politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Swinson’s successor may have only become an MP yesterday

CorrectHorseBattery said:

viewcode said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50790445

About halfway down there's an interview with Phil Wilson.

I am absolutely convinced that if Keir Starmer had stood on the 2017 manifesto it would have been a minority Labour Government at the worst. But because so many of us were too stupid to see what was happening and too arrogant to listen, Labour is going to climb what should have been a few seats, now being 60+.

We've really cocked this up, I think it's difficult to understate how badly.

Really? Worst post-war performance? Worst than Michael Foot? You've lost Scotland. You've lost the Northern Mining towns. Your only redoubt is the South Wales Valleys and the University towns. How bad did it have to get before you realised this? And what, if anything, can you do that will realistically stop it happening the next time?

I meant post 2017, when Labour actually gained seats. We cocked up keeping Corbyn and I didn't realise until this election how badly we'd cocked it up.

There are narrow avenues for Labour to come back - but they need the right leader and a new approach.

If Boris wants to play for keeps, he could just give Classic Dom the task of gradually closing off all those avenues over the next 5 years...

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.

Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.

I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.

I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?

Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.

They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.

The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.

Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.

HS2 IS infrastructure investment for the North, Midlands and to a lesser extent North Wales.

https://paulbigland.blog/2019/12/14/election-result-what-does-it-mean-for-hs2/

It is. I'd say for the north, Northern Powerhouse Rail is a higher priority. Followed by investment in suburban and commuter services, followed by HS2. But the three are complementary, and ideally we'd have all three.

alex_ said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.

Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.

I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.

I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?

Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.

They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.

The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.

Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.

The midlands and the north are big supporters of HS2. They wouldn't be very happy if it was cancelled.

Not the midlanders and northerners I know.

Its a big area and people prefer investment which benefits them rather than which might benefit other people in other parts in future decades.

Bunging Musk a whole bunch of tax relief and whatnot for a Tesla & Gigafactory next to Bolsover would be a good idea for an infrastructure project.

another_richard said:

alex_ said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.

Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.

I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.

I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?

Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.

They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.

The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.

Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.

The midlands and the north are big supporters of HS2. They wouldn't be very happy if it was cancelled.

Not the midlanders and northerners I know.

Its a big area and people prefer investment which benefits them rather than which might benefit other people in other parts in future decades.

Every single council and Chamber of Commerce in the north supports HS2.

Northern Powerhouse rail cannot happen without HS2.

There is nothing more sure to happen than HS2.

Also, HS2 is shovel ready, nothing else will start in this parliament given how long the legal stuff takes.

Cancelling HS2 would be cancelling the ONLY scheme in the north in this parliament.

Malmesbury said:

nichomar said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

nichomar said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Wycombe has a university that is ranked just above Cambridge on one very widely used measure.

So does Oxford, of course.

Oxford also has a second university called, imaginatively, the University of Oxford, which is infamously not nearly as good...

Not for architecture, no.

Speaking of Oxford, the last three Labour leaders to win general elections were all there. Who on the list of possible new leaders was?

Let’s hope we have the last ever old Etonian Oxbridge none STEM graduate ever. Let’s have scientists, entrepreneurs and good business managers who have actually done more than been spads, journalists or lawyers

Like Thatcher you mean? I don’t think any other PM studied a STEM subject.

I know but she then went and did a law degree

Polymath

It would be a start the talent pool in the UK isn’t restricted to the most narrow educational experience that is Oxbridge. I learned more about city center life from my years at Bradford in the 70’s than my growing up years in suburban Liverpool. Also you don’t need to go to university to be successful

NickPalmer said:

Malmesbury said:

MaxPB said:

I think this has been noted by the leadership already. I think more anti-landlord policies are going to come, hopefully it will tip the balance further towards home ownership and away from existing property "investment".

What we need is aggressive granting of planning permission to build.

