Howdy, Stranger!

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

YouGov has the worst LAB VI but Starmer closest as “Best PM” – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 14 in General
imageYouGov has the worst LAB VI but Starmer closest as “Best PM” – politicalbetting.com

The latest YouGov poll has CON up to a double digit lead which as can be seen above is totally out of line with other firms. Looking at the detail the Tory share is within the same range as other firms but YouGov’s Green total is markedly higher and the LAB one markedly less.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,407
    First, unlike Labour?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,752
    He's also got a net -44 Approval rating with YG. Circle, squared.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    Had a look at the data - doesn't seem that out of synch. Sir Keir has been behind Boris for some time and Tory's have led VI for some time.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Is there any other possible outcome than the death of the Republic at this point?
    Aye, when these people start elevating their deplorability to the sacred, the game probably is fecked. Why couldn't they be happy with line dancing, bumper stickers and bump stocks?
    There's nothing wrong with America that a good old fashioned, down home, traditional American Civil War couldn't sort out
    I am sure it would have the same cathartic healing effect as a referendum campaign, only better.
    To be fair the referendum campaign did have a cathartic healing effect for the Tory Party, eventually. The three plus decades of rancorous Tory divisions on Europe from the late eighties, through Maastricht onwards arguably ended on 04 September 19.

    The issue for Cameron etc is in their opinion the 'wrong side' won.

    An American Civil War has the same issue. The 'wrong side' would probably win it. 😕
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,407

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Is there any other possible outcome than the death of the Republic at this point?
    Aye, when these people start elevating their deplorability to the sacred, the game probably is fecked. Why couldn't they be happy with line dancing, bumper stickers and bump stocks?
    There's nothing wrong with America that a good old fashioned, down home, traditional American Civil War couldn't sort out
    I am sure it would have the same cathartic healing effect as a referendum campaign, only better.
    To be fair the referendum campaign did have a cathartic healing effect for the Tory Party, eventually. The three plus decades of rancorous Tory divisions on Europe from the late eighties, through Maastricht onwards arguably ended on 04 September 19.

    The issue for Cameron etc is in their opinion the 'wrong side' won.

    An American Civil War has the same issue. The 'wrong side' would probably win it. 😕
    I am so happy for the Tory party. At last the Brexit dividend has been sighted.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    On topic have a look at the gross approval ratings of both Boris and Keir.

    Boris has a major lead over Keir in every poll it seems to me glancing at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_approval_opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Keir's gross approval ratings are consistently down in the 20s now while Boris's are generally in the high thirties.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    The world’s biggest shipping line, @Maersk, said it had to divert some ships from Felixstowe, the UK’s largest container port, due to congestion caused by a trucker shortage 🚛🚢

    Via @b_muzz @sidyoutwit 👇🏾


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/maersk-diverts-ships-from-jammed-u-k-ports-short-on-truckers


  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    edited October 14
    FPT:
    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    100% private domain. As I keep saying. Transphobia is not that.

    As you keep saying, sure. Have you ever thought where those views are going to leave you in a few years time, or even now?.

    In a recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 87.5% of the participants chose only cisgender people and excluded transgender and non-binary individuals from their hypothetical dating pool. This blog, written by chapter author of 'The Intimate Relationships of Sexual and Gender Minorities' from The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2E, looks at why...

    "we know that romantic relationships are some of the most important sources of social support that we receive in our life time, and that these relationships contribute greatly to our overall well-being, including how happy we are, how often we get sick, and ultimately, how long we live.

    "What then, does this mean for trans people’s overall well-being if the majority of people within society won’t even consider them as potential dating partners under hypothetical conditions? A lack of social support could contribute to some of the existing discrepancies in mental and physical well-being within trans communities...

    "exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge...

    "Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating... However... the overall societal patterns of including or excluding trans people within the intimate realm of dating can be used as an indicator of overall acceptance and social inclusion of trans people... We won’t be able to say, as a society, that we are accepting of trans citizens until they are also included within our prospective dating pools"

    Karen Blair is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia; an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia; and Chair of the Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Issues (SOGII) Section of the Canadian Psychological Association.

    Welcome to fifteeneightyfour, the blog of Cambridge University Press... dedicated to sharing scholarship from the finest academics in the world and fostering discussion worldwide about important issues in culture, politics, and science.


    Are you really going to priorise the rights of a privileged heterosexual majority over the marginalised transexual community, regardless of its effect on the mental health of underprivileged minorities? If academic studies have determined that marginalisation results from explicit trans prejudice or ignorance, why do you support the perpetuation of archaic structures of sexual discrimination? Fold, or be unpersoned - which is it?
    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this? I am cisgender and heterosexual. If I was gay the pool of people who I might potentially want to date would fall from 51% of the population (females) to roughly 5%, that is 10% of the male population. So I would have roughly 10x less chance of finding someone to put up with me and find the happiness that a supportive relationship can bring. But that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    The idea that society is either homophobic or transphobic because those who don't have the same predilections don't want to date them is, frankly, bonkers. We are obliged to accept and be non judgmental about their choices. We are not obliged to sleep with those we do not fancy.
    Well, I agree (and liked). It's similarly a tragedy that people judged ugly have a much reduced dating pool. We cannot say, as a society, we are accepting of ugly people until they are also included within our prospective dating pools. What about octagenarians? How big is their dating pool?

    The thing is, there is a legitimate point in there somewhere, tucked away behind the bullshit. Being transgender will bring a whole load of issues and one of those likely is that it's hard to secure a sexual/life partner. That will make life harder. It's a legitimate thing to study and report on - as it links to possible reasons for greater mental health issues in the transgender community (although there's a chicken-egg question there too, the two can be intertwined). There may be practical solutions, helping people come to terms with that, dating apps that can link people who are transgender (assuming they'd be more open to those relationships) or non-transgender people similarly relaxed about it. What it is not, is evidence of a horrible society, any more than the fact that many people find their dating pools restricted by appearance, itelligence, social confidence, wealth, age etc etc.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Scott_xP said:

    The world’s biggest shipping line, @Maersk, said it had to divert some ships from Felixstowe, the UK’s largest container port, due to congestion caused by a trucker shortage 🚛🚢

    Via @b_muzz @sidyoutwit 👇🏾


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/maersk-diverts-ships-from-jammed-u-k-ports-short-on-truckers


    He's just brilliant.
  • Scott_xP said:

    The world’s biggest shipping line, @Maersk, said it had to divert some ships from Felixstowe, the UK’s largest container port, due to congestion caused by a trucker shortage 🚛🚢

    Via @b_muzz @sidyoutwit 👇🏾


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/maersk-diverts-ships-from-jammed-u-k-ports-short-on-truckers


    Thus was covered yesterday as was the same problem in the US and China

    Sky actually reported on it in detail and affirmed this is not just a UK issue
  • isamisam Posts: 38,446
    One answer to Mikes question could be that Redfield and Wilton, who have high leads for Boris as best PM, are over represented in the list of polls, so it seems like there are more big leads for him but it’s just the frequency of one pollster really

    Survation are 11% but Opinium are nearer to YGs 6
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    On topic, the YouGov has more for Greens and Others - YouGov polling for Cons is not out of line with others; polling for Lab is. It's consistent for YouGov responders to like (relative to other polls) Starmer more than Johnson, but intend to vote for a party other than Lab or Con.*

    What will be interesting is whether YouGov are right on the Green/Other shares and whether that would survive an actual election.

    *I like Starmer more than Johnson. It doesn't mean I'm going to vote Labour - I probably would in a Lab/Con marginal, but elsewhere I'll likely vote for neither Con nor Lab.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    Selebian said:

    FPT:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    100% private domain. As I keep saying. Transphobia is not that.

    As you keep saying, sure. Have you ever thought where those views are going to leave you in a few years time, or even now?.

    In a recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 87.5% of the participants chose only cisgender people and excluded transgender and non-binary individuals from their hypothetical dating pool. This blog, written by chapter author of 'The Intimate Relationships of Sexual and Gender Minorities' from The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2E, looks at why...

    "we know that romantic relationships are some of the most important sources of social support that we receive in our life time, and that these relationships contribute greatly to our overall well-being, including how happy we are, how often we get sick, and ultimately, how long we live.

    "What then, does this mean for trans people’s overall well-being if the majority of people within society won’t even consider them as potential dating partners under hypothetical conditions? A lack of social support could contribute to some of the existing discrepancies in mental and physical well-being within trans communities...

    "exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge...

