politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The key battlegrounds for next time – whenever that is

System · August 2017

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The key battlegrounds for next time – whenever that is

The above charts are taken from an excellent new paper just published by the Commons Library and is available to download. This will certainly be a key resource for punters at the next election.

Read the full story here

IanB2 · August 2017

First!

Surely one lesson from this time is that the 'key battlegrounds' may turn out to be somewhere unanticipated?

Parties will be a little more thoughtful (hopefully) next time about not focusing only on fighting the last war.

MikeSmithson · August 2017

IanB2 said:
First!

Surely one lesson from this time is that the 'key battlegrounds' may turn out to be somewhere unanticipated?

Parties will be a little more thoughtful (hopefully) next time about not focusing only on fighting the last war.

I live in the super-marginal of Bedford where the Tories were defending a majority of 1,097. We never saw TMay who seemed to be focused on seats that in retrospect looked wildly optimistic. That was in sharp contrast to GE2010 and GE2015 when Cameron was a regular visitor. Corbyn came twice and it became a LAB gain. Interestingly the YouGov model had this as a LAB gain.

But where was the CON defence?

CarlottaVance · August 2017

They show the most marginal seats for the three main parties at Westminster.
In the case of the SNP all seats are listed.

Chortle......

Even if you go up to the Lab/Con Majority in their most marginal seats - ±2500 - over half of SNP seats fall into that category.....

Alanbrooke · August 2017

Matt on good form today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

OldKingCole · August 2017

IanB2 said:
First!

Surely one lesson from this time is that the 'key battlegrounds' may turn out to be somewhere unanticipated?

Parties will be a little more thoughtful (hopefully) next time about not focusing only on fighting the last war.

Maybe we’ve become too used to relying on experts and their opinions. 'Expert opinion’ can, not always, but can, become stuck onto the tramlines of ‘we’ve always’.

ydoethur · August 2017

An interesting list.

One caveat to be born in mind however is that even if Labour gained all the seats on it they would still be well short of a majority. 24 seats short to be exact.

Meanwhile a 3% uniform swing (which I know in practice is as unlikely as me voting for Gove) would deliver the Tories a majority of around 20. Moreover with a lot of those seats being very tight Tory defeats last time there is clearly a reservoir of voters to draw on, many of whom will still be shocked at losing this year.

Although generally governments once they start losing seats keep doing so, there are logistical reasons why that may not happen this time. Enormously helped of course by Labour's complacency about how far behind they are.

Peter_the_Punter · August 2017

MikeSmithson said:

IanB2 said:
First!

Surely one lesson from this time is that the 'key battlegrounds' may turn out to be somewhere unanticipated?

Parties will be a little more thoughtful (hopefully) next time about not focusing only on fighting the last war.
I live in the super-marginal of Bedford where the Tories were defending a majority of 1,097. We never saw TMay who seemed to be focused on seats that in retrospect looked wildly optimistic. That was in sharp contrast to GE2010 and GE2015 when Cameron was a regular visitor. Corbyn came twice and it became a LAB gain. Interestingly the YouGov model had this as a LAB gain.

But where was the CON defence?

They were probably relying on you to put in a good word for them Mike. You let them down, my old cocker.

ydoethur · August 2017

Here's a different list:

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

This would imply a UNS of 3.5% for a Labour majority, which seems more like it. Although if the SNP do implode, they should pick up several further down the list (like Falkirk).

But it's still a pretty tall ask.

Edit - meanwhile, from the same website, a 1.3% swing to the Tories would give them an overall majority of 30.

A fairly shocking indictment of May that she came so close and couldn't close it down.

Peter_the_Punter · August 2017

ydoethur said:
An interesting list.

One caveat to be born in mind however is that even if Labour gained all the seats on it they would still be well short of a majority. 24 seats short to be exact.

Meanwhile a 3% uniform swing (which I know in practice is as unlikely as me voting for Gove) would deliver the Tories a majority of around 20. Moreover with a lot of those seats being very tight Tory defeats last time there is clearly a reservoir of voters to draw on, many of whom will still be shocked at losing this year.

Although generally governments once they start losing seats keep doing so, there are logistical reasons why that may not happen this time. Enormously helped of course by Labour's complacency about how far behind they are.

Yes, that's what struck me too. Labour still need to improve a lot for an overall majority, whereas it needs just the slightest ripple of support for the Tories to win quite a decent one.

Scotland is different of course. An SNP collapse would favor the reds rather than the blues.

It's remarkable in hindsight how close Theresa came to achieving her objective yet in the end she had much for which to thank Ruth Davidson.

ydoethur · August 2017

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:
An interesting list.

One caveat to be born in mind however is that even if Labour gained all the seats on it they would still be well short of a majority. 24 seats short to be exact.

Meanwhile a 3% uniform swing (which I know in practice is as unlikely as me voting for Gove) would deliver the Tories a majority of around 20. Moreover with a lot of those seats being very tight Tory defeats last time there is clearly a reservoir of voters to draw on, many of whom will still be shocked at losing this year.

Although generally governments once they start losing seats keep doing so, there are logistical reasons why that may not happen this time. Enormously helped of course by Labour's complacency about how far behind they are.
Yes, that's what struck me too. Labour still need to improve a lot for an overall majority, whereas it needs just the slightest ripple of support for the Tories to win quite a decent one.

Scotland is different of course. An SNP collapse would favor the reds rather than the blues.

It's remarkable in hindsight how close Theresa came to achieving her objective yet in the end she had much for which to thank Ruth Davidson.

You almost literally took the words off my keyboard - see my second post!

Peter_the_Punter · August 2017

ydoethur said:
Here's a different list:

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

This would imply a UNS of 3.5% for a Labour majority, which seems more like it. Although if the SNP do implode, they should pick up several further down the list (like Falkirk).

But it's still a pretty tall ask.

Edit - meanwhile, from the same website, a 1.3% swing to the Tories would give them an overall majority of 30.

A fairly shocking indictment of May that she came so close and couldn't close it down.

It's fascinating, but of course the next GE will be post-Brexit so I imagine a grateful Nation will be delivering the Tories a massive majority regardless.

CarlottaVance · August 2017

Jeremy Browne, Lib Dem......not a big fan of the EU, it would appear:

http://www.cityam.com/270099/city-londons-top-eu-envoy-slams-bewildering-brussels

ydoethur · August 2017

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:
Here's a different list:

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

This would imply a UNS of 3.5% for a Labour majority, which seems more like it. Although if the SNP do implode, they should pick up several further down the list (like Falkirk).

But it's still a pretty tall ask.

Edit - meanwhile, from the same website, a 1.3% swing to the Tories would give them an overall majority of 30.

A fairly shocking indictment of May that she came so close and couldn't close it down.
It's fascinating, but of course the next GE will be post-Brexit so I imagine a grateful Nation will be delivering the Tories a massive majority regardless.

And I thought my sarcasm on UNS was pushing the boat out...

Peter_the_Punter · August 2017

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:
An interesting list.

One caveat to be born in mind however is that even if Labour gained all the seats on it they would still be well short of a majority. 24 seats short to be exact.

Meanwhile a 3% uniform swing (which I know in practice is as unlikely as me voting for Gove) would deliver the Tories a majority of around 20. Moreover with a lot of those seats being very tight Tory defeats last time there is clearly a reservoir of voters to draw on, many of whom will still be shocked at losing this year.

Although generally governments once they start losing seats keep doing so, there are logistical reasons why that may not happen this time. Enormously helped of course by Labour's complacency about how far behind they are.
Yes, that's what struck me too. Labour still need to improve a lot for an overall majority, whereas it needs just the slightest ripple of support for the Tories to win quite a decent one.

Scotland is different of course. An SNP collapse would favor the reds rather than the blues.

It's remarkable in hindsight how close Theresa came to achieving her objective yet in the end she had much for which to thank Ruth Davidson.
You almost literally took the words off my keyboard - see my second post!

Sorry mate. I'll leave you to it. Gotta walk the dog anyway.

C ya.

logical_song · August 2017

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:
Here's a different list:

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

This would imply a UNS of 3.5% for a Labour majority, which seems more like it. Although if the SNP do implode, they should pick up several further down the list (like Falkirk).

But it's still a pretty tall ask.

Edit - meanwhile, from the same website, a 1.3% swing to the Tories would give them an overall majority of 30.

A fairly shocking indictment of May that she came so close and couldn't close it down.
It's fascinating, but of course the next GE will be post-Brexit so I imagine a grateful Nation will be delivering the Tories a massive majority regardless.

