politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this polling turns out to be accurate then it is great news

NorthernPowerhouse said:

spudgfsh said:

once the number of seats has been reduced to 600 it'll become less controversial and it'd be hard to argue what we need is more politicians

But we currently subcontract out a lot of responsibilities to the EU, and the 73 MEPs who represent us on this. The government will need more ministers.

True but try telling the public that is what is required.

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Boris complains about dither and delay. How many times did he vote against Brexit?

Zero.

He voted against May's deal, but he never voted for an extension. Contrary to the myth some like to spread here we didn't remain because May's deal was rejected - we remained because we extended.

Tory revisionism at its finest.

Are you saying by not voting for the WA he didn’t delay? Are you saying when he changed his mind and then voted for Mays deal he hadn’t dithered?

Yes I am saying by not voting for the WA he didn't delay.

He was wrong to vote for May's deal IMO. I've been clear on that.

He dithered and delayed to destroy Mays premiership and dance into number 10. Since then he prefers action.

May destroyed her own Premiership. Worst PM since Lord North. A humilated coward.

Her pathetic humiliation of hiding away from the debates at the election she called, throwing away the majority she inherited. Her pathetic humiliation at each of the Meaningful Votes and her cowardice that prevented her from making it a confidence motion and expelling rebels [as Major and Boris both did].

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Boris complains about dither and delay. How many times did he vote against Brexit?

Zero.

He voted against May's deal, but he never voted for an extension. Contrary to the myth some like to spread here we didn't remain because May's deal was rejected - we remained because we extended.

Tory revisionism at its finest.

Are you saying by not voting for the WA he didn’t delay? Are you saying when he changed his mind and then voted for Mays deal he hadn’t dithered?

Yes I am saying by not voting for the WA he didn't delay.

He was wrong to vote for May's deal IMO. I've been clear on that.

He dithered and delayed to destroy Mays premiership and dance into number 10. Since then he prefers action.

May destroyed her own Premiership. Worst PM since Lord North. A humilated coward.

Her pathetic humiliation of hiding away from the debates at the election she called, throwing away the majority she inherited. Her pathetic humiliation at each of the Meaningful Votes and her cowardice that prevented her from making it a confidence motion and expelling rebels [as Major and Boris both did].

Are you saying May should have expelled Boris?

It's funny reading people on Twitter who say YouGov can't be believed because of what happened in 2017.

The truth is the final YouGov poll put the Tories on 42%, and they actually polled 43.5%.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1198675980556132353?s=20

5% swing Lab -> Cons

Wut? The Tory vote is down amongst that age group

And the Labour vote is down even further. In the last election the Tory vote was up but there was an overall swing from them to Labour.

nico67 said:

Absolutely nothing in the Tory manifesto for younger people . Once again thrown under a bus .

How about not stumping up 58 billion for a bunch of 60 something women who are miffed about this equality thingy?

Flashy5 said:

Lol

https://twitter.com/sunscotnational/status/1198576246281494529?s=21

But Scotland won't be in the UK for the next general election.

nico67 said:

Absolutely nothing in the Tory manifesto for younger people . Once again thrown under a bus .

There’s absolutely loads in it for them. But you can’t see or appreciate it.

How about this for one. Being able to live and work in a country not riven and paralysed by trade union militancy.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

I know, they seem small in comparison to Labour's trillion pound bill, but it's still a lot of money.

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1198665771808935936?s=20

#thathappened

I'm pretty sure it's a very specific demographic that would write "G-d".

spudgfsh said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.

Reducing to 600 quietly dropped.

We will make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections, and get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights.

and...

We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.

Page 48

https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf

I thought the legislation says 600 and is in force. The Commission keeps preparing reports on this basis and parliament ignoring them.

No new legislation needed - just a motion accepting the report

Can the new Parliament accept the prior Commission's report?

And will the Commission produce a new report that might supersede that before the next election?

1) Yes, if they want to, the new Parliament can vote to implement the 2018 Boundary Commission report. Note the last Parliament never rejected it - it was never put to a vote.

