What YouGov was reporting a year ago today – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Has that ever happened before? Have we ever had a crap Opposition take power because the government had suffered a political catastrophe?TimT said:
Agreed. But if there is no credible loyal opposition other than them, they survive by default (as the opposition). Then, all it takes is for some political catastrophe for the Tories, and no matter how crap Labour are, they become the government in waiting.LostPassword said:
While that's true the political pendulum does not swing due to external fixed factors like gravity - it has to be moved by organisational effort, political argument and leadership.TimT said:
For depressed Labour supporters, I am a firm believer that everything in politics is fluid. What the party is and what the electorate want (and how tarnished the Tories are) are all movable feasts. In the medium-term, anything is possible. Predictions of Labour's demise are, IMO, overblown until there is a truly credible other alternative to the Tories.logical_song said:
Surely the biggest boost to Labour in 2017 was due to people not wanting the predicted Tory landslide and the belief that Labour could not possibly win.Black_Rook said:
1. Theresa May in 2017: worst campaign and worst campaigner in modern historyAndy_JS said:i still don't understand why Labour did so well in 2017 and then so badly just 2 years later.
2. Jeremy Corbyn was a relative novelty in 2017. More folk had made up their minds about him by 2019
3. Get Brexit Done (which itself catalysed the breakdown in the cultural relationship between Labour and one wing of its support base, which had been underway for many years beforehand)
Anyway, Labour only did relatively well in 2017, when compared with what came before and especially since. And even then, they still finished well behind on seats, and they were still left sat on the Opposition benches. Worse, it is quite possible that the 36% they're now averaging in the polls (basically, the supporters that stuck with them in 2019, plus returning hardcore Remainers who lent their votes to the Lib Dems) constitutes their new ceiling of support. But time will tell.
There's a lot of hard work for Labour to do just to lay the groundwork for looking like a credible government-in-waiting.
Governments always suffer political catastrophes of one magnitude or another. That's the nature of being in government. If the Opposition is not strong or credible enough to make the government suffer the consequences then I think we rationalise it after the event as not being serious enough to shift the pendulum.
Think of 1992, or even 2005. Major political catastrophes had been suffered by the government, but the Opposition was not credible or trusted enough to force the government from office.
I think there's a real danger of complacency for Labour here, of assuming that the pendulum will swing, that the scales will fall from the public's eyes and they will realise how damaging the Tories are. It's so much harder than that.1 -
This is the danger for Labour - they've twisted themselves in so many knots post -Blair and ordinary voters have clocked on that unless you're a minority group of some kind they're basically hostile to you. And the more extreme elements so often beneath the surface and who Starmer desperately wants to keep there, will keep popping up whatever the trigger. This week we had Clive Lewis acting like a berk, also the shadow equality minister apologising to Romas fr suggesting they shouldn't squat -next week, who knows? There's also a reason for that permanently pained expression on Starmer's face - he hates the flag, he hates Brexit, he hates northerners, the list goes on. And he has to keep it all in because he knows it's all toxic.Black_Rook said:
It's also an open question as to whether a large enough catastrophe will ever happen to swing sufficient voters in favour of Labour's present incarnation. We could just as easily end up with a situation not dissimilar to that in the Scottish Parliament, where only one party commands a sufficiently large and cohesive bloc of voters to win an election.TimT said:
Agreed. But if there is no credible loyal opposition other than them, they survive by default (as the opposition). Then, all it takes is for some political catastrophe for the Tories, and no matter how crap Labour are, they become the government in waiting.LostPassword said:
While that's true the political pendulum does not swing due to external fixed factors like gravity - it has to be moved by organisational effort, political argument and leadership.TimT said:
For depressed Labour supporters, I am a firm believer that everything in politics is fluid. What the party is and what the electorate want (and how tarnished the Tories are) are all movable feasts. In the medium-term, anything is possible. Predictions of Labour's demise are, IMO, overblown until there is a truly credible other alternative to the Tories.logical_song said:
Surely the biggest boost to Labour in 2017 was due to people not wanting the predicted Tory landslide and the belief that Labour could not possibly win.Black_Rook said:
1. Theresa May in 2017: worst campaign and worst campaigner in modern historyAndy_JS said:i still don't understand why Labour did so well in 2017 and then so badly just 2 years later.
