Howdy, Stranger!

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

Could Bojo be tempted to cash in on current polling by going early? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 8 in General
imageCould Bojo be tempted to cash in on current polling by going early? – politicalbetting.com

Undoubtedly the Conservatives are doing very well at the stage to be maintaining the poll lead over Labour and the question must arise as to whether the prime minister will decide to go for it early before things like the tax rises due for next spring come into effect?

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,613
    Might be a bit late already unless he wants an election before Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/08/uk-faces-grim-winter-as-cost-of-living-crisis-quickens-pace
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 470
    No I recon the next election will be in Spring 2024 which is around six months early and I don't think the Tories will have a big lead in 2023 anyway.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,102
    edited October 8
    What happened to FTPA? Has it been repealed yet?
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,858

    What happened to FTPA? Has it been repealed yet?

    Repeal legislation currently going through Parliament.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,172
    Not sure the electorate would particularly appreciate a GE in 2022 when there is no obvious need for it.

    I think it will be 2023 probably Q2 which is when elections normally are, but even that represents only a 3.5 year gap.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,151
    Re header: Not a chance.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,470
    System said:

    imageCould Bojo be tempted to cash in on current polling by going early? – politicalbetting.com

    Undoubtedly the Conservatives are doing very well at the stage to be maintaining the poll lead over Labour and the question must arise as to whether the prime minister will decide to go for it early before things like the tax rises due for next spring come into effect?

    Read the full story here

    No.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,158
    edited October 8
    No and he would be an idiot to do so given every current poll shows the Tories losing seats compared to 2019.

    Half the current polls even have the Tories losing their majority and a hung parliament. He will wait until 2023/4.

    As May and Trudeau showed in 2017 and this September unnecessary elections called early rarely get the big majorities aimed for, both scraped back into power rather than romping home
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,102
    JohnO said:

    What happened to FTPA? Has it been repealed yet?

    Repeal legislation currently going through Parliament.
    Shame. It was the best constitutional innovation we've had in many decades.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,981
    Not a chance. If he had no majority maybe, but he'd have to be crazy with one of 80 seats.

    Also don't forget the boundary changes.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,981

    JohnO said:

    What happened to FTPA? Has it been repealed yet?

    Repeal legislation currently going through Parliament.
    Shame. It was the best constitutional innovation we've had in many decades.
    Yes the 2017-19 Parliament was a model.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 43,684

    Not sure the electorate would particularly appreciate a GE in 2022 when there is no obvious need for it.

    I think it will be 2023 probably Q2 which is when elections normally are, but even that represents only a 3.5 year gap.

    I can't see how he can go in 2022. It would have to be a winter election now, given the number of weeks involved.

    An unnecessary GE in what may be a winter surge in covid and will almost certainly be crisis in NHS over flu and a looming lockdown would go down very badly I think.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,713

    Not sure the electorate would particularly appreciate a GE in 2022 when there is no obvious need for it.

    I think it will be 2023 probably Q2 which is when elections normally are, but even that represents only a 3.5 year gap.

    I can't see how he can go in 2022. It would have to be a winter election now, given the number of weeks involved.

    An unnecessary GE in what may be a winter surge in covid and will almost certainly be crisis in NHS over flu and a looming lockdown would go down very badly I think.
    it's 2021

    i think
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,102
    Fishing said:

    JohnO said:

    What happened to FTPA? Has it been repealed yet?

    Repeal legislation currently going through Parliament.
    Shame. It was the best constitutional innovation we've had in many decades.
    Yes the 2017-19 Parliament was a model.
    It was a parliament that reflected the political persuasions of those who voted for it. Will of the People and all that.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 470

    Not sure the electorate would particularly appreciate a GE in 2022 when there is no obvious need for it.

    I think it will be 2023 probably Q2 which is when elections normally are, but even that represents only a 3.5 year gap.

    If the Tories are not 10% plus ahead why risk it?

    Starmer will still be leader of the opposition so there won't be a big Labour lead either. There's a lot of bad news coming down the line and it won't be over in 18 months, so polls are probably going to be showing them neck and neck in 2022/2023.

    2024 allows an extra year to get bad news out of the way a bit, introduce boundary changes and even replace Boris if that is deemed necessary.

    Of course the election won't be in December, so it will be a bit early, Spring 2024 looks favourite or possibly early October.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915

    Not sure the electorate would particularly appreciate a GE in 2022 when there is no obvious need for it.

    I think it will be 2023 probably Q2 which is when elections normally are, but even that represents only a 3.5 year gap.

    Slightly early, but not massively, given how few get to 5.

    Fishing said:

    JohnO said:

    What happened to FTPA? Has it been repealed yet?

    Repeal legislation currently going through Parliament.
    Shame. It was the best constitutional innovation we've had in many decades.
    Yes the 2017-19 Parliament was a model.
    It was a parliament that reflected the political persuasions of those who voted for it. Will of the People and all that.
    We sent a confused mix of MPs, but the assumption is still that whatever mix we send they will work something out, not just argue and then give up.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,260
    My thanks to HYUFD who compared me on the previous tread to Grover Norquist. I have to admit I had not heard of the gentleman before and have only skimmed his Wiki entry so may find later there are things about him I really dislike.

    But it is interesting to find someone in US politics who advocates the things I do like - both a radically smaller state but also much increased immigration. I am more used to the two being rather mutually exclusive in most people's politics.

    I have not yet worked out if he is part of the religious right nutter tendency which would rather put a dampener on my positive opinion of him but I live in hope given that he is a strong advocate for minority religious and ethnic groups.

    I will probably end up being disillusioned with him but thanks anyway for pointing him out.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,981

    Fishing said:

    JohnO said:

    What happened to FTPA? Has it been repealed yet?

    Repeal legislation currently going through Parliament.
    Shame. It was the best constitutional innovation we've had in many decades.
    Yes the 2017-19 Parliament was a model.
    It was a parliament that reflected the political persuasions of those who voted for it. Will of the People and all that.
    It was a Parliament that failed completely to deliver the Will of the People as expressed in the largest popular vote in UK history.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,731
    Yes but in autumn 2023 once the new boundaries are in place and its only a year early (so quite standard formerly to go after four years).
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,260
    edited October 8
    On topic, I think Johnson would have to be certifiable to go for an election now. He doesn't need it, he has a massive majority and the only way would be down.

    I think the voters would rightly punish him if he tried it... so I hope he does :)
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,114
    Fishing said:

    Farooq said:

    Fishing 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!?

    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
    True, but just about all of the wounds you list are self-inflicted. Energy shortages, but shale gas just left in the ground. Public finances in crisis, but lots of hugely wasteful spending. House prices too high, but absurd planning laws. COP26 commitments because of green crap.

    It's the consequence of the soft socialism and politically correct pandering we've subjected the economy to over the last 20 years.

    (I could have added lockdown, which was designed to inflict maximum economic damage).
    What precise effects does "politically correct pandering" have on the economy?
    Are we heading for a person of colour Wednesday or something? Is the finance system about to become differently abled?
    Neither of those would suprise me.

    But when you have companies made to produce Modern Slavery statements and say how many women are on their boards, maybe you don't need to.
    Modern Slavery statements? Just get the intern to do it.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,114

    On topic, I think Johnson would have to be certifiable to go for an election now. He doesn't ned it, he has a massive majority and the only way would be down.

    I think the voters would rightly punish him if he tried it... so I hope he does :)

    So that's the necessary condition is in the bag. But is it sufficient?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,248
    No.