The latter, if we value detached housing more than green space - but the alternative is denser housing, like most countries. We certainly don't need anti-landlord policies (as opposed to policies to encourage good landlords) in the south - for huge numbers of people in the Home Counties, renting is a crucial part of life and we need a decnt supply.

You're wrong. Private renting is a completely inefficient allocation of capital. It literally takes cash out of the hands of the working person and hand it to the non-working person. I'm should be surprised by your view on this but I'm not because fixing home ownership rates puts Labour out of power for a very long time.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I just don't see how the Tories intend to resolve the housing problem without pissing off much of their old/existing voting base.

The fundamental problem is that housing is too expensive - but if the Tories work to make it cheaper they'll piss of their voters who like having their houses go up in value.

What am I missing here?

They have nowhere else to go and honestly, fuck them. Landlords are all parasites, no matter how "good" they claim to be.

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.

Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.

I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.

I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?

Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.

They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.

The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.

Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.

HS2 IS infrastructure investment for the North, Midlands and to a lesser extent North Wales.

https://paulbigland.blog/2019/12/14/election-result-what-does-it-mean-for-hs2/

To whose benefit ?

The metropolitan affluent of the 2040s.

Not what I'd call a key electoral demographic.

Everyone who wants more local services and freight on existing lines.

In reality, if HS3 was prioritised above HS2 then we effectively write off any rail investment north of London for yet another decade, a decade when HS2 could have been built, a scheme that EVERY northern Chamber of Commerce supprts.

MaxPB said:

ydoethur said:

MaxPB said:

Malmesbury said:

MaxPB said:

another_richard said:

Jonathan said:

another_richard said:

another_richard said:

So by my reckoning these are the seats won by the Conservatives in 2010 but not in 2019:

Battersea
Brentford
Croydon C
Ealing C
Enfield N
Enfield Southgate
Ilford N
Putney
Richmond Park

Bedford
St Albans

Brighton Kemptown
Canterbury
Hove
Reading E
Oxford W

Bristol NW
Plymouth Sutton

Warwick

Chester
Lancaster
Weaver Vale
Wirral W

Cardiff N

Bristol NW, Brighton Kemptown and Hove now added.

The Tory’s southern underbelly is soft with the right leader.

Housing affordability is the big threat to the Conservatives in the South.

I think this has been noted by the leadership already. I think more anti-landlord policies are going to come, hopefully it will tip the balance further towards home ownership and away from existing property "investment".

What we need is aggressive granting of planning permission to build.

Nope, there is enough housing in the UK, it just isn't allocated efficiently because owner occupation is effectively discouraged compared to being a landlord.

It is slightly bizarre that I am a landlord, yet have a mortgage on the house I live in.

It becomes less bizarre when you realise I inherited a house with a sitting tenant.

Sure and if the government introduced a 3% annual value tax how quickly would you sell it?

Almost instantly. Or double the rent.

Either way my tenant would become homeless as a result.

ManchesterKurt said:

another_richard said:

MyBurningEars said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.

Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.

I wonder what mileage there is (hah) in HS3: Liverpool to Hull. There's folk in Hull arguing it should be prioritised to happen before HS2 but I can't see that happening.

Perhaps one of the rail-engineering types on here can explain more but I imagine there are limits on our rail-building capacity (besides which it would presumably be silly to build up such capacity to embark on a huge simultaneous expansion of lines, then have to largely run that capacity down once they've all been built). There's also people in The North who want HS2 to be constructed "north to south" either first or in parallel to the "south to north" bit - isn't that also considered impractical/uneconomic?

People want to benefit from infrastructure investment.

If they don't but 'that lot over there' do they'll not likely be happy.

And that's HS2's problem - it isn't a 'one nation' investment.

Lots of people don't think that they will benefit but 'that lot over there' will and simultaneously they see the price go ever higher.