2. Jeremy Corbyn was a relative novelty in 2017. More folk had made up their minds about him by 2019
3. Get Brexit Done (which itself catalysed the breakdown in the cultural relationship between Labour and one wing of its support base, which had been underway for many years beforehand)
Anyway, Labour only did relatively well in 2017, when compared with what came before and especially since. And even then, they still finished well behind on seats, and they were still left sat on the Opposition benches. Worse, it is quite possible that the 36% they're now averaging in the polls (basically, the supporters that stuck with them in 2019, plus returning hardcore Remainers who lent their votes to the Lib Dems) constitutes their new ceiling of support. But time will tell.
There's a lot of hard work for Labour to do just to lay the groundwork for looking like a credible government-in-waiting.
Indeed, as has been pointed out on this site on numerous past occasions, some democracies have been under single party rule more-or-less continuously for periods of decades at a time. Exhibit A: Japan. It's not inconceivable that England may be entering a period of one-and-a-half party politics, in which the second party is simultaneously too weak to win and too strong to be displaced by anything better. We just don't know.0 -
We have gone to 1m social distancing in waiting areas, but unlike the USA it is not single bed rooms so not so straight forward.TimT said:
My wife is already noticing strong pressure from hospital administrators here in the US to scale back COVID IPC measures and speed up surgeries, including elective surgery. I am sure part of that is due to the for-profit nature of US healthcare, but I wonder also whether the NHS is being a bit too cautious if it's planning to wait 4 months to get rid of social distancing requirement in the OR, where people are already wearing surgical masks etc... It seems the risks to those not getting operated on at some point soon outweigh the COVID risks.Foxy said:
They are not yet, and about 4 months off that as a start date.Gallowgate said:
Why do you need social distancing if everyone is vaccinated?Foxy said:
We are down to about 45 patients now, from 500 at the peak in Leicester, and only a handful on ICU.Malmesbury said:
Not really sure that will work - the issue isn't really space or even ICU capacity. It's staff. And there is no possibility of NHS staff not working flat out, for years now. See the backlogs for *everything*.AnneJGP said:
Presumably all hospitals are going to need to carry on with the Covid/non-Covid streams, even if no Covid patients are actually coming in, just in case there's a further outbreak.Malmesbury said:
define emptied - there will be a number of very long term patients, sadly.CorrectHorseBattery said:Can anyone provide an estimate on when hospitals should have emptied on current trajectory?
See the horrible example of Derek Draper.
We used to have isolation hospitals for things like TB, didn't we?
The permanent ICU staff are shattered physically and mentally, so are on recovery leave so they still have a lot of our staff. It will be a week or two before we can scale up elective outpatients and surgical work, but even then only partially as we need social distancing still.0 -
That's what I've been reading - it works, well done!CorrectHorseBattery said:
No he's right, I do spend my days writing infinite loops that just output the word crap to the console, that's exactly what I do.RobD said:BluestBlue said:
Oh dear. Is this the code you're running?CorrectHorseBattery said:
We could build a simple program to replace you.isam said:The latest in a series of headers full of excuses for Sir Keir's underperformance. You can understand why - if Sir Keir is seen to be a failure then Remainers who like to blame Corbyn for the majority Boris won will have to face the truth; it was all about Brexit, not Jezza
while (true) {
console.write("Keir Starmer is crap");
}
while (true) {
console.write("crap");
}
You'd never make it as a computer programmer. All that would print is the string "crap". Surely you meant to use crap the variable?2 -
For some reason, Israel springs to mind. They always seem to have the choice between two pretty crap options.LostPassword said:
Has that ever happened before? Have we ever had a crap Opposition take power because the government had suffered a political catastrophe?TimT said:
Agreed. But if there is no credible loyal opposition other than them, they survive by default (as the opposition). Then, all it takes is for some political catastrophe for the Tories, and no matter how crap Labour are, they become the government in waiting.LostPassword said:
While that's true the political pendulum does not swing due to external fixed factors like gravity - it has to be moved by organisational effort, political argument and leadership.TimT said:
For depressed Labour supporters, I am a firm believer that everything in politics is fluid. What the party is and what the electorate want (and how tarnished the Tories are) are all movable feasts. In the medium-term, anything is possible. Predictions of Labour's demise are, IMO, overblown until there is a truly credible other alternative to the Tories.logical_song said:
Surely the biggest boost to Labour in 2017 was due to people not wanting the predicted Tory landslide and the belief that Labour could not possibly win.Black_Rook said:
1. Theresa May in 2017: worst campaign and worst campaigner in modern historyAndy_JS said:i still don't understand why Labour did so well in 2017 and then so badly just 2 years later.