    In the case of May, she had a very small majority and had actually been at real risk of failing to get a budget through due to a backbench rebellion. She also had extraordinary poll figures and an opponent who was both largely discredited and considered totally unelectable.

    And still look what happened.

    No PM is going to risk a majority of 80 after just two years. It wouldn’t be worth it. Whatever you get almost certainly wouldn’t be as good as what you had. That’s ultimately why Brown backed out in 2007.

    Moreover, the government as a whole might calculate better to lose narrowly in 2024 and have a weak Labour coalition clean up the mess, fail and then they’re back in for another 15 years.

    The only way there’s an election before 2024 is if there’s a change of leader and the Tories split. The first is possible and even probable. The second - again, no.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,592
    FPT:

    Interesting question:

    Here's a question:

    Scotland is smashing it out the park in terms of vaccinating 12-15 year olds. And check out the rate of jabs in 16-17 year olds compared to England.

    But how come vaccine coverage is higher in all ages over 50 in Scotland even with comparable ONS denominators?


    https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1446510730723926016?s=20

    Ignoring the obvious (and unlikely) "the denominator is wrong"* could it be greater proportion of ethnic minority (and more vaccine resistant) population in England?

    On the children there's a clearly different approach - Scotland "walk in" vs England "via schools only" - but older ages reasons not as immediately obvious...

    @Mexicanpete is this one of my "anti-devolution posts"?

    *Actually, some of the Scottish denominators are wrong with 103% fully vaccinated.....however, that's less likely to be the case in the larger population cohorts.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819
    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Farooq said:

    Fishing 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!?

    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
    True, but just about all of the wounds you list are self-inflicted. Energy shortages, but shale gas just left in the ground. Public finances in crisis, but lots of hugely wasteful spending. House prices too high, but absurd planning laws. COP26 commitments because of green crap.

    It's the consequence of the soft socialism and politically correct pandering we've subjected the economy to over the last 20 years.

    (I could have added lockdown, which was designed to inflict maximum economic damage).
    What precise effects does "politically correct pandering" have on the economy?
    Are we heading for a person of colour Wednesday or something? Is the finance system about to become differently abled?
    Neither of those would suprise me.

    But when you have companies made to produce Modern Slavery statements and say how many women are on their boards, maybe you don't need to.
    Modern Slavery statements? Just get the intern to do it.
    Ha ha. Top (unpaid) work there!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,937
    edited October 8
    FPT:

    Is anyone watching the new “28 Up”?
    It is not at all as good as the original, although it’s interesting to think why.

    One reason, I think, is that Britain really is less class-bound than it was 30 years ago. Most of this crop of kids (who were 7 in 2000) have settled into a kind of generic lower middle class-ness, regardless of race or even disability. And the two rich kids have done fuck-all with some very expensive educations.

    The kids appear to be duller, too. Maybe growing up in the 60s and 70s was more character-building.
  • The moment you've all been waiting for, my review of No Time To Die.

    A bit too long and tried way too much to be the perfect denouement to Daniel Craig's James Bond.

    Skyfall would have done a better job as the perfect ending if you ask me but NTTD was a solid movie but it was no Skyfall nor SPECTRE.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131

    On topic, I think Johnson would have to be certifiable to go for an election now. He doesn't need it, he has a massive majority and the only way would be down.

    I think the voters would rightly punish him if he tried it... so I hope he does :)

    Yes, a Con maj is odds against in the betting, so an improved majority is a very big price. The highly likely outcome would be a worse hand than he has currently, so why bother?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111

    Interesting question:

    Here's a question:

    Scotland is smashing it out the park in terms of vaccinating 12-15 year olds. And check out the rate of jabs in 16-17 year olds compared to England.

    But how come vaccine coverage is higher in all ages over 50 in Scotland even with comparable ONS denominators?


    https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1446510730723926016?s=20

    Ignoring the obvious (and unlikely) "the denominator is wrong" could it be greater proportion of ethnic minority (and more vaccine resistant) population in England?

    On the children there's a clearly different approach - Scotland "walk in" vs England "via schools only" - but older ages reasons not as immediately obvious...

    @Mexicanpete is this one of my "anti-devolution posts"?

    Yes, significantly lower proportion of minority people, specially Black and Pakistani/Bangladeshi where uptake is about 60-70% vs White and Indian where uptake is between 90-100%.
  • On topic, I still like the theory that Boris Johnson will go for a spring 2023 election to avoid the messy contretemps that will be caused by sitting Tory MPs fighting over the new seats because of the boundary changes.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819
    edited October 8
    isam said:

    On topic, I think Johnson would have to be certifiable to go for an election now. He doesn't need it, he has a massive majority and the only way would be down.

    I think the voters would rightly punish him if he tried it... so I hope he does :)

    Yes, a Con maj is odds against in the betting, so an improved majority is a very big price. The highly likely outcome would be a worse hand than he has currently, so why bother?
    Only one potential reason.
    The economy is more knobbed than anyone suspects. When the first Covid relief package came out, we thought, uh oh, this pandemic is going to be bad.
    If an election is called it may signal that it will be 2027 before we are anywhere near total recovery.
    Then it might make sense.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111

    The moment you've all been waiting for, my review of No Time To Die.

    A bit too long and tried way too much to be the perfect denouement to Daniel Craig's James Bond.

    Skyfall would have done a better job as the perfect ending if you ask me but NTTD was a solid movie but it was no Skyfall nor SPECTRE.

    This review makes me even more excited to watch it!
  • MaxPB said:

    The moment you've all been waiting for, my review of No Time To Die.

    A bit too long and tried way too much to be the perfect denouement to Daniel Craig's James Bond.

    Skyfall would have done a better job as the perfect ending if you ask me but NTTD was a solid movie but it was no Skyfall nor SPECTRE.

    This review makes me even more excited to watch it!
    There's one plot thing that I enjoyed a lot, simply because the usual suspects will go it's political correctness gone mad.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,151

    MaxPB said:

    The moment you've all been waiting for, my review of No Time To Die.

    A bit too long and tried way too much to be the perfect denouement to Daniel Craig's James Bond.

    Skyfall would have done a better job as the perfect ending if you ask me but NTTD was a solid movie but it was no Skyfall nor SPECTRE.

    This review makes me even more excited to watch it!
    There's one plot thing that I enjoyed a lot, simply because the usual suspects will go it's political correctness gone mad.
    Did that not make it to the review then?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,248
    edited October 8

    On topic, I still like the theory that Boris Johnson will go for a spring 2023 election to avoid the messy contretemps that will be caused by sitting Tory MPs fighting over the new seats because of the boundary changes.

    I was just looking at the proposals for Wales. They’re not dreadful for the Tories although they could be better. Labour sees I think 6 seats go in the valleys, but would almost certainly regain Aberconwy and possible Delyn.

    It’s awful for Plaid Cymru though. If my rough figures are right they would start with one notional hold, although they would certainly be in contention in Ceredigion Preseli and should at least be second in Caerfyrddin.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,114
    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    On topic, I think Johnson would have to be certifiable to go for an election now. He doesn't need it, he has a massive majority and the only way would be down.

