unless she is doing it for pure narcissism to show show she has the power to blow anything up.
    Sinema is from small state Arizona, a state that even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 over LBJ.

    Biden only won Arizona in 2020 by 0.3% over Trump by squeezing the 4% Libertarian Party vote from 2016 down to 1.5% in 2020 and Sinema knows that. To be re elected she needs Libertarian Party voters and fiscally conservative Independents to vote for her
    So you think Mark Kelly won't be re-elected, or at least is less likely to be re-elected than Sinema ?

    If you do think he'll be re-elected, or has a greater chance than Sinema please show your workings.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,713
    kinabalu said:

    Duncan Weldon
    @DuncanWeldon
    ·
    5h
    Feels like an, erm, “brave” call for the government to go so big on wages as a political dividing line given the short term inflation outlook.
    Hard not to see real wages falling in the months ahead.

    I can definitely see inflation being a thing again in the near future. Boris has essentially given firms cover for passing all manner of price increases onto the consumer, whether they actually need to or not - their excuse now is that they're just doing their bit for the new reality of having a high-wage economy. But the spurious price rises will vastly outweigh those required to fund non-immigrant workers. This could get messy.
    It could, but Johnson is already positioning. His latest wheeze is to focus on wages in sectors hit by emergency scale labour shortages and make the claim that Brexit, a project of the reactionary right in politics, is all about raising the living standards of the working class.

    "Workers of England unite! You have nothing to lose but your prospects being blighted by cheapo immigrants coming over here and depressing your pay and clogging up housing lists and GP surgeries!"

    It's quite the play. Will the base swallow it? What about floaters? We will see.
    It may have been a *project* of Dominic Cummings but it was, asyermayrecall, voted on by everyone who could be arsed, and that's what a lot of them voted for. That woman Gordon called a bigot, and so on. Which gives Johnson a chance to frame recent history as: 2016-21 Kampf; 2021-end of time Rückzahlung.
  • I can't stand people that put politics on their dating profiles, instant swipe left for me. It is irrelevant
  • Farooq said:

    Where the fuck did I get 40 from? I was assuming 400 years at 25 year generations, and I somehow got 40? Basic maths fail.

    Are you a member of Independent SAGE?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111

    Saw new Bond yesterday.

    I have to say the dialogue I thought was absolutely horrendous, the worst of the Craig era for that. So clunky and just didn't flow at all. Flat delivery of the lines also did not help.

    Still not the worst Craig film, that still goes to QoS for me.

    I watched Casino Royale last night, that film is a 10/10 to this day, it's so much better than anything that came after it. I feel like it promised something that the films after never were quite able to match.

    I hope they reboot it and bring it back to Casino Royale's gritty realism.

    That was a result of Sony pushing for it and bringing back Martin Campbell. Now we've got Amazon in charge so I expect it will be sexed up unnecessarily, the opposite of how you'd want it to be.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular; she could vote the same way as Kelly on everything and probably get back in.
    Yeah, Manchin seems to be actively voting against things that would be good for West Virginia at this point - but at least they seem to be consistent with a set of principles.

    Sinema is just an absolute WTF! She stood on a platform of reducing Medicare prices by allowing medicare to negotiate with drugs companies. She is now saying she will vote against exactly that if it is the Reconciliation package.

    It makes absolutely no sense unless she is doing it for pure narcissism to show show she has the power to blow anything up.
    Sinema is from small state Arizona, a state that even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 over LBJ.

    Biden only won Arizona in 2020 by 0.3% over Trump by squeezing the 4% Libertarian Party vote from 2016 down to 1.5% in 2020 and Sinema knows that. To be re elected she needs Libertarian Party voters and fiscally conservative Independents to vote for her
    So you think Mark Kelly won't be re-elected, or at least is less likely to be re-elected than Sinema ?

    If you do think he'll be re-elected, or has a greater chance than Sinema please show your workings.
    The latest poll shows him only 4% ahead on 43% to 39% for Mark Brnovich, his likeliest GOP opponent, with 18% undecided
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,114

    Farooq said:

    Where the fuck did I get 40 from? I was assuming 400 years at 25 year generations, and I somehow got 40? Basic maths fail.

    Are you a member of Independent SAGE?
    I'll tell you once and I'll tell you twice. No. No. No.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,134
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular; she could vote the same way as Kelly on everything and probably get back in.
    Yeah, Manchin seems to be actively voting against things that would be good for West Virginia at this point - but at least they seem to be consistent with a set of principles.