But it really is a one nation investment.
It helps connectivity to many of the poorer places that went blue.
Just because the vast majority of the population do not understand what HS2 will deliver does not stop it being true.
The review will say HS2 will benefit the north more than the south, it aint being cancelled.

Its an investment in which the benefits will be concentrated among the metropolitan affluent of future decades.

It really isn't one nation at all.

For £100bn you can spread the benefits in a much wider and fairer and quicker manner.

I am not sure housing is that big an issue for the type of northern voter who turned tory this election . They will mostly be retired or close to it with established housing .Whilst they dont live in mansions they probably own their house hence as keen as anyone not to see value drop.

More important to them is things like state pension and dont pander to the 'woke' too much in virtue signalling .They will appreciate infrastructure spending though and understand and agree with higher minimum wages and higher income tax thresholds of starting to pay tax.

Also northerners are more personable hence as long as a leader is that they will get votes - Major , Johnson etc

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.

Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.

I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.

I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?

Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.

They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.

If it's true that Mr Johnson is motivated by self-interest rather than ideology, there is at least a chance that he will start to tackle such problems, because it may generate good-will towards him.

If you're motivated by ideology, you are usually convinced you know what the answer is. If "all" you want is people's votes, you'll do what might make them vote for you.

Andy_JS said:

"Britain’s Labour Party Got Woke—And Now It’s Broke

written by Toby Young"

https://quillette.com/2019/12/13/britains-labour-party-got-woke-and-now-its-broke/

Toby Young doesn't pay much attention to getting details right does he.

Centrist Phone is still deep in reality denial despite having had all his certainties proven spectacularly wrong: https://twitter.com/centrist_phone

So naturally he's just joined the Labour Party ... to fight for Corbynism!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

ManchesterKurt said:

HS2 was first announced in 2008.

Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.

Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?

Crossrail was first approved in 2007 - it still hasn't opened yet...

Yep

But most people seem to understand Crossrail

Ignorance about the benefits of HS2 to the north are amazing, probably due tot he southern media not being interested.

Fysics_Teacher said:

nichomar said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

nichomar said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Wycombe has a university that is ranked just above Cambridge on one very widely used measure.

So does Oxford, of course.

Oxford also has a second university called, imaginatively, the University of Oxford, which is infamously not nearly as good...

Not for architecture, no.

Speaking of Oxford, the last three Labour leaders to win general elections were all there. Who on the list of possible new leaders was?

Let’s hope we have the last ever old Etonian Oxbridge none STEM graduate ever. Let’s have scientists, entrepreneurs and good business managers who have actually done more than been spads, journalists or lawyers

Like Thatcher you mean? I don’t think any other PM studied a STEM subject.

I know but she then went and did a law degree

I think having mps knowing something about the law is a good thing; after all they are the ones responsible for creating them.

It's an interesting one, I think all new MPs should have to do (or at least get offered by the HoC staff) some basic legal training as part of their "orientation" process! Perhaps they do actually, does anybody know? You'll always need more experienced legal eagles for the drafting and scrutinising but it can't hurt for MPs to at least be able to "speak the language" of the legislation they vote for.

But governance is about far more than law. There are issues of history, philosophy, economics and management for example. Being able to do evidence-based policy-making isn't something only STEM graduates can understand - someone who had an academic background in policy might even have an edge on a computer science or physics grad in understanding how "evidence" is generated in the real-world and how to assess it critically, you can't just look at a p-value and think "oh that's me convinced then". There are clearly a range of skill-sets which are valuable. Someone with a some understanding of the underlying subject matter also helps. Since legislators legislate on, and governments govern on, all manner of aspects of civic and professional life, it would be good for Parliament to reflect a very wide range of backgrounds and sectors. All lawyers is bad, all chemists would also be bad, but I do think all MPs should have at least a modicum of literacy in law, economics and evidence-based policy.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

alex_ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Take the 20,000 "more" police officers, these people take years to train, they aren't just going to come out of thin air. And they take us back (they don't actually) to where we were in 2010. What meaningful change is that?