    "Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating... However... the overall societal patterns of including or excluding trans people within the intimate realm of dating can be used as an indicator of overall acceptance and social inclusion of trans people... We won’t be able to say, as a society, that we are accepting of trans citizens until they are also included within our prospective dating pools"

    Karen Blair is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia; an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia; and Chair of the Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Issues (SOGII) Section of the Canadian Psychological Association.

    Welcome to fifteeneightyfour, the blog of Cambridge University Press... dedicated to sharing scholarship from the finest academics in the world and fostering discussion worldwide about important issues in culture, politics, and science.


    Are you really going to priorise the rights of a privileged heterosexual majority over the marginalised transexual community, regardless of its effect on the mental health of underprivileged minorities? If academic studies have determined that marginalisation results from explicit trans prejudice or ignorance, why do you support the perpetuation of archaic structures of sexual discrimination? Fold, or be unpersoned - which is it?
    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this? I am cisgender and heterosexual. If I was gay the pool of people who I might potentially want to date would fall from 51% of the population (females) to roughly 5%, that is 10% of the male population. So I would have roughly 10x less chance of finding someone to put up with me and find the happiness that a supportive relationship can bring. But that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    The idea that society is either homophobic or transphobic because those who don't have the same predilections don't want to date them is, frankly, bonkers. We are obliged to accept and be non judgmental about their choices. We are not obliged to sleep with those we do not fancy.
    Well, I agree (and liked). It's similarly a tragedy that people judged ugly have a much reduced dating pool. We cannot say, as a society, we are accepting of ugly people until they are also included within our prospective dating pools. What about octagenarians? How big is their dating pool?

    The thing is, there is a legitimate point in there somewhere, tucked away behind the bullshit. Being transgender will bring a whole load of issues and one of those likely is that it's hard to secure a sexual/life partner. That will make life harder. It's a legitimate thing to study and report on - as it links to possible reasons for greater mental health issues in the transgender community (although there's a chicken-egg question there too, the two can be intertwined). There may be practical solutions, helping people come to terms with that, dating apps that can link people who are transgender (assuming they'd be more open to those relationships) or non-transgender people similarly relaxed about it. What it is not, is evidence of a horrible society, any more than the fact that many people find their dating pools restricted by appearance, itelligence, social confidence, wealth, age etc etc.
    Also to add: I have some colleagues doing a systematic review into the research on (a subset of) transgender issues. It's early stages, but their feeling so far is that most of it is such poor quality and/or heavily biased to the authors' viewpoint that it's pretty useless.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,514
    On Topic and a -44% approval rating

    Useless nonentity supporters please explain.

    FPT excellent politics locally by Tories. Infrastructure everywhere you look.

    https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/media/1485734/staveley-town-investment-plan-part-1.pdf
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806

    Scott_xP said:

    The world’s biggest shipping line, @Maersk, said it had to divert some ships from Felixstowe, the UK’s largest container port, due to congestion caused by a trucker shortage 🚛🚢

    Via @b_muzz @sidyoutwit 👇🏾


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/maersk-diverts-ships-from-jammed-u-k-ports-short-on-truckers


    Thus was covered yesterday as was the same problem in the US and China

    Sky actually reported on it in detail and affirmed this is not just a UK issue
    Hmmm... the US and China are also outwith the EU. I see a pattern! :wink:
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,752
    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    FPT:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    100% private domain. As I keep saying. Transphobia is not that.

    As you keep saying, sure. Have you ever thought where those views are going to leave you in a few years time, or even now?.

    In a recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 87.5% of the participants chose only cisgender people and excluded transgender and non-binary individuals from their hypothetical dating pool. This blog, written by chapter author of 'The Intimate Relationships of Sexual and Gender Minorities' from The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2E, looks at why...

    "we know that romantic relationships are some of the most important sources of social support that we receive in our life time, and that these relationships contribute greatly to our overall well-being, including how happy we are, how often we get sick, and ultimately, how long we live.

    "What then, does this mean for trans people’s overall well-being if the majority of people within society won’t even consider them as potential dating partners under hypothetical conditions? A lack of social support could contribute to some of the existing discrepancies in mental and physical well-being within trans communities...

    "exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge...

    "Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating... However... the overall societal patterns of including or excluding trans people within the intimate realm of dating can be used as an indicator of overall acceptance and social inclusion of trans people... We won’t be able to say, as a society, that we are accepting of trans citizens until they are also included within our prospective dating pools"

    Karen Blair is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia; an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia; and Chair of the Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Issues (SOGII) Section of the Canadian Psychological Association.

    Welcome to fifteeneightyfour, the blog of Cambridge University Press... dedicated to sharing scholarship from the finest academics in the world and fostering discussion worldwide about important issues in culture, politics, and science.


    Are you really going to priorise the rights of a privileged heterosexual majority over the marginalised transexual community, regardless of its effect on the mental health of underprivileged minorities? If academic studies have determined that marginalisation results from explicit trans prejudice or ignorance, why do you support the perpetuation of archaic structures of sexual discrimination? Fold, or be unpersoned - which is it?
    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this? I am cisgender and heterosexual. If I was gay the pool of people who I might potentially want to date would fall from 51% of the population (females) to roughly 5%, that is 10% of the male population. So I would have roughly 10x less chance of finding someone to put up with me and find the happiness that a supportive relationship can bring. But that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    The idea that society is either homophobic or transphobic because those who don't have the same predilections don't want to date them is, frankly, bonkers. We are obliged to accept and be non judgmental about their choices. We are not obliged to sleep with those we do not fancy.
    Well, I agree (and liked). It's similarly a tragedy that people judged ugly have a much reduced dating pool. We cannot say, as a society, we are accepting of ugly people until they are also included within our prospective dating pools. What about octagenarians? How big is their dating pool?

    The thing is, there is a legitimate point in there somewhere, tucked away behind the bullshit. Being transgender will bring a whole load of issues and one of those likely is that it's hard to secure a sexual/life partner. That will make life harder. It's a legitimate thing to study and report on - as it links to possible reasons for greater mental health issues in the transgender community (although there's a chicken-egg question there too, the two can be intertwined). There may be practical solutions, helping people come to terms with that, dating apps that can link people who are transgender (assuming they'd be more open to those relationships) or non-transgender people similarly relaxed about it. What it is not, is evidence of a horrible society, any more than the fact that many people find their dating pools restricted by appearance, itelligence, social confidence, wealth, age etc etc.
    Also to add: I have some colleagues doing a systematic review into the research on (a subset of) transgender issues. It's early stages, but their feeling so far is that most of it is such poor quality and/or heavily biased to the authors' viewpoint that it's pretty useless.
    Sounds like economic research!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389
    What this again emphasises is that whole Labour has near zero chance of a majority, Starmer could still become PM.

    However that requires disilluisioned Corbyniytes to vote Labour not Green in marginal seats and the LDs and SNP to gain seats from the Tories as well as Labour so Boris loses his majority
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    MaxPB said:

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    FPT:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    100% private domain. As I keep saying. Transphobia is not that.

    As you keep saying, sure. Have you ever thought where those views are going to leave you in a few years time, or even now?.

    In a recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 87.5% of the participants chose only cisgender people and excluded transgender and non-binary individuals from their hypothetical dating pool. This blog, written by chapter author of 'The Intimate Relationships of Sexual and Gender Minorities' from The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2E, looks at why...

    "we know that romantic relationships are some of the most important sources of social support that we receive in our life time, and that these relationships contribute greatly to our overall well-being, including how happy we are, how often we get sick, and ultimately, how long we live.

    "What then, does this mean for trans people’s overall well-being if the majority of people within society won’t even consider them as potential dating partners under hypothetical conditions? A lack of social support could contribute to some of the existing discrepancies in mental and physical well-being within trans communities...

    "exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge...

    "Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating... However... the overall societal patterns of including or excluding trans people within the intimate realm of dating can be used as an indicator of overall acceptance and social inclusion of trans people... We won’t be able to say, as a society, that we are accepting of trans citizens until they are also included within our prospective dating pools"

    Karen Blair is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia; an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia; and Chair of the Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Issues (SOGII) Section of the Canadian Psychological Association.

    Welcome to fifteeneightyfour, the blog of Cambridge University Press... dedicated to sharing scholarship from the finest academics in the world and fostering discussion worldwide about important issues in culture, politics, and science.