    Sinema is just an absolute WTF! She stood on a platform of reducing Medicare prices by allowing medicare to negotiate with drugs companies. She is now saying she will vote against exactly that if it is the Reconciliation package.

    It makes absolutely no sense unless she is doing it for pure narcissism to show show she has the power to blow anything up.
    Sinema is from small state, libertarian Arizona, a state that even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 over LBJ.

    Biden only won Arizona in 2020 by 0.3% over Trump by squeezing the 4% Libertarian Party vote from 2016 down to 1.5% in 2020 and Sinema knows that. To be re elected she needs Libertarian Party voters and fiscally conservative Independents to vote for her.

    Manchin is from West Virginia, a state that voted for Trump even in 2020.
    I'm sorry, but by electing two Dem Senators in Georgia the American People as a whole clearly signalled that they were in favour of big state socialism. That is the agenda they want.
  • I can't stand people that put politics on their dating profiles, instant swipe left for me. It is irrelevant

    Oh I don't know.

    When she tells you she wants you to [moderated] her more than the Tories [moderated] the mining communities then she's got me hooked.
  • MaxPB said:

    Saw new Bond yesterday.

    I have to say the dialogue I thought was absolutely horrendous, the worst of the Craig era for that. So clunky and just didn't flow at all. Flat delivery of the lines also did not help.

    Still not the worst Craig film, that still goes to QoS for me.

    I watched Casino Royale last night, that film is a 10/10 to this day, it's so much better than anything that came after it. I feel like it promised something that the films after never were quite able to match.

    I hope they reboot it and bring it back to Casino Royale's gritty realism.

    That was a result of Sony pushing for it and bringing back Martin Campbell. Now we've got Amazon in charge so I expect it will be sexed up unnecessarily, the opposite of how you'd want it to be.
    Martin Campbell saved Bond twice, GoldenEye and Casino Royale.

    Bring him back please.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,134
    We will of course ignore any Green vote change between 2016 and 2020.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,761
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular; she could vote the same way as Kelly on everything and probably get back in.
    Yeah, Manchin seems to be actively voting against things that would be good for West Virginia at this point - but at least they seem to be consistent with a set of principles.

    Sinema is just an absolute WTF! She stood on a platform of reducing Medicare prices by allowing medicare to negotiate with drugs companies. She is now saying she will vote against exactly that if it is the Reconciliation package.

    It makes absolutely no sense unless she is doing it for pure narcissism to show show she has the power to blow anything up.
    Sinema is from small state, libertarian Arizona, a state that even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 over LBJ.

    Biden only won Arizona in 2020 by 0.3% over Trump by squeezing the 4% Libertarian Party vote from 2016 down to 1.5% in 2020 and Sinema knows that. To be re elected she needs Libertarian Party voters and fiscally conservative Independents to vote for her.

    Manchin is from West Virginia, a state that voted for Trump even in 2020.
    So I get Manchin's position, because WV is a deep red state. But Arizona is purple and trending blue the last few elections - so I'm not quite sure why Sinema is so afraid of embracing an infrastructure bill which like 70% of Arizonans support in the polls.

    To be more precise, I presume she genuinely opposes it for whatever reason and this isn't tactical. Because if it is tactical then it seems to be really iffy tactics.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    darkage said:

    FPT @Selebian. I think you're blind to the issue here - I'll highlight two main points the article makes:

    (1) "In a recent report on academic freedom in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, I found that 40 percent of American academics would not hire a known Trump supporter, and 33 percent of British academics would avoid hiring a known Brexit supporter. When it comes to refereeing papers, grant bids, and promotion applications, my own work and that of others indicates that the likelihood of an academic’s discriminating against an openly conservative submission is as high as 45 percent. On a four-person panel, that makes discrimination a near certainty."

    (2) "In the 1960s there were only one and a half journalists and academics on the left for every one on the right. Today that ratio is between four to one and six to one, and considerably higher among political journalists and social-science and humanities academics. In a report on academia for the Manhattan Institute, I noted that left-leaning social-science and humanities academics now outnumber those on the right in Britain by nine to one, and in the U.S. by 14 to one. Work by Mitchell Langbert using voter-registration data for the top liberal-arts colleges and universities (for five disciplines) also shows lopsided ratios. At Harvard, for instance, a recent inquiry reported a $250-to-$1 Democrat-to-Republican donation ratio among the staff."