.

Aren't you confusing police officers with doctors? It doesn't take years to train police officers, surely?

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-are-the-conservatives-putting-20000-police-on-the-streets

>The plan is to recruit 6,000 new officers in the first year, then 14,000 over the following two years.

>So you could say that the new officers will simply cancel out previous cuts and get us back to 2010 levels.

>The population of England and Wales is estimated to have gone up too – by around 3.5 million people since 2010.

>So if officer numbers returned to the exact levels they reached in 2010, there would still be fewer per head of population.

So the numbers will go up - but I don't think in practice you're going to see much difference. And of course, if crime continues to go up, they'll be little evidence of progress anyway.

He may well run on a Cameronite agenda - but I simply don't see him making sufficient progress to show signs of real change. If he does, I'll be here to shake his hand.

Interestingly, you can increase the number of police officers quite quickly. When police numbers were restricted, applicants were told to join the Specials. In many areas, the Specials are now full - turning away new applicants. So you have a large number of people who want to be in the police - who are already have a warrant card!

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

ManchesterKurt said:

HS2 was first announced in 2008.

Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.

Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?

Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.

There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.

Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.

ManchesterKurt said:

HS2 was first announced in 2008.

Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.

Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?

When they announced HS2 in 2008 what was the price and when was it due for completion ?

A decade on what is the price and when is it due for completion ?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

AnneJGP said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.

Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.

I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?

Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.

They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.

If it's true that Mr Johnson is motivated by self-interest rather than ideology, there is at least a chance that he will start to tackle such problems, because it may generate good-will towards him.

If you're motivated by ideology, you are usually convinced you know what the answer is. If "all" you want is people's votes, you'll do what might make them vote for you.

That is true - but if within five years things are pretty much looking the same as the previous nine (as I think they are), Johnson is going to have a tough time shaking off the idea he's somehow different.

I think this is the fundamental issue with his strategy, the people he has just voted for, believe he is going to offer really strong, meaningful change and I think he's going to fail to live up to those expectations.

Of course if Labour offers too much again and looks moronic he'll win a landslide next time around. A lot of his winning must not be understated really as Labour being so bloody awful he walked it with barely any promises at all. But - and it's a big but I'll give you that - it's possible he won't be so lucky next time around.

Things we've been told over the years:

Boris won't win in London...

Boris won't win in London twice...

Boris won't be in the Cabinet...

Boris won't be Prime Minister...

Boris won't get a Brexit Deal...

Boris won't win an election...

Boris won't win a landslide...

Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.

ManchesterKurt said:

In reality, if HS3 was prioritised above HS2 then we effectively write off any rail investment north of London for yet another decade, a decade when HS2 could have been built, a scheme that EVERY northern Chamber of Commerce supprts.

The idea of HS3 being prioritised above HS2 is as far as I can see just a Hull-based fantasy. But what I am wondering and have no expertise nor clue how to find out other than by asking in case someone else knows, is what its prospects are - if it won't start until post-HS2 then it is surely decades away. Is there any way it could be fast-tracked, done in parallel somehow, if the government was willing to chuck money at the problem?

We've just trashed Labour for pandering to relatively well-off rail commuters and then making out that a couple of new lines decades in the future will help people who will never use them...

Fwiw I think the Conservatives know they need people to see results before 2024.

Swinson for the next by election?!

alex_ said:

brokenwheel said:

We've just trashed Labour for pandering to relatively well-off rail commuters and then making out that a couple of new lines decades in the future will help people who will never use them...

Fwiw I think the Conservatives know they need results before 2024.

The main purpose of HS2 isn't for the benefit of those who will use it.

If that was the point you were trying to make?

Yes it blooming well is.

ydoethur said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

ManchesterKurt said:

HS2 was first announced in 2008.

Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.

Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?

Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.

There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.

Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.

High Speed Rail is not green.

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

ManchesterKurt said:

HS2 was first announced in 2008.

Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.

Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?

Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.

There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.

Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.

High Speed Rail is not green.

It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

ManchesterKurt said:

HS2 was first announced in 2008.

Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.

Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?

Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.

There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.

Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.

High Speed Rail is not green.

It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.

How many car journeys will it stop? None, because driving is always a damn sight cheaper.

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

ManchesterKurt said:

HS2 was first announced in 2008.

Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.

Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?

Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.

There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.

Good for them. All this wibble about tree planting - protecting vital habitats like ancient woodland should be a priority.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BluestBlue said:

Things we've been told over the years:

Boris won't win in London...

Boris won't win in London twice...

Boris won't be in the Cabinet...

Boris won't be Prime Minister...

Boris won't get a Brexit Deal...

Boris won't win an election...

Boris won't win a landslide...

Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.

This rather underlines my point though, Johnson is very good at winning things - but he's very poor at actually changing anything.

My view of him is that he's only interested in winning, he's not actually interested in changing the country. But we will see.

Well, if he decides that the latter is essential to the former, he might give it a bloody good go.

I think people underestimate just how transformative the Boris premiership _could_ end up being, though of course it's far too early to say.

alex_ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Take the 20,000 "more" police officers, these people take years to train, they aren't just going to come out of thin air. And they take us back (they don't actually) to where we were in 2010. What meaningful change is that?

.

Aren't you confusing police officers with doctors? It doesn't take years to train police officers, surely?

Is there the training capacity, the courses , trainerws and facilities to train and then equip and accomodate them with office space etc, i reckon 2 years minimum and maybe 3..

BluestBlue said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

AnneJGP said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.

Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.

I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?

Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.

They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.

If it's true that Mr Johnson is motivated by self-interest rather than ideology, there is at least a chance that he will start to tackle such problems, because it may generate good-will towards him.

If you're motivated by ideology, you are usually convinced you know what the answer is. If "all" you want is people's votes, you'll do what might make them vote for you.

Of course if Labour offers too much again and looks moronic he'll win a landslide next time around. A lot of his winning must not be understated really as Labour being so bloody awful he walked it with barely any promises at all. But - and it's a big but I'll give you that - it's possible he won't be so lucky next time around.

Things we've been told over the years:

Boris won't win in London...

Boris won't win in London twice...

Boris won't be in the Cabinet...

Boris won't be Prime Minister...

Boris won't get a Brexit Deal...

Boris won't win an election...

Boris won't win a landslide...

Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.

Put the partisan politics away for a while, help discuss where we go next it is no longer about boris it’s about the UK obviously if your only interest is now moving on to maximize the Tory vote in the next election you will not be capable of seeing the world as it really is. Not everything in the world is Tory good, labour bad etc not every new Tory mp will be good as will not any new mp or councillor, just because you stick your hand up the right way does not make you good at your job

BluestBlue said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BluestBlue said:

Things we've been told over the years:

Boris won't win in London...

Boris won't win in London twice...

Boris won't be in the Cabinet...

Boris won't be Prime Minister...

Boris won't get a Brexit Deal...

Boris won't win an election...

Boris won't win a landslide...

Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.

This rather underlines my point though, Johnson is very good at winning things - but he's very poor at actually changing anything.

My view of him is that he's only interested in winning, he's not actually interested in changing the country. But we will see.

Well, if he decides that the latter is essential to the former, he might give it a bloody good go.

I think people underestimate just how transformative the Boris premiership _could_ end up being, though of course it's far too early to say.

Define transformative?

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

ManchesterKurt said:

HS2 was first announced in 2008.

Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.

Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?

Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.

There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.

Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.

High Speed Rail is not green.

It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.

How many car journeys will it stop? None, because driving is always a damn sight cheaper.

Really? What will the price of oil, or parking, or tolls be 15 years from now?

