Howdy, Stranger!

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

The conference season voting intention polls – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited October 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.13
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

    But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.

    People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html

    I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
    Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:

    'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?

    I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
    Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?

    *not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
    Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.

    How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
    No dogs, blacks or Irish.

    Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.

    Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
    Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.

    Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.

    The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
    Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.

    Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
    In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
    Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
    From the outside Canada feels like at least a tie? But yes, we are doing much better than most of the world on racism, should be proud of that but also acknowledge there is more to do.
    I don't think Mauritius has quite the history with regard to the treatment of the indigenous people that Canada has.
    Largely, if not solely, due to the fact that there were no indigenous people.
    I see we were both making the same point simultaneously.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.13
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

    But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.

    People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html

    I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
    Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:

    'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?

    I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
    Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?

    *not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
    Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.

    How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
    No dogs, blacks or Irish.

    Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.

    Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
    Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.

    Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.

    The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
    Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.

    Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
    In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
    Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
    From the outside Canada feels like at least a tie? But yes, we are doing much better than most of the world on racism, should be proud of that but also acknowledge there is more to do.
    Not if you are indigenous. The levels of institutional and casual racism against what are actually the original inhabitants is quite shocking. Even to someone who grew up in working class 70's Lancashire.
    I had the exact same thought, Dixie.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    TimT said:

    Taz said:

    eek said:

    I've upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year. Got a significant sum on now

    The new BoE chief economist is starting to make hawkish noises.

    Looks like we (you, I am leaving) might be heading for a perfect storm of inflation + interest rates + trade friction + benefit cuts + tax rises + supply shocks (labour, energy, distribution).
    I doubt many other places, especially the US, are in a much better position.

    This is 20 years of short term decisions coming home to roost.
    Maybe they have run out of road to kick the can down.
    If the road runs out, politicians will find a way to imagine the road down which to kick the can.
    Self preservation is a great motivator.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    Taz said:

    Roger said:

    It is a really interesting moment just afttr the Tory Party Conference.......

    Up and down the country people will be comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency.

    It's the column each person puts themselves into that will determine the result of next election.

    It's the zeitgeist. Unknown at the moment but I've never felt more alienated to any party than I do towards to-days Tories.

    Every day Roger you are a just bit more alienated from the Tory party,... just so you can keep writing about how alienated you are. You are a one trick.pony. Noone gives a fuck how alienated you actually are, or that your alienation is greater day by day. You were never going to vote for Boris anyway...
    Who is Noone? Peter Noone of 1960s beat-combo Herman's Hermits.
    He’s into something good.
    Something tells me he's into "comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency".
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    rpjs said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.13
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

    But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.

    People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html

    I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
    Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:

    'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?

    I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
    Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?

    *not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
    Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.

    How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
    No dogs, blacks or Irish.

    Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.

    Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
    Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.

    Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.

    The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
    Weird rewriting of history.

    It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.

    Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.

    Not that weird a rewriting of history..

    Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.

    Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.

    So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
    AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.

    7%.
    Everyone has the vote in Russia today, but I'd argue that Britain was more democratic in the late 18th century than Russia is today.

    It's a mistake to think of democracy as solely about multi-party elections and a wide franchise. There are so many more important aspects.
    There are countries like Botswana where the ruling party has remained in power for decades, yet there are opposition parties, and the country has the rule of law and regularly conducts free and fair elections that are internationally seen to be so. It’s just that no credible opposition party that the electorate has any confidence in has ever arisen there. Is Botswana a democracy? Yes. I don’t think there’s any doubt it is.
    You could make a similar case about the LDP in Japan, which ruled in Japan from 1955 to the mid-90s. (And continues to dominate today.)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    The "the UK is doing badly on deaths" masks very varied performances between individual countries:



    https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.

    The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    He was there for another 26 years after losing the Tory party leadership, he probably stayed to so he could outlast Maggie Thatcher who beat him in 1975.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    edited October 2021

    Taz said:

    Roger said:

    It is a really interesting moment just afttr the Tory Party Conference.......

    Up and down the country people will be comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency.

    It's the column each person puts themselves into that will determine the result of next election.

    It's the zeitgeist. Unknown at the moment but I've never felt more alienated to any party than I do towards to-days Tories.

    Every day Roger you are a just bit more alienated from the Tory party,... just so you can keep writing about how alienated you are. You are a one trick.pony. Noone gives a fuck how alienated you actually are, or that your alienation is greater day by day. You were never going to vote for Boris anyway...
    Who is Noone? Peter Noone of 1960s beat-combo Herman's Hermits.
    He’s into something good.
    Something tells me he's into "comparing Priti Patel (the face of the Tory Conference) and Marcus Rashford the face of decency".
    There was a kind of hush when I read that.
    I went into the kitchen to make tea and realised that there was No milk today.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    The "the UK is doing badly on deaths" masks very varied performances between individual countries:



    https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/

    Wales should be top for deaths, N Ireland bottom - they have the oldest and youngest populations of the UK iirc.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    TimS said:

    Political compass skews left on economics largely I think because the right wing questions are absolutist: e.g. something like "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" is something I suspect only about 10% of people would agree with, but if you answer disagree (as I did) hat marks you down as anti-free market.