    Are you really going to priorise the rights of a privileged heterosexual majority over the marginalised transexual community, regardless of its effect on the mental health of underprivileged minorities? If academic studies have determined that marginalisation results from explicit trans prejudice or ignorance, why do you support the perpetuation of archaic structures of sexual discrimination? Fold, or be unpersoned - which is it?
    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this? I am cisgender and heterosexual. If I was gay the pool of people who I might potentially want to date would fall from 51% of the population (females) to roughly 5%, that is 10% of the male population. So I would have roughly 10x less chance of finding someone to put up with me and find the happiness that a supportive relationship can bring. But that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    The idea that society is either homophobic or transphobic because those who don't have the same predilections don't want to date them is, frankly, bonkers. We are obliged to accept and be non judgmental about their choices. We are not obliged to sleep with those we do not fancy.
    Well, I agree (and liked). It's similarly a tragedy that people judged ugly have a much reduced dating pool. We cannot say, as a society, we are accepting of ugly people until they are also included within our prospective dating pools. What about octagenarians? How big is their dating pool?

    The thing is, there is a legitimate point in there somewhere, tucked away behind the bullshit. Being transgender will bring a whole load of issues and one of those likely is that it's hard to secure a sexual/life partner. That will make life harder. It's a legitimate thing to study and report on - as it links to possible reasons for greater mental health issues in the transgender community (although there's a chicken-egg question there too, the two can be intertwined). There may be practical solutions, helping people come to terms with that, dating apps that can link people who are transgender (assuming they'd be more open to those relationships) or non-transgender people similarly relaxed about it. What it is not, is evidence of a horrible society, any more than the fact that many people find their dating pools restricted by appearance, itelligence, social confidence, wealth, age etc etc.
    Also to add: I have some colleagues doing a systematic review into the research on (a subset of) transgender issues. It's early stages, but their feeling so far is that most of it is such poor quality and/or heavily biased to the authors' viewpoint that it's pretty useless.
    Sounds like economic research!
    I'd just like to say how pleased I am that you didn't omit 'economic' in that statement! :smiley:
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,777
    HYUFD said:

    What this again emphasises is that whole Labour has near zero chance of a majority, Starmer could still become PM.

    However that requires disilluisioned Corbyniytes to vote Labour not Green in marginal seats and the LDs and SNP to gain seats from the Tories as well as Labour so Boris loses his majority

    I wonder in such circumstances what the opportunities might be like for Starmer to get his feet unde the table as a minority PM, demonstrate being blocked and pull a Wilson election to consilidate his position a few months to a year into his administration.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,514
    edited October 14
    Pro_Rata said:

    HYUFD said:

    What this again emphasises is that whole Labour has near zero chance of a majority, Starmer could still become PM.

    However that requires disilluisioned Corbyniytes to vote Labour not Green in marginal seats and the LDs and SNP to gain seats from the Tories as well as Labour so Boris loses his majority

    I wonder in such circumstances what the opportunities might be like for Starmer to get his feet unde the table as a minority PM, demonstrate being blocked and pull a Wilson election to consilidate his position a few months to a year into his administration.
    Don't get your hopes up.

    A thrashing much more likely.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/does-keir-starmer-look-like-a-prime-minister-in-waiting
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    In the BBC's series on New Labour, Blair and Brown, there is a scene where Tony Blair describes how, leading up to his first conference speech, he showed his speech to Gordon Brown, who did not like it, reminding Blair he was addressing the Labour Party, not a high court judge. Rewritten along the lines Brown suggested, the speech secured Blair a standing ovation. Keir Starmer has the same problem. He speaks (and conducts PMQs) as if in court. Starmer needs a Brown figure, or Mrs Thatcher's Willie.

    Why would anyone switch to voting Labour except out of despair or disgust at Boris? Starmer has announced no distinct programme or even any discernible philosophy. He can't rely on the old defaults like investment and health because Boris has already pinched them after they proved popular for Corbyn in 2017. What's the point of Starmer? What's the point of Labour?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,746

    On Topic and a -44% approval rating

    Useless nonentity supporters please explain.

    FPT excellent politics locally by Tories. Infrastructure everywhere you look.

    https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/media/1485734/staveley-town-investment-plan-part-1.pdf

    I don't see a "Staveley Plage" in the town centre in the summer :smile:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,523
    HYUFD said:

    What this again emphasises is that whole Labour has near zero chance of a majority, Starmer could still become PM.

    However that requires disilluisioned Corbyniytes to vote Labour not Green in marginal seats and the LDs and SNP to gain seats from the Tories as well as Labour so Boris loses his majority

    It also requires voters to be rather "meh..." about installing a PM who spent 3 years so intent on thwarting the democratic decision of the voters that he had no time to see the anti-Semitism swirling around him in the Labour Party....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,752
    Selebian said:

    MaxPB said:

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    FPT:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    100% private domain. As I keep saying. Transphobia is not that.

    As you keep saying, sure. Have you ever thought where those views are going to leave you in a few years time, or even now?.

    In a recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 87.5% of the participants chose only cisgender people and excluded transgender and non-binary individuals from their hypothetical dating pool. This blog, written by chapter author of 'The Intimate Relationships of Sexual and Gender Minorities' from The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2E, looks at why...

    "we know that romantic relationships are some of the most important sources of social support that we receive in our life time, and that these relationships contribute greatly to our overall well-being, including how happy we are, how often we get sick, and ultimately, how long we live.

    "What then, does this mean for trans people’s overall well-being if the majority of people within society won’t even consider them as potential dating partners under hypothetical conditions? A lack of social support could contribute to some of the existing discrepancies in mental and physical well-being within trans communities...

    "exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge...

    "Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating... However... the overall societal patterns of including or excluding trans people within the intimate realm of dating can be used as an indicator of overall acceptance and social inclusion of trans people... We won’t be able to say, as a society, that we are accepting of trans citizens until they are also included within our prospective dating pools"

    Karen Blair is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia; an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia; and Chair of the Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Issues (SOGII) Section of the Canadian Psychological Association.

    Welcome to fifteeneightyfour, the blog of Cambridge University Press... dedicated to sharing scholarship from the finest academics in the world and fostering discussion worldwide about important issues in culture, politics, and science.


    Are you really going to priorise the rights of a privileged heterosexual majority over the marginalised transexual community, regardless of its effect on the mental health of underprivileged minorities? If academic studies have determined that marginalisation results from explicit trans prejudice or ignorance, why do you support the perpetuation of archaic structures of sexual discrimination? Fold, or be unpersoned - which is it?
    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this? I am cisgender and heterosexual. If I was gay the pool of people who I might potentially want to date would fall from 51% of the population (females) to roughly 5%, that is 10% of the male population. So I would have roughly 10x less chance of finding someone to put up with me and find the happiness that a supportive relationship can bring. But that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    The idea that society is either homophobic or transphobic because those who don't have the same predilections don't want to date them is, frankly, bonkers. We are obliged to accept and be non judgmental about their choices. We are not obliged to sleep with those we do not fancy.
    Well, I agree (and liked). It's similarly a tragedy that people judged ugly have a much reduced dating pool. We cannot say, as a society, we are accepting of ugly people until they are also included within our prospective dating pools. What about octagenarians? How big is their dating pool?

    The thing is, there is a legitimate point in there somewhere, tucked away behind the bullshit. Being transgender will bring a whole load of issues and one of those likely is that it's hard to secure a sexual/life partner. That will make life harder. It's a legitimate thing to study and report on - as it links to possible reasons for greater mental health issues in the transgender community (although there's a chicken-egg question there too, the two can be intertwined). There may be practical solutions, helping people come to terms with that, dating apps that can link people who are transgender (assuming they'd be more open to those relationships) or non-transgender people similarly relaxed about it. What it is not, is evidence of a horrible society, any more than the fact that many people find their dating pools restricted by appearance, itelligence, social confidence, wealth, age etc etc.
    Also to add: I have some colleagues doing a systematic review into the research on (a subset of) transgender issues. It's early stages, but their feeling so far is that most of it is such poor quality and/or heavily biased to the authors' viewpoint that it's pretty useless.
    Sounds like economic research!
    I'd just like to say how pleased I am that you didn't omit 'economic' in that statement! :smiley:
    Some scientific research still has merit lol. It's just funny to see people cite economic research or other social science research as if it was fact rather than the opinion of the person who wrote it.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,777

    Pro_Rata said:

    HYUFD said:

    What this again emphasises is that whole Labour has near zero chance of a majority, Starmer could still become PM.

    However that requires disilluisioned Corbyniytes to vote Labour not Green in marginal seats and the LDs and SNP to gain seats from the Tories as well as Labour so Boris loses his majority

    I wonder in such circumstances what the opportunities might be like for Starmer to get his feet unde the table as a minority PM, demonstrate being blocked and pull a Wilson election to consilidate his position a few months to a year into his administration.
    Don't get your hopes up.