    It's not enough for there to be "legal" protections - hard to access, prove and leverage - because an institutional culture of intolerance creates an environment that is suffocating to those already employed and inhibits any future recruitment to correct it. This means even fewer conservatives apply in the first place and thus reinforces a monoculture.

    Those that are employed (like my friend at the University of Bath, for example, or me at the Woke firm I've just left) "fear losing (their) job or missing out on job opportunities if (their) political views became known.” And so, as in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification. This has been precisely my experience.

    It's a problem for all of us because these institutions form a large part of our civic society - arbitrating between the citizen and the state - and thus contributes to polarisation within it.

    It needs to be addressed.

    I recall having this discussion before, as I recall @Selebian is of the view that it is a non-issue because (they) work in a university, their is viewpoint diversity, and in (their) experience such discrimination relating to political views does not exist. I find this incredibly difficult to reconcile with what is described by people such as Jon Haidt, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose; and indeed the progressive polemics which appear on university websites; but accept it as one persons experience.

    Yes, many are blind to it - or think because no-one is saying anything or complaining it doesn't exist. They seem to struggle to recognise that is precisely because of that culture that they're not seeing it.

    I hear "there is no problem", "doesn't exist", or, "you're making it up!" an awful lot.
  • @MaxPB are Amazon really in charge, I thought next three films are already under Universal and the control is still with EON
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613
    edited October 4

    Farooq said:

    That Green figure looks like one to watch. 1% -> 7% is either a flash in the pan or evidence of a seismic shift in some sections of voters. Suspect the former.

    I think it's typical of mid-term protest voting. The Greens would probably do really well if we had another European election around now - but the next one isn't until 2024, and the UK won't be taking part.

    If the voters were thinking about turfing the government out they would be largely swinging behind the Opposition - as under FPTP there's no other way to be rid of the government.

    I stick by my prediction of an increased majority for the Tories at the next election. The opinion polls during this recent fuel crisis and Labour conference seem to bolster the case.
    Notable that Scottish Greens got 8.1% of the list vote in the Holyrood election recently. Best ever result in terms of MSPs, though that is partly an artefact of the buggered d'Hondt system.

    I'm sure a lot of their voters will vote otherwise at the next FPTP GE. Indeed that must have happened at the Holyrood election aforesaid as the Greens only got 1.29% in the constituency vote at the same time as that 8.1% list vote.

    I suspect that some will vote LD, some Slab and some SNP - one reason for the recent pact between the SNP and SGs and for Mr Starmer some months ago trying to park his lawn on the SG's biofuel tanks.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,604

    I can't stand people that put politics on their dating profiles, instant swipe left for me. It is irrelevant

    Oh I don't know.

    When she tells you she wants you to [moderated] her more than the Tories [moderated] the mining communities then she's got me hooked.
    There would be PBers in that situation who'd reply 'I think you'll find Harold Wilson closed more mines than Margaret Thatcher'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    edited October 4
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular; she could vote the same way as Kelly on everything and probably get back in.
    Yeah, Manchin seems to be actively voting against things that would be good for West Virginia at this point - but at least they seem to be consistent with a set of principles.

    Sinema is just an absolute WTF! She stood on a platform of reducing Medicare prices by allowing medicare to negotiate with drugs companies. She is now saying she will vote against exactly that if it is the Reconciliation package.

    It makes absolutely no sense unless she is doing it for pure narcissism to show show she has the power to blow anything up.
    Sinema is from small state, libertarian Arizona, a state that even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 over LBJ.

    Biden only won Arizona in 2020 by 0.3% over Trump by squeezing the 4% Libertarian Party vote from 2016 down to 1.5% in 2020 and Sinema knows that. To be re elected she needs Libertarian Party voters and fiscally conservative Independents to vote for her.

    Manchin is from West Virginia, a state that voted for Trump even in 2020.
    I'm sorry, but by electing two Dem Senators in Georgia the American People as a whole clearly signalled that they were in favour of big state socialism. That is the agenda they want.
    Nope.

    In 2016 Georgia voted 50% Trump, 45% Hillary and 3% Libertarian.

    In 2020 Georgia voted 49.4% Biden and 49.2% Trump and 1% Libertarian. So without gaining votes from the small state Libertarian Party Biden would have lost Georgia.