    I think the voters would rightly punish him if he tried it... so I hope he does :)

    Yes, a Con maj is odds against in the betting, so an improved majority is a very big price. The highly likely outcome would be a worse hand than he has currently, so why bother?
    Only one potential reason.
    The economy is more knobbed than anyone suspects. When the first Covid relief package came out, we thought, uh oh, this pandemic is going to be bad.
    If an election is called it may signal that it will be 2027 before we are anywhere near total recovery.
    Then it might make sense.
    To build on that thought, we nearing 2 years in and Boris hasn't really had much chance to implement much of his agenda other than the obvious thing. If there are unpopular but necessary things to be done, we're already getting past the time when you'd like to be doing them, for reasons that aren't his fault. There would be a temptation to get a reset on the clock, even if an 80 majority is cut in half.

    The counterpoint is that Boris isn't really the type who does unpopular but necessary things.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,714

    My thanks to HYUFD who compared me on the previous tread to Grover Norquist. I have to admit I had not heard of the gentleman before and have only skimmed his Wiki entry so may find later there are things about him I really dislike.

    But it is interesting to find someone in US politics who advocates the things I do like - both a radically smaller state but also much increased immigration. I am more used to the two being rather mutually exclusive in most people's politics.

    I have not yet worked out if he is part of the religious right nutter tendency which would rather put a dampener on my positive opinion of him but I live in hope given that he is a strong advocate for minority religious and ethnic groups.

    I will probably end up being disillusioned with him but thanks anyway for pointing him out.

    "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub"
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,474
    edited October 8
    The ex-Finnish PM seems to think the EU needs to organise a charity appeal for us.

    https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1446347168290324481

    If the EU would play its cards right, it would offer assistance to the UK now or later when the supply of basic goods and services takes a turn for the worse. This is what friends do, even if the pain has been self-inflicted, stupid an unnecessary.

    Sorry, but the situation in the UK is going to go from bad to worse with no respit in sight. This is not a period of adaptation, it is a rather permanent reality and fact linked to voluntary isolation and myths of sovereignty in an interdependent world.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,852
    Fishing 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!?

    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
    True, but just about all of the wounds you list are self-inflicted. Energy shortages, but shale gas just left in the ground. Public finances in crisis, but lots of hugely wasteful spending. House prices too high, but absurd planning laws. COP26 commitments because of green crap.

    It's the consequence of the soft socialism and politically correct pandering we've subjected the economy to over the last 20 years.

    (I could have added lockdown, which was designed to inflict maximum economic damage).
    Shale gas has been left in the ground (globally), because we had a pandemic and prices crashed.

    Remember that the production profile of a shale gas well is very different to that of a traditional oil or gas project. With shale, if you stop drilling, production drops very rapidly.

    What we've seen is that demand fell during the pandemic, drilling stopped, and shale gas production dropped sharply. Rig counts are now rising (although they still need to increase further), and production will rapidly follow.

    There are still essentially no spot exports of LNG from the US, but that will change in the next few months. By April/May next year, US natural gas production should have increased more than 10 billion cubic feet a day, and be hitting new highs. (For reference, UK natural gas demand is only 7 billion feet/day)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,852
    DeClare said:

    No I recon the next election will be in Spring 2024 which is around six months early and I don't think the Tories will have a big lead in 2023 anyway.

    (Technically, the official date - as prescribed by the FTPA - is May 2024.)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, I still like the theory that Boris Johnson will go for a spring 2023 election to avoid the messy contretemps that will be caused by sitting Tory MPs fighting over the new seats because of the boundary changes.

    I was just looking at the proposals for Wales. They’re not dreadful for the Tories although they could be better. Labour sees I think 6 seats go in the valleys, but would almost certainly regain Aberconwy and possible Delyn.

    It’s awful for Plaid Cymru though. If my rough figures are right they would start with one notional hold, although they would certainly be in contention in Ceredigion Preseli and should at least be second in Caerfyrddin.
    6 seats in the Valleys gone?
    How do you reckon that?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,852
    DeClare said:

    Not sure the electorate would particularly appreciate a GE in 2022 when there is no obvious need for it.

    I think it will be 2023 probably Q2 which is when elections normally are, but even that represents only a 3.5 year gap.

    If the Tories are not 10% plus ahead why risk it?

    Starmer will still be leader of the opposition so there won't be a big Labour lead either. There's a lot of bad news coming down the line and it won't be over in 18 months, so polls are probably going to be showing them neck and neck in 2022/2023.

    2024 allows an extra year to get bad news out of the way a bit, introduce boundary changes and even replace Boris if that is deemed necessary.

    Of course the election won't be in December, so it will be a bit early, Spring 2024 looks favourite or possibly early October.

    Albeit 2023, we will probably still be in the post-Covid boom. 2024... who knows?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111
    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing 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!?

    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
    True, but just about all of the wounds you list are self-inflicted. Energy shortages, but shale gas just left in the ground. Public finances in crisis, but lots of hugely wasteful spending. House prices too high, but absurd planning laws. COP26 commitments because of green crap.

    It's the consequence of the soft socialism and politically correct pandering we've subjected the economy to over the last 20 years.

    (I could have added lockdown, which was designed to inflict maximum economic damage).
    Shale gas has been left in the ground (globally), because we had a pandemic and prices crashed.

    Remember that the production profile of a shale gas well is very different to that of a traditional oil or gas project. With shale, if you stop drilling, production drops very rapidly.

    What we've seen is that demand fell during the pandemic, drilling stopped, and shale gas production dropped sharply. Rig counts are now rising (although they still need to increase further), and production will rapidly follow.

    There are still essentially no spot exports of LNG from the US, but that will change in the next few months. By April/May next year, US natural gas production should have increased more than 10 billion cubic feet a day, and be hitting new highs. (For reference, UK natural gas demand is only 7 billion feet/day)
    I wonder whether it's worth betting against gas for summer 2022 delivery, I've been thinking about it for a while because inevitably Qatari, US and other big gas sources will be in mega oversupply by then and the Northern hemisphere summer will result in hugely reduced demand, especially when considering how much additional renewable energy capacity is going to be installed in the next 10 months across Europe and the US.

    Just a thought.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,114
    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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?
    @rcs1000 you are replying to the wrong person. I want to be on your side of the bet at 50 - 1.
    Oh I missed this earlier, my apologies.
    No thanks. I certainly would take the bet on even at long odds, but I prefer to strike bets with an organisation where I know I have legal rights to get at my winnings. Making bets with random internet people doesn't strike me as prudent.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,714

    FPT:

    Is anyone watching the new “28 Up”?
    It is not at all as good as the original, although it’s interesting to think why.

    One reason, I think, is that Britain really is less class-bound than it was 30 years ago. Most of this crop of kids (who were 7 in 2000) have settled into a kind of generic lower middle class-ness, regardless of race or even disability. And the two rich kids have done fuck-all with some very expensive educations.

    The kids appear to be duller, too. Maybe growing up in the 60s and 70s was more character-building.

    No. Thanks for this. I'm a big fan of 7 Up but knew nothing about this new series. I'll go back to the first one from 2000.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,852
    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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?
    @rcs1000 you are replying to the wrong person. I want to be on your side of the bet at 50 - 1.
    Oh I missed this earlier, my apologies.
    No thanks. I certainly would take the bet on even at long odds, but I prefer to strike bets with an organisation where I know I have legal rights to get at my winnings. Making bets with random internet people doesn't strike me as prudent.
    Ummm.

    I am reasonably well known on this board. And my real world identity is hardly a secret.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 24,519
    I don't think Johnson will call an election before 2024. Just can't see why he would.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,852
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing 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!?

    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
    True, but just about all of the wounds you list are self-inflicted. Energy shortages, but shale gas just left in the ground. Public finances in crisis, but lots of hugely wasteful spending. House prices too high, but absurd planning laws. COP26 commitments because of green crap.