    A thrashing much more likely.
    We'll see. But, tbf, I was just wandering off into hypotheticals rather than predictions.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    This trend seems to point to the fact that Labour's problems are not Kier Starmer, they are Labour more generally. However clueless Boris "Scooby" Johnson is, people seem to think that overall the Conservative government is better than the alternative.

    When the electorate wakes up to the fact that the PM hasn't got a Scooby on all matters, not just NI, they will need to ask themselves whether they can stomach Angela Rayner as a cabinet member. I want to see the back of The Clown, but I am still not sure Labour are ready or serious enough (that is in spite of Johnson)
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,743
    FPT Foxy says Starmer is the Michael Howard figure, to give a platform for Labour for the election but one away. Who are the young thrusters waiting in the wings that will seize the centre ground after Starmer stands down?

    Do I remember it right that Howard mentored Cameron into the role, and that it was generally understood that Osborne would be part of the package if Cameron won the leadership election? Is Starmer doing the same? Not very obvious if he is.

    Are we sure that Starmer isn't in fact the William Hague figure? Sounding sensible in the Commons but making next to no headway electorally even against the benchmark of inheriting a party after a landslide defeat? If so we might expect a silly choice for next leader after him, perhaps Granny Ange. And the next Labour PM may in fact be someone not yet even in Parliament.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377

    Scott_xP said:

    The world’s biggest shipping line, @Maersk, said it had to divert some ships from Felixstowe, the UK’s largest container port, due to congestion caused by a trucker shortage 🚛🚢

    Via @b_muzz @sidyoutwit 👇🏾


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/maersk-diverts-ships-from-jammed-u-k-ports-short-on-truckers


    Thus was covered yesterday as was the same problem in the US and China

    Sky actually reported on it in detail and affirmed this is not just a UK issue
    Oh that's OK then.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,023
    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    I think that's exactly right. I'd add that without a compelling strategy in Scotland, Labour is likely to struggle even more as the small towns and suburbs in the North and Midlands move ever further away from them.

    Labour clearly needs more than its own efforts if it is to win next time. Above all, it needs a sustained Lib Dem recovery to split the anti-Labour vote, just as it was the split anti-Brexit vote in 2019 that gave such enormous dividends to Boris Johnson.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    That doctors' surgery has reopened btw so maybe it was just insurance.
    https://www.theblandfordgrouppractice.co.uk/
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,023
    edited October 14
    moonshine said:

    FPT Foxy says Starmer is the Michael Howard figure, to give a platform for Labour for the election but one away. Who are the young thrusters waiting in the wings that will seize the centre ground after Starmer stands down?

    Do I remember it right that Howard mentored Cameron into the role, and that it was generally understood that Osborne would be part of the package if Cameron won the leadership election? Is Starmer doing the same? Not very obvious if he is.

    Are we sure that Starmer isn't in fact the William Hague figure? Sounding sensible in the Commons but making next to no headway electorally even against the benchmark of inheriting a party after a landslide defeat? If so we might expect a silly choice for next leader after him, perhaps Granny Ange. And the next Labour PM may in fact be someone not yet even in Parliament.

    Yes, I think Starmer is far more of a Kinnock figure - steady as she sinks. Maybe twice.
  • pingping Posts: 1,409
    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/welcome-britain-bank-scam-capital-world-2021-10-14/

    Welcome to Britain, the bank scam capital of the world.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389
    moonshine said:

    FPT Foxy says Starmer is the Michael Howard figure, to give a platform for Labour for the election but one away. Who are the young thrusters waiting in the wings that will seize the centre ground after Starmer stands down?

    Do I remember it right that Howard mentored Cameron into the role, and that it was generally understood that Osborne would be part of the package if Cameron won the leadership election? Is Starmer doing the same? Not very obvious if he is.

    Are we sure that Starmer isn't in fact the William Hague figure? Sounding sensible in the Commons but making next to no headway electorally even against the benchmark of inheriting a party after a landslide defeat? If so we might expect a silly choice for next leader after him, perhaps Granny Ange. And the next Labour PM may in fact be someone not yet even in Parliament.

    Starmer is polling far better than Hague did a year and 6 months into his leadership. In December 1998 for instance Mori had Labour on 54% and the Tories on 27%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2001_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Howard also gained 33 seats in 2005, if Starmer gained 33 seats in 2023/24 and the LDs and SNP combined gained 15 seats from the Tories it would be a hung parliament
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    Fishing said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT Foxy says Starmer is the Michael Howard figure, to give a platform for Labour for the election but one away. Who are the young thrusters waiting in the wings that will seize the centre ground after Starmer stands down?

    Do I remember it right that Howard mentored Cameron into the role, and that it was generally understood that Osborne would be part of the package if Cameron won the leadership election? Is Starmer doing the same? Not very obvious if he is.

    Are we sure that Starmer isn't in fact the William Hague figure? Sounding sensible in the Commons but making next to no headway electorally even against the benchmark of inheriting a party after a landslide defeat? If so we might expect a silly choice for next leader after him, perhaps Granny Ange. And the next Labour PM may in fact be someone not yet even in Parliament.

    Yes, I think Starmer is far more of a Kinnock figure - steady as she sinks. Maybe twice.
    He is a lot more credible than Kinnock. Kinnock was only one grade up in credibility from Corbyn
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389
    Pro_Rata said:

    HYUFD said:

    What this again emphasises is that whole Labour has near zero chance of a majority, Starmer could still become PM.

    However that requires disilluisioned Corbyniytes to vote Labour not Green in marginal seats and the LDs and SNP to gain seats from the Tories as well as Labour so Boris loses his majority

    I wonder in such circumstances what the opportunities might be like for Starmer to get his feet unde the table as a minority PM, demonstrate being blocked and pull a Wilson election to consilidate his position a few months to a year into his administration.
    He could if he wins most seats, if the Tories win most seats and he needs SNP support to be PM in a hung parliament, the SNP would demand indyref2 + devomax first
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,646
    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    For "swing-back" to work don't we have to have a "swing- forward" first?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,128

    On Topic and a -44% approval rating

    Useless nonentity supporters please explain.

    FPT excellent politics locally by Tories. Infrastructure everywhere you look.

    https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/media/1485734/staveley-town-investment-plan-part-1.pdf

    I suppose I count as a supporter, I'm certainly hoping we get Keir Starmer as PM rather than Boris Johnson.
    Definitely very disappointed by these poll results.

    I honestly don't know what makes someone electable & I don't think other people know either. I remember being confidently assured that Starmer was the sensible, electable choice Labour members had to make... He could unite the party, he looked like a leader who had real world experience of running things etc.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,319
    edited October 14

    On Topic and a -44% approval rating

    Useless nonentity supporters please explain.

    FPT excellent politics locally by Tories. Infrastructure everywhere you look.

    https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/media/1485734/staveley-town-investment-plan-part-1.pdf

    When I first stumbled into here you were almost a lone voice of the left - the left left, I mean, as opposed to this "of centre" malarkey - yet here you are now teetering on the very edge of torydom. It's really something. It rivals William Glenn and his intra-tory "Ken Clarke to Bill Cash" journey in speed and distance traveled.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    I think that's exactly right. I'd add that without a compelling strategy in Scotland, Labour is likely to struggle even more as the small towns and suburbs in the North and Midlands move ever further away from them.

    Labour clearly needs more than its own efforts if it is to win next time. Above all, it needs a sustained Lib Dem recovery to split the anti-Labour vote, just as it was the split anti-Brexit vote in 2019 that gave such enormous dividends to Boris Johnson.
    One of the many problems for Labour is that a meaningful Lib Dem recovery may cost the Tories seats in the SE and SW but it is all too likely to cost Labour seats and the chances of winning seats pretty much everywhere else in England. Labour need a swing of over 10% to get to a majority and more than 8% to get to 300: http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

    If there is anything in swing back they would need to be about 20% ahead right now, not behind.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192

    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    For "swing-back" to work don't we have to have a "swing- forward" first?
    Interesting question. Not sure.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,173
    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    This was swingback relative to the average swing in by-elections, rather than polling.

    My recollection is that the rather neat association was demolished in the following general election, which was unfortunate.

    But I do agree with you that the chance of an increased Tory majority is underestimated. The government has many advantages. It can choose the timing of the election. It can put cash into pockets on a matching timeframe. There's a history of disgruntled protest voters returning to the government party to, "cling to nurse for fear of worse."