2. Jeremy Corbyn was a relative novelty in 2017. More folk had made up their minds about him by 2019
3. Get Brexit Done (which itself catalysed the breakdown in the cultural relationship between Labour and one wing of its support base, which had been underway for many years beforehand)
Anyway, Labour only did relatively well in 2017, when compared with what came before and especially since. And even then, they still finished well behind on seats, and they were still left sat on the Opposition benches. Worse, it is quite possible that the 36% they're now averaging in the polls (basically, the supporters that stuck with them in 2019, plus returning hardcore Remainers who lent their votes to the Lib Dems) constitutes their new ceiling of support. But time will tell.
There's a lot of hard work for Labour to do just to lay the groundwork for looking like a credible government-in-waiting.
Governments always suffer political catastrophes of one magnitude or another. That's the nature of being in government. If the Opposition is not strong or credible enough to make the government suffer the consequences then I think we rationalise it after the event as not being serious enough to shift the pendulum.
Think of 1992, or even 2005. Major political catastrophes had been suffered by the government, but the Opposition was not credible or trusted enough to force the government from office.
I think there's a real danger of complacency for Labour here, of assuming that the pendulum will swing, that the scales will fall from the public's eyes and they will realise how damaging the Tories are. It's so much harder than that.0 -
I thought you meant for staff.Foxy said:
They are not yet, and about 4 months off that as a start date.Gallowgate said:
Why do you need social distancing if everyone is vaccinated?Foxy said:
We are down to about 45 patients now, from 500 at the peak in Leicester, and only a handful on ICU.Malmesbury said:
Not really sure that will work - the issue isn't really space or even ICU capacity. It's staff. And there is no possibility of NHS staff not working flat out, for years now. See the backlogs for *everything*.AnneJGP said:
Presumably all hospitals are going to need to carry on with the Covid/non-Covid streams, even if no Covid patients are actually coming in, just in case there's a further outbreak.Malmesbury said:
define emptied - there will be a number of very long term patients, sadly.CorrectHorseBattery said:Can anyone provide an estimate on when hospitals should have emptied on current trajectory?
See the horrible example of Derek Draper.
We used to have isolation hospitals for things like TB, didn't we?
The permanent ICU staff are shattered physically and mentally, so are on recovery leave so they still have a lot of our staff. It will be a week or two before we can scale up elective outpatients and surgical work, but even then only partially as we need social distancing still.0 -
Jeremy in his element - finally he is there AND involvedFrancisUrquhart said:
3 -
You're the best judge, thank you for your endorsementisam said:
That's what I've been reading - it works, well done!CorrectHorseBattery said:
No he's right, I do spend my days writing infinite loops that just output the word crap to the console, that's exactly what I do.RobD said:BluestBlue said:
Oh dear. Is this the code you're running?CorrectHorseBattery said:
We could build a simple program to replace you.isam said:The latest in a series of headers full of excuses for Sir Keir's underperformance. You can understand why - if Sir Keir is seen to be a failure then Remainers who like to blame Corbyn for the majority Boris won will have to face the truth; it was all about Brexit, not Jezza
while (true) {
console.write("Keir Starmer is crap");
}
while (true) {
console.write("crap");
}
You'd never make it as a computer programmer. All that would print is the string "crap". Surely you meant to use crap the variable?0 -
Yes. More likely 2023 than 2022, but if some events somehow made it 'necessary' Boris would go when ever he could get away with it and win. A 2022 win would give him space till 2027 and 8 years as PM - as long as Asquith and Churchill.CorrectHorseBattery said:2023 for an early election IMHO, I think before then people will ask "what for?"
A just possible candidate for an 'emergency' election would be for a mandate about Scotland and/or a mandate for 'renegotiating' the UK/EU deal on Ireland - which cannot survive as it stands.