Same as they were 15 years ago.

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

Andy_JS said:

peter_from_putney said:

It's been little remarked upon, but Labour ultimately fared rather better than the exit poll had predicted, in fact 12 seats better, compared with the Tories, who did 3 seats worse. I believe this resulted, whisper it quietly, from a handful of disappointing results in the West Midlands, which failed to deliver much for the Blue Team.
In addition there was the odd isolated stonking good result for Labour, an example being Jon Cruddas' Dagenham & Rainham, he really must be an oustandingly good MP to emerge unscathed yet again.

Labour just held onto two seats in Coventry with tiny majorities, and also unexpectedly held Warwick & Leamington.

Student votes as in Canterbury.

Other seats which were Conservative in 2015 and Labour in 2019:

Battersea
Croydon C
Enfield Southgate
Putney

Bedford

Cardiff C
Gower

Reading E
Portsmouth S

Plymouth Sutton

Chester
Weaver Vale

Posho Remainers, demographic change, students and Greater Scouseland.

Chester has a university as well, don’t forget.

So does Bedford.

nunu2 said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/goodbeanalt/status/1205904354219311106

I'd be real careful posting stuff like that in these febrile times.

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

ManchesterKurt said:

HS2 was first announced in 2008.

Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.

Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?

Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.

There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.

Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.

High Speed Rail is not green.

It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.

How many car journeys will it stop? None, because driving is always a damn sight cheaper.

Driving causes pollution
Driving causes obesity
Driving causes stress

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

ManchesterKurt said:

HS2 was first announced in 2008.

Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.

Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?

Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.

There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.

Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.

High Speed Rail is not green.

It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.

How many car journeys will it stop? None, because driving is always a damn sight cheaper.

Really? What will the price of oil, or parking, or tolls be 15 years from now?

Same as they were 15 years ago.

Petrol will be 80ppl in 2035?

It's a view.

ClippP said:

BluestBlue said:

Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.

It`s easy enough to win, if you are a liar, a cheat and a fraud.

Corbyn failed in two attempts.

JBriskinindyref2 said:

O/T

Jeff's Super Six

Unlike Mr Meeks I am not totally against freerolls.

So, I've played Jeff's Super Six a couple of times now. I reckon it takes me no more than 15 mins absolute tops to fill in - and provides a form of enjoyment on a Saturday afternoon.

But I got thinking. I've always dislike correct score predictions. So to get even one right would be quite good going. Then I thought that the chances of getting the allotted six right might be astronomical.

So, using cost/benefit anaylsis, opportunity cost and all your gambling skill; can you answer the question:

Is it worth playing Jeff's Super Six.

Jeff's Super Six pays out 125 grand GBP and you can play it next week at-

https://super6.skysports.com/

I just clicked on the link to make sure it was working and apparently it's 250 grand next week.

You're essentially guessing 12 numbers. Just flicking through my results this season, and my best effort was 8/12.

Jacob Tree Frog still banned from media?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ydoethur said:

ClippP said:

BluestBlue said:

Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.

It`s easy enough to win, if you are a liar, a cheat and a fraud.

Corbyn failed in two attempts.

And I hope to God Labour has learned those lessons. But it is telling that you have to immediately tack to attacking Labour.

I despise them both equally, because they are both equally despicable.

But Corbyn was much more dangerous than Johnson.

ClippP said:

ydoethur said:

ClippP said:

BluestBlue said:

Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.

It`s easy enough to win, if you are a liar, a cheat and a fraud.

Corbyn failed in two attempts.

ydoethur said:

ClippP said:

BluestBlue said:

Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.

It`s easy enough to win, if you are a liar, a cheat and a fraud.

Corbyn failed in two attempts.

I don`t think Corbyn was any of those things. He was out of touch with reality. But that was not deliberate, in my opinion.

He's there, but not involved?

Nice try. But not convincing.