    It's the consequence of the soft socialism and politically correct pandering we've subjected the economy to over the last 20 years.

    (I could have added lockdown, which was designed to inflict maximum economic damage).
    Shale gas has been left in the ground (globally), because we had a pandemic and prices crashed.

    Remember that the production profile of a shale gas well is very different to that of a traditional oil or gas project. With shale, if you stop drilling, production drops very rapidly.

    What we've seen is that demand fell during the pandemic, drilling stopped, and shale gas production dropped sharply. Rig counts are now rising (although they still need to increase further), and production will rapidly follow.

    There are still essentially no spot exports of LNG from the US, but that will change in the next few months. By April/May next year, US natural gas production should have increased more than 10 billion cubic feet a day, and be hitting new highs. (For reference, UK natural gas demand is only 7 billion feet/day)
    I wonder whether it's worth betting against gas for summer 2022 delivery, I've been thinking about it for a while because inevitably Qatari, US and other big gas sources will be in mega oversupply by then and the Northern hemisphere summer will result in hugely reduced demand, especially when considering how much additional renewable energy capacity is going to be installed in the next 10 months across Europe and the US.

    Just a thought.
    There are two or three big LNG projects coming on stream, and US spot deliveries will recommence.

    So, it sounds reasonable. Although I don't know where June futures are right now.

    It is worth noting that one of the problems the UK has had is that the domestic natural gas plants all get very used to buying spot. For a long time, excess (or spot) LNG cargos sold for 30-40% less than long-term contract prices. Which meant that people who bought long-term were making much smaller margins than those who bought spot.

    When the pandemic receded, we found ourselves without lots of contracted LNG, having to fight in the market for a very small number of spot cargoes. It was an entirely self inflicted wound.

    Alongside increasing the amount of gas storage in the UK, it would not be unreasonable to require those gas plants that wish to receive capacity payments from the grid, to have precontracted for a certain portion of their gas needs.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131
    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    On topic, I think Johnson would have to be certifiable to go for an election now. He doesn't need it, he has a massive majority and the only way would be down.

    I think the voters would rightly punish him if he tried it... so I hope he does :)

    Yes, a Con maj is odds against in the betting, so an improved majority is a very big price. The highly likely outcome would be a worse hand than he has currently, so why bother?
    Only one potential reason.
    The economy is more knobbed than anyone suspects. When the first Covid relief package came out, we thought, uh oh, this pandemic is going to be bad.
    If an election is called it may signal that it will be 2027 before we are anywhere near total recovery.
    Then it might make sense.
    Yes, possibly.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,281
    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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?
    @rcs1000 you are replying to the wrong person. I want to be on your side of the bet at 50 - 1.
    Oh I missed this earlier, my apologies.
    No thanks. I certainly would take the bet on even at long odds, but I prefer to strike bets with an organisation where I know I have legal rights to get at my winnings. Making bets with random internet people doesn't strike me as prudent.
    Ummm.

    I am reasonably well known on this board. And my real world identity is hardly a secret.
    Are you SeanT?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,937
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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?
    @rcs1000 you are replying to the wrong person. I want to be on your side of the bet at 50 - 1.
    Oh I missed this earlier, my apologies.
    No thanks. I certainly would take the bet on even at long odds, but I prefer to strike bets with an organisation where I know I have legal rights to get at my winnings. Making bets with random internet people doesn't strike me as prudent.
    Ummm.

    I am reasonably well known on this board. And my real world identity is hardly a secret.
    Are you SeanT?
    Yvette Cooper, I think.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,852
    kinabalu said:

    I don't think Johnson will call an election before 2024. Just can't see why he would.

    May 2024 would be the logical time.

    May 2023 would be too early (just three and a half years since the previous election). November/December 2023 would be a Winter election, which most people would choose to avoid. Ad November/December 2024 is both too long (five years) and a Winter election.

    So, May 2024 has to be the favorite.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,852
    edited October 8
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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?
    @rcs1000 you are replying to the wrong person. I want to be on your side of the bet at 50 - 1.
    Oh I missed this earlier, my apologies.
    No thanks. I certainly would take the bet on even at long odds, but I prefer to strike bets with an organisation where I know I have legal rights to get at my winnings. Making bets with random internet people doesn't strike me as prudent.
    Ummm.

    I am reasonably well known on this board. And my real world identity is hardly a secret.
    Are you SeanT?
    Only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Saturdays.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,155
    edited October 8

    The ex-Finnish PM seems to think the EU needs to organise a charity appeal for us.

    https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1446347168290324481

    If the EU would play its cards right, it would offer assistance to the UK now or later when the supply of basic goods and services takes a turn for the worse. This is what friends do, even if the pain has been self-inflicted, stupid an unnecessary.

    Sorry, but the situation in the UK is going to go from bad to worse with no respit in sight. This is not a period of adaptation, it is a rather permanent reality and fact linked to voluntary isolation and myths of sovereignty in an interdependent world.

    I know it's grim up north where I live anyway, but the Finns need to be told that large numbers of emaciated dying pensioners are lying disregarded in the gutters of all the towns of northern England, while our children are suffering from bubonic plague. Carts come round each morning to collect the bodies.

  • isamisam Posts: 38,131
    Now we know it wasn't Brexit that caused the fuel "crisis", can we have a show of hands of those who said it was?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,248
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, I still like the theory that Boris Johnson will go for a spring 2023 election to avoid the messy contretemps that will be caused by sitting Tory MPs fighting over the new seats because of the boundary changes.

    I was just looking at the proposals for Wales. They’re not dreadful for the Tories although they could be better. Labour sees I think 6 seats go in the valleys, but would almost certainly regain Aberconwy and possible Delyn.

    It’s awful for Plaid Cymru though. If my rough figures are right they would start with one notional hold, although they would certainly be in contention in Ceredigion Preseli and should at least be second in Caerfyrddin.
    6 seats in the Valleys gone?
    How do you reckon that?
    I’ve only reckoned it roughly and I might be wrong, but I see Caerphilly, Gower, Neath, Ogmore, Cynon Valley as abolished, in effect, and Llanelli and Newport East on those boundaries might start as notional Tory holds.

    Equally, it’s partly balanced by a new seat in Swansea. Also I think Bridgend and Delyn would be back in play, and Aberconwy should certainly start as a notional Labour hold with Bangor being assigned to it.

    I want to do some more detailed work on them burrowing into wards, but that’s my instinctive reaction.

    Equally it was always going to be like that given the majority of seat reductions are happening are where Labour are strong. One in the west and two in the north were never going to be as painful for Labour as the reductions in the numerous smallish seats in the south east.

    Plaid must have absolutely crapped themselves though. There’s very little redeeming feature here for the certain loss of Arfon.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    MaxPB said:

    Interesting question:

    Here's a question:

    Scotland is smashing it out the park in terms of vaccinating 12-15 year olds. And check out the rate of jabs in 16-17 year olds compared to England.

    But how come vaccine coverage is higher in all ages over 50 in Scotland even with comparable ONS denominators?


    https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1446510730723926016?s=20

    Ignoring the obvious (and unlikely) "the denominator is wrong" could it be greater proportion of ethnic minority (and more vaccine resistant) population in England?

    On the children there's a clearly different approach - Scotland "walk in" vs England "via schools only" - but older ages reasons not as immediately obvious...

    @Mexicanpete is this one of my "anti-devolution posts"?

