politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In betting terms the Moran-Davey battle in the LD race looks c

Pulpstar said:

What are the 5 protected constituencies -

Orkney and Shetland ; Ynys Mon; Na h-Eileanan an Iar ; Isle of Wight and Argyll & Bute ?

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

eristdoof said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DavidL said:

What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.

I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.

That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.

Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.

But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.

I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.

To be fair to the Lib Dems, it was not a bad strategy. It paid handsomely in the European and local elections. They were unlucky to fall just short in a string of Conservative-held seats. They were obviously writing off their traditional strongholds, in the West Country, in the hope of winning prizes in the affluent Home Counties, and M3 and M4 corridors. The problem is there are no prizes for finishing a close second.

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

LadyG said:

From the BBC Wokesite:

BAME people are going off the label "BAME". Some find it cold and patronising (and I can see their point)

In about six months "BAME" will be deemed as racist as "coloured", and it will be a sackable offence to use the term

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53194376

Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...

Gentiles? That's BILLIONS of people. As for BAME, if we need a word in certain circumstances to describe non whites (which I think we do) and BAME were to fall out of favour it would have to be replaced with an alternative. So I suppose we will stick with it unless or until that alternative comes along.

How about non whites?

This exact thought occurred to me as I was writing that. It could be that having "non" in it gives a negative feel. But I don't know.

RandallFlagg said:

Burgessian said:

In other news, the penny is dropping that Boris will swat aside demands for IndyRef2 whatever happens in May.
Nicola has ruled out an illegal referendum so will be interesting to see where this goes.
I believe Pete Wishart used to drum for Runrig.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-could-boycott-westminster-if-indyref2-refused-mp-warns-2899906

Considering it would give him an even bigger majority in parliament, the SNP threatening to do a Sinn Fein would make Boris less likely to agree to indyref2, to be honest.

rural_voter said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

rawliberal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by

But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?

We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.

I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."

So you could have the following subscription services:

1. News (regional subsets thereof)
2. Sport (regional subsets thereof)
3. Weather (regional subsets thereof)
4. Comedy
5. Drama
6. Documentaries
7. Natural History
8. Children's programmes
9. Radio (subsets thereof)
10. Politics
11. Films
12. etc

If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.

Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.

Netflix is £5.99 but then how many of your categories do you think it covers? You seem to be implying it only covers one for some reason.

Thats without considering the fact it covers many of those categories an order of magnitude better than the BBC does, because that's a very subjective debate but you seem to be trying to argue different categories matter without saying which categories justify the BBC charging nearly three times the price.

I didn't say Netflix only covers one. I said that the BBC covers more.

Of the categories I listed above, would you subscribe to any from the BBC?

Netflix doesn't charge per category though, it charges £5.99 in total for all categories - and it covers the majority of your categories.

I'm not sure what the minority of categories the BBC offers that Netflix doesn't that justifies trebling its price.

Have I missed something? Where is the national, international and regional news on Netflix? Or weather? Or coverage of Parliament? Or...

Plus as asked before - is there anything on the BBC list you would pay for?

When your justification for the TV licence is reduced to spluttering "but... but... what about the coverage of parliament" - which is literally just pointing a camera at boring people talking in parliament - then you know your argument is in trouble.

I don't have an argument. As I said, I am ambivalent about the BBC licence fee. But in order to compare like for like you need to split it up into its component parts and services and assign a subscription fee to each and see what the take up is.

Plus as you are posting on here I am pretty sure you would pay £14.99 for BBC Parliament alone.

Your idea of splitting it up is quite good as a practical exercise.

I guess I might pay for News, Weather and Parliament. And one offs that I like, such as Masterchef and Springwatch.

I would pay maybe £3 a month for the first three together (a small sum, because I can obtain these free elsewhere). And maybe £10 per season of the other two. So my yearly payment to *BBC Inc* would be £56 not £157

Fair enough. It would be interesting to see what the broad British public would do. Perhaps those more tech savvy (everyone on here) would pay less for things they knew they could access elsewhere, while those less tech savvy might be happy for the BBC to act as aggregator.

The BBC could change into the British DW ... a German 'soft power' exercise I think, like the World Service was when the FO funded it. Anyway you appear to get a channel of good TV programmes, in English, accessible even if you live in say Canada or New Zealand

https://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/documentary-report/s-32861

What's not to like?

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

eristdoof said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DavidL said:

What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.

I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.