Hard to tell whether that's said straight or with tongue in cheek.

DecrepitJohnL · August 2017

MikeSmithson said:

IanB2 said:
First!

Surely one lesson from this time is that the 'key battlegrounds' may turn out to be somewhere unanticipated?

Parties will be a little more thoughtful (hopefully) next time about not focusing only on fighting the last war.
I live in the super-marginal of Bedford where the Tories were defending a majority of 1,097. We never saw TMay who seemed to be focused on seats that in retrospect looked wildly optimistic. That was in sharp contrast to GE2010 and GE2015 when Cameron was a regular visitor. Corbyn came twice and it became a LAB gain. Interestingly the YouGov model had this as a LAB gain.

But where was the CON defence?

Each election has a different story written by a different victor. Crosby's private polling was the miracle of the age, or at least of the past decade, yet now the Conservatives were targeting all the wrong seats. Next time we'll discover Jeremy Corbyn repels young voters, or something equally contrary to the lessons of GE2017.

Casino_Royale · August 2017

The Conservatives should never have lost those seats to Labour.

rkrkrk · August 2017

What do we think the level needed is for a Corbyn minority government?
Any chance Vince would support such an endeavour if Labour were on say 300 seats or so?

Casino_Royale · August 2017

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:
Here's a different list:

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

This would imply a UNS of 3.5% for a Labour majority, which seems more like it. Although if the SNP do implode, they should pick up several further down the list (like Falkirk).

But it's still a pretty tall ask.

Edit - meanwhile, from the same website, a 1.3% swing to the Tories would give them an overall majority of 30.

A fairly shocking indictment of May that she came so close and couldn't close it down.
It's fascinating, but of course the next GE will be post-Brexit so I imagine a grateful Nation will be delivering the Tories a massive majority regardless.

It's possible. If Brexit is done deal and not that bad, the Tories hold their nerve, regain discipline, run a tight/optimistic manifesto under a new leader looking to global opportunities, the economy is picking up, there are a few fruits to be shared, and Corbyn/McDonnell massively overplay their hand and go full socialist and frighten the horses then, yes, it's possible.

It could be a rerun of GE2015 redux in flavour because the Tories would then be very much the "safe" option.

Probably only a 7/2 shot at present,though.

PeterC · August 2017

Just listened to James Chapman on R4. Came accross as hyperventilating, name calling and shouty. Very unimpressed.

ydoethur · August 2017

rkrkrk said:
What do we think the level needed is for a Corbyn minority government?
Any chance Vince would support such an endeavour if Labour were on say 300 seats or so?

Wrong question to ask. Cable would in practice undoubtedly be willing to support a Lab minority govt, and I'd be much happier if the reasonably sane Liberal Democrats were mitigating Corbyn's lunacy.

The question is whether they would have the numbers to make it feasible. Any deal involving more than two parties would be a nightmare to manage. More than 3 and it would be hopeless.

So he needs to have the numbers for a majority at least in England on those terms, and ensure the abstention of the SNP on England only matters and at least their tacit support elsewhere, before we can talk about a deal with the Liberal Democrats.

Morris_Dancer · August 2017

Good morning, everyone.

Global warming enthusiasts outraged that a man has been permitted to express Wrongthink on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563

CarlottaVance · August 2017

Alanbrooke said:

Matt on good form today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Just as long as the toxin bearing eggs aren't from chlorinated chickens......

Dura_Ace · August 2017

Casino_Royale said:

It's possible. If Brexit is done deal and not that bad, the Tories hold their nerve, regain discipline, run a tight/optimistic manifesto under a new leader looking to global opportunities, the economy is picking up, there are a few fruits to be shared, and Corbyn/McDonnell massively overplay their hand and go full socialist and frighten the horses then, yes, it's possible.

Is "not that bad" now the upper end of the Day Dream Beleavers' expectations?

Twyford Waitrose · August 2017

My first post after following PB since before Bush won his second term in 2004. My name derives from the fact that I shop at Waitrose in Twyford where you often bump into Theresa and Phillip May doing their shopping. Since becoming PM we see her less of her and when we do there are always a couple of burly blokes with wires in their ears never letting her out of their sight. Phillip seems to pop in a fair bit on his own these days. He occasionally stops to exchange a few words if he sees me.

I vote for her of course but for the first time ever I did so this time with a heavy heart. I'm a remainer.
What hasn't been commented on is that even though UKIP fell back nearly 7% in the seat Theresa May’s vote was down which is highly unusual for a PM at their first election since entering Number 10. I put that down to her approach to Brexit.

foxinsoxuk · August 2017

Morris_Dancer said:
Good morning, everyone.

Global warming enthusiasts outraged that a man has been permitted to express Wrongthink on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563

https://apnews.com/d7741396a7554fb9b2fb0b7810729e9e/2016-weather-report:-Extreme-and-anything-but-normal?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

rkrkrk · August 2017

ydoethur said:

rkrkrk said:
What do we think the level needed is for a Corbyn minority government?
Any chance Vince would support such an endeavour if Labour were on say 300 seats or so?
Wrong question to ask. Cable would in practice undoubtedly be willing to support a Lab minority govt, and I'd be much happier if the reasonably sane Liberal Democrats were mitigating Corbyn's lunacy.

The question is whether they would have the numbers to make it feasible. Any deal involving more than two parties would be a nightmare to manage. More than 3 and it would be hopeless.

So he needs to have the numbers for a majority at least in England on those terms, and ensure the abstention of the SNP on England only matters and at least their tacit support elsewhere, before we can talk about a deal with the Liberal Democrats.

I agree that a deal with 3+ parties would be very challenging.

I'm slightly surprised you think Vince would do a deal so readily - he seems very critical of Corbyn to me... but it may be that the arithmetic means it has to be so.

I'd also be fine with some kind of a Lib/Lab agreement/government.
Presumably the Lib Dems could be persuaded to accept reducing tuition fees!
Wealth taxes would also likely find some common agreement.

Charles · August 2017

Casino_Royale said:
The Conservatives should never have lost those seats to Labour.

There's never any great secret about election results: it's an accumulation of little things

- Corbyn wasn't tested by the media because he couldn't win
- Most of the polling was well off leading to poor targeting by the Tories
- May thought she was further ahead than she was so she could take some big risks on policy
- Labour was disciplined and on message
- May wanted to win it on her own so didn't use her team effectively
- Corbyn sucked up airtime and votes from the Greens and the fragmented left
- Brexit undermined enthusiasm for the Tories in many seats

All of this resulted in a lot of small moves - turnout up or down, non voters voting, tribalists holding their noses that mainly fell Labour's way (Kensington still amuses although others could have won that seat - I didn't want Vicky as candidate)

But Labour is at a high mark, while the Tories are at a low ebb. (It's comparable to the whole efficiency of vote thesis). Next time a lot of this should unwind in the Tories favour (assuming they get the basics right). It doesn't mean they'll win, of course, but it does mean that the starting position is better than a simplistic reading of the status quo would imply

FF43 · August 2017

Twyford Waitrose said:
My first post after following PB since before Bush won his second term in 2004. My name derives from the fact that I shop at Waitrose in Twyford where you often bump into Theresa and Phillip May doing their shopping. Since becoming PM we see her less of her and when we do there are always a couple of burly blokes with wires in their ears never letting her out of their sight. Phillip seems to pop in a fair bit on his own these days. He occasionally stops to exchange a few words if he sees me.

I vote for her of course but for the first time ever I did so this time with a heavy heart. I'm a remainer.
What hasn't been commented on is that even though UKIP fell back nearly 7% in the seat Theresa May’s vote was down which is highly unusual for a PM at their first election since entering Number 10. I put that down to her approach to Brexit.

Welcome TW, you have been biding your time!

Morris_Dancer · August 2017

Mr. Waitrose, welcome to pb.com.

Do you think the EU/our departure from it will influence your vote at the next election, or will it be water under the bridge by then?

DecrepitJohnL · August 2017

Morris_Dancer said:
Good morning, everyone.

Global warming enthusiasts outraged that a man has been permitted to express Wrongthink on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563

Wrongthink or wrong facts? From your link: Lord Lawson also said that "official figures" showed that "during this past 10 years, if anything... average world temperature has slightly declined".
However, this is contradicted by all the major global temperature datasets. The leading agencies, such as the UK Met Office and Nasa, all recognise a clear warming trend over this period, with 2016, 2015 and 2014 being the hottest years ever measured.