    The political landscape is not friendly to Labour. There is considerable leeway for electoral performance to deteriorate further regardless of the merits or otherwise of the party leader.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,714
    edited October 14
    Selebian said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The world’s biggest shipping line, @Maersk, said it had to divert some ships from Felixstowe, the UK’s largest container port, due to congestion caused by a trucker shortage 🚛🚢

    Via @b_muzz @sidyoutwit 👇🏾


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/maersk-diverts-ships-from-jammed-u-k-ports-short-on-truckers


    Thus was covered yesterday as was the same problem in the US and China

    Sky actually reported on it in detail and affirmed this is not just a UK issue
    Hmmm... the US and China are also outwith the EU. I see a pattern! :wink:
    Yes. If we are having a problem, but somebody can find some other country that is suffering the same problem or a similar problem, then that problem is officially Nothing To Do With Brexit.

    Lebanon, for example, has also been experiencing petrol shortages of late; ergo the UK's petrol shortages were Nothing To Do With Brexit.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,743
    HYUFD said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT Foxy says Starmer is the Michael Howard figure, to give a platform for Labour for the election but one away. Who are the young thrusters waiting in the wings that will seize the centre ground after Starmer stands down?

    Do I remember it right that Howard mentored Cameron into the role, and that it was generally understood that Osborne would be part of the package if Cameron won the leadership election? Is Starmer doing the same? Not very obvious if he is.

    Are we sure that Starmer isn't in fact the William Hague figure? Sounding sensible in the Commons but making next to no headway electorally even against the benchmark of inheriting a party after a landslide defeat? If so we might expect a silly choice for next leader after him, perhaps Granny Ange. And the next Labour PM may in fact be someone not yet even in Parliament.

    Starmer is polling far better than Hague did a year and 6 months into his leadership. In December 1998 for instance Mori had Labour on 54% and the Tories on 27%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2001_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Howard also gained 33 seats in 2005, if Starmer gained 33 seats in 2023/24 and the LDs and SNP combined gained 15 seats from the Tories it would be a hung parliament
    That was in the afterglow of the people's princess speech and more pertinently the Good Friday Agreement and a strong economic backdrop. The polls right are now are perhaps more remarkable than that, given we are coming out of such a bad recession and with taxes rising, how poorly the government is perceived at handling the pandemic both from a competence and integrity standpoint, and with electoral banana skins like the petrol shortage.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,023
    edited October 14

    Fishing said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT Foxy says Starmer is the Michael Howard figure, to give a platform for Labour for the election but one away. Who are the young thrusters waiting in the wings that will seize the centre ground after Starmer stands down?

    Do I remember it right that Howard mentored Cameron into the role, and that it was generally understood that Osborne would be part of the package if Cameron won the leadership election? Is Starmer doing the same? Not very obvious if he is.

    Are we sure that Starmer isn't in fact the William Hague figure? Sounding sensible in the Commons but making next to no headway electorally even against the benchmark of inheriting a party after a landslide defeat? If so we might expect a silly choice for next leader after him, perhaps Granny Ange. And the next Labour PM may in fact be someone not yet even in Parliament.

    Yes, I think Starmer is far more of a Kinnock figure - steady as she sinks. Maybe twice.
    He is a lot more credible than Kinnock. Kinnock was only one grade up in credibility from Corbyn
    Maybe to you, but the voters don't seem to think so. His approval rating is currently -42% with YouGov, and has been for 6 months. Kinnock never had anything like level of disapproval with the IPSOS MORI numbers - rarely below -20% in 9 years, and never touching -40%.

    Also Kinnock had a much more credible and effective government to attack. He even managed to score the odd point. But SKS has been there a year and a half and I can't think of a single major point he's scored - the best hits against HMG have come from either its own supporters, like Dominic Cummings, or figures outside politics like that footballer.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,894
    Scott_xP said:

    The world’s biggest shipping line, @Maersk, said it had to divert some ships from Felixstowe, the UK’s largest container port, due to congestion caused by a trucker shortage 🚛🚢

    Via @b_muzz @sidyoutwit 👇🏾


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/maersk-diverts-ships-from-jammed-u-k-ports-short-on-truckers


    Definite empty shelves in this corner of north London. By far the worst yet

    No bin liners, for some reason
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,514
    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT Foxy says Starmer is the Michael Howard figure, to give a platform for Labour for the election but one away. Who are the young thrusters waiting in the wings that will seize the centre ground after Starmer stands down?

    Do I remember it right that Howard mentored Cameron into the role, and that it was generally understood that Osborne would be part of the package if Cameron won the leadership election? Is Starmer doing the same? Not very obvious if he is.

    Are we sure that Starmer isn't in fact the William Hague figure? Sounding sensible in the Commons but making next to no headway electorally even against the benchmark of inheriting a party after a landslide defeat? If so we might expect a silly choice for next leader after him, perhaps Granny Ange. And the next Labour PM may in fact be someone not yet even in Parliament.

    Yes, I think Starmer is far more of a Kinnock figure - steady as she sinks. Maybe twice.
    He is a lot more credible than Kinnock. Kinnock was only one grade up in credibility from Corbyn
    Maybe to you, but the voters don't seem to think so. His approval rating is currently -42% with YouGov, and has been for 6 months. Kinnock never had anything like level of disapproval with the IPSOS MORI numbers - rarely below -20% in 9 years, and never toching -40%.
    SKS is -44 not -42

    18$ approve
    62$ disapprove
  • ChelyabinskChelyabinsk Posts: 371
    edited October 14
    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,023

    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT Foxy says Starmer is the Michael Howard figure, to give a platform for Labour for the election but one away. Who are the young thrusters waiting in the wings that will seize the centre ground after Starmer stands down?

    Do I remember it right that Howard mentored Cameron into the role, and that it was generally understood that Osborne would be part of the package if Cameron won the leadership election? Is Starmer doing the same? Not very obvious if he is.

    Are we sure that Starmer isn't in fact the William Hague figure? Sounding sensible in the Commons but making next to no headway electorally even against the benchmark of inheriting a party after a landslide defeat? If so we might expect a silly choice for next leader after him, perhaps Granny Ange. And the next Labour PM may in fact be someone not yet even in Parliament.

    Yes, I think Starmer is far more of a Kinnock figure - steady as she sinks. Maybe twice.
    He is a lot more credible than Kinnock. Kinnock was only one grade up in credibility from Corbyn
    Maybe to you, but the voters don't seem to think so. His approval rating is currently -42% with YouGov, and has been for 6 months. Kinnock never had anything like level of disapproval with the IPSOS MORI numbers - rarely below -20% in 9 years, and never toching -40%.
    SKS is -44 not -42

    18$ approve
    62$ disapprove
    You're right, for some reason I was looking at the C2DE numbers, not overall.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating?crossBreak=c2de
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    On the previous thread, @Casino_Royale mentioned that the rail demand appears to be heading towards an asymptote of 70% of pre-pandemic levels - equivalent to demand of around 20 years ago.
    Coincidentally, I've just had a conversation with a friend in the rail industry, who confirmed this but offered a few interesting nuances. He confirmed what CR said - that the commute market has recovered poorly, but that leisure travel has come back very strongly indeed. Consequently, weekend travel is very strong - Sundays are now back above pre-pandemic levels (which is bringing about a battle with the RMT, who refuse to see Sunday as part of their regular working week).
    Further interesting nuances are:
    The south east recovery is the weakest (as the SE market was that most dependent on commuting). In the SE, commuting traffic is well under 50% of pre-pandemic levels.
    Meanwhile, in the north, demand is back to 85%+ of what it was pre-pandemic levels, and revenue is back to 90%+ of what it was pre-pandemic (the discrepancy primarily explained by fewer season tickets, which are cheaper per journey).
    There has been a trend towards fewer, but longer commuter journeys (so, for example, there might be fewer journeys-to-work in Manchester from commuter suburbs like Cheadle Hulme as people work from home, or sometimes work from home, but this has been counterbalanced by people making slightly longer journeys as it becomes more attractive to live somewhere like Buxton and commute into Manchester one or two days a week.


    All of which, arguably, is merely the acceleration of a trend which was happening pre-covid.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,523
    DavidL said:

    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    I think that's exactly right. I'd add that without a compelling strategy in Scotland, Labour is likely to struggle even more as the small towns and suburbs in the North and Midlands move ever further away from them.

    Labour clearly needs more than its own efforts if it is to win next time. Above all, it needs a sustained Lib Dem recovery to split the anti-Labour vote, just as it was the split anti-Brexit vote in 2019 that gave such enormous dividends to Boris Johnson.
    One of the many problems for Labour is that a meaningful Lib Dem recovery may cost the Tories seats in the SE and SW but it is all too likely to cost Labour seats and the chances of winning seats pretty much everywhere else in England. Labour need a swing of over 10% to get to a majority and more than 8% to get to 300: http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

    If there is anything in swing back they would need to be about 20% ahead right now, not behind.
    There are only two LibDem target seats in the SW with a majority of under 9,990. And one of those, Cheltenham, proved very sticky - it's difficult to oust a popular local MP.