    Would be better if there were more nuanced takes such as "state intervention in markets can often cause distortions and reduce consumer choice" or "free markets often deliver a good outcome for humanity".

    I think that is a general objection to such questionnaires - they give little or no opportunity to express positive support for pluralism.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    The "the UK is doing badly on deaths" masks very varied performances between individual countries:



    https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/

    How different are the numbers on cumulative? (Short term, it'll presumably be wherever has the outbreak that has the deaths.)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    DeClare said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    He was there for another 26 years after losing the Tory party leadership, he probably stayed to so he could outlast Maggie Thatcher who beat him in 1975.
    I suspect he may simply have enjoyed being in Parliament.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.

    The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
    I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
    That would be sub-13.7%.
    What do you reckon?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited October 2021
    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
    That would be sub-13.7%.
    What do you reckon?
    Highly unlikely
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    eek said:

    DeClare said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    He was there for another 26 years after losing the Tory party leadership, he probably stayed to so he could outlast Maggie Thatcher who beat him in 1975.
    I suspect he may simply have enjoyed being in Parliament.
    Much of the time he was regarded as sulking.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    rcs1000 said:

    The "the UK is doing badly on deaths" masks very varied performances between individual countries:



    https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/

    How different are the numbers on cumulative? (Short term, it'll presumably be wherever has the outbreak that has the deaths.)
    Since the beginning of the epidemic - I'm surprised to see England doing worst, but I guess that's the consequence of it being the place with the densest cities:


  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    I've upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year. Got a significant sum on now

    Random fluctations are in your favour, but no obvious conference bounce yet. If covid worsens, and restrictions get imposed will that help you over the line? I think its a pretty strong chance.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.

    The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
    I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
    "As close to a certainty as there can be"

    So, you'll offer me - what - 50-1?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
    That would be sub-13.7%.
    What do you reckon?
    Highly unlikely
    Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it.
    London is so much different to 1983.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    Pulpstar said:

    The "the UK is doing badly on deaths" masks very varied performances between individual countries:



    https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/

    Wales should be top for deaths, N Ireland bottom - they have the oldest and youngest populations of the UK iirc.
    As is often the case with Carlotta a raw statistic can be used to utmost effect in order to undermine the devolved administrations.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    tlg86 said:

    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election

    Probably the worst Speaker in.my.lifetime.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.

    The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
    I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
    Not their vote total because there's bound to be a lower turnout, but they might increase their percentage.
    That part of Greater London is not natural Lib/Dem territory though.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The "the UK is doing badly on deaths" masks very varied performances between individual countries:



    https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/

    How different are the numbers on cumulative? (Short term, it'll presumably be wherever has the outbreak that has the deaths.)
    Since the beginning of the epidemic - I'm surprised to see England doing worst, but I guess that's the consequence of it being the place with the densest cities:


    Earlier there was a Twitter thread posted by one of our friends in the north (selectively) citing "current UK death rates" and then launching into a tirade about what Johnson is getting wrong - but Johnson is only directly responsible for England which has had the lowest death rate for a month now.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618

    Awful news about James Brokenshire

    Very sad. RIP.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    edited October 2021

    tlg86 said:

    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election

    Probably the worst Speaker in.my.lifetime.
    ... he was dire. Bercow by contrast was a firebrand.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    Sad occasion for it, but should Breslin the streak of different parties winning the last 4 by elections, i think , which might have continued if the next was Lagan Valley.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    I used to work in nearby Dartford - it's a bit posher but not as much as the seat name suggests. Not likely fertile territory for the LDs. unless things have changed mightily in the past decade or so.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004

    tlg86 said:

    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election

    Probably the worst Speaker in.my.lifetime.
    There's been some good competition in recent history.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    tlg86 said:

    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election

    The old bastard had a sense of humour...
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
    That would be sub-13.7%.
    What do you reckon?
    Highly unlikely
    Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it.
    London is so much different to 1983.
    If Labour do come third, how would it be Corbyn's fault? The heckler at the conference?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Disapointing covid numbers, is england covid breaking out from the school children?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    tlg86 said:

    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election

    Probably the worst Speaker in.my.lifetime.
    I don't think the Father of the House gets much sway in the person who ends up being elected speaker.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.