More seriously this demonstrates a common BBC flaw: wrong-headed and simple-minded pursuit of "balance" simply by airing opposing views. As Dara O Briain put it, you don't hold a debate between a professor of dentistry and a guy who takes his own teeth out with a bit of string and a door.

Charles · August 2017

Morris_Dancer said:
Good morning, everyone.

Global warming enthusiasts outraged that a man has been permitted to express Wrongthink on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563

Nigel Lawson was called a liar by one interviewee on Today this morning (not to his face, of course, and the interviewer didn't challenge the assertion)

You can certainly disagree with his, but I'd be very surprised if he lied

MikeSmithson · August 2017

rkrkrk said:

ydoethur said:

rkrkrk said:
What do we think the level needed is for a Corbyn minority government?
Any chance Vince would support such an endeavour if Labour were on say 300 seats or so?
Wrong question to ask. Cable would in practice undoubtedly be willing to support a Lab minority govt, and I'd be much happier if the reasonably sane Liberal Democrats were mitigating Corbyn's lunacy.

The question is whether they would have the numbers to make it feasible. Any deal involving more than two parties would be a nightmare to manage. More than 3 and it would be hopeless.

So he needs to have the numbers for a majority at least in England on those terms, and ensure the abstention of the SNP on England only matters and at least their tacit support elsewhere, before we can talk about a deal with the Liberal Democrats.
I agree that a deal with 3+ parties would be very challenging.

I'm slightly surprised you think Vince would do a deal so readily - he seems very critical of Corbyn to me... but it may be that the arithmetic means it has to be so.

I'd also be fine with some kind of a Lib/Lab agreement/government.
Presumably the Lib Dems could be persuaded to accept reducing tuition fees!
Wealth taxes would also likely find some common agreement.

The LDs learned a lot during the coalition about the mechanics of such an arrangement and even though they've only got a dozen seats would strike a very hard bargain which LAB find difficult to accept. Remember Vince got stitched up by Osborne on tuition fees and will be very wary about any deal with LAB who would just expect the yellows to fall in line.

CarlottaVance · August 2017

Mr Mason not impressed:

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/895897217315340289

rkrkrk · August 2017

Morris_Dancer said:
Good morning, everyone.

Global warming enthusiasts outraged that a man has been permitted to express Wrongthink on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563

"Lord Lawson also said that "official figures" showed that "during this past 10 years, if anything... average world temperature has slightly declined".

However, this is contradicted by all the major global temperature datasets. The leading agencies, such as the UK Met Office and Nasa, all recognise a clear warming trend over this period, with 2016, 2015 and 2014 being the hottest years ever measured."

Genuine question - what is the BBC supposed to do in response to this kind of mistake?
They're supposed to be informing and educating.

Casino_Royale · August 2017

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's possible. If Brexit is done deal and not that bad, the Tories hold their nerve, regain discipline, run a tight/optimistic manifesto under a new leader looking to global opportunities, the economy is picking up, there are a few fruits to be shared, and Corbyn/McDonnell massively overplay their hand and go full socialist and frighten the horses then, yes, it's possible.
Is "not that bad" now the upper end of the Day Dream Beleavers' expectations?

No. I'm talking about floating voters in the seats, some of which were quite remainey, who've been conditioned to expect post Brexit Britain to make Kim's North Korea look like paradise.

Casino_Royale · August 2017

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:
The Conservatives should never have lost those seats to Labour.
There's never any great secret about election results: it's an accumulation of little things

- Corbyn wasn't tested by the media because he couldn't win
- Most of the polling was well off leading to poor targeting by the Tories
- May thought she was further ahead than she was so she could take some big risks on policy
- Labour was disciplined and on message
- May wanted to win it on her own so didn't use her team effectively
- Corbyn sucked up airtime and votes from the Greens and the fragmented left
- Brexit undermined enthusiasm for the Tories in many seats

All of this resulted in a lot of small moves - turnout up or down, non voters voting, tribalists holding their noses that mainly fell Labour's way (Kensington still amuses although others could have won that seat - I didn't want Vicky as candidate)

But Labour is at a high mark, while the Tories are at a low ebb. (It's comparable to the whole efficiency of vote thesis). Next time a lot of this should unwind in the Tories favour (assuming they get the basics right). It doesn't mean they'll win, of course, but it does mean that the starting position is better than a simplistic reading of the status quo would imply

Which partly, although not fairly, explains why a fair few leading Tories are angry with the polling industry.

Morris_Dancer · August 2017

Mr. L, are those datasets pre- or post-alteration (not being sarcastic, they revise temperature figures, and the vast majority of the time increase the figures)?

Also, scepticism about global warming is not the equivalent of not believing in gravity. The Earth's climate is immensely complex and within the narrow span of human history we've seen it vary massively without any industrial input at all.

The idea consensus means a theory is beyond challenge is far more unscientific because it suggests dogma rather than scepticism is the way we should look at existing theories.

Recidivist · August 2017

ydoethur said:
An interesting list.

One caveat to be born in mind however is that even if Labour gained all the seats on it they would still be well short of a majority. 24 seats short to be exact.

Meanwhile a 3% uniform swing (which I know in practice is as unlikely as me voting for Gove) would deliver the Tories a majority of around 20. Moreover with a lot of those seats being very tight Tory defeats last time there is clearly a reservoir of voters to draw on, many of whom will still be shocked at losing this year.

Although generally governments once they start losing seats keep doing so, there are logistical reasons why that may not happen this time. Enormously helped of course by Labour's complacency about how far behind they are.

How would one go about determining how complacent Labour are about how far they are behind? And how is it so enormously helpful? And if you believe that Labour is complacent in a helpful way, how do you avoid that making you complacent?

rkrkrk · August 2017

MikeSmithson said:

The LDs learned a lot during the coalition about the mechanics of such an arrangement and even though they've only got a dozen seats would strike a very hard bargain which LAB find difficult to accept. Remember Vince got stitched up by Osborne on tuition fees and will be very wary about any deal with LAB who would just expect the yellows to fall in line.

I'd hope the LDs learnt a lot from Coalition! In practice - I'd have thought Labour would be so keen to get back into power they'd do a deal with the LDems.

Areas of agreement: Wealth/property taxes, reducing tuition fees, civil liberties, increased capital investment(?), more generous welfare.

Areas of disagreement: Nationalisations. Potentially trident renewal?

Unclear how far along Brexit will be... I think Corbyn/Labour could support a 2nd referendum, or staying in single market if that's an option...

Doesn't feel like the two parties are so far apart... can you think of other problematic areas?

As an aside - my understanding is more that Clegg didn't care about tuition fees and was happy to offer it as a concession rather than Osborne somehow outwitted the LDems in negotiations.

Casino_Royale · August 2017

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:
The Conservatives should never have lost those seats to Labour.
There's never any great secret about election results: it's an accumulation of little things

- Corbyn wasn't tested by the media because he couldn't win
- Most of the polling was well off leading to poor targeting by the Tories
- May thought she was further ahead than she was so she could take some big risks on policy
- Labour was disciplined and on message
- May wanted to win it on her own so didn't use her team effectively
- Corbyn sucked up airtime and votes from the Greens and the fragmented left
- Brexit undermined enthusiasm for the Tories in many seats

All of this resulted in a lot of small moves - turnout up or down, non voters voting, tribalists holding their noses that mainly fell Labour's way (Kensington still amuses although others could have won that seat - I didn't want Vicky as candidate)

But Labour is at a high mark, while the Tories are at a low ebb. (It's comparable to the whole efficiency of vote thesis). Next time a lot of this should unwind in the Tories favour (assuming they get the basics right). It doesn't mean they'll win, of course, but it does mean that the starting position is better than a simplistic reading of the status quo would imply

The Tories were in the mid-40s for a good time, and Labour in the low-mid 20s, for a reason. The fundamentals behind that haven't gone away.

The electorate is now volatile and politically sluttish. Support for Labour at 40%+ looks solid now but it probably isn't.

That said, the same could be said for the Tories 40%+, boosted by ex-kippers: some of their vote might abstain, disappear or return to Labour once Brexit is done.

Nigelb · August 2017

rkrkrk said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Good morning, everyone.

Global warming enthusiasts outraged that a man has been permitted to express Wrongthink on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563
"Lord Lawson also said that "official figures" showed that "during this past 10 years, if anything... average world temperature has slightly declined".

However, this is contradicted by all the major global temperature datasets. The leading agencies, such as the UK Met Office and Nasa, all recognise a clear warming trend over this period, with 2016, 2015 and 2014 being the hottest years ever measured."

Genuine question - what is the BBC supposed to do in response to this kind of mistake?
They're supposed to be informing and educating.