    Seats like Devon North and Cornwall North have majorities around 15,000. Torbay that they held until 2015 is nearly 18,000. "Bollocks to Brexit" proved entirely out of synch with many former supporters down here.

    The SE is going to have to do the heavy lifting. Heavy lifting it failed to deliver in the white heat of Brexit in 2017 and 2019.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The world’s biggest shipping line, @Maersk, said it had to divert some ships from Felixstowe, the UK’s largest container port, due to congestion caused by a trucker shortage 🚛🚢

    Via @b_muzz @sidyoutwit 👇🏾


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/maersk-diverts-ships-from-jammed-u-k-ports-short-on-truckers


    Definite empty shelves in this corner of north London. By far the worst yet

    No bin liners, for some reason
    A plastics shortage, perhaps, that might also explain the bottled water problem. But I'm guessing. Round here, bin liners have been awol for some time, though this week I could get a couple of rolls (does that make me a panic buyer or a hoarder?) of some brand I've not seen before. There are also some new types of cat food on the shelves, again suggesting Sainsbury's are scratching around for stock.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,358
    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    I think that's exactly right. I'd add that without a compelling strategy in Scotland, Labour is likely to struggle even more as the small towns and suburbs in the North and Midlands move ever further away from them.

    Labour clearly needs more than its own efforts if it is to win next time. Above all, it needs a sustained Lib Dem recovery to split the anti-Labour vote, just as it was the split anti-Brexit vote in 2019 that gave such enormous dividends to Boris Johnson.
    I think the next election will be one where no previous Form Book or electoral theory about voting patterns can possibly work. I don't think we have ever before been in this particular place: Where it is perfectly possible for the Tories to lose the next election, but impossible for Labour to win. Is there any set of past events in UK elections which help in that situation?

  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    kinabalu said:

    On Topic and a -44% approval rating

    Useless nonentity supporters please explain.

    FPT excellent politics locally by Tories. Infrastructure everywhere you look.

    https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/media/1485734/staveley-town-investment-plan-part-1.pdf

    When I first stumbled into here you were almost a lone voice of the left - the left left, I mean, as opposed to this "of centre" malarkey - yet here you are now teetering on the very edge of torydom. It's really something. It rivals William Glenn and his intra-tory "Ken Clarke to Bill Cash" journey in speed and distance traveled.
    Arguably BJO has stayed where he was. The Tories have become the party of public spending. Which is why many on the Cameroon right have drifted away.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,894
    The idea, fpt, that Lisa Nandy is "just a bit Woke" is belied by the facts


    "Lisa Nandy reignites Labour trans rights row as leadership contender says male child rapists who transition to become women should be allowed to serve their sentences in female-only prisons if they 'choose' to"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8012193/Labour-trans-rights-row-Lisa-Nandy-says-rapists-transition-sent-womens-prisons.html

    And she's not sure babies are born with a "sex"

    "The heated debate started when Morgan had asked Ms Nandy if she agreed with her Labour colleague Dawn Butler, who he said had told the show recently that children are born without sex.

    Ms Nandy replied that when babies are born, they are “designated” a biological sex, which is “determined by their physical attributes”.

    “It’s not for me to tell people who they are,” she said"

    https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/media/lisa-nandy-in-heated-row-with-piers-morgan-over-transgender-rights-180090/
  • DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    For "swing-back" to work don't we have to have a "swing- forward" first?
    "Swing-away", surely?

    What a shame he didn't call it "reverse swing". The we could call the opposite "conventional swing"
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,142

    HYUFD said:

    What this again emphasises is that whole Labour has near zero chance of a majority, Starmer could still become PM.

    However that requires disilluisioned Corbyniytes to vote Labour not Green in marginal seats and the LDs and SNP to gain seats from the Tories as well as Labour so Boris loses his majority

    It also requires voters to be rather "meh..." about installing a PM who spent 3 years so intent on thwarting the democratic decision of the voters that he had no time to see the anti-Semitism swirling around him in the Labour Party....
    Its the reason it was a mistake to elect him leader. He will not be forgiven by many people for his attempts to thwart Brexit and his glee on the TV about how clever he was being.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676
    Cookie said:

    On the previous thread, @Casino_Royale mentioned that the rail demand appears to be heading towards an asymptote of 70% of pre-pandemic levels - equivalent to demand of around 20 years ago.
    Coincidentally, I've just had a conversation with a friend in the rail industry, who confirmed this but offered a few interesting nuances. He confirmed what CR said - that the commute market has recovered poorly, but that leisure travel has come back very strongly indeed. Consequently, weekend travel is very strong - Sundays are now back above pre-pandemic levels (which is bringing about a battle with the RMT, who refuse to see Sunday as part of their regular working week).
    Further interesting nuances are:
    The south east recovery is the weakest (as the SE market was that most dependent on commuting). In the SE, commuting traffic is well under 50% of pre-pandemic levels.
    Meanwhile, in the north, demand is back to 85%+ of what it was pre-pandemic levels, and revenue is back to 90%+ of what it was pre-pandemic (the discrepancy primarily explained by fewer season tickets, which are cheaper per journey).
    There has been a trend towards fewer, but longer commuter journeys (so, for example, there might be fewer journeys-to-work in Manchester from commuter suburbs like Cheadle Hulme as people work from home, or sometimes work from home, but this has been counterbalanced by people making slightly longer journeys as it becomes more attractive to live somewhere like Buxton and commute into Manchester one or two days a week.


    All of which, arguably, is merely the acceleration of a trend which was happening pre-covid.

    Just on weekends v weekdays, yes it's true that weekends are closer to pre-COVID levels, but don't assume that means more people are travelling on a Sunday than a weekday.

    Of course, these numbers are all predicated on doing engineering works at weekends. I didn't use SWR to go to the Arsenal v Tottenham match due to such works. Even before COVID I was all in favour on doing more works during the working week. We had a three week blockade at Waterloo a few years ago and the world didn't end. That has to be a more efficient way of doing engineering works than nipping in and out.

    Whether or not the railways change, I'm not so sure. To do so, would be to admit defeat. There are plenty of people, not least in the cabinet, who want things to go back to normal.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    White skinhead Muslim goes on violent rampage in Norway. Everyone's prejudices confirmed at once.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/10/14/norway-bow-attacker-muslim-convert-known-police-radicalisation/
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    🚨NEW Westminster Voting Intention - Con & Lab vote share unchanged for the second successive poll.

    🔵Con 40 (=)
    🔴Lab 35 (=)
    🟠LDM 8 (-1)
    🟢Grn 5 (+1)
    🟡SNP 5 (=)
    ⚪️Other 7 (-1)

    8-10 Oct, 2,103 UK adults

    (*Changes from 1-3 Oct) https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1448652047138504711/photo/1
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,504
    @noneoftheabove - my property taxes are assessed at a little bit more than 2% of property value. So your estimate for the value of my home is about 3x too high!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,358
    edited October 14

    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    As well as annoying many of their natural supporters, the Rayner "scum" remarks have REALLY riled up many who they should consider they need to win over.

    To paraphrase somebody recently:

    "I took a holiday from voting Labour last time. Corbyn, you know. But, I have to say, going on your holidays gives you a chance to reflect on things....like why would I want to go back to a shit-hole?"
    The whole 'scum' thing just breaks a cardinal rule: Never criticise the voter. SFAICS the Labourites who go down this Pidcockish tendency (and it's amazing that Rayner acted so dim about it) don't even see that is what they are doing. The scum includes your plumber, the mechanic, the older women living mostly on state pension, and so on for ever.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    On previous thread (Claudia Webbe) I am only just catching up with the details of this.
    Now, relationships do fray, and probably no fraying relationships look good in the cold light shone by a courtroom, but still, she looks slightly unhinged.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/13/mp-claudia-webbe-found-guilty-harassment/

    "
    Despite the warning, the MP made a further 16 calls to Ms Merritt who recorded one, which was later played to the court.

    In the recording that was played, Ms Webbe can be heard saying: “Why are you still butting in and getting with Lester [Thomas, Ms Merritt's former partner and Claudia Webbe's current partner]? Why? Why? He’s not your friend. He’s with me and I don’t want you to be in touch with me. I don’t want you to be in touch with him.”

    In the background, Mr Thomas could be heard shouting: “Don’t listen to her, send me a message whenever you like. Michelle, come off the phone and call the police.”