2) Whether or not 1) happens, with no further legislation the Boundary Commission will issue its next report in September 2023 - with 600 seats, based on the February 2021 Electoral register. As with the 2018 report, Parliament would have to vote to implement the 2023 report.

3) In order to change 2) - ie to get the Boundary Commission to do something different (eg 650 seats) - new legislation is required.

2) Is too late for the following election - and a majority Tory government would be mad to continue to prolong these ludicrously out of date boundaries.

So either 1) needs to be accepted or 3) is necessary.

But if 1 then the impact of 2 will be small so suspect it is 1 and 2.

once the number of seats has been reduced to 600 it'll become less controversial and it'd be hard to argue what we need is more politicians

Scottish independence reduces the seats to 591 without any boundary changes

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1198665771808935936?s=20

Nicola cannot spell Minister, but uses the word clarity in its political operative context? Who could have written it? Clearly not an uninitiated member of the hoi poloi called Nicola. My money is on a not very bright politician. Diane Abbott?

NorthernPowerhouse said:

spudgfsh said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Cyclefree said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Floater said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I as a young person have received no reason for me to vote Tory, thanks Johnson

LOL - they could have given you a ferrari and you would still say no.

We all know who you prefer

I think under Cameron they at least tried to be moderate and propose some policies like gay marriage, etc. but they're not even trying anymore.

In a way I kind of respect them for that - but it does make my decision very easy.

Having said that, I live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country, so my vote is fairly useless. Think I will have to vote Lib Dem tactically.

What is the current equivalent of gay marriage? What policy could they offer?

Scrapping the 6% interest rate on tuition fees + help with apprenticeships and vocational training would be my choices.

Have a simple graduate tax that kicks in at the basic rate. 2% or whatever the actuaries estimate it needs to be to cover the costs. And.. The clincher... Allow all graduates with existing the debt the option of switching from their scheme to this for life graduate tax scheme.

While the debt feels harsh the level of it is actually pretty meaningless. If you listen to Martin Lewis (Money Savings Expert) about the current system it is working like a graduate tax for most graduates and for others it's nothing.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes/

Yup, i fully understand it, its quite a psychological thing though.. A graduate tax was tricky when we were in the EU, something to do with unable to enforce tax rates across the EU, meaning essentially free tuition. Thats no longer a problem.

I thought the main problem with a graduate tax is that it encourages graduates to leave the country after you've spent money educating them.

By structuring it as a loan I believe that problem is avoided.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

I know, they seem small in comparison to Labour's trillion pound bill, but it's still a lot of money.

Do you honestly think potholes deserve more money than childcare though?

The Tories would be besides themselves if the poor folk driving around in their Range Rovers hit a pot hole !

nico67 said:

ozymandias said:

nico67 said:

Absolutely nothing in the Tory manifesto for younger people . Once again thrown under a bus .

There’s absolutely loads in it for them. But you can’t see or appreciate it.

How about this for one. Being able to live and work in a country not riven and paralysed by trade union militancy.

Is that it ?

The Labour youth manifesto was very good , the Tories just don’t care as long as the over 65s turn out they’re fine .

Oh there’s more.

Living in a country not bankrupted by a economically illiterate government.

Living in a country with freedom of economic activity. Being able to start your own business, thrive and reap the rewards of your efforts without being classed as a class enemy.

Living in a country and not having to be a client of the state, in your home, your job and your standard of living.

LostPassword said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

spudgfsh said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Cyclefree said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Floater said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I as a young person have received no reason for me to vote Tory, thanks Johnson

LOL - they could have given you a ferrari and you would still say no.

We all know who you prefer

I think under Cameron they at least tried to be moderate and propose some policies like gay marriage, etc. but they're not even trying anymore.

In a way I kind of respect them for that - but it does make my decision very easy.

Having said that, I live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country, so my vote is fairly useless. Think I will have to vote Lib Dem tactically.

What is the current equivalent of gay marriage? What policy could they offer?

Scrapping the 6% interest rate on tuition fees + help with apprenticeships and vocational training would be my choices.