    Yes, significantly lower proportion of minority people, specially Black and Pakistani/Bangladeshi where uptake is about 60-70% vs White and Indian where uptake is between 90-100%.
    There was a article on the BBC website breaking down take-up by ethnicity - there were some really quite worrying numbers for some minorities.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,713
    Stocky said:

    My thanks to HYUFD who compared me on the previous tread to Grover Norquist. I have to admit I had not heard of the gentleman before and have only skimmed his Wiki entry so may find later there are things about him I really dislike.

    But it is interesting to find someone in US politics who advocates the things I do like - both a radically smaller state but also much increased immigration. I am more used to the two being rather mutually exclusive in most people's politics.

    I have not yet worked out if he is part of the religious right nutter tendency which would rather put a dampener on my positive opinion of him but I live in hope given that he is a strong advocate for minority religious and ethnic groups.

    I will probably end up being disillusioned with him but thanks anyway for pointing him out.

    "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub"
    :lol:
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,499

    The ex-Finnish PM seems to think the EU needs to organise a charity appeal for us.

    https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1446347168290324481

    If the EU would play its cards right, it would offer assistance to the UK now or later when the supply of basic goods and services takes a turn for the worse. This is what friends do, even if the pain has been self-inflicted, stupid an unnecessary.

    Sorry, but the situation in the UK is going to go from bad to worse with no respit in sight. This is not a period of adaptation, it is a rather permanent reality and fact linked to voluntary isolation and myths of sovereignty in an interdependent world.

    That entire thread is hilariously insane. People from across the EU - and a couple of Americans - who honestly believe Britain is close to collapse. And famine.

    Are they all reading the New York Times, and nothing else?!

    It’s genuinely hard to fathom. One element must be Strasbourg Syndrome. Brexit is evil therefore it can only cause evil things to the evildoers responsible. It is a religious reflex at work
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing 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!?

    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
    True, but just about all of the wounds you list are self-inflicted. Energy shortages, but shale gas just left in the ground. Public finances in crisis, but lots of hugely wasteful spending. House prices too high, but absurd planning laws. COP26 commitments because of green crap.

    It's the consequence of the soft socialism and politically correct pandering we've subjected the economy to over the last 20 years.

    (I could have added lockdown, which was designed to inflict maximum economic damage).
    Shale gas has been left in the ground (globally), because we had a pandemic and prices crashed.

    Remember that the production profile of a shale gas well is very different to that of a traditional oil or gas project. With shale, if you stop drilling, production drops very rapidly.

    What we've seen is that demand fell during the pandemic, drilling stopped, and shale gas production dropped sharply. Rig counts are now rising (although they still need to increase further), and production will rapidly follow.

    There are still essentially no spot exports of LNG from the US, but that will change in the next few months. By April/May next year, US natural gas production should have increased more than 10 billion cubic feet a day, and be hitting new highs. (For reference, UK natural gas demand is only 7 billion feet/day)
    I wonder whether it's worth betting against gas for summer 2022 delivery, I've been thinking about it for a while because inevitably Qatari, US and other big gas sources will be in mega oversupply by then and the Northern hemisphere summer will result in hugely reduced demand, especially when considering how much additional renewable energy capacity is going to be installed in the next 10 months across Europe and the US.

    Just a thought.
    There are two or three big LNG projects coming on stream, and US spot deliveries will recommence.

    So, it sounds reasonable. Although I don't know where June futures are right now.

    It is worth noting that one of the problems the UK has had is that the domestic natural gas plants all get very used to buying spot. For a long time, excess (or spot) LNG cargos sold for 30-40% less than long-term contract prices. Which meant that people who bought long-term were making much smaller margins than those who bought spot.

    When the pandemic receded, we found ourselves without lots of contracted LNG, having to fight in the market for a very small number of spot cargoes. It was an entirely self inflicted wound.

    Alongside increasing the amount of gas storage in the UK, it would not be unreasonable to require those gas plants that wish to receive capacity payments from the grid, to have precontracted for a certain portion of their gas needs.
    That's a good point, I've written about the UK's lack of gas storage previously. We have 4 days worth of gas storage va about 8-12 weeks in Germany. Our economic strategy rather reflects how businesses have been run, for very short term gains, low productivity and low margins.

    It's a work day on Monday and I've got some research on UK agriculture that's finally come through and how it survives (or doesn't) the new high wage economic model that is being imposed at great speed. The initial research showed that loads and loads of UK agriculture was a function of imported labour working British farmland. The whole ecosystem was lifted from how agriculture is carried out in Eastern Europe, just in the UK. I'll be interested to see what the final report says but the initial one was pretty grim reading from a headline GDP perspective but fairly positive from a per capita GDP perspective.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,942
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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?
    @rcs1000 you are replying to the wrong person. I want to be on your side of the bet at 50 - 1.
    Oh I missed this earlier, my apologies.
    No thanks. I certainly would take the bet on even at long odds, but I prefer to strike bets with an organisation where I know I have legal rights to get at my winnings. Making bets with random internet people doesn't strike me as prudent.
    Ummm.

    I am reasonably well known on this board. And my real world identity is hardly a secret.
    Are you SeanT?
    I thought we were all Spartacus SeanT?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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?
    @rcs1000 you are replying to the wrong person. I want to be on your side of the bet at 50 - 1.
    Oh I missed this earlier, my apologies.
    No thanks. I certainly would take the bet on even at long odds, but I prefer to strike bets with an organisation where I know I have legal rights to get at my winnings. Making bets with random internet people doesn't strike me as prudent.
    Ummm.

    I am reasonably well known on this board. And my real world identity is hardly a secret.
    Are you SeanT?
    I thought we were all Spartacus SeanT?
    I am SeanT!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,248
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I don't think Johnson will call an election before 2024. Just can't see why he would.

    May 2024 would be the logical time.

    May 2023 would be too early (just three and a half years since the previous election). November/December 2023 would be a Winter election, which most people would choose to avoid. Ad November/December 2024 is both too long (five years) and a Winter election.

    So, May 2024 has to be the favorite.

    There would be a certain irony in Johnson repealing the FTPA only to go on the date he would have to go on anyway had it still been in force.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,942

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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?
    @rcs1000 you are replying to the wrong person. I want to be on your side of the bet at 50 - 1.
    Oh I missed this earlier, my apologies.
    No thanks. I certainly would take the bet on even at long odds, but I prefer to strike bets with an organisation where I know I have legal rights to get at my winnings. Making bets with random internet people doesn't strike me as prudent.
    Ummm.

    I am reasonably well known on this board. And my real world identity is hardly a secret.
    Are you SeanT?
    I thought we were all Spartacus SeanT?
    I am SeanT!
    There can be only one...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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?
    @rcs1000 you are replying to the wrong person. I want to be on your side of the bet at 50 - 1.
    Oh I missed this earlier, my apologies.
    No thanks. I certainly would take the bet on even at long odds, but I prefer to strike bets with an organisation where I know I have legal rights to get at my winnings. Making bets with random internet people doesn't strike me as prudent.
    Ummm.

    I am reasonably well known on this board. And my real world identity is hardly a secret.
    Are you SeanT?
    I thought we were all Spartacus SeanT?
    I am SeanT!
    There can be only one...
    Being SeanT is a state of mind. 'You feeling a bit SeanT right now?', that kind of thing.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833

    MaxPB said:

    Interesting question:

    Here's a question:

    Scotland is smashing it out the park in terms of vaccinating 12-15 year olds. And check out the rate of jabs in 16-17 year olds compared to England.