    Ms Webbe then screams: “Lester, why don’t you go and live with her? Take everything and go and live with her.”

    She can then be heard repeatedly shouting: “Get out of my relationship.”

    "
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,894

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    Are there any markets at the minute where it's possible to bet on an increased majority or size of majority?

    I think an increased majority is about a 20% chance so would like to bet on that if I could find anyone offering odds over 5/1.
  • Sign of the times

    Trades Union Congress
    @The_TUC

    BREAKING 🚨🚛: DHL lorry drivers have just accepted a 6.2% pay rise - after standing firm with their union and rejecting an initial 1% pay offer.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192

    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    Are there any markets at the minute where it's possible to bet on an increased majority or size of majority?

    I think an increased majority is about a 20% chance so would like to bet on that if I could find anyone offering odds over 5/1.
    I was kinda hoping that my musing might draw out some specific information on that by those who are more active in the market than I am. But I agree. Anything over 5/1 is attractive.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,358
    edited October 14
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    On Topic and a -44% approval rating

    Useless nonentity supporters please explain.

    FPT excellent politics locally by Tories. Infrastructure everywhere you look.

    https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/media/1485734/staveley-town-investment-plan-part-1.pdf

    When I first stumbled into here you were almost a lone voice of the left - the left left, I mean, as opposed to this "of centre" malarkey - yet here you are now teetering on the very edge of torydom. It's really something. It rivals William Glenn and his intra-tory "Ken Clarke to Bill Cash" journey in speed and distance traveled.
    Arguably BJO has stayed where he was. The Tories have become the party of public spending. Which is why many on the Cameroon right have drifted away.
    There is actually startlingly little debate or difference over political basics; massive lists of Labour policies amount to little more than social tinkering with stuff. Yes there should not be a 5 week delay in UC; but the big issues are things like: High or low tax take. Which services should be free because the taxpayer pays. Who owns the utilities, banks and big business. NATO. The nature of education. protectionism or free trade.

    On these there is little real as opposed to bogus discussion. And BTW there is no party at all for real dry fiscal conservatives.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    As well as annoying many of their natural supporters, the Rayner "scum" remarks have REALLY riled up many who they should consider they need to win over.

    To paraphrase somebody recently:

    "I took a holiday from voting Labour last time. Corbyn, you know. But, I have to say, going on your holidays gives you a chance to reflect on things....like why would I want to go back to a shit-hole?"
    The whole 'scum' thing just breaks a cardinal rule: Never criticise the voter. SFAICS the Labourites who go down this Pidcockish tendency (and it's amazing that Rayner acted so dim about it) don't even see that is what they are doing. The scum includes your plumber, the mechanic, the older women living mostly on state pension, and so on for ever.

    There has been a fair chunk of the left who have taken this approach for as long as I can remember.
    To them, anything that a 'Tory' says can safely be ignored. And anyone who says anything they disagree with is a 'Tory'. But that's ok, because there aren't many 'Tories' - a small hardcore of middle aged, middle class people who live in Tunbridge Wells or possibly Surrey and read the Daily Mail. They are an exotic and hateful, but thankfully, tiny subgroup.

    The persistence of 'Tories' in winning elections presents an ongoing mystery to these people.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,273

    Sign of the times

    Trades Union Congress
    @The_TUC

    BREAKING 🚨🚛: DHL lorry drivers have just accepted a 6.2% pay rise - after standing firm with their union and rejecting an initial 1% pay offer.

    Stuart Rose did warn us!
  • eekeek Posts: 15,746
    edited October 14
    rcs1000 said:

    @noneoftheabove - my property taxes are assessed at a little bit more than 2% of property value. So your estimate for the value of my home is about 3x too high!

    No wonder people pull tricks to keep the value based on historic prices.

    I imagine that any attempt to add some sanity to the system (i.e. based on more recent prices or ignoring corporations) would be completely rejected at the ballot box.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207

    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    For "swing-back" to work don't we have to have a "swing- forward" first?
    "Swing-away", surely?

    What a shame he didn't call it "reverse swing". The we could call the opposite "conventional swing"
    Then we could have arguments about which conditions apply going straight to silly point.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Cookie said:

    On previous thread (Claudia Webbe) I am only just catching up with the details of this.
    Now, relationships do fray, and probably no fraying relationships look good in the cold light shone by a courtroom, but still, she looks slightly unhinged.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/13/mp-claudia-webbe-found-guilty-harassment/

    "
    Despite the warning, the MP made a further 16 calls to Ms Merritt who recorded one, which was later played to the court.

    In the recording that was played, Ms Webbe can be heard saying: “Why are you still butting in and getting with Lester [Thomas, Ms Merritt's former partner and Claudia Webbe's current partner]? Why? Why? He’s not your friend. He’s with me and I don’t want you to be in touch with me. I don’t want you to be in touch with him.”

    In the background, Mr Thomas could be heard shouting: “Don’t listen to her, send me a message whenever you like. Michelle, come off the phone and call the police.”

    Ms Webbe then screams: “Lester, why don’t you go and live with her? Take everything and go and live with her.”

    She can then be heard repeatedly shouting: “Get out of my relationship.”

    "

    I think I would only take issue with the word "slightly".
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    edited October 14
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


    I would say it was. Edit, in fact I am surprised that they are allowed to publish that.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,239
    edited October 14
    Please keep this from @bigjohnowls

    Though published 17 days after end of fieldwork

    British Electoral Politics
    @electpoliticsuk
    ·
    1h
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 43% (+6)
    LAB: 30% (-4)
    LDM: 11% (-3)
    GRN: 6% (+1)
    REF: 1% (-1)

    Via
    @Kantar_UKI
    , 23-27 September,
    Changes with 23 August.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,639

    Please keep this from @bigjohnowls


    British Electoral Politics
    @electpoliticsuk
    ·
    1h
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 43% (+6)
    LAB: 30% (-4)
    LDM: 11% (-3)
    GRN: 6% (+1)
    REF: 1% (-1)

    Via
    @Kantar_UKI
    , 23-27 September,
    Changes with 23 August.

    What's this, a new gold standard?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    algarkirk said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    On Topic and a -44% approval rating

    Useless nonentity supporters please explain.

    FPT excellent politics locally by Tories. Infrastructure everywhere you look.

    https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/media/1485734/staveley-town-investment-plan-part-1.pdf

    When I first stumbled into here you were almost a lone voice of the left - the left left, I mean, as opposed to this "of centre" malarkey - yet here you are now teetering on the very edge of torydom. It's really something. It rivals William Glenn and his intra-tory "Ken Clarke to Bill Cash" journey in speed and distance traveled.
    Arguably BJO has stayed where he was. The Tories have become the party of public spending. Which is why many on the Cameroon right have drifted away.
    There is actually startlingly little debate or difference over political basics; massive lists of Labour policies amount to little more than social tinkering with stuff. Yes there should not be a 5 week delay in UC; but the big issues are things like: High or low tax take. Which services should be free because the taxpayer pays. Who owns the utilities, banks and big business. NATO. The nature of education. protectionism or free trade.

    On these there is little real as opposed to bogus discussion. And BTW there is no party at all for real dry fiscal conservatives.

    To be honest, I think it was weirder 20 years ago when the parties presented as a massive, irreconcilable difference of principle the question of whether 40% of GDP or 42% of GDP should be spent by the state, and agreed about pretty much everything else.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Leon, somebody should inform Nandy what chromosomes are.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    The White House makes it official and confirms President Biden will travel to Rome for the G20 summit at the end of the month. He’ll also meet with the Pope at the Vatican before heading to Glasgow for a global climate summit.
    https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1448655174814224385
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    algarkirk said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    On Topic and a -44% approval rating

    Useless nonentity supporters please explain.

    FPT excellent politics locally by Tories. Infrastructure everywhere you look.

    https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/media/1485734/staveley-town-investment-plan-part-1.pdf

    When I first stumbled into here you were almost a lone voice of the left - the left left, I mean, as opposed to this "of centre" malarkey - yet here you are now teetering on the very edge of torydom. It's really something. It rivals William Glenn and his intra-tory "Ken Clarke to Bill Cash" journey in speed and distance traveled.
    Arguably BJO has stayed where he was. The Tories have become the party of public spending. Which is why many on the Cameroon right have drifted away.
    There is actually startlingly little debate or difference over political basics; massive lists of Labour policies amount to little more than social tinkering with stuff. Yes there should not be a 5 week delay in UC; but the big issues are things like: High or low tax take. Which services should be free because the taxpayer pays. Who owns the utilities, banks and big business. NATO. The nature of education. protectionism or free trade.