Have a simple graduate tax that kicks in at the basic rate. 2% or whatever the actuaries estimate it needs to be to cover the costs. And.. The clincher... Allow all graduates with existing the debt the option of switching from their scheme to this for life graduate tax scheme.

While the debt feels harsh the level of it is actually pretty meaningless. If you listen to Martin Lewis (Money Savings Expert) about the current system it is working like a graduate tax for most graduates and for others it's nothing.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes/

Yup, i fully understand it, its quite a psychological thing though.. A graduate tax was tricky when we were in the EU, something to do with unable to enforce tax rates across the EU, meaning essentially free tuition. Thats no longer a problem.

I thought the main problem with a graduate tax is that it encourages graduates to leave the country after you've spent money educating them.

By structuring it as a loan I believe that problem is avoided.

George Osborne rejected a graduate tax because "no new taxes" or some such, and the rest flowed from there.

**updated for Survation!**

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/1198699068953899008

ozymandias said:

nico67 said:

ozymandias said:

nico67 said:

Absolutely nothing in the Tory manifesto for younger people . Once again thrown under a bus .

There’s absolutely loads in it for them. But you can’t see or appreciate it.

How about this for one. Being able to live and work in a country not riven and paralysed by trade union militancy.

Is that it ?

The Labour youth manifesto was very good , the Tories just don’t care as long as the over 65s turn out they’re fine .

Oh there’s more.

Living in a country not bankrupted by a economically illiterate government.

Living in a country with freedom of economic activity. Being able to start your own business, thrive and reap the rewards of your efforts without being classed as a class enemy.

Living in a country and not having to be a client of the state, in your home, your job and your standard of living.

Not having shares in your pension fund for your old age confiscated and replaced with Govt “Bonds”. What could possibly go wrong there?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

**updated for Survation!**

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/1198699068953899008

Things look pretty stable.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

dellertronic said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

I know, they seem small in comparison to Labour's trillion pound bill, but it's still a lot of money.

Do you honestly think potholes deserve more money than childcare though?

As a childless singleton that doesn't drive I don't care about either. But anybody claiming to be green should oppose both subsiding care pollution and over population.

I personally think we should be encouraging the use of public transport as much as possible and phasing out cars entirely - that should be the ultimate goal IMHO

Not a fan of electric cars?

This seems like a sensible move from the Tories: https://theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/24/rees-mogg-no-show-for-manifesto-launch-fuels-theory

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Boris complains about dither and delay. How many times did he vote against Brexit?

Zero.

He voted against May's deal, but he never voted for an extension. Contrary to the myth some like to spread here we didn't remain because May's deal was rejected - we remained because we extended.

Tory revisionism at its finest.

Are you saying by not voting for the WA he didn’t delay? Are you saying when he changed his mind and then voted for Mays deal he hadn’t dithered?

Yes I am saying by not voting for the WA he didn't delay.

He was wrong to vote for May's deal IMO. I've been clear on that.

He dithered and delayed to destroy Mays premiership and dance into number 10. Since then he prefers action.

May destroyed her own Premiership. Worst PM since Lord North. A humilated coward.

Her pathetic humiliation of hiding away from the debates at the election she called, throwing away the majority she inherited. Her pathetic humiliation at each of the Meaningful Votes and her cowardice that prevented her from making it a confidence motion and expelling rebels [as Major and Boris both did].

Are you saying May should have expelled Boris?

Yes. If she had called this a confidence vote then she should have expelled Boris.

Whether Boris would have rebelled if she had called it a confidence vote . . . or whether the rebels would have found a way to defenestrate her . . . we will never know.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

dellertronic said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

I know, they seem small in comparison to Labour's trillion pound bill, but it's still a lot of money.

Do you honestly think potholes deserve more money than childcare though?

As a childless singleton that doesn't drive I don't care about either. But anybody claiming to be green should oppose both subsiding care pollution and over population.

I personally think we should be encouraging the use of public transport as much as possible and phasing out cars entirely - that should be the ultimate goal IMHO

The vehicles most affected by pot holes are bicycles.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

dellertronic said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

I know, they seem small in comparison to Labour's trillion pound bill, but it's still a lot of money.