That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.

Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.

But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.

I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.

To be fair to the Lib Dems, it was not a bad strategy. It paid handsomely in the European and local elections. They were unlucky to fall just short in a string of Conservative-held seats. They were obviously writing off their traditional strongholds, in the West Country, in the hope of winning prizes in the affluent Home Counties, and M3 and M4 corridors. The problem is there are no prizes for finishing a close second.

Well I suppose they are (potentially) well placed for next time as the challenger in many more seats than before. Their core problem (imo) is what has been thrashed around on this thread. What are the LDs about? Their identity. What is the point of them?

turbotubbs said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

https://twitter.com/nature/status/1277968892963352578

A very small iceberg then.

Roughly the size of the number of cases known about already. Which means roughly 0.1% of the population (just over 600k) has had it. That would be very bad news.

Er no. Most people who have had it never had a test (back in March, April and May). Estimated to be more like 5% have had it (with big ranges in different locations. London maybe 20%, Wiltshire 1%?)

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

LadyG said:

From the BBC Wokesite:

BAME people are going off the label "BAME". Some find it cold and patronising (and I can see their point)

In about six months "BAME" will be deemed as racist as "coloured", and it will be a sackable offence to use the term

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53194376

Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...

Gentiles? That's BILLIONS of people. As for BAME, if we need a word in certain circumstances to describe non whites (which I think we do) and BAME were to fall out of favour it would have to be replaced with an alternative. So I suppose we will stick with it unless or until that alternative comes along.

How about non whites?

This exact thought occurred to me as I was writing that. It could be that having "non" in it gives a negative feel. But I don't know.

Well how about reversing it? Duskies and non-duskies? The negative is then on the whites.

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Flanner said:

Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019:
- "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion
- Operations & support 2.3 bn
- Sales & marketing 4.6 bn
- R&D 4.8 bn
- Admin 3.2 bn

IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.

They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.

Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%

Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...

Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".

Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.

The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.

There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.

This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.

Uber doesn't work like that.

You pay $10 to Uber for taking you from A to B. $8.50 of that goes to the driver, $1.50 goes to Uber. If a driver is sitting waiting for a ride, he's not getting paid by Uber.

This isn't Uber buying the time of a bunch of people, and then selling them out, it is simply a driver-customer matching system.

Northern_Al said:

LostPassword said:

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

Big scandal brewing here, I think.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1278285323592708096

Just more incompetence from PHE. Same old.

What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?

Maybe I am missing something.

It's not PHE. It's Hancock pushing through a rubbish contract with Deloitte that didn't oblige them to provide the data.

A private sector/outsourcing/contract failure.

I think that's right - it's not PHE England.

Testing, and track and tracing, is unravelling to be a complete mess, I suspect. Lots of private sector contracts have been given out, including to old favourites like Deloitte, Serco and G4S, and it doesn't look well coordinated. For weeks now the DHSC have been unable to tell us how many people have been tested - this number looks permanently unavailable, rather than temporarily. As Starmer pointed out today, only a relatively small proportion of those testing positive are having their contacts traced. Despite what Johnson says, I don't believe that timely Pillar 4 data has been given to local authorities - it's obviously not just Leicester. And of course there's the mystery of the disappearing app.

I really don't think anybody has much of a clue what's going on with these myriad sources of data. I've spent some time this afternoon trying to find out, and it's like wading through treacle.

The net result is: 1) we don't really know how many are infected, and 2) local public health authorities, best placed to sort things out, don't have the information we need.

Add to that 176 reported deaths today, up from yesterday. Yes, I know most of these were from ages ago - but it does look as if we are much slower than the rest of Europe at getting a grip on the virus.

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

@Stocky

Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??

Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)

By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.

My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."

How I chuckled.

kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.

- thank you very much.

My pleasure.

And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?

I do think that liberals are over-represented on here, but having said that liberalism is a popular creed generally. 30% of electorate maybe? 45% conservative, 20% collectivist, 5% libertarian. Something like that?

I haven't seen that "conservative" defined yet - but your other numbers don't immediately strike me as badly off the mark.

Well ... I`ve had a go. But not happy with it. I find conservatism tricky to pin down:

Conservatives value traditions and family life and are patriotic. They like strong leaders who act in, and battle for, the national interest. They are monarchists. Conservatives are often religious - but even those who are not tend to prescribe a particular way of living and are often disapproving of others who deviate from this. They do not welcome diversity or eccentricity. They are not idealists and hold a lesser view of human nature compared to other ideologies.