    The American people did not give the Democrats a landslide in the Senate either for socialism, they only gave the Democrats control via the casting votes of Manchin and Sinema

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 24,519

    So Michael Gove was introduced to conference with Dancing Queen blaring.

    Least they resisted "gimme gimme gimme a man after midnight".
  • I can't stand people that put politics on their dating profiles, instant swipe left for me. It is irrelevant

    Oh I don't know.

    When she tells you she wants you to [moderated] her more than the Tories [moderated] the mining communities then she's got me hooked.
    There would be PBers in that situation who'd reply 'I think you'll find Harold Wilson closed more mines than Margaret Thatcher'.
    I've used a variation of that.

    But I'm not a cad.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,134
    Scotland cases: An awesome 1,760.

    First sub 2000 day since Mid August. Rate of decrease is slowing though. That's only 15% down week on week.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,761
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - her state is a blue state now, she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular.
    Manchin and Sinema are right.

    Remember Trump actually got a higher voteshare in 2020 than 2016, Biden only won by squeezing the over 3% Libertarian vote in 2016 to 1% in 2020 with almost all those fiscally conservative Libertarian voters voting for him.

    If Biden had not won those 2016 Libertarian voters he would have lost Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and the EC so the Democrats cannot afford to be too tax and spend or they will lose them again
    Trumpism is about many things, a small state is not one of them.
    No but Biden didn't win by winning Trump voters from 2016, as I said Trump even increased his voteshare on 2016 in 2020.

    Biden only won in 2020 by getting small state voters who voted Libertarian Party in 2016 to vote for him in 2020
    Is their polling to back that up? Because instinctively it feels more likely that those voters went back to Trump or split fairly evenly (third party voters in the US often being more general protest-y than their votes superficially suggest) and Biden took a few votes from suburban Republicans. So Trump gains vote share, but Biden (who gets some GOP votes and some Green voters coming 'home') gains more.

    But there may be polling I've forgotten about which strongly suggests otherwise. Our intuitions about how voters behave are often wrong in my experience.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,839
    Carnyx said:

    Farooq said:

    That Green figure looks like one to watch. 1% -> 7% is either a flash in the pan or evidence of a seismic shift in some sections of voters. Suspect the former.

    I think it's typical of mid-term protest voting. The Greens would probably do really well if we had another European election around now - but the next one isn't until 2024, and the UK won't be taking part.

    If the voters were thinking about turfing the government out they would be largely swinging behind the Opposition - as under FPTP there's no other way to be rid of the government.

    I stick by my prediction of an increased majority for the Tories at the next election. The opinion polls during this recent fuel crisis and Labour conference seem to bolster the case.
    Notable that Scottish Greens got 8.1% of the list vote in the Holyrood election recently. Best ever result in terms of MSPs, though that is partly an artefact of the buggered d'Hondt system.

    I'm sure a lot of their voters will vote otherwise at the next FPTP GE. Indeed that must have happened at the Holyrood election aforesaid as the Greens only got 1.29% in the constituency vote at the same time as that 8.1% list vote.

    I suspect that some will vote LD, some Slab and some SNP - one reason for the recent pact between the SNP and SGs and for Mr Starmer some months ago trying to park his lawn on the SG's biofuel tanks.

    A Green MSP list vote was a means of maximising the independence vote if the SNP were unlikely to win a list seat in that constituency
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular; she could vote the same way as Kelly on everything and probably get back in.
    Yeah, Manchin seems to be actively voting against things that would be good for West Virginia at this point - but at least they seem to be consistent with a set of principles.

    Sinema is just an absolute WTF! She stood on a platform of reducing Medicare prices by allowing medicare to negotiate with drugs companies. She is now saying she will vote against exactly that if it is the Reconciliation package.

    It makes absolutely no sense unless she is doing it for pure narcissism to show show she has the power to blow anything up.
    Sinema is from small state, libertarian Arizona, a state that even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 over LBJ.

    Biden only won Arizona in 2020 by 0.3% over Trump by squeezing the 4% Libertarian Party vote from 2016 down to 1.5% in 2020 and Sinema knows that. To be re elected she needs Libertarian Party voters and fiscally conservative Independents to vote for her.

    Manchin is from West Virginia, a state that voted for Trump even in 2020.
    So I get Manchin's position, because WV is a deep red state. But Arizona is purple and trending blue the last few elections - so I'm not quite sure why Sinema is so afraid of embracing an infrastructure bill which like 70% of Arizonans support in the polls.