    But how come vaccine coverage is higher in all ages over 50 in Scotland even with comparable ONS denominators?


    https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1446510730723926016?s=20

    Ignoring the obvious (and unlikely) "the denominator is wrong" could it be greater proportion of ethnic minority (and more vaccine resistant) population in England?

    On the children there's a clearly different approach - Scotland "walk in" vs England "via schools only" - but older ages reasons not as immediately obvious...

    @Mexicanpete is this one of my "anti-devolution posts"?

    Yes, significantly lower proportion of minority people, specially Black and Pakistani/Bangladeshi where uptake is about 60-70% vs White and Indian where uptake is between 90-100%.
    There was a article on the BBC website breaking down take-up by ethnicity - there were some really quite worrying numbers for some minorities.
    Found it - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56564817

    and a follow up

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57587023
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 196
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing 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!?

    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
    True, but just about all of the wounds you list are self-inflicted. Energy shortages, but shale gas just left in the ground. Public finances in crisis, but lots of hugely wasteful spending. House prices too high, but absurd planning laws. COP26 commitments because of green crap.

    It's the consequence of the soft socialism and politically correct pandering we've subjected the economy to over the last 20 years.

    (I could have added lockdown, which was designed to inflict maximum economic damage).
    Shale gas has been left in the ground (globally), because we had a pandemic and prices crashed.

    Remember that the production profile of a shale gas well is very different to that of a traditional oil or gas project. With shale, if you stop drilling, production drops very rapidly.

    What we've seen is that demand fell during the pandemic, drilling stopped, and shale gas production dropped sharply. Rig counts are now rising (although they still need to increase further), and production will rapidly follow.

    There are still essentially no spot exports of LNG from the US, but that will change in the next few months. By April/May next year, US natural gas production should have increased more than 10 billion cubic feet a day, and be hitting new highs. (For reference, UK natural gas demand is only 7 billion feet/day)
    I wonder whether it's worth betting against gas for summer 2022 delivery, I've been thinking about it for a while because inevitably Qatari, US and other big gas sources will be in mega oversupply by then and the Northern hemisphere summer will result in hugely reduced demand, especially when considering how much additional renewable energy capacity is going to be installed in the next 10 months across Europe and the US.

    Just a thought.
    There are two or three big LNG projects coming on stream, and US spot deliveries will recommence.

    So, it sounds reasonable. Although I don't know where June futures are right now.

    It is worth noting that one of the problems the UK has had is that the domestic natural gas plants all get very used to buying spot. For a long time, excess (or spot) LNG cargos sold for 30-40% less than long-term contract prices. Which meant that people who bought long-term were making much smaller margins than those who bought spot.

    When the pandemic receded, we found ourselves without lots of contracted LNG, having to fight in the market for a very small number of spot cargoes. It was an entirely self inflicted wound.

    Alongside increasing the amount of gas storage in the UK, it would not be unreasonable to require those gas plants that wish to receive capacity payments from the grid, to have precontracted for a certain portion of their gas needs.
    That's a good point, I've written about the UK's lack of gas storage previously. We have 4 days worth of gas storage va about 8-12 weeks in Germany. Our economic strategy rather reflects how businesses have been run, for very short term gains, low productivity and low margins.

    It's a work day on Monday and I've got some research on UK agriculture that's finally come through and how it survives (or doesn't) the new high wage economic model that is being imposed at great speed. The initial research showed that loads and loads of UK agriculture was a function of imported labour working British farmland. The whole ecosystem was lifted from how agriculture is carried out in Eastern Europe, just in the UK. I'll be interested to see what the final report says but the initial one was pretty grim reading from a headline GDP perspective but fairly positive from a per capita GDP perspective.
    Is an LNG ship at harbour part of your count of storage? What about one five days away from port? It might sink, but not much more likely than an on-land store malfunctioning? Can an LNG ship decompress gas directly into the gas supply or must it go storage first?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    isam said:

    Now we know it wasn't Brexit that caused the fuel "crisis", can we have a show of hands of those who said it was?

    I don't remember. Possibly.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,819
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, I still like the theory that Boris Johnson will go for a spring 2023 election to avoid the messy contretemps that will be caused by sitting Tory MPs fighting over the new seats because of the boundary changes.

    I was just looking at the proposals for Wales. They’re not dreadful for the Tories although they could be better. Labour sees I think 6 seats go in the valleys, but would almost certainly regain Aberconwy and possible Delyn.

    It’s awful for Plaid Cymru though. If my rough figures are right they would start with one notional hold, although they would certainly be in contention in Ceredigion Preseli and should at least be second in Caerfyrddin.
    6 seats in the Valleys gone?
    How do you reckon that?
    I’ve only reckoned it roughly and I might be wrong, but I see Caerphilly, Gower, Neath, Ogmore, Cynon Valley as abolished, in effect, and Llanelli and Newport East on those boundaries might start as notional Tory holds.

    Equally, it’s partly balanced by a new seat in Swansea. Also I think Bridgend and Delyn would be back in play, and Aberconwy should certainly start as a notional Labour hold with Bangor being assigned to it.

    I want to do some more detailed work on them burrowing into wards, but that’s my instinctive reaction.

    Equally it was always going to be like that given the majority of seat reductions are happening are where Labour are strong. One in the west and two in the north were never going to be as painful for Labour as the reductions in the numerous smallish seats in the south east.

    Plaid must have absolutely crapped themselves though. There’s very little redeeming feature here for the certain loss of Arfon.
    EC has a dedicated page here.

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

    They make it Lab-4, Con-2 PC -2.

    However, that is on 2019 votes being repeated. The Tories have a number of notional seats which are very marginal indeed. Labour not nearly so much. Ynys Mon, all 5 in Clwyd and Vale of Glamorgan.
    Currently, they are predicting 5 of those to go red.
    So. The Tories gain for now. But end up net losers on very small swings.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,155
    The chance of a 2022 election has receded from small to slight. The polling is nowhere near good enough. The chances of bad stuff between now and spring 2022 are high. 7% chance about right, as all sorts of off-white swans could occur to render it necessary or desirable.

    2023 remains a decent chance, but less than it was as there is no recent polling to help Boris, and if anything the trend is very slightly adverse. OTOH the longer Boris goes on the greater the chance of an event to make his wheels come off; so earlier is tempting. 2023 + 4 years would give him 8 years as PM, which places him among a very select group.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    tlg86 said:
    Exciting. I'd have gone for status quo, I'm not very keen on mayors.
  • Ashes: England tour of Australia to go ahead 'subject to conditions'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58788750

    We're going to get pounded like a dockside hooker.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,155
    tlg86 said:
    Perhaps it was on the subject of Scottish independence. It would seem to come within their powers if some PB comments are correct.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915

    Ashes: England tour of Australia to go ahead 'subject to conditions'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58788750

    We're going to get pounded like a dockside hooker.

    Probably. We might get one solely thanks to Root.

    But especially during Covid it is the taking part that counts.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,198
    HYUFD said:

    No and he would be an idiot to do so given every current poll shows the Tories losing seats compared to 2019.

    Half the current polls even have the Tories losing their majority and a hung parliament. He will wait until 2023/4.

    As May and Trudeau showed in 2017 and this September unnecessary elections called early rarely get the big majorities aimed for, both scraped back into power rather than romping home

    But HY, the prospects going forward look bleak, horrendous infact.

    A December 2021 election gives Johnson a circa 40/50 seat majority until May 2026 by which time he could happily jump ship to the US after dinner circuit.

    The added bonus of a defeated Starmer would leave the Labour Party in turmoil.