As neither Gore nor Lawson are scientists, and both appear a bit batty, perhaps not conduct a scientific debate via washed up politicians ?

another_richard · August 2017

So the Dutch egg scandal continues to grow:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/10/700000-eggs-linked-to-eu-scare-exported-to-britain-watchdog-says

Although it does seem to be attracting less interest from the fakenews posturers than for example chlorinated chicken.

But the big question is how much should we bill the Dutch government, £100bn, £200bn, more ?

Essexit · August 2017

CarlottaVance said:
Mr Mason not impressed:

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/895897217315340289

Is he ever?

DecrepitJohnL · August 2017

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. L, are those datasets pre- or post-alteration (not being sarcastic, they revise temperature figures, and the vast majority of the time increase the figures)?

Also, scepticism about global warming is not the equivalent of not believing in gravity. The Earth's climate is immensely complex and within the narrow span of human history we've seen it vary massively without any industrial input at all.

The idea consensus means a theory is beyond challenge is far more unscientific because it suggests dogma rather than scepticism is the way we should look at existing theories.

I'm happy to leave science to the scientists rather than retired politicians on either side of the debate. If the scientific consensus is wrong then science will fix it. That is what happened with the MMR vaccine scare, and it is what happened with gravity.

rkrkrk · August 2017

Nigelb said:

rkrkrk said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Good morning, everyone.

Global warming enthusiasts outraged that a man has been permitted to express Wrongthink on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563
"Lord Lawson also said that "official figures" showed that "during this past 10 years, if anything... average world temperature has slightly declined".

However, this is contradicted by all the major global temperature datasets. The leading agencies, such as the UK Met Office and Nasa, all recognise a clear warming trend over this period, with 2016, 2015 and 2014 being the hottest years ever measured."

Genuine question - what is the BBC supposed to do in response to this kind of mistake?
They're supposed to be informing and educating.
As neither Gore nor Lawson are scientists, and both appear a bit batty, perhaps not conduct a scientific debate via washed up politicians ?

That's fair.
A different example would be the MMR vaccine.

I think we can agree that having Andrew Wakefield debate some generic doctor on the BBC would not be informative or educational for the public.

Nigelb · August 2017

rkrkrk said:

MikeSmithson said:

The LDs learned a lot during the coalition about the mechanics of such an arrangement and even though they've only got a dozen seats would strike a very hard bargain which LAB find difficult to accept. Remember Vince got stitched up by Osborne on tuition fees and will be very wary about any deal with LAB who would just expect the yellows to fall in line.
I'd hope the LDs learnt a lot from Coalition! In practice - I'd have thought Labour would be so keen to get back into power they'd do a deal with the LDems.

Areas of agreement: Wealth/property taxes, reducing tuition fees, civil liberties, increased capital investment(?), more generous welfare.

Areas of disagreement: Nationalisations. Potentially trident renewal?

Unclear how far along Brexit will be... I think Corbyn/Labour could support a 2nd referendum, or staying in single market if that's an option...

Doesn't feel like the two parties are so far apart... can you think of other problematic areas?

As an aside - my understanding is more that Clegg didn't care about tuition fees and was happy to offer it as a concession rather than Osborne somehow outwitted the LDems in negotiations.

I think you need to add fiscal incontinence to your areas of disagreement.

Pulpstar · August 2017

China's had its fill of London property it seems !

http://uk.businessinsider.com/china-overseas-property-investment-uk-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

GeoffM · August 2017

another_richard said:
So the Dutch egg scandal continues to grow:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/10/700000-eggs-linked-to-eu-scare-exported-to-britain-watchdog-says

Although it does seem to be attracting less interest from the fakenews posturers than for example chlorinated chicken.

But the big question is how much should we bill the Dutch government, £100bn, £200bn, more ?

We mustn't forget to include in our bill some pension liabilities of the civil servants who have worked on this project.

Apparently that's a billable thing in the EU.

TOPPING · August 2017

Twyford Waitrose said:
My first post after following PB since before Bush won his second term in 2004. My name derives from the fact that I shop at Waitrose in Twyford where you often bump into Theresa and Phillip May doing their shopping. Since becoming PM we see her less of her and when we do there are always a couple of burly blokes with wires in their ears never letting her out of their sight. Phillip seems to pop in a fair bit on his own these days. He occasionally stops to exchange a few words if he sees me.

I vote for her of course but for the first time ever I did so this time with a heavy heart. I'm a remainer.
What hasn't been commented on is that even though UKIP fell back nearly 7% in the seat Theresa May’s vote was down which is highly unusual for a PM at their first election since entering Number 10. I put that down to her approach to Brexit.

Welcome.

I think that many who voted at the EU Ref went back to being NOTA at the GE (although I note that there were only 1.5m fewer voters at the GE). My guess (just a guess) is that more Brexiters didn't bother to vote at GE17 than Remainers because for them it was job done; hence TMay lost Brexiter votes, while Remainers were furious.

And in general, we saw how super-marginals fell massively to the reds so I'm not sure how appropriate the main article analysis of likely battlegrounds will be in 2022.

DecrepitJohnL · August 2017

Twyford Waitrose said:
My first post after following PB since before Bush won his second term in 2004. My name derives from the fact that I shop at Waitrose in Twyford where you often bump into Theresa and Phillip May doing their shopping. Since becoming PM we see her less of her and when we do there are always a couple of burly blokes with wires in their ears never letting her out of their sight.

Shoplifters can be very devious. Someone pinched a dozen blue seats just the other month.

foxinsoxuk · August 2017

DecrepitJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. L, are those datasets pre- or post-alteration (not being sarcastic, they revise temperature figures, and the vast majority of the time increase the figures)?

Also, scepticism about global warming is not the equivalent of not believing in gravity. The Earth's climate is immensely complex and within the narrow span of human history we've seen it vary massively without any industrial input at all.

The idea consensus means a theory is beyond challenge is far more unscientific because it suggests dogma rather than scepticism is the way we should look at existing theories.
I'm happy to leave science to the scientists rather than retired politicians on either side of the debate. If the scientific consensus is wrong then science will fix it. That is what happened with the MMR vaccine scare, and it is what happened with gravity.

https://twitter.com/AcademicsSay/status/894601440479649794

Sean_F · August 2017

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:
The Conservatives should never have lost those seats to Labour.
There's never any great secret about election results: it's an accumulation of little things

- Corbyn wasn't tested by the media because he couldn't win
- Most of the polling was well off leading to poor targeting by the Tories
- May thought she was further ahead than she was so she could take some big risks on policy
- Labour was disciplined and on message
- May wanted to win it on her own so didn't use her team effectively
- Corbyn sucked up airtime and votes from the Greens and the fragmented left
- Brexit undermined enthusiasm for the Tories in many seats

All of this resulted in a lot of small moves - turnout up or down, non voters voting, tribalists holding their noses that mainly fell Labour's way (Kensington still amuses although others could have won that seat - I didn't want Vicky as candidate)

But Labour is at a high mark, while the Tories are at a low ebb. (It's comparable to the whole efficiency of vote thesis). Next time a lot of this should unwind in the Tories favour (assuming they get the basics right). It doesn't mean they'll win, of course, but it does mean that the starting position is better than a simplistic reading of the status quo would imply

Which partly, although not fairly, explains why a fair few leading Tories are angry with the polling industry.

The polling industry measured Conservative support very accurately. It also got the Labour surge correct, up till the start of June. What it got wrong was it showed Labour support plateauing in the final week.

Scott_P · August 2017

Casino_Royale said:
If Brexit is done deal and not that bad

Neither of those is likely to be true

Charles said:
Labour is at a high mark, while the Tories are at a low ebb.

Neither of those is likely to be true

foxinsoxuk · August 2017

another_richard said:
So the Dutch egg scandal continues to grow:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/10/700000-eggs-linked-to-eu-scare-exported-to-britain-watchdog-says

Although it does seem to be attracting less interest from the fakenews posturers than for example chlorinated chicken.

But the big question is how much should we bill the Dutch government, £100bn, £200bn, more ?

The difference is that contaminated eggs are illegal and being stamped out, chlorinated chickens are legal in America and may be the price of being Trumps poodle.