Do you honestly think potholes deserve more money than childcare though?

As a childless singleton that doesn't drive I don't care about either. But anybody claiming to be green should oppose both subsiding care pollution and over population.

I personally think we should be encouraging the use of public transport as much as possible and phasing out cars entirely - that should be the ultimate goal IMHO

Not a fan of electric cars?

They're better than petrol and diesel cars - and if there is no reasonable public transport they seem like a good compromise. But fundamentally we need to transition away from private transport.

Why? Clearly you've never lived anywhere remote or worked at night.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

dellertronic said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

I know, they seem small in comparison to Labour's trillion pound bill, but it's still a lot of money.

Do you honestly think potholes deserve more money than childcare though?

As a childless singleton that doesn't drive I don't care about either. But anybody claiming to be green should oppose both subsiding care pollution and over population.

I personally think we should be encouraging the use of public transport as much as possible and phasing out cars entirely - that should be the ultimate goal IMHO

Not a fan of electric cars?

They're better than petrol and diesel cars - and if there is no reasonable public transport they seem like a good compromise. But fundamentally we need to transition away from private transport.

So state transport, state internet. Bonds redeemable by the bank of Che McDonnell. Gosh won’t life be free.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

dellertronic said:

spudgfsh said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.

Reducing to 600 quietly dropped.

We will make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections, and get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights.

and...

We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.

Page 48

https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf

I thought the legislation says 600 and is in force. The Commission keeps preparing reports on this basis and parliament ignoring them.

No new legislation needed - just a motion accepting the report

Can the new Parliament accept the prior Commission's report?

And will the Commission produce a new report that might supersede that before the next election?

1) Yes, if they want to, the new Parliament can vote to implement the 2018 Boundary Commission report. Note the last Parliament never rejected it - it was never put to a vote.

2) Whether or not 1) happens, with no further legislation the Boundary Commission will issue its next report in September 2023 - with 600 seats, based on the February 2021 Electoral register. As with the 2018 report, Parliament would have to vote to implement the 2023 report.

3) In order to change 2) - ie to get the Boundary Commission to do something different (eg 650 seats) - new legislation is required.

2) Is too late for the following election - and a majority Tory government would be mad to continue to prolong these ludicrously out of date boundaries.

So either 1) needs to be accepted or 3) is necessary.

But if 1 then the impact of 2 will be small so suspect it is 1 and 2.

once the number of seats has been reduced to 600 it'll become less controversial and it'd be hard to argue what we need is more politicians

Scottish independence reduces the seats to 591 without any boundary changes

Reduce the number of Unelected "Lords" - NOT the elected MPs!

You cannot fit more than around 500 or so in the Lords Chamber at once anyway, we should reduce it to that size.

Reduce the MPs to the same - its more than can actually fit in the chamber still, but that'll still allow for that crowded atmosphere on big occasions that they like.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

dellertronic said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

I know, they seem small in comparison to Labour's trillion pound bill, but it's still a lot of money.

Do you honestly think potholes deserve more money than childcare though?

As a childless singleton that doesn't drive I don't care about either. But anybody claiming to be green should oppose both subsiding care pollution and over population.

I personally think we should be encouraging the use of public transport as much as possible and phasing out cars entirely - that should be the ultimate goal IMHO

Not a fan of electric cars?

They're better than petrol and diesel cars - and if there is no reasonable public transport they seem like a good compromise. But fundamentally we need to transition away from private transport.

Why? Clearly you've never lived anywhere remote or worked at night.

I live in a village, so yes I've experienced it. I'm just saying if we are to tackle climate change, we are going to have to phase out petrol and diesel cars. Electric cars are obviously better - but they're still a lot more damaging than public transport.

How about less kids?

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

**updated for Survation!**

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/1198699068953899008

Things look pretty stable.