    The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
    I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
    "As close to a certainty as there can be"

    So, you'll offer me - what - 50-1?
    I'm sure there are more profitable ways to leverage such near certainties.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.

    The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
    I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
    "As close to a certainty as there can be"

    So, you'll offer me - what - 50-1?
    I'm not sure I'd give you 1/50!
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    felix said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    I used to work in nearby Dartford - it's a bit posher but not as much as the seat name suggests. Not likely fertile territory for the LDs. unless things have changed mightily in the past decade or so.
    I suspect it's a seat the Labour needs to do better in but won't do enough to win so the end result is irrelevant and there won't be any worthwhile betting options.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.

    The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
    I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
    "As close to a certainty as there can be"

    So, you'll offer me - what - 50-1?
    If you get any takers at 50 - 1 can I share it with you :smiley:
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004
    Cases more or less flat compared to last week. Hospitalisations down and deaths flat. Hoping the flat cases is not a one off.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
    It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Alistair said:

    Disapointing covid numbers, is england covid breaking out from the school children?

    My girlfriend worked at a school in East London before she took maternity leave. Loads of the staff are off with Covid now, so maybe it is that
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    I see the appropriate time has now passed and we're into the thick of discussing the by-election. :tongue:
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618

    I've upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year. Got a significant sum on now

    The new BoE chief economist is starting to make hawkish noises.

    Looks like we (you, I am leaving) might be heading for a perfect storm of inflation + interest rates + trade friction + benefit cuts + tax rises + supply shocks (labour, energy, distribution).
    The Tories' Quintuple Whammy

    Higher taxes
    Bigger bills
    Soaring rates
    Rising prices
    Frequent shortages


  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited October 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The "the UK is doing badly on deaths" masks very varied performances between individual countries:



    https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/

    How different are the numbers on cumulative? (Short term, it'll presumably be wherever has the outbreak that has the deaths.)
    Since the beginning of the epidemic - I'm surprised to see England doing worst, but I guess that's the consequence of it being the place with the densest cities:


    The difference between England and Scotland for the winter wave was huge.

    Specifically thr South/London g if you remeber thr north was still in various forms of local restriction going into winter whilst London had reopened the theatres etc.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
    That would be sub-13.7%.
    What do you reckon?
    Highly unlikely
    I'd expect the Labour vote to hold reasonably ok - more so than the LDs. Just not their kinda place really.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    edited October 2021
    Opposition backbenchers make immigration decisions. Or some such.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/08/labour-mp-rupa-huq-hits-back-at-abuse-from-supporters-of-polish-far-right-author

    Or maybe the Home Office is simply no fan of the Polish far-right?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    @LostPassword fpt

    Marcus Rashford has not given £20m to charity. A campaign he fronted raised £20m. Good for him - but not the same as article you posted

    Tesco gave £15m, Asda £2.5m, CO-op £1.5m of that £20m.

    As Marcus said in the article linked “I put in a bit of money and the number was £50,000” - implies he gave less than £50,000 although not clear exactly what

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/marcus-rashford-charity-donate-food-children-fareshare-man-utd-a9475846.html

    If there was a crank axis on that survey, Charles’s belief that only elected representatives should espouse a policy view is right up there.
    That’s a misrepresentation of my position

    But sadly I’ve come to expect that of you
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004
    Alistair said:

    Disapointing covid numbers, is england covid breaking out from the school children?

    It's been slowly adding cases to the parent cohort, including myself, last week. I'm not sure there can be that many more school kids to effect. They all seem to have been exposed to it now. My 12yo has been through half her school class getting Covid plus both her parents and siblings without getting it.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    Alistair said:

    Disapointing covid numbers, is england covid breaking out from the school children?

    The rate of increase has fallen – and the daily numbers are within an ace of flat w-o-w?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    tlg86 said:

    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election

    Probably the worst Speaker in.my.lifetime.
    How soon is Bercow forgotten. :smiley:
  • I wonder if in a few years, we will see this period as the GFC for the Tories
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Yes, exactly the same thing struck me.
    I don't think there's much to be learned about national politics from this by election, especially given the reasons for the vacancy. Perhaps the relative performance between Labour and Lib Dems might be of interest? Can the Lib Dems hold onto that increase of voters?
    I would expect turnout to be well down - perhaps 30,000 votes in total. Of this, the Cons will get 15,000, Labour 9,000 and the LDs 5,000. A comfortable Conservative hold on a low turnout.