TOPPING · August 2017

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:
The Conservatives should never have lost those seats to Labour.
There's never any great secret about election results: it's an accumulation of little things

- Corbyn wasn't tested by the media because he couldn't win
- Most of the polling was well off leading to poor targeting by the Tories
- May thought she was further ahead than she was so she could take some big risks on policy
- Labour was disciplined and on message
- May wanted to win it on her own so didn't use her team effectively
- Corbyn sucked up airtime and votes from the Greens and the fragmented left
- Brexit undermined enthusiasm for the Tories in many seats

All of this resulted in a lot of small moves - turnout up or down, non voters voting, tribalists holding their noses that mainly fell Labour's way (Kensington still amuses although others could have won that seat - I didn't want Vicky as candidate)

But Labour is at a high mark, while the Tories are at a low ebb. (It's comparable to the whole efficiency of vote thesis). Next time a lot of this should unwind in the Tories favour (assuming they get the basics right). It doesn't mean they'll win, of course, but it does mean that the starting position is better than a simplistic reading of the status quo would imply

Not sure. People are already tired of the Cons and their govt has an end of days feel to it. There will need to be some major regeneration which, as I'm sure all can agree, will not emerge under Mrs May's leadership.

Morris_Dancer · August 2017

Mr. L, science is a great method, its only weak spot is it requires scientists to advance.

For 200 years after Newton's death, his mistaken views of light went almost unchallenged because anyone who dared implicitly criticise the great man by suggesting he might have been wrong had their head blown off (metaphorically) for their heresy.

We need scepticism in science, because otherwise flawed theories aren't improved and false theories aren't proven wrong.

The MMR vaccine was quite different as, if memory serves, it was one buffoon conducting experiments in an unscientific way and then using his flawed conclusions to frighten the public and ill-informed media who regurgitated his idiocy.

I'm deeply suspicious of those who want to silence critics of a given theory by saying "That's wrongthink, you cannot believe or express that view" rather than simply explaining why they believe it's wrong.

Nigelb · August 2017

Pulpstar said:
China's had its fill of London property it seems !

http://uk.businessinsider.com/china-overseas-property-investment-uk-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

I think there's a general move against private overseas investment going on in China. Part genuine concern at massive capital outflows, and part premier Li consolidating his political control - quite a few arrests and disappearances of assorted billionaires recently...

rkrkrk · August 2017

Nigelb said:

rkrkrk said:

MikeSmithson said:

The LDs learned a lot during the coalition about the mechanics of such an arrangement and even though they've only got a dozen seats would strike a very hard bargain which LAB find difficult to accept. Remember Vince got stitched up by Osborne on tuition fees and will be very wary about any deal with LAB who would just expect the yellows to fall in line.
I'd hope the LDs learnt a lot from Coalition! In practice - I'd have thought Labour would be so keen to get back into power they'd do a deal with the LDems.

Areas of agreement: Wealth/property taxes, reducing tuition fees, civil liberties, increased capital investment(?), more generous welfare.

Areas of disagreement: Nationalisations. Potentially trident renewal?

Unclear how far along Brexit will be... I think Corbyn/Labour could support a 2nd referendum, or staying in single market if that's an option...

Doesn't feel like the two parties are so far apart... can you think of other problematic areas?

As an aside - my understanding is more that Clegg didn't care about tuition fees and was happy to offer it as a concession rather than Osborne somehow outwitted the LDems in negotiations.
I think you need to add fiscal incontinence to your areas of disagreement.

I think I'm right in saying the largest day to day spending commitment from Labour was the tuition fees pledge. Would LDs really take a stand on this? Or on increased NHS or education spending?

The LDems were planning to reverse more benefits cuts than Labour. The LDems were also planning income tax rises for a much larger proportion of the population - I suspect Corbyn could get on board with that. The LDems proposed a smaller corp. tax increase - again I'm sure an agreement could be found.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9235

Morris_Dancer · August 2017

Mr. B, that's intriguing. I remember reading a year or two ago that Xi had stopped the long-term truce on prosecuting top chaps over corruption (to avoid internal bloodshed of the political elite returning).

Scott_P · August 2017

Take Back Control!!!

Britons will lose their right to sue the government for breaking the law under Brexit plans that could allow ministers to escape censure over air pollution.

Legislation to ban individuals and companies from bringing compensation claims against Whitehall after Brexit is being drawn up, The Times has learnt.

Swathes of the law covering areas such as the environment, workers’ rights and business regulation will no longer be subject to financial redress through the courts. Since a European Court ruling in 1991, citizens have been able to sue member states for damages if their rights were infringed by the failure of a country to implement EU law.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-bill-will-remove-right-to-sue-government-750dhfjj3

CarlottaVance · August 2017

Morris_Dancer said:

I'm deeply suspicious of those who want to silence critics of a given theory by saying "That's wrongthink, you cannot believe or express that view" rather than simply explaining why they believe it's wrong.

"Denial" is the language of faith. Its use by Scientists suggests lack of their own faith in their own findings.

"Sceptic" is the language of Science and should be the Scientist's default position.

another_richard · August 2017

foxinsoxuk said:

another_richard said:
So the Dutch egg scandal continues to grow:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/10/700000-eggs-linked-to-eu-scare-exported-to-britain-watchdog-says

Although it does seem to be attracting less interest from the fakenews posturers than for example chlorinated chicken.

But the big question is how much should we bill the Dutch government, £100bn, £200bn, more ?
The difference is that contaminated eggs are illegal and being stamped out, chlorinated chickens are legal in America and may be the price of being Trumps poodle.

The difference is that it seems the Dutch government was knowingly allowing illegal food to be exported.

Nigelb · August 2017

Stoneman sounds a good bloke; I wish him well:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20305878/mark-stoneman-relishes-step-unknown

another_richard · August 2017

Pulpstar said:
China's had its fill of London property it seems !

http://uk.businessinsider.com/china-overseas-property-investment-uk-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

I'm rather sceptical as to all that recent Chinese investment in central Sheffield.

foxinsoxuk · August 2017

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. L, science is a great method, its only weak spot is it requires scientists to advance.

For 200 years after Newton's death, his mistaken views of light went almost unchallenged because anyone who dared implicitly criticise the great man by suggesting he might have been wrong had their head blown off (metaphorically) for their heresy.

We need scepticism in science, because otherwise flawed theories aren't improved and false theories aren't proven wrong.

The MMR vaccine was quite different as, if memory serves, it was one buffoon conducting experiments in an unscientific way and then using his flawed conclusions to frighten the public and ill-informed media who regurgitated his idiocy.

I'm deeply suspicious of those who want to silence critics of a given theory by saying "That's wrongthink, you cannot believe or express that view" rather than simply explaining why they believe it's wrong.

A 299 page report on climate change in 2016 with 30 pages of references is downloadable here:

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/

The correlation between right wing politics and climate change scepticism is not one based on science, it is because action on climate change requires 2 things that are anathema to right wingers: Co-operation via international organisations, and changes to the economy that they see as anti business.

TOPPING · August 2017

Scott_P said:
Take Back Control!!!

Britons will lose their right to sue the government for breaking the law under Brexit plans that could allow ministers to escape censure over air pollution.

Legislation to ban individuals and companies from bringing compensation claims against Whitehall after Brexit is being drawn up, The Times has learnt.

Swathes of the law covering areas such as the environment, workers’ rights and business regulation will no longer be subject to financial redress through the courts. Since a European Court ruling in 1991, citizens have been able to sue member states for damages if their rights were infringed by the failure of a country to implement EU law.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-bill-will-remove-right-to-sue-government-750dhfjj3

Well the government will certainly be in control.

Sean_F · August 2017

Scott_P said:
Take Back Control!!!

Britons will lose their right to sue the government for breaking the law under Brexit plans that could allow ministers to escape censure over air pollution.

Legislation to ban individuals and companies from bringing compensation claims against Whitehall after Brexit is being drawn up, The Times has learnt.

Swathes of the law covering areas such as the environment, workers’ rights and business regulation will no longer be subject to financial redress through the courts. Since a European Court ruling in 1991, citizens have been able to sue member states for damages if their rights were infringed by the failure of a country to implement EU law.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-bill-will-remove-right-to-sue-government-750dhfjj3

That seems sensible.