    On these there is little real as opposed to bogus discussion. And BTW there is no party at all for real dry fiscal conservatives.

    Which perhaps explains why Brexit divides have come to dominate politics and identity so much.

    It is in some ways the first major serious division in how people see the world since the end of the Cold War.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,894
    edited October 14
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


    I would say it was.
    Not too long ago I dated a Bangladeshi woman and I was surprised by the reactions of some "impeccably non-racist" friends. Eye-opening

    However it is simply a fact that some people prefer certain hair colours and skin tones; I am extremely reluctant to call them racist for something that is surely innate, the same way some people just prefer tall or short, or whatever
  • RobD said:

    Please keep this from @bigjohnowls


    British Electoral Politics
    @electpoliticsuk
    ·
    1h
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 43% (+6)
    LAB: 30% (-4)
    LDM: 11% (-3)
    GRN: 6% (+1)
    REF: 1% (-1)

    Via
    @Kantar_UKI
    , 23-27 September,
    Changes with 23 August.

    What's this, a new gold standard?
    It's the "prove the first line of the thread header wrong" standard.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Scott_xP said:

    The White House makes it official and confirms President Biden will travel to Rome for the G20 summit at the end of the month. He’ll also meet with the Pope at the Vatican before heading to Glasgow for a global climate summit.
    https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1448655174814224385

    Gosh that sounds a bit complicated. Hope he doesn't get lost.
  • DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


    I would say it was. Edit, in fact I am surprised that they are allowed to publish that.
    Is it racist for a white woman to want only to date black men?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192

    Sign of the times

    Trades Union Congress
    @The_TUC

    BREAKING 🚨🚛: DHL lorry drivers have just accepted a 6.2% pay rise - after standing firm with their union and rejecting an initial 1% pay offer.

    Well done them. Its still a shit job that I am glad I don't do (although those bored with my witterings here day and night may differ).
  • pingping Posts: 1,409
    edited October 14
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


    Not sure about “racist” but I think it’s rather sad and a sign of someone who probably won’t find a long term, loving, stable relationship. They’re looking for someone to slot into their existing preferences, that they can project their desires onto.

    Love should be about more than that.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,273
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


    I would say it was.
    Not too long ago I dated a Bangladeshi woman and I was surprised by the reactions of some "impeccably non-racist" friends. Eye-opening

    However it is simply a fact that some people prefer certain hair colours and skin tones; I am extremely reluctant to call them racist for something that is surely innate, the same way some people just prefer tall or short, or whatever
    Were the 'non-racists' being racist or Islamophobic?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


    I would say it was. Edit, in fact I am surprised that they are allowed to publish that.
    Hm - plenty of people would say they have a 'type' they go for. Would be odd if skin colour never formed part of this. I don't think that's necessarily racist. Or if it is, then racism is defined so widely as to be meaningless. To take an example, let's say hypothetical woman prefers men with blond hair. Does that mean she is prejudiced against men with dark hair? Of course not - she is just less likely to fancy them. It doesn't imply, for example, that she would turn them down for a job.
    There is another aspect to this of course, that plenty of people would prefer to date someone from a culturally similar background. Relationships from across cultures can work, but fall a lot less easily into place. This isn't racism - this is just being pragmatic about how your relationship - and hopefully your future - is going to work out.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,587

    In the BBC's series on New Labour, Blair and Brown, there is a scene where Tony Blair describes how, leading up to his first conference speech, he showed his speech to Gordon Brown, who did not like it, reminding Blair he was addressing the Labour Party, not a high court judge. Rewritten along the lines Brown suggested, the speech secured Blair a standing ovation. Keir Starmer has the same problem. He speaks (and conducts PMQs) as if in court. Starmer needs a Brown figure, or Mrs Thatcher's Willie.

    That bit was excellent. The detail of Blair stumbling his lines (and his recall of it) was great.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,894

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


    I would say it was.
    Not too long ago I dated a Bangladeshi woman and I was surprised by the reactions of some "impeccably non-racist" friends. Eye-opening

    However it is simply a fact that some people prefer certain hair colours and skin tones; I am extremely reluctant to call them racist for something that is surely innate, the same way some people just prefer tall or short, or whatever
    Were the 'non-racists' being racist or Islamophobic?
    Outright racism. I was quite shocked, and I'm hard to shock
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


    I would say it was. Edit, in fact I am surprised that they are allowed to publish that.
    Is it racist for a white woman to want only to date black men?
    Yes.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,746

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The world’s biggest shipping line, @Maersk, said it had to divert some ships from Felixstowe, the UK’s largest container port, due to congestion caused by a trucker shortage 🚛🚢

    Via @b_muzz @sidyoutwit 👇🏾


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/maersk-diverts-ships-from-jammed-u-k-ports-short-on-truckers


    Definite empty shelves in this corner of north London. By far the worst yet

    No bin liners, for some reason
    A plastics shortage, perhaps, that might also explain the bottled water problem. But I'm guessing. Round here, bin liners have been awol for some time, though this week I could get a couple of rolls (does that make me a panic buyer or a hoarder?) of some brand I've not seen before. There are also some new types of cat food on the shelves, again suggesting Sainsbury's are scratching around for stock.
    Catfood round here tends to mean Aldi Tuna Flakes, which are far less expensive than catfood.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,273

    Please keep this from @bigjohnowls

    Though published 17 days after end of fieldwork

    British Electoral Politics
    @electpoliticsuk
    ·
    1h
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 43% (+6)
    LAB: 30% (-4)
    LDM: 11% (-3)
    GRN: 6% (+1)
    REF: 1% (-1)

    Via
    @Kantar_UKI
    , 23-27 September,
    Changes with 23 August.

    Bozo spouts shite for 45 minutes and that is the result.

    Time for a new electorate.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,587

    Please keep this from @bigjohnowls

    Though published 17 days after end of fieldwork

    British Electoral Politics
    @electpoliticsuk
    ·
    1h
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 43% (+6)
    LAB: 30% (-4)
    LDM: 11% (-3)
    GRN: 6% (+1)
    REF: 1% (-1)

    Via
    @Kantar_UKI
    , 23-27 September,
    Changes with 23 August.

    LOL what else we getting wrong on here today?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,894
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


    I would say it was. Edit, in fact I am surprised that they are allowed to publish that.
    Is it racist for a white woman to want only to date black men?
    Yes.
    What if she just likes black skin? That's what REALLY turns her on? And she's learned this through long experience?

    Surely she is then just narrowing down her preferences, and excluding men that she knows won't work for her, sexually?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,707

    DavidL said:

    Once upon a time on this site there was a contributor who introduced all to the idea of swing back. With a relatively low level of samples, it must be said, he produced quite compelling evidence that governments which were behind in the polling mid term would recover as the election came nearer and might even go on to win if they were not too far behind.

    The details of the analysis now escape me but if the principle is right do the odds against an increase in the Tory majority at the next election seriously understate the probability of this happening? A swing back from here moves us into landslide territory.

    Labour, it seems to me, is not in a happy place. Their leader is not inspiring and the options in Parliament, at least, are poor. They have a very weak shadow cabinet and seem to be annoying many of their natural supporters. The government is struggling against a sea of troubles at the moment but still seems to have a sense of purpose if not consistency. I am increasingly tempted to risk a few quid on this.

    For "swing-back" to work don't we have to have a "swing- forward" first?
    LOL. At a semantic level, perhaps yes. But Cosby's underlying point that government polling mid-term probably understates election day performance might still be true even without swing-forward. Or not. It will be interesting to see.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this?

    They get tenure and awards.
    DavidL said:

    that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome... it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.

    Kinabalu would applaud this exact logic when applied to racial differences. In a few years, he'll either be applauding it when it comes to the dating market or - like Graham Linehan - he'll be having bile poured on his head by the people he used to stand alongside.
    It's an interesting question. Is it "racist" to have racial dating preferences?

    A LOT of people do have these preferences. And they are happy to express it on dating websites in ways they would never do elsewhere

    "No Asian men"

    "Black preferred"

    And vice versa

    https://mashable.com/article/racism-online-dating


    I would say it was.
    Not too long ago I dated a Bangladeshi woman and I was surprised by the reactions of some "impeccably non-racist" friends. Eye-opening

    However it is simply a fact that some people prefer certain hair colours and skin tones; I am extremely reluctant to call them racist for something that is surely innate, the same way some people just prefer tall or short, or whatever
    As someone who has been married to the same (long suffering) woman for 36 years now I am probably not the best judge of this but IIRC things like personality and GSOH were supposed to be important? I am a lot more interested in who people are than how they look but different strokes and all that.
This discussion has been closed.