No risk of pb running out of speculation material.0 -
The fact he is thinking of bringing in Mandelson is almost an acknowledgement that he is strugglingCharles said:
Grasping at straws... he did shit the first time but he gets a do-over 😂rottenborough said:
"Starmer may not have been able to cut through amid the dominance of Covid, yet the near invisibility of his first year gives him an unsullied opportunity once politics resumes from this spring. There is a cliche that says you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. But that is exactly what Starmer now has."isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?Gallowgate said:
You can use polling data to backup the point that Keir is currently less popular than Boris Johnson, granted, but that doesn't tell us with any certainty how he's going to fare in the next election. There's frankly too many events that could occur in the meantime.RobD said:
To be fair he backs up what he says with polling data.CorrectHorseBattery said:
We could build a simple program to replace you.isam said:The latest in a series of headers full of excuses for Sir Keir's underperformance. You can understand why - if Sir Keir is seen to be a failure then Remainers who like to blame Corbyn for the majority Boris won will have to face the truth; it was all about Brexit, not Jezza
while (true) {
console.write("Keir Starmer is crap");
}
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Martin Kettle - Guardian0 -
It’s nice the protestors presented him with the opportunity.felix said:1 -
I’ll be amazed if he goes before 2023. Look what happened to May when she tried that.algarkirk said:
Yes. More likely 2023 than 2022, but if some events somehow made it 'necessary' Boris would go when ever he could get away with it and win. A 2022 win would give him space till 2027 and 8 years as PM - as long as Asquith and Churchill.CorrectHorseBattery said:2023 for an early election IMHO, I think before then people will ask "what for?"
A just possible candidate for an 'emergency' election would be for a mandate about Scotland and/or a mandate for 'renegotiating' the UK/EU deal on Ireland - which cannot survive as it stands.
No risk of pb running out of speculation material.
May 2024 is the likely and logical date.
By then of course he will be very nearly 60, if still in office, and may be thinking about retirement anyway.0 -
Indeed.isam said:
The fact he is thinking of bringing in Mandelson is almost an acknowledgement that he is strugglingCharles said:
Grasping at straws... he did shit the first time but he gets a do-over 😂rottenborough said:
"Starmer may not have been able to cut through amid the dominance of Covid, yet the near invisibility of his first year gives him an unsullied opportunity once politics resumes from this spring. There is a cliche that says you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. But that is exactly what Starmer now has."isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?Gallowgate said:
You can use polling data to backup the point that Keir is currently less popular than Boris Johnson, granted, but that doesn't tell us with any certainty how he's going to fare in the next election. There's frankly too many events that could occur in the meantime.RobD said:
To be fair he backs up what he says with polling data.CorrectHorseBattery said:
We could build a simple program to replace you.isam said:The latest in a series of headers full of excuses for Sir Keir's underperformance. You can understand why - if Sir Keir is seen to be a failure then Remainers who like to blame Corbyn for the majority Boris won will have to face the truth; it was all about Brexit, not Jezza
while (true) {
console.write("Keir Starmer is crap");
}
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Martin Kettle - Guardian
Although I can think of many worse to be bringing in.0 -
I think it is more code for an optimistic view of the UK, rather than a focus on how crap we are, or disasters, or tits.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing1 -
Don’t like Mandelson, and don’t trust him. But the fact is with his help Tony Blair won three elections.isam said:
The fact he is thinking of bringing in Mandelson is almost an acknowledgement that he is strugglingCharles said:
Grasping at straws... he did shit the first time but he gets a do-over 😂rottenborough said:
"Starmer may not have been able to cut through amid the dominance of Covid, yet the near invisibility of his first year gives him an unsullied opportunity once politics resumes from this spring. There is a cliche that says you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. But that is exactly what Starmer now has."isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?Gallowgate said:
You can use polling data to backup the point that Keir is currently less popular than Boris Johnson, granted, but that doesn't tell us with any certainty how he's going to fare in the next election. There's frankly too many events that could occur in the meantime.RobD said:
To be fair he backs up what he says with polling data.CorrectHorseBattery said:
We could build a simple program to replace you.isam said:The latest in a series of headers full of excuses for Sir Keir's underperformance. You can understand why - if Sir Keir is seen to be a failure then Remainers who like to blame Corbyn for the majority Boris won will have to face the truth; it was all about Brexit, not Jezza
while (true) {
console.write("Keir Starmer is crap");
}
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Martin Kettle - Guardian
If he is willing and available, Starmer would be completely mad not to bring him in,2 -
I think Labour are worthy favs in Hartlepool really. They should be on past form, although other posters with local knowledge seem to disagreestodge said:
That aside, where's the market in which we can use this information?isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Should we be on the Conservatives at Evens to win Hartlepool because Starmer's ratings are so bad?