Just for comparison, here's the data for 2017:

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/872797587413360640

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare


What amounts should it be, what should the ratio be? There are a lot of potholes and roads and their maintenance are expensive. I don't see how the relative amounts without explanation or context reveal anything here, I have nothing to judge on whether making it, for instance, 2bn on childcare would be sufficient, or too much, or not enough. How much should those with children get vs everyone who uses roads, including those with children?

Edit Not saying whether the priorities of the Tories are skewed or not, but I'm not sure how putting two numbers next to each other like that helps, since it will be very easy to find a counter like this

2bn for potholes
1bn for childcare
not wasting 58bn on bribing women born in the 1950s.

I don't know how to get outraged over it.

If we'd just got the kids to fill the potholes, we could make a net saving.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

**updated for Survation!**

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/1198699068953899008

Things look pretty stable.

Just for comparison, here's the data for 2017:

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/872797587413360640

24-Nov = 21-May, if I am counting correctly? So Labour had already nearly halved the lead by this point.

kle4 said:

nico67 said:

ozymandias said:

nico67 said:

Absolutely nothing in the Tory manifesto for younger people . Once again thrown under a bus .

There’s absolutely loads in it for them. But you can’t see or appreciate it.

How about this for one. Being able to live and work in a country not riven and paralysed by trade union militancy.

Is that it ?

The Labour youth manifesto was very good , the Tories just don’t care as long as the over 65s turn out they’re fine .

The parties offer positive policies and electoral bribes to the areas they need to win, even though they should try to appeal to everyone. Tories focus overwhelmingly on the old, too lazy to try to redress the imbalance of their support, Labour focus more broadly, but certainly in recent elections have adopted several grey vote bribes.

I'm not so sure it's a matter of laziness on the part of the Cons, so much as a recognition of reality. As a general pattern, the young do radicalism and tend to cleave to the left, the old grow more small-c conservative and are more willing to consider the arguments of the right. I think that having kids, setting up homes and becoming more concerned with the personal security and prosperity of oneself and one's family has a lot to do with it, along with an increasing aversion to risk and to change with advancing age. For the Tories, this arguably makes trying to swing large numbers of student votes a pointless waste of finite campaigning resources. The lack of goodies for that age group in their manifesto is a reflection of this.

The opinion polls always show the same divide, of course. Pensioners break very heavily for the Tories, students for Labour, and crossover occurs between the two. Elections are all about driving turnout amongst those core groups and fighting for the floating voters, who are disproportionately concentrated in the middle. The Tories seek to drive the average age of their vote downwards, and Labour upwards - but both parties are on a bit of a hiding to nothing when it comes to the groups at the far ends of the age range. I think Labour tries a little bit harder simply because there are vastly more over 65s than there are under 25s, and therefore a small shift of opinion amongst that age cohort is worth a lot more than moving a few percent of young people from one column to another. That's all.

MarqueeMark said:

kle4 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

What amounts should it be, what should the ratio be? There are a lot of potholes and roads and their maintenance are expensive. I don't see how the relative amounts without explanation or context reveal anything here, I have nothing to judge on whether making it, for instance, 2bn on childcare would be sufficient, or too much, or not enough. How much should those with children get vs everyone who uses roads, including those with children?

Edit Not saying whether the priorities of the Tories are skewed or not, but I'm not sure how putting two numbers next to each other like that helps, since it will be very easy to find a counter like this

2bn for potholes
1bn for childcare
not wasting 58bn on bribing women born in the 1950s.

I don't know how to get outraged over it.

This amount is to ensure that LibDem prospective councillors have nothing to point at.

What will they point at now? Dog pooh?

I had a leaflet from a LD recently which had two separate photos of them pointing at (and measuring) two sepatate potholes.

LostPassword said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1198665771808935936?s=20

#thathappened

I'm pretty sure it's a very specific demographic that would write "G-d".

So we are looking for a Jewish CCHQ SpAd called Nicola.

geoffw said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

What amounts should it be, what should the ratio be? There are a lot of potholes and roads and their maintenance are expensive. I don't see how the relative amounts without explanation or context reveal anything here, I have nothing to judge on whether making it, for instance, 2bn on childcare would be sufficient, or too much, or not enough.