Conservatives prioritise strong defence and policing. This is consistent with their wish to perpetuate the status quo. Generally, conservatives want to keep things as they are, because the way things are is the way things should be because this represents tried-and-trusted methods - and change costs money - a priority of habit over sudden change, if you like. Conservatives prioritise efficiency and hold respect for taxpayer funds.

It follows from all this that conservatives favour a small state and low taxation. Generally, conservatives argue that money is best left in the pockets of families, for them to maximise their own utility, rather than with the state. A mild to strong right wing position.

Many, but not all, conservatives disapprove of alternative lifestyles. They may not admit this. Generally they believe that it is normal, and therefore correct, for individuals to be heterosexual, to marry, have 2.4 children and to bring those children up in the way that they themselves were brought up.

Conservatives disapprove of dissent and protest. People should accept things as they are, including their station in life. Who said life is fair? Some conservatives believe in rank and status and class, thinking that a hierarchy of authority is most conducive to national well-being. Conservatives believe in duty.

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Flanner said:

Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019:
- "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion
- Operations & support 2.3 bn
- Sales & marketing 4.6 bn
- R&D 4.8 bn
- Admin 3.2 bn

IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.

They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.

Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%

Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...

Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".

Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.

The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.

There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.

This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.

Uber doesn't work like that.

You pay $10 to Uber for taking you from A to B. $8.50 of that goes to the driver, $1.50 goes to Uber. If a driver is sitting waiting for a ride, he's not getting paid by Uber.

This isn't Uber buying the time of a bunch of people, and then selling them out, it is simply a driver-customer matching system.

More like you take a ride that cost £8.50 then Uber renumerates the driver as if he drove a £11 trip.

Black_Rook said:

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

What are the 5 protected constituencies -

Orkney and Shetland ; Ynys Mon; Na h-Eileanan an Iar ; Isle of Wight and Argyll & Bute ?

Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross rather than IoW I would guess

No, it's now Orkney & Shetland, Ynys Mon, Na h-Eileanan an Iar and two under-sized seats on the Isle of Wight (as per the original proposals from before the last election, IoW is far too large for a single seat and it wasn't considered desirable to create a cross-Solent constituency to correct the problem.)

rcs1000 said:

Flanner said:

Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019:
- "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion
- Operations & support 2.3 bn
- Sales & marketing 4.6 bn
- R&D 4.8 bn
- Admin 3.2 bn

IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.

They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.

Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%

Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...

Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".

Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.

The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Flanner said:

Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019:
- "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion
- Operations & support 2.3 bn
- Sales & marketing 4.6 bn
- R&D 4.8 bn
- Admin 3.2 bn

IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.

They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.

Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%

Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...

Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".

Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.

The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.

There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.

This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.

Uber doesn't work like that.

You pay $10 to Uber for taking you from A to B. $8.50 of that goes to the driver, $1.50 goes to Uber. If a driver is sitting waiting for a ride, he's not getting paid by Uber.

This isn't Uber buying the time of a bunch of people, and then selling them out, it is simply a driver-customer matching system.

They are not paying him but he is incurring costs. If he is to be available for the ride he needs to cover those costs. The busier he is the less of a problem that is. If its a big problem then working for Uber is not a viable way of earning a living.

Nigelb said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/darshnasoni/status/1278361247147347968?s=20
https://twitter.com/darshnasoni/status/1278363245695266817?s=20

Is it related to contract tracing and intensive followup testing around the factory outbreaks ?

Black_Rook said:

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

eristdoof said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DavidL said:

What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.

I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.

That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.

Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.

But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.

I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.

To be fair to the Lib Dems, it was not a bad strategy. It paid handsomely in the European and local elections. They were unlucky to fall just short in a string of Conservative-held seats. They were obviously writing off their traditional strongholds, in the West Country, in the hope of winning prizes in the affluent Home Counties, and M3 and M4 corridors. The problem is there are no prizes for finishing a close second.

Well I suppose they are (potentially) well placed for next time as the challenger in many more seats than before. Their core problem (imo) is what has been thrashed around on this thread. What are the LDs about? Their identity. What is the point of them?

If they choose to break leftwards then they simply become a faux Labour Party in areas where the genuine article isn't competitive.

They'd arguably be much better off becoming a continuity Cameroon party for socially liberal but economically dry well-to-do voters in Southern England, but that's not where the membership appears to want to go.