I've had a look at the Betfair market - £14 to back the Conservatives to win most seats at 1.58 or £24 on Labour at 2.58. Not exactly frantic - what would you suggest? Based on how bad Starmer's ratings are and the electoral mountain so often pointed out by OGH and others, I assume you'll be on at 1.58 - looks a good bet if you don't mind the cash sitting there for three years and, to be fair, it's still miles better than any savings account.
I am on Con most seats at 1.79
Con Maj anything above EVS I think is good
1 -
There is also the matter of the new seat boundaries: we are still operating on a very old set now and an election in 2022 would probably still have to be on the old ones.ydoethur said:
I’ll be amazed if he goes before 2023. Look what happened to May when she tried that.algarkirk said:
Yes. More likely 2023 than 2022, but if some events somehow made it 'necessary' Boris would go when ever he could get away with it and win. A 2022 win would give him space till 2027 and 8 years as PM - as long as Asquith and Churchill.CorrectHorseBattery said:2023 for an early election IMHO, I think before then people will ask "what for?"
A just possible candidate for an 'emergency' election would be for a mandate about Scotland and/or a mandate for 'renegotiating' the UK/EU deal on Ireland - which cannot survive as it stands.
No risk of pb running out of speculation material.
May 2024 is the likely and logical date.
By then of course he will be very nearly 60, if still in office, and may be thinking about retirement anyway.0 -
Worth a try. Brown called him in too I think, right near the election campaign in 2010ydoethur said:
Don’t like Mandelson, and don’t trust him. But the fact is with his help Tony Blair won three elections.isam said:
The fact he is thinking of bringing in Mandelson is almost an acknowledgement that he is strugglingCharles said:
Grasping at straws... he did shit the first time but he gets a do-over 😂rottenborough said:
"Starmer may not have been able to cut through amid the dominance of Covid, yet the near invisibility of his first year gives him an unsullied opportunity once politics resumes from this spring. There is a cliche that says you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. But that is exactly what Starmer now has."isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?Gallowgate said:
You can use polling data to backup the point that Keir is currently less popular than Boris Johnson, granted, but that doesn't tell us with any certainty how he's going to fare in the next election. There's frankly too many events that could occur in the meantime.RobD said:
To be fair he backs up what he says with polling data.CorrectHorseBattery said:
We could build a simple program to replace you.isam said:The latest in a series of headers full of excuses for Sir Keir's underperformance. You can understand why - if Sir Keir is seen to be a failure then Remainers who like to blame Corbyn for the majority Boris won will have to face the truth; it was all about Brexit, not Jezza
while (true) {
console.write("Keir Starmer is crap");
}
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Martin Kettle - Guardian
If he is willing and available, Starmer would be completely mad not to bring him in,0 -
Good point. Hadn’t thought of that.Fysics_Teacher said:
There is also the matter of the new seat boundaries: we are still operating on a very old set now and an election in 2022 would probably still have to be on the old ones.ydoethur said:
I’ll be amazed if he goes before 2023. Look what happened to May when she tried that.algarkirk said:
Yes. More likely 2023 than 2022, but if some events somehow made it 'necessary' Boris would go when ever he could get away with it and win. A 2022 win would give him space till 2027 and 8 years as PM - as long as Asquith and Churchill.CorrectHorseBattery said:2023 for an early election IMHO, I think before then people will ask "what for?"
A just possible candidate for an 'emergency' election would be for a mandate about Scotland and/or a mandate for 'renegotiating' the UK/EU deal on Ireland - which cannot survive as it stands.
No risk of pb running out of speculation material.
May 2024 is the likely and logical date.
By then of course he will be very nearly 60, if still in office, and may be thinking about retirement anyway.