    The LDs will make a big thing about being the only major party to increase their absolute numer of votes. But no-one will care.
    I very strongly doubt the Lib Dems will increase their vote total. In fact, it's as close to a certainty as there can be.
    "As close to a certainty as there can be"

    So, you'll offer me - what - 50-1?
    If you get any takers at 50 - 1 can I share it with you :smiley:
    Come on, you said "as close to a certainty as there can be", so you have to be pretty sure. What are you offering?
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    eek said:

    DeClare said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    He was there for another 26 years after losing the Tory party leadership, he probably stayed to so he could outlast Maggie Thatcher who beat him in 1975.
    I suspect he may simply have enjoyed being in Parliament.
    There are times when constituency officials should put their foot down and tell a long standing MP that it's time to retire, three that spring to mind:

    Winston Churchill in 1959
    Ted Heath in 1997
    Dennis Skinner in 2019
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    felix said:

    tlg86 said:

    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election

    Probably the worst Speaker in.my.lifetime.
    How soon is Bercow forgotten. :smiley:
    A
    Giant
    Of
    A
    Man
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
    That would be sub-13.7%.
    What do you reckon?
    Highly unlikely
    Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it.
    London is so much different to 1983.
    If Labour do come third, how would it be Corbyn's fault? The heckler at the conference?
    We shall have to await and see. Doubtless there will be some such.
    But I can't see it happening. I see the Tory share falling. But not below 45%. Probably not even 50%.
    And the excess not coalescing. Low turnout too.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    The University of Hong Kong has demanded the Pillar of Shame sculpture be removed by Oct 13 at 5 pm. The sculpture, by Danish artist Jens Galschiot, was erected in remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, which killed scores of demonstrators in Beijing.

    https://twitter.com/ezracheungtoto/status/1446416215648260096?s=20

    I think it would look nice on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square.

    Then maybe relocate it to Portland Place
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    DeClare said:

    rpjs said:

    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.13
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

    But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.

    People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html

    I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
    Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:

    'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?

    I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
    Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?

    *not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
    Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.

    How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
    No dogs, blacks or Irish.

    Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.

    Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
    Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.

    Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.

    The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
    Weird rewriting of history.

    It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.

    Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.

    Not that weird a rewriting of history..

    Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.

    Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.

    So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
    AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.

    7%.
    It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.

    The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.

    That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
    Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
    “Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
    Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir.
    I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
    While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
    That would be sub-13.7%.
    What do you reckon?
    Highly unlikely
    Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it.
    London is so much different to 1983.
    If Labour do come third, how would it be Corbyn's fault? The heckler at the conference?
    Labour won't come third. Unless, for some reason, the Conservatives decided to put up two competing candidates.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
    It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
    I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice).
    Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    tlg86 said:

    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election

    Probably the worst Speaker in.my.lifetime.
    ... he was dire. Bercow by contrast was a firebrand.
    And Hoyle head and shoulders - both literally and figuratively - above either of them.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    DeClare said:

    eek said:

    DeClare said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    He was there for another 26 years after losing the Tory party leadership, he probably stayed to so he could outlast Maggie Thatcher who beat him in 1975.
    I suspect he may simply have enjoyed being in Parliament.
    There are times when constituency officials should put their foot down and tell a long standing MP that it's time to retire, three that spring to mind:

    Winston Churchill in 1959
    Ted Heath in 1997
    Dennis Skinner in 2019
    Worth saying that Cheryl Gillan only stayed on in 2019 because her husband had died and she didn't know what else to do with her time, now her retirement plans had disappeared.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    rpjs said:

    DeClare said:

    rpjs said:

    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.13
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

    But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.

    People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html

    I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
    Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:

    'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?

    I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
    Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?

    *not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
    Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.

    How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
    No dogs, blacks or Irish.

    Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.

    Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
    Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.

    Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.

    The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
    Weird rewriting of history.

    It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.

    Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.

    Not that weird a rewriting of history..

    Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.

    Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.

    So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
    AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.

    7%.
    It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.

    The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.

    That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
    Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
    “Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
    Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir.
    I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
    While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
    Although wasn't that a deliberate decision with Whitelaw? It was a hereditary peerage in name only.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Alistair said:

    Disapointing covid numbers, is england covid breaking out from the school children?

    The rate of increase has fallen – and the daily numbers are within an ace of flat w-o-w?
    Split by country.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    .
    rpjs said:

    DeClare said:

    rpjs said:

    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.13
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

    But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.

    People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html

    I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
    Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:

    'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?

    I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
    Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?

    *not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
    Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.

    How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
    No dogs, blacks or Irish.

    Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.

    Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
    Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.

    Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.

    The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
    Weird rewriting of history.

    It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.

    Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.

    Not that weird a rewriting of history..

    Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.

    Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.

    So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
    AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.

    7%.
    It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.

    The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.