Peter_the_Punter · August 2017

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:
The Conservatives should never have lost those seats to Labour.
There's never any great secret about election results: it's an accumulation of little things

- Corbyn wasn't tested by the media because he couldn't win
- Most of the polling was well off leading to poor targeting by the Tories
- May thought she was further ahead than she was so she could take some big risks on policy
- Labour was disciplined and on message
- May wanted to win it on her own so didn't use her team effectively
- Corbyn sucked up airtime and votes from the Greens and the fragmented left
- Brexit undermined enthusiasm for the Tories in many seats

All of this resulted in a lot of small moves - turnout up or down, non voters voting, tribalists holding their noses that mainly fell Labour's way (Kensington still amuses although others could have won that seat - I didn't want Vicky as candidate)

But Labour is at a high mark, while the Tories are at a low ebb. (It's comparable to the whole efficiency of vote thesis). Next time a lot of this should unwind in the Tories favour (assuming they get the basics right). It doesn't mean they'll win, of course, but it does mean that the starting position is better than a simplistic reading of the status quo would imply

Which partly, although not fairly, explains why a fair few leading Tories are angry with the polling industry.
The polling industry measured Conservative support very accurately. It also got the Labour surge correct, up till the start of June. What it got wrong was it showed Labour support plateauing in the final week.

True as far as it goes, Sean, but I think you'll also find that the core numbers that most pollsters took were fine, it's just that most of them made adjustments which distorted the figures the wrong way. They did so for good reasons, but this time round it worked out badly.

Survation was of course the stand out exception. YouGov would have shared the plaudits had it not reverted to group-think at the last moment and switched to the conventional but wrong adjustment methods most of the others were using.

Sean_F · August 2017

foxinsoxuk said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. L, science is a great method, its only weak spot is it requires scientists to advance.

For 200 years after Newton's death, his mistaken views of light went almost unchallenged because anyone who dared implicitly criticise the great man by suggesting he might have been wrong had their head blown off (metaphorically) for their heresy.

We need scepticism in science, because otherwise flawed theories aren't improved and false theories aren't proven wrong.

The MMR vaccine was quite different as, if memory serves, it was one buffoon conducting experiments in an unscientific way and then using his flawed conclusions to frighten the public and ill-informed media who regurgitated his idiocy.

I'm deeply suspicious of those who want to silence critics of a given theory by saying "That's wrongthink, you cannot believe or express that view" rather than simply explaining why they believe it's wrong.
A 299 page report on climate change in 2016 with 30 pages of references is downloadable here:

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/

The correlation between right wing politics and climate change scepticism is not one based on science, it is because action on climate change requires 2 things that are anathema to right wingers: Co-operation via international organisations, and changes to the economy that they see as anti business.

The reverse is true as well. Left wing politicians see action on climate change as a way of pushing through measures that they would otherwise not be able to.

CarlottaVance · August 2017

another_richard said:

foxinsoxuk said:

another_richard said:
So the Dutch egg scandal continues to grow:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/10/700000-eggs-linked-to-eu-scare-exported-to-britain-watchdog-says

Although it does seem to be attracting less interest from the fakenews posturers than for example chlorinated chicken.

But the big question is how much should we bill the Dutch government, £100bn, £200bn, more ?
The difference is that contaminated eggs are illegal and being stamped out, chlorinated chickens are legal in America and may be the price of being Trumps poodle.
The difference is that it seems the Dutch government was knowingly allowing illegal food to be exported.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40896899

The EU's food safety commissioner has called for an end to "blaming and shaming" between countries, after eggs were found to contain traces of an insecticide dangerous to humans.
Vytenis Andriukaitis said EU ministers and regulators should meet urgently.

should meet urgently?

Sean_F · August 2017

Peter_the_Punter said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:
The Conservatives should never have lost those seats to Labour.
There's never any great secret about election results: it's an accumulation of little things

- Corbyn wasn't tested by the media because he couldn't win
- Most of the polling was well off leading to poor targeting by the Tories
- May thought she was further ahead than she was so she could take some big risks on policy
- Labour was disciplined and on message
- May wanted to win it on her own so didn't use her team effectively
- Corbyn sucked up airtime and votes from the Greens and the fragmented left
- Brexit undermined enthusiasm for the Tories in many seats

All of this resulted in a lot of small moves - turnout up or down, non voters voting, tribalists holding their noses that mainly fell Labour's way (Kensington still amuses although others could have won that seat - I didn't want Vicky as candidate)

But Labour is at a high mark, while the Tories are at a low ebb. (It's comparable to the whole efficiency of vote thesis). Next time a lot of this should unwind in the Tories favour (assuming they get the basics right). It doesn't mean they'll win, of course, but it does mean that the starting position is better than a simplistic reading of the status quo would imply

Which partly, although not fairly, explains why a fair few leading Tories are angry with the polling industry.
The polling industry measured Conservative support very accurately. It also got the Labour surge correct, up till the start of June. What it got wrong was it showed Labour support plateauing in the final week.
True as far as it goes, Sean, but I think you'll also find that the core numbers that most pollsters took were fine, it's just that most of them made adjustments which distorted the figures the wrong way. They did so for good reasons, but this time round it worked out badly.

Survation was of course the stand out exception. YouGov would have shared the plaudits had it not reverted to group-think at the last moment and switched to the conventional but wrong adjustment methods most of the others were using.

The problem is that relying on the core numbers would have significantly overstated Labour in the previous 5 elections. This was the first election for ages where that was not so.

another_richard · August 2017

So did anyone in 1997 when 'things can only get better' predict that twenty years later Britain would have slavery and shanty towns ?

' Modern slavery and human trafficking in the UK is "far more prevalent than previously thought," the National Crime Agency has said.

The NCA said there were more than 300 live policing operations currently, with cases affecting "every large town and city in the country".

The agency estimated that there were tens of thousands of victims. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40885353

Morris_Dancer · August 2017

Miss Vance, I agree entirely (wasn't fond of Osborne's use of it over the deficit, either).

Dr. Foxinsox, at the risk of being thrown out of PB Tory Club, many (perhaps most) of the suggestions Warmists make are things I can entirely get behind. More development in renewables, especially geothermal, is a good thing. Likewise more energy efficient devices, better insulated homes etc etc.

I think the green levy is stupid (and so does Ed Davey, who avoided it by using a small energy supply who wasn't subject to it) and going bananas fighting carbon dioxide (which is amongst the least frightening of gases) in energy generation and risking the lights going out is stupid, but otherwise there's not a huge difference.

CornishBlue · August 2017

another_richard said:
So did anyone in 1997 when 'things can only get better' predict that twenty years later Britain would have slavery and shanty towns ?

' Modern slavery and human trafficking in the UK is "far more prevalent than previously thought," the National Crime Agency has said.

The NCA said there were more than 300 live policing operations currently, with cases affecting "every large town and city in the country".

The agency estimated that there were tens of thousands of victims. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40885353

Import the third world: become part of the third world.

Peter_the_Punter · August 2017

Nigelb said:
Stoneman sounds a good bloke; I wish him well:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20305878/mark-stoneman-relishes-step-unknown

So do I, especially as he's been picked four matches later than he should have been. The trouble now is that if he succeeds against the relatively soft Windies attack he will definitely go to Australia where he will be face a definitely unsoft attack. It may end in tears. Had he been picked against S Africa we would know already whether he's the man for the job.

rottenborough · August 2017

Morning all!

murali_s · August 2017

foxinsoxuk said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. L, science is a great method, its only weak spot is it requires scientists to advance.

For 200 years after Newton's death, his mistaken views of light went almost unchallenged because anyone who dared implicitly criticise the great man by suggesting he might have been wrong had their head blown off (metaphorically) for their heresy.

We need scepticism in science, because otherwise flawed theories aren't improved and false theories aren't proven wrong.

The MMR vaccine was quite different as, if memory serves, it was one buffoon conducting experiments in an unscientific way and then using his flawed conclusions to frighten the public and ill-informed media who regurgitated his idiocy.

I'm deeply suspicious of those who want to silence critics of a given theory by saying "That's wrongthink, you cannot believe or express that view" rather than simply explaining why they believe it's wrong.
A 299 page report on climate change in 2016 with 30 pages of references is downloadable here:

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/

The correlation between right wing politics and climate change scepticism is not one based on science, it is because action on climate change requires 2 things that are anathema to right wingers: Co-operation via international organisations, and changes to the economy that they see as anti business.

+1

The science of global warming is more or less settled - antrorpogenic forcing is having a huge impact on global temperatures. Everyone bar a few far right-wing lunatics acknowledge this.

Skepticism is important but I have not seen any sensible theory or explanation that refutes that the globe is warming or that 'natural causes' are not the cause of this.

Anyway, does anyone take a turd like Lawson seriously? He was a t*at when in power and he's even more of a moron now.

rottenborough · August 2017

another_richard said:
So did anyone in 1997 when 'things can only get better' predict that twenty years later Britain would have slavery and shanty towns ?

' Modern slavery and human trafficking in the UK is "far more prevalent than previously thought," the National Crime Agency has said.