    It's a win, win, win for Johnson. Not so much for the rest of us.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,116
    edited October 8
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, I still like the theory that Boris Johnson will go for a spring 2023 election to avoid the messy contretemps that will be caused by sitting Tory MPs fighting over the new seats because of the boundary changes.

    I was just looking at the proposals for Wales. They’re not dreadful for the Tories although they could be better. Labour sees I think 6 seats go in the valleys, but would almost certainly regain Aberconwy and possible Delyn.

    It’s awful for Plaid Cymru though. If my rough figures are right they would start with one notional hold, although they would certainly be in contention in Ceredigion Preseli and should at least be second in Caerfyrddin.
    6 seats in the Valleys gone?
    How do you reckon that?
    I’ve only reckoned it roughly and I might be wrong, but I see Caerphilly, Gower, Neath, Ogmore, Cynon Valley as abolished, in effect, and Llanelli and Newport East on those boundaries might start as notional Tory holds.

    Equally, it’s partly balanced by a new seat in Swansea. Also I think Bridgend and Delyn would be back in play, and Aberconwy should certainly start as a notional Labour hold with Bangor being assigned to it.

    I want to do some more detailed work on them burrowing into wards, but that’s my instinctive reaction.

    Equally it was always going to be like that given the majority of seat reductions are happening are where Labour are strong. One in the west and two in the north were never going to be as painful for Labour as the reductions in the numerous smallish seats in the south east.

    Plaid must have absolutely crapped themselves though. There’s very little redeeming feature here for the certain loss of Arfon.
    On Aberconwy, I remember acting as driver for the late Lord Wyn Roberts in the 80's and they literally poured out of the council houses in Bangor to shake his hand and chat to him in Welsh and English and his posters were in most windows

    He was a lovely man and greatly liked
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111
    Leon said:

    The ex-Finnish PM seems to think the EU needs to organise a charity appeal for us.

    https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1446347168290324481

    If the EU would play its cards right, it would offer assistance to the UK now or later when the supply of basic goods and services takes a turn for the worse. This is what friends do, even if the pain has been self-inflicted, stupid an unnecessary.

    Sorry, but the situation in the UK is going to go from bad to worse with no respit in sight. This is not a period of adaptation, it is a rather permanent reality and fact linked to voluntary isolation and myths of sovereignty in an interdependent world.

    That entire thread is hilariously insane. People from across the EU - and a couple of Americans - who honestly believe Britain is close to collapse. And famine.

    Are they all reading the New York Times, and nothing else?!

    It’s genuinely hard to fathom. One element must be Strasbourg Syndrome. Brexit is evil therefore it can only cause evil things to the evildoers responsible. It is a religious reflex at work
    Yes, it sort of goes back to what I was talking about earlier today. The EU projects this image of perfection which causes people idealise it. We see it on here all the time. They have an almost religious zeal about the EU because in the back of their minds they know the EU is imperfect, the image it projects is false and they are overcompensating because they realise the moment they admit it isn't perfect those flaws and those minor imperfections add up, the doubt grows and suddenly the institution they place above all others a mess of undemocratic contradictions and the UK was right to leave.

    Lots of people really believe the EU is the only game in town, their world is being shattered right now as the UK prospers completely outside of its structures. This is their worst nightmare come true.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    The ex-Finnish PM seems to think the EU needs to organise a charity appeal for us.

    https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1446347168290324481

    If the EU would play its cards right, it would offer assistance to the UK now or later when the supply of basic goods and services takes a turn for the worse. This is what friends do, even if the pain has been self-inflicted, stupid an unnecessary.

    Sorry, but the situation in the UK is going to go from bad to worse with no respit in sight. This is not a period of adaptation, it is a rather permanent reality and fact linked to voluntary isolation and myths of sovereignty in an interdependent world.

    That entire thread is hilariously insane. People from across the EU - and a couple of Americans - who honestly believe Britain is close to collapse. And famine.

    Are they all reading the New York Times, and nothing else?!

    It’s genuinely hard to fathom. One element must be Strasbourg Syndrome. Brexit is evil therefore it can only cause evil things to the evildoers responsible. It is a religious reflex at work
    Yes, it sort of goes back to what I was talking about earlier today. The EU projects this image of perfection which causes people idealise it. We see it on here all the time. They have an almost religious zeal about the EU because in the back of their minds they know the EU is imperfect, the image it projects is false and they are overcompensating because they realise the moment they admit it isn't perfect those flaws and those minor imperfections add up, the doubt grows and suddenly the institution they place above all others a mess of undemocratic contradictions and the UK was right to leave.

    Lots of people really believe the EU is the only game in town, their world is being shattered right now as the UK prospers completely outside of its structures. This is their worst nightmare come true.
    Quite simply, EuroNationalism.

    Compare it to, say, Scottish Nationalism.

    https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,713
    algarkirk said:

    tlg86 said:
    Perhaps it was on the subject of Scottish independence. It would seem to come within their powers if some PB comments are correct.
    There's specific provisions for local referendums in English law. @AlastairMeeks did a header on this.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,713
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    The ex-Finnish PM seems to think the EU needs to organise a charity appeal for us.

    https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1446347168290324481

    If the EU would play its cards right, it would offer assistance to the UK now or later when the supply of basic goods and services takes a turn for the worse. This is what friends do, even if the pain has been self-inflicted, stupid an unnecessary.

    Sorry, but the situation in the UK is going to go from bad to worse with no respit in sight. This is not a period of adaptation, it is a rather permanent reality and fact linked to voluntary isolation and myths of sovereignty in an interdependent world.

    That entire thread is hilariously insane. People from across the EU - and a couple of Americans - who honestly believe Britain is close to collapse. And famine.

    Are they all reading the New York Times, and nothing else?!

    It’s genuinely hard to fathom. One element must be Strasbourg Syndrome. Brexit is evil therefore it can only cause evil things to the evildoers responsible. It is a religious reflex at work
    Yes, it sort of goes back to what I was talking about earlier today. The EU projects this image of perfection which causes people idealise it. We see it on here all the time. They have an almost religious zeal about the EU because in the back of their minds they know the EU is imperfect, the image it projects is false and they are overcompensating because they realise the moment they admit it isn't perfect those flaws and those minor imperfections add up, the doubt grows and suddenly the institution they place above all others a mess of undemocratic contradictions and the UK was right to leave.

    Lots of people really believe the EU is the only game in town, their world is being shattered right now as the UK prospers completely outside of its structures. This is their worst nightmare come true.
    If this is prospering I'd hate to see what failure looks like.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    UK local R

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    UK case summary

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    UK hospitals

    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    UK deaths

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    UK R

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    edited October 8
    Age related data

    image
    image
    image
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,281

    HYUFD said:

    No and he would be an idiot to do so given every current poll shows the Tories losing seats compared to 2019.

    Half the current polls even have the Tories losing their majority and a hung parliament. He will wait until 2023/4.

    As May and Trudeau showed in 2017 and this September unnecessary elections called early rarely get the big majorities aimed for, both scraped back into power rather than romping home

    But HY, the prospects going forward look bleak, horrendous infact.

    A December 2021 election gives Johnson a circa 40/50 seat majority until May 2026 by which time he could happily jump ship to the US after dinner circuit.

    The added bonus of a defeated Starmer would leave the Labour Party in turmoil.