    That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
    Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
    “Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
    Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir.
    I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
    While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
    That is at least nominatively appropriate.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    edited October 2021
    Cookie said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
    It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
    I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice).
    Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
    Hmm, Wodehouse used the name Lord Sidcup for his comic version of Oswald Mosley. Could work either way, mind.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    rcs1000 said:

    rpjs said:

    DeClare said:

    rpjs said:

    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.13
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

    But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.

    People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html

    I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
    Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:

    'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?

    I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
    Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?

    *not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
    Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.

    How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
    No dogs, blacks or Irish.

    Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.

    Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
    Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.

    Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.

    The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
    Weird rewriting of history.

    It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.

    Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.

    Not that weird a rewriting of history..

    Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.

    Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.

    So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
    AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.

    7%.
    It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.

    The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.

    That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
    Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
    “Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
    Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir.
    I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
    While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
    Although wasn't that a deliberate decision with Whitelaw? It was a hereditary peerage in name only.
    I didn’t know that. Interesting. I recall Thatcher reviving the creation of hereditary peerages being quite controversial at the time.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.

    Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
    That would be sub-13.7%.
    What do you reckon?
    Highly unlikely
    Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it.
    London is so much different to 1983.
    If Labour do come third, how would it be Corbyn's fault? The heckler at the conference?
    Labour won't come third. Unless, for some reason, the Conservatives decided to put up two competing candidates.
    UKIP? Reform?
    They're the alternate form of the modern Conservative party are they not?

    I seem to recall Orpington being written off as a prospect all those years ago, but I don't know the area and I'm inclined to believe those do and are are writing the LD's off.

    One feature of the Orpington count that I clearly recall was the cameras being let in, and watching the packets of votes pile up in the Liberal boxes.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    Omnium said:

    Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.

    Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?

    Farage as PM in waiting? I don't much like your parallel universe.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    rpjs said:

    DeClare said:

    rpjs said:

    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.13
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

    But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.

    People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html

    I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
    Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:

    'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?

    I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
    Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?

    *not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
    Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.

    How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
    No dogs, blacks or Irish.

    Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.

    Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
    Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.

    Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.

    The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
    Weird rewriting of history.

    It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.

    Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.

    Not that weird a rewriting of history..

    Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.

    Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.

    So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
    AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.

    7%.
    It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.

    The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.

    That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
    Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
    “Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
    Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir.
    I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
    While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
    In general older titles created by writ of summons and some Scottish titles could be inherited by women but there are exceptions, when Louis Mountbatten was made an Earl in 1947 for his wartime service, he got King George VI to insert a clause allowing his title to be inherited by his daughter Patricia.
    She became the Countess Mountbatten in her own right and she married a Baron so their son is now the third Earl and also Baron (or Lord) Brabourne which can be used as a courtesy title by his own son.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Cookie said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
    It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
    I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice).
    Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
    I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    felix said:

    tlg86 said:

    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election

    Probably the worst Speaker in.my.lifetime.
    How soon is Bercow forgotten. :smiley:
    Wasnt as bad as Martin. Terrible man.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    Omnium said:

    Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.

    Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?

    Farage as PM in waiting? I don't much like your parallel universe.
    Good god man, nor do I!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
    It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
    I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice).
    Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
    I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
    Someone, IIRC on the TV, was being nice about Jaywick the other day.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
    It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
    I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice).
    Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
    I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
    I lived in Winchester in the 90s. Very safe over all but there were certain “squaddie pubs” that civilians strayed into at their peril.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    felix said:

    tlg86 said:

    Ted Heath oversaw the election of Michael Martin as Speaker of the Commons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Speaker_of_the_British_House_of_Commons_election

    Probably the worst Speaker in.my.lifetime.
    How soon is Bercow forgotten. :smiley:
    Wasnt as bad as Martin. Terrible man.
    Martin saw himself as the MPs' Shop Steward which is why the expenses scandal blew up on his watch - but there weren't reports of him bullying his staff.

    Bercow is a pompous insecure bully far too fond of the sound of his own voice, now enjoying thoroughly well deserved obscurity.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    Omnium said:

    Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.

    Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?

    The usual parties of opposition are demonstrating why they have become the usual parties of opposition, rather than government.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Disapointing covid numbers, is england covid breaking out from the school children?

    The rate of increase has fallen – and the daily numbers are within an ace of flat w-o-w?
    Split by country.
    I CBA to do the maths myself but the English rate of increase is falling according to Andrew Lilico on Twitter.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
    That would be sub-13.7%.
    What do you reckon?
    Highly unlikely
    Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it.
    London is so much different to 1983.
    If Labour do come third, how would it be Corbyn's fault? The heckler at the conference?
    Labour won't come third. Unless, for some reason, the Conservatives decided to put up two competing candidates.
    UKIP? Reform?
    They're the alternate form of the modern Conservative party are they not?

    I seem to recall Orpington being written off as a prospect all those years ago, but I don't know the area and I'm inclined to believe those do and are are writing the LD's off.