The NCA said there were more than 300 live policing operations currently, with cases affecting "every large town and city in the country".

The agency estimated that there were tens of thousands of victims. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40885353

"The NCA said the growth in modern slavery was being driven by international gangs"

Even crime has been globalized.

Nigelb · August 2017

Peter_the_Punter said:

Nigelb said:
Stoneman sounds a good bloke; I wish him well:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20305878/mark-stoneman-relishes-step-unknown
So do I, especially as he's been picked four matches later than he should have been. The trouble now is that if he succeeds against the relatively soft Windies attack he will definitely go to Australia where he will be face a definitely unsoft attack. It may end in tears. Had he been picked against S Africa we would know already whether he's the man for the job.

If he's good enough, he's good enough.
Had he been picked against SA and failed, his replacement would be in the same position anyway....

Scott_P · August 2017

murali_s said:
I have not seen any sensible theory or explanation that refutes that the globe is warming or that 'natural causes' are not the cause of this.

The Globe is not as warm today as it has been in the past.

Peter_the_Punter · August 2017

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:
The Conservatives should never have lost those seats to Labour.
There's never any great secret about election results: it's an accumulation of little things

- Corbyn wasn't tested by the media because he couldn't win
- Most of the polling was well off leading to poor targeting by the Tories
- May thought she was further ahead than she was so she could take some big risks on policy
- Labour was disciplined and on message
- May wanted to win it on her own so didn't use her team effectively
- Corbyn sucked up airtime and votes from the Greens and the fragmented left
- Brexit undermined enthusiasm for the Tories in many seats

efficiency of vote thesis). Next time a lot of this should unwind in the Tories favour (assuming they get the basics right). It doesn't mean they'll win, of course, but it does mean that the starting position is better than a simplistic reading of the status quo would imply

Which partly, although not fairly, explains why a fair few leading Tories are angry with the polling industry.
The polling industry measured Conservative support very accurately. It also got the Labour surge correct, up till the start of June. What it got wrong was it showed Labour support plateauing in the final week.
True as far as it goes, Sean, but I think you'll also find that the core numbers that most pollsters took were fine, it's just that most of them made adjustments which distorted the figures the wrong way. They did so for good reasons, but this time round it worked out badly.

Survation was of course the stand out exception. YouGov would have shared the plaudits had it not reverted to group-think at the last moment and switched to the conventional but wrong adjustment methods most of the others were using.
The problem is that relying on the core numbers would have significantly overstated Labour in the previous 5 elections. This was the first election for ages where that was not so.

As I said, they did it for good reasons.

Nate Silver was critical though. He thinks you should always trust your data and if it gives you the wrong result, not much you can do. The crime, he reckons, is to import an assumption (however reasonable) to distort your data.

Btw, Nate did state on election-eve that a Hung Parliament was perfectly possible given the total range of polling evidence. It wasn't the most likely result, but it was certainly plausible.

another_richard · August 2017

CarlottaVance said:

another_richard said:

foxinsoxuk said:

another_richard said:
So the Dutch egg scandal continues to grow:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/10/700000-eggs-linked-to-eu-scare-exported-to-britain-watchdog-says

Although it does seem to be attracting less interest from the fakenews posturers than for example chlorinated chicken.

But the big question is how much should we bill the Dutch government, £100bn, £200bn, more ?
The difference is that contaminated eggs are illegal and being stamped out, chlorinated chickens are legal in America and may be the price of being Trumps poodle.
The difference is that it seems the Dutch government was knowingly allowing illegal food to be exported.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40896899

The EU's food safety commissioner has called for an end to "blaming and shaming" between countries, after eggs were found to contain traces of an insecticide dangerous to humans.
Vytenis Andriukaitis said EU ministers and regulators should meet urgently.

should meet urgently?

Now I'm a bit cynical at the best of times but I rather suspect that if it was the British government which had allowed the production and export of illegal food then the EU would be taking a rather different line.

HYUFD · August 2017

The Tories should be encouraged that 8 Labour seats they need to target have a majority of less than 1%, enough for an overall majority. While having 10 reasonably safe Tory seats in Scotland, especially in rural areas, will also boost them

foxinsoxuk · August 2017

murali_s said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. L, science is a great method, its only weak spot is it requires scientists to advance.

For 200 years after Newton's death, his mistaken views of light went almost unchallenged because anyone who dared implicitly criticise the great man by suggesting he might have been wrong had their head blown off (metaphorically) for their heresy.

We need scepticism in science, because otherwise flawed theories aren't improved and false theories aren't proven wrong.

The MMR vaccine was quite different as, if memory serves, it was one buffoon conducting experiments in an unscientific way and then using his flawed conclusions to frighten the public and ill-informed media who regurgitated his idiocy.

I'm deeply suspicious of those who want to silence critics of a given theory by saying "That's wrongthink, you cannot believe or express that view" rather than simply explaining why they believe it's wrong.
A 299 page report on climate change in 2016 with 30 pages of references is downloadable here:

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/

The correlation between right wing politics and climate change scepticism is not one based on science, it is because action on climate change requires 2 things that are anathema to right wingers: Co-operation via international organisations, and changes to the economy that they see as anti business.
+1

The science of global warming is more or less settled - antrorpogenic forcing is having a huge impact on global temperatures. Everyone bar a few far right-wing lunatics acknowledge this.

Skepticism is important but I have not seen any sensible theory or explanation that refutes that the globe is warming or that 'natural causes' are not the cause of this.

Anyway, does anyone take a turd like Lawson seriously? He was a t*at when in power and he's even more of a moron now.

I think there is scope for legitimate discussion on the best countermeasures to AGW. There certainly has been a fair amount of greenwash over certain industries. Carbon taxing domestic plants so they move abroad does the climate no good. It is why worldwide action is nessecary and needs to be co-ordinated.

Morris_Dancer · August 2017

Mr. S, if natural warm periods can occur during the reign of Henry VIII or Claudius, and natural cold periods occurred during the 18th century, why is it not possible the current climate change is also natural?

Mr. Richard, to be fair, it'd be taking a different line (ie none) if Germany had done it.

What mighty and terrible penalty has been imposed on the German car industry?

CD13 · August 2017

Dr Fox,

Science is based on scepticism. It's only recently that we've discovered that we know nothing about 95% of what the universe is made of. It is never settled.

The world may be warming, carbon dioxide concentrations may be none of it, some of it, or even all of it. From the phlogiston theory onwards, science is always only the best guess at the time.

Prevailing theories are put up to be shot at.

Right, that's enough platitudes, but the fact remains we always have to be aware that not only could we be wrong, we often are.

OldKingCole · August 2017

HYUFD said:
The Tories should be encouraged that 8 Labour seats they need to target have a majority of less than 1%, enough for an overall majority. While having 10 reasonably safe Tory seats in Scotland, especially in rural areas, will also boost them

I don’t think that any seat which has changed hands can be considered ‘safe’. And one that has changed hands two or three times in the past three or four elections cannot be, no matter how big the last majority.

I call as witness Sir V Cable, of Twickenham.

foxinsoxuk · August 2017

CD13 said:
Dr Fox,

Science is based on scepticism. It's only recently that we've discovered that we know nothing about 95% of what the universe is made of. It is never settled.

The world may be warming, carbon dioxide concentrations may be none of it, some of it, or even all of it. From the phlogiston theory onwards, science is always only the best guess at the time.

Prevailing theories are put up to be shot at.

Right, that's enough platitudes, but the fact remains we always have to be aware that not only could we be wrong, we often are.

No one is arguing that science is ever completely settled, but that does not mean ignoring the evidence that best fits because it is not a perfect fit.

Science builds theories that approximate to measurable reality, then refines these to better approximations, repeated endlessly. Newtons theories were not discarded or denied, they were improved upon. That is not what AGW sceptics are attempting. They want to keep finding excuses for inaction, and to continue polluting the world.

Peter_the_Punter · August 2017

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Nigelb said:
Stoneman sounds a good bloke; I wish him well:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20305878/mark-stoneman-relishes-step-unknown
So do I, especially as he's been picked four matches later than he should have been. The trouble now is that if he succeeds against the relatively soft Windies attack he will definitely go to Australia where he will be face a definitely unsoft attack. It may end in tears. Had he been picked against S Africa we would know already whether he's the man for the job.
If he's good enough, he's good enough.
Had he been picked against SA and failed, his replacement would be in the same position anyway....

You are missing the point here Nigel.

If he had failed against SA, we would know he was not good enough (to make the difficult transition to Test cricket) and we would indeed have had to look elsewhere. But at least we would have known where we were.