Your neutrality blinds you.

welshowl said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

dellertronic said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

I know, they seem small in comparison to Labour's trillion pound bill, but it's still a lot of money.

Do you honestly think potholes deserve more money than childcare though?

As a childless singleton that doesn't drive I don't care about either. But anybody claiming to be green should oppose both subsiding care pollution and over population.

I personally think we should be encouraging the use of public transport as much as possible and phasing out cars entirely - that should be the ultimate goal IMHO

Not a fan of electric cars?

They're better than petrol and diesel cars - and if there is no reasonable public transport they seem like a good compromise. But fundamentally we need to transition away from private transport.

Why? Clearly you've never lived anywhere remote or worked at night.

I live in a village, so yes I've experienced it. I'm just saying if we are to tackle climate change, we are going to have to phase out petrol and diesel cars. Electric cars are obviously better - but they're still a lot more damaging than public transport.

How about less kids?

Or fewer even.

Lol. Touché.

Let’s compromise kids with better grammar?

Looking good. It'd be nice to think for a moment it will give Beijing pause.

https://twitter.com/AsiaElects/status/1198697370160156673

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Andy_JS said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ozymandias said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

dellertronic said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

£2Bn for potholes

£1Bn for childcare

...

I know, they seem small in comparison to Labour's trillion pound bill, but it's still a lot of money.

Do you honestly think potholes deserve more money than childcare though?

As a childless singleton that doesn't drive I don't care about either. But anybody claiming to be green should oppose both subsiding care pollution and over population.

I personally think we should be encouraging the use of public transport as much as possible and phasing out cars entirely - that should be the ultimate goal IMHO

Not a fan of electric cars?

They're better than petrol and diesel cars - and if there is no reasonable public transport they seem like a good compromise. But fundamentally we need to transition away from private transport.

Why? Clearly you've never lived anywhere remote or worked at night.

I live in a village, so yes I've experienced it. I'm just saying if we are to tackle climate change, we are going to have to phase out petrol and diesel cars. Electric cars are obviously better - but they're still a lot more damaging than public transport.

Have you seen the shit coming out of the back of a London bus?

We obviously need to transition those to electric power or hydrogen as well - and that is happening, albeit at too slow a rate. But they're a lot less environmentally damaging than driving petrol/diesel cars everywhere.

That's impossible for people who don't live in towns and cities. Cars are the only option most of the time.

Then we need to make strides to fix that, otherwise we're going to be really fucked in just a few short years.

Have you seen how far CO2 emissions have been cut so far? We're not the problem.

The UK has to do a lot more - as does every other country. You're right it's a global problem.

But just trumpeting "we're not the problem" is why there's been so little progress.

So little progress? Again, look how far emissions have been cut since the peak in the 1970s.

kle4 said:

Looking good. It'd be nice to think for a moment it will give Beijing pause.

https://twitter.com/AsiaElects/status/1198697370160156673

Rather the opposite, must be the fear.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kle4 said:

Looking good. It'd be nice to think for a moment it will give Beijing pause.

https://twitter.com/AsiaElects/status/1198697370160156673

Rather the opposite, must be the fear.

It's fearful regimes that crack down on their population.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kle4 said:

Looking good. It'd be nice to think for a moment it will give Beijing pause.

https://twitter.com/AsiaElects/status/1198697370160156673

Rather the opposite, must be the fear.

Yes. And Xi is noted for his paranoia and ruthlessness, as the Uighers are currently finding out in highly brutal fashion.

geoffw said:

That WASPI question to Boris in the leaders' debate could turn out to be the most expensive three minutes of tv ever if Corbyn gets into No 10.

However Labour's announcement could blow up in their face if voters see it as the cynical opportunism it is.

They need to win at the Supreme Court first, or are Labour just going to chuck money at them even if there has been no injustice?

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1198665771808935936?s=20

Nicola cannot spell Minister, but uses the word clarity in its political operative context? Who could have written it? Clearly not an uninitiated member of the hoi poloi called Nicola. My money is on a not very bright politician. Diane Abbott?

There are people in London who say "Westminister" or "Upminister"