    One feature of the Orpington count that I clearly recall was the cameras being let in, and watching the packets of votes pile up in the Liberal boxes.
    Bexley and Sidcup is relatively middle class, but very different from the inner suburban boroughs towards London - Greenwich and Lewisham. Demographically it has the feel of the Estuary - relatively old, white, and it was a leave voting constituency in 2016. It is not as leafy as Orpington but not as urban as Crayford and Dartford.

    I've canvassed for the Lib Dems in the furthest reaches of Lewisham not far from the borders of Bexley and it's a thankless task. Only place I've had a leaflet torn up and thrown back at me. I would expect it to be an easy Tory hold with the Lib Dems nowhere and Labour going backwards.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Omnium said:

    Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.

    Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?

    If ever someone was in need of a new opinion..
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Who will try to get a flu jab this winter?

    65+ yr olds - 88%
    50-64 yr olds - 75%
    General public - 61%
    25-49 yr olds - 46%
    18-24 yr olds - 30%


    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446498493829423136?s=20

    For those who missed it in the morning thread, the jab is free for over 50s and £14.99 for everyone else - if you don't want to do it via your GP I found the Boots online booking and instore service quick and efficient:

    https://www.boots.com/online/pharmacy-services/winter-flu-jab-services
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
    It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
    I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice).
    Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
    I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
    Not anymore though. Very pleasant place nowadays. Just a few miles from my vineyard.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.13
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

    But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.

    People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html

    I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
    Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:

    'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?

    I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
    Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?

    *not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
    Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.

    How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
    No dogs, blacks or Irish.

    Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.

    Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
    Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.

    Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.

    The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
    Yes. So have I. You have been to Egypt and China and come away without believing that it is even arguable that the world might have an overpopulation problem, though, so I'm not sure how much attention you were paying.

    Have you never visited continental Europe or is there some other reason that no country there gets a mention?
    In all seriousness I would like to hear suggestions for countries that are less racist than Britain. Taking official and informal criteria into account. In my opinion there are a few in Western Europe that tie but otherwise I can't think of any.
    Mauritius seems the most relaxed about race and religion of all the places that I have ever been. Lovely little country.
    From the outside Canada feels like at least a tie? But yes, we are doing much better than most of the world on racism, should be proud of that but also acknowledge there is more to do.
    Not if you are indigenous. The levels of institutional and casual racism against what are actually the original inhabitants is quite shocking. Even to someone who grew up in working class 70's Lancashire.
    If you grew up in working class Lancs you(r ancestors) are most unlikely to have been an indigenous inhabitant.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Selebian said:

    Omnium said:

    Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.

    Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?

    The usual parties of opposition are demonstrating why they have become the usual parties of opposition, rather than government.
    Surely there must be more to government beyond the blustering nothingness that Boris seems to eschew and the empty nothingness of the opposition parties. Maybe not!?

    I rather believe in small government, perhaps this one is demonstrating the benefits whilst not having given up on the costs?

    (I'm overblowing the above slightly)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Farooq said:

    Omnium said:

    Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.

    Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?

    If ever someone was in need of a new opinion..
    Do tell.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    Political compass skews left on economics largely I think because the right wing questions are absolutist: e.g. something like "completely free markets will always deliver the best outcome for humanity" is something I suspect only about 10% of people would agree with, but if you answer disagree (as I did) hat marks you down as anti-free market.

    Would be better if there were more nuanced takes such as "state intervention in markets can often cause distortions and reduce consumer choice" or "free markets often deliver a good outcome for humanity".

    I think that is a general objection to such questionnaires - they give little or no opportunity to express positive support for pluralism.
    Gave up on page two. The questions were deep and the answers allowed shallow. To be able to answer them within the limits required a simplistic an unnuanced approach to political realities.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    edited October 2021
    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Will Labour get their fourth successive worst ever vote share in an English constituency? One for Smarkets!!!
    That would be sub-13.7%.
    What do you reckon?
    Highly unlikely
    Yeah me too. The only possibility is if the LD's somehow get into a position where they look like they have a chance. Can't see it.
    London is so much different to 1983.
    If it really were (inner) London, it might be a different story. But Bexley is full of van or taxi driving leavers
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Omnium said:

    Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.

    Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?

    Has Farage ever demonstrated any skill in actually running anything?

    He's an incredibly forceful, articulate guy, who performs well in debates and in interviews. But I never got the feeling he did a very good job of running UKIP (or the Brexit Party).

    And I couldn't see him as a successful Mayor. He's also one of a very few number of politicians who get very serious negative votes against.

    There's also the question of judgement. He has been far too keen to align himself with autocrats - people for whom the rule of law means nothing, and which is completely at odds with his historic rhetoric. It's the kind of thing that really sticks in my throat.