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2247462-scotland-could-eliminate-the-coronavirus-if-it-werent-for-england/

Two other factors have contributed to Scotland’s relative success, says Sridhar. The first is clear messaging. On 10 May, the UK government changed its “stay at home” slogan to “stay alert”, but Scotland stuck to the original line. It has since switched to “stay safe”.

Why is "safe" better than "alert"?

DavidL said:

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

https://twitter.com/nature/status/1277968892963352578

A very small iceberg then.

Roughly the size of the number of cases known about already. Which means roughly 0.1% of the population (just over 600k) has had it. That would be very bad news.

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2247462-scotland-could-eliminate-the-coronavirus-if-it-werent-for-england/

Two other factors have contributed to Scotland’s relative success, says Sridhar. The first is clear messaging. On 10 May, the UK government changed its “stay at home” slogan to “stay alert”, but Scotland stuck to the original line. It has since switched to “stay safe”.

Why is "safe" better than "alert"?

I don't know, not in detail. But I have an instant gut impression from such management training as I had, now you ask. 'Stay alert' refers merely to an activity whereas 'stay safe' is the desired result (and encompasses all the óther needful activities, which might not require staying alert so much ... such as staying at home!). Th Scottish slogan is therefore specific, measurable, something beginning with a which I forget, relevant and targeted ...!

Edit@ missing word was I think 'achievable' - as one hopes it is.

Carnyx said:

PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2247462-scotland-could-eliminate-the-coronavirus-if-it-werent-for-england/

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1278371215556698112

Nigelb said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/darshnasoni/status/1278361247147347968?s=20
https://twitter.com/darshnasoni/status/1278363245695266817?s=20

Is it related to contract tracing and intensive followup testing around the factory outbreaks ?

Flatlander said:

Pro_Rata said:

Flatlander said:

Pro_Rata said:

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1278339992423563264?s=20

I wonder what the common theme is?

Are you including Barnsley in that theme ?

Exception to the rule.

In all seriousness, I wonder what specifically is the issue? Is it workplaces, large household sizes, or something else?

The locations to me run approximately NW to SE the length of the country and represent, as much as anything else, a border between higher incidence west of the line, and lower incidence east of the line - the wavefront of high infection if you like. This gets squeezed a little at the north end of the line, where in some places higher infection rates have approached from either side and squeezed in towards the Pennines last.

I think if the counties were being reported by lower tier authorities this might provide even a few more data points, e.g. a jump from Southend over into Kent. As it stands you just see the unitaries, and though Asian populations are a common theme why would they be particularly represented in a late June wave? Eid is long past.

This clearly isn't a geographical issue.

I am told that multi-household extended families have still been mixing. It isn't just large single households.

Barnsley is definitely an exception though. Perhaps there's been a factory outbreak?

Not seen an outbreak in Barnsley, but has been high for a few weeks with the outward spread from Sheffield.

Calderdale is pretty Asian, nothing doing - yet.
Swale and Ashford which I'm sure would be up there if districts were included - they've had problems all month.
Southend on Sea??
Northants as a county featured at the top of the chart a couple of weeks ago bridging Bedford and Leicester.

No, this bears some resemblance to the Weston outbreak.

I'm not saying large multigenerational households are not a factor at all, but geographical creep of outbreaks happened in Italy and permeated the mountain provinces of Lombardy quite late in the outbreak.

I thought our initial seeding was much more widespread than Italy? Obviously it then spread quicker in some areas. This seems to be a very long tail rather than a new outbreak as such.

It could of course be working conditions too - as seems to be the case in Leicester.

Note that Kirklees encompasses quite a lot of Calderdale.

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.

Carnyx said:

PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2247462-scotland-could-eliminate-the-coronavirus-if-it-werent-for-england/

Philip_Thompson said:

Thinking about BBC a bit more while I was just out, I think @TOPPING 's original programming jibe at Netflix shows the real, real danger that the BBC is in for the long-term.

In the past the BBC has relied upon its incumbency and its history of original programming but its losing both of those, fast. My generation and younger generations are simply not that bothered by the BBC anymore and that isn't a "young are liberal, old are conservative" idea - it is simply we've grown up with choice and that is not going away.

People are growing up with more channels and used to streaming and YouTube and multi-channel TVs. The idea of simply having the BBC on and seeing whatever is on next is rapidly fading into history.