Probably slightly less important than it was but would still probably help the Tories a bit,0 -
-
Like Pravda without the journalistic strength.TimT said:
I think it is more code for an optimistic view of the UK, rather than a focus on how crap we are, or disasters, or tits.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing0 -
Unless you are using the duff Chinese one....Floater said:
Like Chile, Serbia could be another one to watch. 20% of the population vaccinated and cases up.0 -
He had a lot more to work with with Kinnock & Blair. With Brown he did better than expectations but still didn’t win.ydoethur said:
Don’t like Mandelson, and don’t trust him. But the fact is with his help Tony Blair won three elections.isam said:
The fact he is thinking of bringing in Mandelson is almost an acknowledgement that he is strugglingCharles said:
Grasping at straws... he did shit the first time but he gets a do-over 😂rottenborough said:
"Starmer may not have been able to cut through amid the dominance of Covid, yet the near invisibility of his first year gives him an unsullied opportunity once politics resumes from this spring. There is a cliche that says you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. But that is exactly what Starmer now has."isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?Gallowgate said:
You can use polling data to backup the point that Keir is currently less popular than Boris Johnson, granted, but that doesn't tell us with any certainty how he's going to fare in the next election. There's frankly too many events that could occur in the meantime.RobD said:
To be fair he backs up what he says with polling data.CorrectHorseBattery said:
We could build a simple program to replace you.isam said:The latest in a series of headers full of excuses for Sir Keir's underperformance. You can understand why - if Sir Keir is seen to be a failure then Remainers who like to blame Corbyn for the majority Boris won will have to face the truth; it was all about Brexit, not Jezza
while (true) {
console.write("Keir Starmer is crap");
}
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Martin Kettle - Guardian
If he is willing and available, Starmer would be completely mad not to bring him in,1 -
Here is the news.TimT said:
I think it is more code for an optimistic view of the UK, rather than a focus on how crap we are, or disasters, or tits.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing
Everything is A OK in Blighty.
Meanwhile. What a shambles Abroad is.
And now. The weather. It's beautiful as always in the UK.
Further afield, too hot, too cold, or rainy.
They have droughts and hurricanes and tsunamis and stuff...0 -
Not sure that follows. Deaths were very low last summer without any vaccines.Floater said:0 -
-
"The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing
The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country;
and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."2 -
I was thinking of how that remark about tits sounded like the disastrous News on Sunday advertising, actually.Foxy said:
Like Pravda without the journalistic strength.TimT said:
I think it is more code for an optimistic view of the UK, rather than a focus on how crap we are, or disasters, or tits.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing0 -
How to win over the public....Floater said:1 -
1
-
And the Independent isn't read by anybody...Malmesbury said:
"The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing
The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country;
and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."1 -
I am sure that it will be May '24. There is no reason to go earlier, so a long time to tie up stake money in an unpredictable world.ydoethur said:
I’ll be amazed if he goes before 2023. Look what happened to May when she tried that.algarkirk said:
Yes. More likely 2023 than 2022, but if some events somehow made it 'necessary' Boris would go when ever he could get away with it and win. A 2022 win would give him space till 2027 and 8 years as PM - as long as Asquith and Churchill.CorrectHorseBattery said:2023 for an early election IMHO, I think before then people will ask "what for?"
A just possible candidate for an 'emergency' election would be for a mandate about Scotland and/or a mandate for 'renegotiating' the UK/EU deal on Ireland - which cannot survive as it stands.
No risk of pb running out of speculation material.
May 2024 is the likely and logical date.
By then of course he will be very nearly 60, if still in office, and may be thinking about retirement anyway.2 -
And the Express seems to be the EU outrage expressFrancisUrquhart said:
And the Independent isn't read by anybody...Malmesbury said:
"The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing
The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country;
and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."0 -
You forgot the last line about The Sun...Malmesbury said:
"The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing
The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country;
and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."0 -
My guess is it won't help Labour.Gallowgate said:There could be a significant hot war in Europe within the next few weeks. What the butterfly effect consequences are of that on British politics is anyone's guess.
1 -
I don't think there will be, but if there is and we manage to stand to one side, we'll be on a better trajectory than we have been for decades.Gallowgate said:There could be a significant hot war in Europe within the next few weeks. What the butterfly effect consequences are of that on British politics is anyone's guess.