    So, I don't think he'd be a great PM. Indeed, if forced to choose between Starmer and Farage, I know who I'd vote for.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
    It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
    I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice).
    Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
    I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
    Someone, IIRC on the TV, was being nice about Jaywick the other day.
    I lived in student digs in Stepney Green for a year in 1992/3, I don't think I ever once heard an authentic Cockney voice, but neither did I ever feel in any danger, despite wanderings late at night. Some memories:
    *) The smell of curries hanging in the air around the estates to the south of the Mile End Road in later afternoon.
    *) Regular visits to Silvermans with a friend in the OTC (glad to see they're still going).
    *) Pub crawls up along the many pubs up ?Globe Road?, most of which only had one or two customers in mid-week, and most of which appear to have gone.
    *) Being propositioned by women and men during night-time walks along the Regents Canal.
    *) An old granny I knew who ran a small shop, being done for dealing guns (apparently). "I'll have a copy of the Mirror and a Smith and Wesson, please."
    *) Our cleaner eulogising the Kray Twins.

    I loved it; looking back, I could have got so much more out of it. I wouldn't live there with a kid, but I would if I was single.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rpjs said:

    DeClare said:

    rpjs said:

    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Selebian said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.13
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

    But I think it's skewed to make people look left and lib. Some of the questions are not that far off "white people should be allowed to trade black people freely on the open market," and quite a lot of the people who think that know that you aren't meant to say it.

    People would be better off using the 3-D version on Electoral Calculus.

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/survey3d.html

    I am, unsurprisingly, strongly left, liberal and internationalist.
    Yep but there's a good example of the stupidity of the questions. I loathe nationalism in all its forms. Along with religion it's the projection most responsible for the evils of the world. So how am I supposed to answer the question:

    'Young people today still have respect for traditional British values'?

    I have no connection with this spurious nonsense called 'traditional British values' so the question is impossible.
    Nah, it's easy. Traditional British* values are racism/xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and nationalism. Young people don't have much respect for that (and rightly so). 'Strongly disagree'. Next?

    *not British, particularly - traditional values in most countries, I should think
    Only if you have a harsh view on Britain.

    How about 'traditional British values' being a sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law etc?
    No dogs, blacks or Irish.

    Police cottaging as agents provocateurs right up to SOA 1967.

    Do you think that other nations have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British? Why would you think that?
    Considering I've never seen a 'no dogs, black or Irish' sign in my entire life then no I don't consider that to be traditional British.

    Yes I do think other countries have a less well developed sense of fair play, tolerance, good manners, treating people with respect, democracy, the rule of law than the British. Why? Because I've travelled the world. Go to Egypt, Turkey, China, or even the USA and yes you can see the difference. Even in Europe, its not that long since almost all European countries weren't democratic.

    The UK is arguably the oldest democracy on the planet for a reason. So yes it is traditional British.
    Weird rewriting of history.

    It’s only since the 20th century that the U.K. thought itself as essentially democratic.

    Before that it was about liberty, not necessarily democracy.

    Not that weird a rewriting of history..

    Yes the democratic franchise evolved over time eventually to a universal franchise in the early 20th century but that is the same anywhere that was democratic. But few other countries where and still today globally few other countries are as democratic as the UK.

    Less than a tenth of the world's population live in a "Full Democracy" like the UK according to rankings like the Democracy Index - and a lot of those that are were influenced by or evolved from the UK's own democracy.

    So yes I stand by it as a very traditional British value.
    AFTER the Reform Act 1832 the franchise was about 7% of the adult population.

    7%.
    It is an interesting quirk of English history that Parliament became increasingly LESS representative over the two centuries to 1832. In the 1660s, perhaps one in five adult males had the vote. By 1831, as you note, that had fallen significantly, probably to around 10%.

    The growing population was increasing clustering in towns, where it was more difficult to meet the property qualification than in the country.

    That's a real counter to the Whig view of English history as steady progress towards democracy.
    Not only that. I seem to recall the1832 Act expressly limited the franchise to males.Whereas there had previously been local rules about the breadth of the eligibility, which permiited females in some cases. Westminster had virtually every adult male enfranchised.
    “Pot-walloper boroughs” I think they were called: where every householder (who almost by definition would have owned a hearth and a pot to boil on it) had the vote, and yes, I think there were a few where women householders, who were rare but did exist, qualified.
    Some widows who owned property could vote. It was enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow is entitled to inherit her late husband's real estate, sometimes titles devolved to a female where there was no male heir.
    I don't think that women were allowed to sit in the House of Lords but they could pass a title and the right to a seat there to a son.
    While the general principle for inheriting titles of nobility was similar to that for the crown (males first, females second, and transmissible through the female line if necessary), in practice the letters patent that created each title usually specified much more restrictive rules that excluded female inheritance and/or transmission. IIRC it tends to be the very oldest peerages that allow for female inheritance. Even the very last hereditary peerage created, for Willie Whitelaw, excluded women from succession, so it died with him as his children were all daughters.
    Although wasn't that a deliberate decision with Whitelaw? It was a hereditary peerage in name only.
    I didn’t know that. Interesting. I recall Thatcher reviving the creation of hereditary peerages being quite controversial at the time.