    To be more precise, I presume she genuinely opposes it for whatever reason and this isn't tactical. Because if it is tactical then it seems to be really iffy tactics.
    It is the extra spending tacked onto the infrastructure bill she opposes
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq said:

    That Green figure looks like one to watch. 1% -> 7% is either a flash in the pan or evidence of a seismic shift in some sections of voters. Suspect the former.

    I think it's typical of mid-term protest voting. The Greens would probably do really well if we had another European election around now - but the next one isn't until 2024, and the UK won't be taking part.

    If the voters were thinking about turfing the government out they would be largely swinging behind the Opposition - as under FPTP there's no other way to be rid of the government.

    I stick by my prediction of an increased majority for the Tories at the next election. The opinion polls during this recent fuel crisis and Labour conference seem to bolster the case.
    Notable that Scottish Greens got 8.1% of the list vote in the Holyrood election recently. Best ever result in terms of MSPs, though that is partly an artefact of the buggered d'Hondt system.

    I'm sure a lot of their voters will vote otherwise at the next FPTP GE. Indeed that must have happened at the Holyrood election aforesaid as the Greens only got 1.29% in the constituency vote at the same time as that 8.1% list vote.

    I suspect that some will vote LD, some Slab and some SNP - one reason for the recent pact between the SNP and SGs and for Mr Starmer some months ago trying to park his lawn on the SG's biofuel tanks.

    A Green MSP list vote was a means of maximising the independence vote if the SNP were unlikely to win a list seat in that constituency
    Indeed, I had forgotten that.But how far is it that and how far a real Greening?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,320

    I can't stand people that put politics on their dating profiles, instant swipe left for me. It is irrelevant

    Oh I don't know.

    When she tells you she wants you to [moderated] her more than the Tories [moderated] the mining farming communities then she's got me hooked.
    FTFY
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,198
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Where the fuck did I get 40 from? I was assuming 400 years at 25 year generations, and I somehow got 40? Basic maths fail.

    Are you a member of Independent SAGE?
    I'll tell you once and I'll tell you twice. No. No. No.
    That's thrice!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    edited October 4
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.



    "Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/opinion/jan-6-trump-eastman-election.html

    He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
    Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
    To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
    Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way.
    Sinema is even worse - her state is a blue state now, she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular.
    Manchin and Sinema are right.

    Remember Trump actually got a higher voteshare in 2020 than 2016, Biden only won by squeezing the over 3% Libertarian vote in 2016 to 1% in 2020 with almost all those fiscally conservative Libertarian voters voting for him.

    If Biden had not won those 2016 Libertarian voters he would have lost Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and the EC so the Democrats cannot afford to be too tax and spend or they will lose them again
    Trumpism is about many things, a small state is not one of them.
    No but Biden didn't win by winning Trump voters from 2016, as I said Trump even increased his voteshare on 2016 in 2020.

    Biden only won in 2020 by getting small state voters who voted Libertarian Party in 2016 to vote for him in 2020
    Is their polling to back that up? Because instinctively it feels more likely that those voters went back to Trump or split fairly evenly (third party voters in the US often being more general protest-y than their votes superficially suggest) and Biden took a few votes from suburban Republicans. So Trump gains vote share, but Biden (who gets some GOP votes and some Green voters coming 'home') gains more.

    But there may be polling I've forgotten about which strongly suggests otherwise. Our intuitions about how voters behave are often wrong in my experience.
    Even if that is so suburban Republicans are fiscally conservative, socially moderate.

    If they voted for Biden they did so to remove Trump not for socialism.

    It was Democratic overreach after their wins in 1992 and 2008 which saw the GOP midterm landslides of 1994 and 2010 as fiscally conservative suburbanites revolted
  • On topic, I remember Ben Lauderdale saying the MRP is only worth doing 12 months before an election and gets more accurate when we're six months or fewer away from election day.

    https://benjaminlauderdale.net/publications/election-mrp-paper/
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 5,418

    FPT: "Plenty of religious people only date religious people too."

    Like priests and nuns.

    I've seen quite a few films featuring nuns keen to, ahem, 'date.'
    Sounds like a bad habit!
  • TOPPING said:

    I can't stand people that put politics on their dating profiles, instant swipe left for me. It is irrelevant

    Oh I don't know.

    When she tells you she wants you to [moderated] her more than the Tories [moderated] the mining farming communities then she's got me hooked.
    FTFY
    Thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.