    It's a win, win, win for Johnson. Not so much for the rest of us.
    He can happily jump ship to that circuit at any time, so I am not sure that makes the case for why he would go early.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,496
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    The ex-Finnish PM seems to think the EU needs to organise a charity appeal for us.

    https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1446347168290324481

    If the EU would play its cards right, it would offer assistance to the UK now or later when the supply of basic goods and services takes a turn for the worse. This is what friends do, even if the pain has been self-inflicted, stupid an unnecessary.

    Sorry, but the situation in the UK is going to go from bad to worse with no respit in sight. This is not a period of adaptation, it is a rather permanent reality and fact linked to voluntary isolation and myths of sovereignty in an interdependent world.

    That entire thread is hilariously insane. People from across the EU - and a couple of Americans - who honestly believe Britain is close to collapse. And famine.

    Are they all reading the New York Times, and nothing else?!

    It’s genuinely hard to fathom. One element must be Strasbourg Syndrome. Brexit is evil therefore it can only cause evil things to the evildoers responsible. It is a religious reflex at work
    Yes, it sort of goes back to what I was talking about earlier today. The EU projects this image of perfection which causes people idealise it. We see it on here all the time. They have an almost religious zeal about the EU because in the back of their minds they know the EU is imperfect, the image it projects is false and they are overcompensating because they realise the moment they admit it isn't perfect those flaws and those minor imperfections add up, the doubt grows and suddenly the institution they place above all others a mess of undemocratic contradictions and the UK was right to leave.

    Lots of people really believe the EU is the only game in town, their world is being shattered right now as the UK prospers completely outside of its structures. This is their worst nightmare come true.
    Similar phenomenon when it comes to Trump quite frankly. Pure evil, determined to bring the world to war, The Omen reincarnated etc. etc.

    The EU and Biden have quite a few things in common.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,250
    Trafford have reintroduced a requirement for parents to wear facemasks when dropping kids off and picking them up, and for kids in senior schools.
    How fucking depressing.
    I'm not scared of this virus. But I am scared of how our public sector reacts to it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    Age related data scaled 100K

    image
    image
    image
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,111
    MrEd said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    The ex-Finnish PM seems to think the EU needs to organise a charity appeal for us.

    https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1446347168290324481

    If the EU would play its cards right, it would offer assistance to the UK now or later when the supply of basic goods and services takes a turn for the worse. This is what friends do, even if the pain has been self-inflicted, stupid an unnecessary.

    Sorry, but the situation in the UK is going to go from bad to worse with no respit in sight. This is not a period of adaptation, it is a rather permanent reality and fact linked to voluntary isolation and myths of sovereignty in an interdependent world.

    That entire thread is hilariously insane. People from across the EU - and a couple of Americans - who honestly believe Britain is close to collapse. And famine.

    Are they all reading the New York Times, and nothing else?!

    It’s genuinely hard to fathom. One element must be Strasbourg Syndrome. Brexit is evil therefore it can only cause evil things to the evildoers responsible. It is a religious reflex at work
    Yes, it sort of goes back to what I was talking about earlier today. The EU projects this image of perfection which causes people idealise it. We see it on here all the time. They have an almost religious zeal about the EU because in the back of their minds they know the EU is imperfect, the image it projects is false and they are overcompensating because they realise the moment they admit it isn't perfect those flaws and those minor imperfections add up, the doubt grows and suddenly the institution they place above all others a mess of undemocratic contradictions and the UK was right to leave.

    Lots of people really believe the EU is the only game in town, their world is being shattered right now as the UK prospers completely outside of its structures. This is their worst nightmare come true.
    Similar phenomenon when it comes to Trump quite frankly. Pure evil, determined to bring the world to war, The Omen reincarnated etc. etc.

    The EU and Biden have quite a few things in common.
    Nah, I think with Biden people voted for him knowing the flaws. I'd suggest the religious zeal and idealisation exists significantly within the GOP ranks about Trump. The guy is clearly a complete fool who happened upon a winning formula of identity politics for working class whites.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,248
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, I still like the theory that Boris Johnson will go for a spring 2023 election to avoid the messy contretemps that will be caused by sitting Tory MPs fighting over the new seats because of the boundary changes.

    I was just looking at the proposals for Wales. They’re not dreadful for the Tories although they could be better. Labour sees I think 6 seats go in the valleys, but would almost certainly regain Aberconwy and possible Delyn.

    It’s awful for Plaid Cymru though. If my rough figures are right they would start with one notional hold, although they would certainly be in contention in Ceredigion Preseli and should at least be second in Caerfyrddin.
    6 seats in the Valleys gone?
    How do you reckon that?
    I’ve only reckoned it roughly and I might be wrong, but I see Caerphilly, Gower, Neath, Ogmore, Cynon Valley as abolished, in effect, and Llanelli and Newport East on those boundaries might start as notional Tory holds.

    Equally, it’s partly balanced by a new seat in Swansea. Also I think Bridgend and Delyn would be back in play, and Aberconwy should certainly start as a notional Labour hold with Bangor being assigned to it.

    I want to do some more detailed work on them burrowing into wards, but that’s my instinctive reaction.

    Equally it was always going to be like that given the majority of seat reductions are happening are where Labour are strong. One in the west and two in the north were never going to be as painful for Labour as the reductions in the numerous smallish seats in the south east.

    Plaid must have absolutely crapped themselves though. There’s very little redeeming feature here for the certain loss of Arfon.
    EC has a dedicated page here.

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

    They make it Lab-4, Con-2 PC -2.

    However, that is on 2019 votes being repeated. The Tories have a number of notional seats which are very marginal indeed. Labour not nearly so much. Ynys Mon, all 5 in Clwyd and Vale of Glamorgan.
    Currently, they are predicting 5 of those to go red.
    So. The Tories gain for now. But end up net losers on very small swings.
    An interesting list, thanks, which takes a rather different route from me but whose final outcomes are not wildly different.

    I am not totally convinced by their reasoning, but equally, as I say I haven’t crunched the full data and I am perfectly capable of making many mistakes. I will see what I come up with over half term.

    I agree about Clywd’s marginality but as with Ceredigion and Preseli and Newport there is another factor - increasing numbers of people migrating across the border in search of cheap housing (or stunning scenery). Many of whom then vote Conservative…so those seats might actually keep trending blue even if in other areas they are falling back.

    (Ynys Môn is one I always leave out of calculations as local conditions make predictions a mug’s game.)

    One thing we can surely agree on is that however you look at it it’s disastrous for Plaid. They seem to be going backwards on all fronts anyway and now they have one MP who might be considered safe. They really could do without the blow to their profile and prestige this would deal.

    It is not disastrous for the Liberal Democrats, however, who lose no seats as a result of these changes :smile:
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,327
    The evidence worldwide is that early GEs are almost always a mistake for whoever calls them.

    And Curtice explained why:

    The public thinks "Oh, why are we having an early GE? It must be because things are about to go wrong so the Governing Party is calling a quick GE now before that happens."
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    COVID summary

    Cases are flat - in England the 10-14 group is beginning to fall.
    Admissions are flat(ish) - unsurprising, since the cases among the at-risk groups have been rather flat for a while.
    Deaths are falling rapidly.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,018

    Age related data

    image
    image
    image

    How long before every 10-14 year old in the country has been infected ?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,833
    Cookie said:

    Trafford have reintroduced a requirement for parents to wear facemasks when dropping kids off and picking them up, and for kids in senior schools.
    How fucking depressing.
    I'm not scared of this virus. But I am scared of how our public sector reacts to it.

    Something must be done
    This is something
    Therefore we must do this
Sign In or Register to comment.