    She created three, Viscount Whitelaw who's title is extinct because he never had a son, Viscount Tonypandy for former speaker George Thomas now extinct because he never married and Earl of Stockton for Harold MacMillan, the second Earl is his grandson after Harold's own son who was also an MP died suddenly three years before him.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited October 2021
    In May, August and September the two parties were level on immigration & in March the Tories led by 3 on the economy. In August it was 8.

    How are these below the headline shifts or ‘big changes’? @SouthamObserver

    ‘Below the headline voting figures things are beginning to shift. The Tory Labour gap on the economy is just seven points. On immigration just three. These are big changes.’

    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1446437405607792640?s=21
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    No thread on James Brokenshire, RIP?

    I can’t see that by election being the betting event of the year, can you?
    Going to the Wikipedia page for Old Bexley & Sidcup, I was staggered to discover that Ted Heath remained in parliament until the 2001 General Election. That's close to two decades after leaving power.

    Anyway... I can't see past a Conservative hold: solidly leave, Cons 35 points ahead of Labour, LibDems nowhere.
    Next door, though, to fabled Orpington!
    It is but not the same kettle of fish at all. More Bexley - which is solid lower m/c verging on u-w/c.
    I have never been to Old Bexley and Sidcup, but it always sounded pretty comfortable - middle-middle to upper-middle. It's quite nice when your expectations are confounded (though nicer when they are confounded the other way and somewhere you'd assumed was pretty rough turns out to actually be quite nice).
    Any other examples of places people have been surprised by?
    I found Canterbury a bit rough when I went there in 1985. Not at all what I expected. Thought it would be olde worlde and quaint. It was not. Far from it. You needed your wits about you.
    I doubt it's changed much over the past 35 years.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited October 2021
    Omnium said:

    Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.

    Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?

    I would just comment that there is agreement that we face an extraordinary cost of living crisis with worldwide energy prices rocketing, shortages across the planet with container ships held at anchor in many places, indeed 14 were held at anchor of Anglesey last week due to adverse weather conditions for docking in Liverpool

    HMG is facing the bleakest outlook I can remember, not least as covid continues and the economic shocks are extreme.

    Taxes are rising and it is fair enough to complain about the loss of the £20 UC uplift but that would add £6billion or 1% on income tax year year on year and Starmer has still not said how he would cover the deficit other than muttering 'tory donors'.

    I would be very surprised to see the conservatives retain their poll lead but does anyone know how labour would fund their 170 billion of spending and address the present energy and shortages issues

    HMG is having to make extraordinarily unpopular decisions, but in truth governments across Europe and elsewhere are facing the same tsunami of a crisis

    We must also remember that on top of this, COP26 is going to involve very expensive commitments (Insulate Britain said they want a trillion to insulate UK homes) and sooner or later the costs are going to collide with policy makers and why has nobody had the courage to say we have to transition to carbon neutral in a manner that does not create massive poverty and societal disruption and if that includes in the UK case giving the go ahead to the Shetland oil fields then so be it
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Re header and @MikeSmithson. Endless header posts will not assuage your conscience. The Tories are currently the best placed to be in government. The other parties are simply hopeless, and that's especially the LDs.

    Beyond the Tory party the next best placed person to be PM in my opinion is Farage. Fertile ground for the Greens, but WTF are the usual parties of opposition doing!?

    Has Farage ever demonstrated any skill in actually running anything?

    He's an incredibly forceful, articulate guy, who performs well in debates and in interviews. But I never got the feeling he did a very good job of running UKIP (or the Brexit Party).

    And I couldn't see him as a successful Mayor. He's also one of a very few number of politicians who get very serious negative votes against.

    There's also the question of judgement. He has been far too keen to align himself with autocrats - people for whom the rule of law means nothing, and which is completely at odds with his historic rhetoric. It's the kind of thing that really sticks in my throat.

    So, I don't think he'd be a great PM. Indeed, if forced to choose between Starmer and Farage, I know who I'd vote for.
    Of course Farage will not be PM. I mentioned him just to illustrate the complete vacuum.

    Great PM of the future? Alex Chalk.
This discussion has been closed.