And then when it comes to content the BBC used to be famed for its content. Emphasis is used to be. The era of Monty Python etc ended a long time ago, now increasingly the most talked about TV is Netflix and that is only going to continue.

The problem is that the era of the BBC is dying. It can't compete on original programming, it can't compete on cost. People increasing simply don't care for it and fondness for it is dying away.

Change has to come - and the problem is like a 'bricks and mortar' store failing to see the threat Amazon provides to their existence, the longer the BBCs fans live in denial about this fact the weaker and weaker the BBC will be when it is finally dealt with.

Years ago when digital was rolling out had the BBC been made a subscription service it would have had near universal uptake. Now that's going to be technologically hard to achieve and it won't be. The longer this is ignored, the worse it is for the long-term future of the BBC.

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.

kinabalu said:

Black_Rook said:

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

eristdoof said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DavidL said:

What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.

I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.

That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.

Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.

But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.

I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.

To be fair to the Lib Dems, it was not a bad strategy. It paid handsomely in the European and local elections. They were unlucky to fall just short in a string of Conservative-held seats. They were obviously writing off their traditional strongholds, in the West Country, in the hope of winning prizes in the affluent Home Counties, and M3 and M4 corridors. The problem is there are no prizes for finishing a close second.

Well I suppose they are (potentially) well placed for next time as the challenger in many more seats than before. Their core problem (imo) is what has been thrashed around on this thread. What are the LDs about? Their identity. What is the point of them?

If they choose to break leftwards then they simply become a faux Labour Party in areas where the genuine article isn't competitive.

They'd arguably be much better off becoming a continuity Cameroon party for socially liberal but economically dry well-to-do voters in Southern England, but that's not where the membership appears to want to go.

You're probably right. But at the end of the day a political party does belong to its members.

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

Stereotyping white supremacists as liking golf?

Lazy.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.

I'm sure Toby Young and the rest of the Free Speech Union will be along to defend Paul Krugman.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MattW said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1278060675688992770

Stereotyping white supremacists as liking golf?

Lazy.

Stereotyping pensioners living in Florida as White Supremacists.

Thinking - not.

I thought the golf cart driving white supremacist was a reference to Trump, who seems to fit all those adjectives.

Carnyx said:

ABZ said:

Carnyx said:

PS re CV and England/Scotland - as not everyone has a sub to the Natyional, this covers much of the same ground (and comes from a London periodical, and a good one when it comes to science/medicine)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2247462-scotland-could-eliminate-the-coronavirus-if-it-werent-for-england/

The reporting is all very odd...

The number of deaths (from the ONS report today) in the week ending 19th June was 49 in Scotland and 744 in England. That is definitely proportionately more deaths than in Scotland (by about 50%) but the daily reported numbers suggest a much more substantial discrepancy.

More generally, as you can see from Figure 9 in yesterday's ONS report (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/latest) the number of deaths per day by registration in England is well under 100, as of June 19th, with really very few care homes deaths.

Given this, I wonder if the daily deaths being reported by the government are catching up with care home deaths from quite some time ago? The frustration is that the government does not break down non-hospital deaths by date so it's hard to be certain.

It all talks to poor communication of the underlying data. The ONS are great, but the daily stats are really very hard to interpret (and this is in addition to the Pillar I / II issues we've been discussing) and I do wonder if there is a massive catch-up effect in the daily reported figures that's really misleading and exaggerating the difference between Scotland and England, especially in terms of deaths.

I take it you do mean the "English"/UK government when you say 'government'. The reference to ONS rather than NRS pretty much means it can't be the Scottish government.

We did discuss on and off the phenomenon of the Scottosh excess deaths and reported covid deaths being almost exactly the same for months whereas there was a big discrepancy (in April/May, was it not?) in the English figures - about a quarter by eyeballing the graphs. So I suppose these presumably hidden covid deaths could be catching up from that far back. Is it possible it could take so long?

ydoethur said:

As far as I am aware, there are four protected constituencies - the two in Scotland, and two on the Isle of Wight. Ynys Môn has certainly not been protected up to now - the latest proposals were to merge it with Bangor.

Has this changed? If so when? It must have been recently.

Edit - here is a statement from three months ago:

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-03-24/HCWS183/

LadyG said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/kacnutt/status/1278363966541004800?s=20

Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.

An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.

Carnyx said:

LadyG said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/kacnutt/status/1278363966541004800?s=20

Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.

An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.

The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.