Jennings is a classy cricketer but he was out of form when he was picked and remained so throught the series. He's still an out of form classy cricketer who may one day recover the kind of form that makes him a Test batsmen but we don't know yet. And we don't know about Stoneman either. So we are completely in the dark, just like the England selectors, and we now have just a couple of matches against weak opposition before the Ashes squad is picked.

See my point? All I'm saying really is that it was daft to pick an out of form cricketer because if he fails all you then know is that he'sstill out of form. Pick an in form one and if he fails you know he isn't good enough.

HYUFD · August 2017

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:
The Tories should be encouraged that 8 Labour seats they need to target have a majority of less than 1%, enough for an overall majority. While having 10 reasonably safe Tory seats in Scotland, especially in rural areas, will also boost them
I don’t think that any seat which has changed hands can be considered ‘safe’. And one that has changed hands two or three times in the past three or four elections cannot be, no matter how big the last majority.

I call as witness Sir V Cable, of Twickenham.

I said 'reasonably' safe and given all 10 are in solidly Unionist areas where the SNP are the main challengers that adds to the likelihood of their staying Tory

ThreeQuidder · August 2017

CarlottaVance said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I'm deeply suspicious of those who want to silence critics of a given theory by saying "That's wrongthink, you cannot believe or express that view" rather than simply explaining why they believe it's wrong.
"Denial" is the language of faith. Its use by Scientists suggests lack of their own faith in their own findings.

"Sceptic" is the language of Science and should be the Scientist's default position.

It is interesting (though unsurprising) how little overlap between those who defend the scientific consensus in different fields; for example, AGW and gender.

foxinsoxuk · August 2017

On LDs and coalition:

The party is a very different one to the one that was in coalition in 2010. Half the MPs are different, and 75% of the members are different. The issues are very different. There is some institutional memory but we should not expect this to dominate. It is a very different party, as indeed are all the Westminster parties to a lesser extent.

ThreeQuidder · August 2017

foxinsoxuk said:
The correlation between right wing politics and climate change scepticism is not one based on science, it is because action on climate change requires 2 things that are anathema to right wingers: Co-operation via international organisations, and changes to the economy that they see as anti business.

My scepticism comes because the action demanded by the zealots will be deeply damaging; and so to implement it we need a reasonable level of confidence not only that climate change is happening (obvious) and is least partially caused by humans (exceptionally probable), but that it is a bad thing, that it can be reversed or at least mitigated by human action, and that the effects of the mitigation will be worth the economic damage caused.

Very little, if any, work has been put into answering these last three points.

GeoffM · August 2017

Twyford Waitrose said:
My first post after following PB since before Bush won his second term in 2004. My name derives from the fact that I shop at Waitrose in Twyford where you often bump into Theresa and Phillip May doing their shopping. Since becoming PM we see her less of her and when we do there are always a couple of burly blokes with wires in their ears never letting her out of their sight. Phillip seems to pop in a fair bit on his own these days. He occasionally stops to exchange a few words if he sees me.

I vote for her of course but for the first time ever I did so this time with a heavy heart. I'm a remainer.
What hasn't been commented on is that even though UKIP fell back nearly 7% in the seat Theresa May’s vote was down which is highly unusual for a PM at their first election since entering Number 10. I put that down to her approach to Brexit.

A friend of mine regularly sees Lord Tebbit (PBUH) in their local Waitrose.

That's why I avoid punting on him in a Dead Pool I've got a stake in elsewhere ... because I get frequent updates about how healthy he is (thankfully) looking.

surbiton · August 2017

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/7303-lloyds-bank-forecasts-pound-euro-dollar-july-17

I am sure there are many fruitcakes who will see this as so good that they would have a celebratory dinner with Chlorinated Chicken as the main course.

another_richard · August 2017

Peter_the_Punter said:

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:
The Conservatives should never have lost those seats to Labour.
There's never any great secret about election results: it's an accumulation of little things

- Corbyn wasn't tested by the media because he couldn't win
- Most of the polling was well off leading to poor targeting by the Tories
- May thought she was further ahead than she was so she could take some big risks on policy
- Labour was disciplined and on message
- May wanted to win it on her own so didn't use her team effectively
- Corbyn sucked up airtime and votes from the Greens and the fragmented left
- Brexit undermined enthusiasm for the Tories in many seats

Which partly, although not fairly, explains why a fair few leading Tories are angry with the polling industry.
The polling industry measured Conservative support very accurately. It also got the Labour surge correct, up till the start of June. What it got wrong was it showed Labour support plateauing in the final week.
True as far as it goes, Sean, but I think you'll also find that the core numbers that most pollsters took were fine, it's just that most of them made adjustments which distorted the figures the wrong way. They did so for good reasons, but this time round it worked out badly.

Survation was of course the stand out exception. YouGov would have shared the plaudits had it not reverted to group-think at the last moment and switched to the conventional but wrong adjustment methods most of the others were using.
The problem is that relying on the core numbers would have significantly overstated Labour in the previous 5 elections. This was the first election for ages where that was not so.
As I said, they did it for good reasons.

Nate Silver was critical though. He thinks you should always trust your data and if it gives you the wrong result, not much you can do. The crime, he reckons, is to import an assumption (however reasonable) to distort your data.

Btw, Nate did state on election-eve that a Hung Parliament was perfectly possible given the total range of polling evidence. It wasn't the most likely result, but it was certainly plausible.

Which is what the overall majority markets were showing on election eve - that a hung parliament was possible but not likely.

Many of the individual constituency markets were way out though and very profitable they were.

CarlottaVance · August 2017

surbiton said:
I am sure there are many fruitcakes who will see this as so good that they would have a celebratory dinner with Chlorinated Chicken as the main course.

Along with chlorine washed salad and a glass of chlorinated water?

Both currently available in the UK.....

TGOHF · August 2017

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. L, science is a great method, its only weak spot is it requires scientists to advance.

For 200 years after Newton's death, his mistaken views of light went almost unchallenged because anyone who dared implicitly criticise the great man by suggesting he might have been wrong had their head blown off (metaphorically) for their heresy.

We need scepticism in science, because otherwise flawed theories aren't improved and false theories aren't proven wrong.

The MMR vaccine was quite different as, if memory serves, it was one buffoon conducting experiments in an unscientific way and then using his flawed conclusions to frighten the public and ill-informed media who regurgitated his idiocy.

I'm deeply suspicious of those who want to silence critics of a given theory by saying "That's wrongthink, you cannot believe or express that view" rather than simply explaining why they believe it's wrong.
A 299 page report on climate change in 2016 with 30 pages of references is downloadable here:

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/

The correlation between right wing politics and climate change scepticism is not one based on science, it is because action on climate change requires 2 things that are anathema to right wingers: Co-operation via international organisations, and changes to the economy that they see as anti business.
The reverse is true as well. Left wing politicians see action on climate change as a way of pushing through measures that they would otherwise not be able to.

^^^^ this - the left have utterly highjacked the climate science arena as a way of pushing back against capitalism.

If anyone has sabotaged the green agenda it has been the left turning it into a political football.

Ishmael_Z · August 2017

foxinsoxuk said:

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. L, science is a great method, its only weak spot is it requires scientists to advance.

For 200 years after Newton's death, his mistaken views of light went almost unchallenged because anyone who dared implicitly criticise the great man by suggesting he might have been wrong had their head blown off (metaphorically) for their heresy.

We need scepticism in science, because otherwise flawed theories aren't improved and false theories aren't proven wrong.

The MMR vaccine was quite different as, if memory serves, it was one buffoon conducting experiments in an unscientific way and then using his flawed conclusions to frighten the public and ill-informed media who regurgitated his idiocy.

I'm deeply suspicious of those who want to silence critics of a given theory by saying "That's wrongthink, you cannot believe or express that view" rather than simply explaining why they believe it's wrong.
A 299 page report on climate change in 2016 with 30 pages of references is downloadable here:

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/

The correlation between right wing politics and climate change scepticism is not one based on science, it is because action on climate change requires 2 things that are anathema to right wingers: Co-operation via international organisations, and changes to the economy that they see as anti business.

That goes impressively off piste not once, but twice. You don't do science by counting pages and footnotes, nor by imputing motive to your opponents instead of addressing their arguments. I understand you are a doctor, in which case it is a bit disturbing that you need telling that. Here is a 400 word treatise with 50 pages of footnotes saying that homeopathy works, and anyone saying different is in the pay of Big Pharma.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The key battlegrounds for next time – whenever that is

Comments