0 -
Here is the Yes Prime Minister version:Fysics_Teacher said:
You forgot the last line about The Sun...Malmesbury said:
"The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing
The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country;
and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M2 -
Yep. Report is only due July 1 2023.Fysics_Teacher said:
There is also the matter of the new seat boundaries: we are still operating on a very old set now and an election in 2022 would probably still have to be on the old ones.ydoethur said:
I’ll be amazed if he goes before 2023. Look what happened to May when she tried that.algarkirk said:
Yes. More likely 2023 than 2022, but if some events somehow made it 'necessary' Boris would go when ever he could get away with it and win. A 2022 win would give him space till 2027 and 8 years as PM - as long as Asquith and Churchill.CorrectHorseBattery said:2023 for an early election IMHO, I think before then people will ask "what for?"
A just possible candidate for an 'emergency' election would be for a mandate about Scotland and/or a mandate for 'renegotiating' the UK/EU deal on Ireland - which cannot survive as it stands.
No risk of pb running out of speculation material.
May 2024 is the likely and logical date.
By then of course he will be very nearly 60, if still in office, and may be thinking about retirement anyway.
Given it needs to be signed off, then new associations set up to select candidates, and that the GE is 2 May 2024, pretty much anything early will be on existing boundaries.0 -
Page 3 is discontinued, isn't it?Fysics_Teacher said:
You forgot the last line about The Sun...Malmesbury said:
"The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing
The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country;
and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."0 -
OOf.
https://twitter.com/Jackstarbright/status/1378315301872353282
EC has a self-image problem, not an image problem.5 -
Its not really news, we knew all this already. It was the same for the ventilator deal, give us your money, sit down, shut up, and we will give you some machines sometime in the future (or not as the case would have it for those countries who did sign up).MattW said:1 -
Why are some types of protesters allowed to hold banners like this without getting arrested, whereas others would be?Floater said:1 -
What were the experts predicting that the UK would be behind the EU if they went on their own basing their comments on?MattW said:OOf.
https://twitter.com/Jackstarbright/status/1378315301872353282
EC has a self-image problem, not an image problem.1 -
It is a deliberate strategy in a lot of countries, like the Philippines, because they believe it's more important to give it to the people who are most likely to spread the virus.felix said:
Not just Italy - they're all at it. In Spain if you are in the 65-75 range you're too young for Pfizer or Moderna by 6-8 weeks and too old to be offered AZT. The level of madness is extraordinary to behold.rottenborough said:As Italy locks down again.
https://twitter.com/MilesMJohnson/status/13782854291417292810 -
i'm shocked that you think we should let Russia have free run.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't think there will be, but if there is and we manage to stand to one side, we'll be on a better trajectory than we have been for decades.Gallowgate said:There could be a significant hot war in Europe within the next few weeks. What the butterfly effect consequences are of that on British politics is anyone's guess.
0 -
The belief the Commission knew what they were doing.RobD said:
What were the experts predicting that the UK would be behind the EU if they went on their own basing their comments on?MattW said:OOf.
https://twitter.com/Jackstarbright/status/1378315301872353282
EC has a self-image problem, not an image problem.
0 -
It's a good job this isn't an important matter, because there is clearly a huge amount of disagreement about what precisely the Netherlands' population density is.Sunil_Prasannan said:FPT
According to my "Sunil's Commonwealth" Excel file, I have Netherlands (European bit) down as 419 per sq. km (2019 data).Tres said:
Netherlands is 500+ according to most sources.Black_Rook said:
Netherlands 423 per sq kmTres said:
Wrong. The Netherlands has a denser population density.Black_Rook said:
England (as distinct from the UK - Wales and Scotland consisting largely of sparsely inhabited uplands) is more densely populated than every member of the EU27 except Malta. Let's not keep going shall we?Fishing said:
Also less economic growth, lower pensions, less innovation, more direlict areas.another_richard said:
Higher wages, more affordable housing, less pollution and transport congestion.Black_Rook said:
A declining population for a century or so would do Britain, and overpopulated England in particular, a power of good. The trick would be to resist at all costs the temptation to import young people and allow the population pyramid to invert. Labour shortages would mean higher wages for the surviving working age population, along with the incentive to automate, which can both only be a good thing. The growing pension burden can be alleviated by ramping up the retirement age, whilst incentivizing part-time working so that low-to-middle income codgers can keep slogging away for longer. The latter part's not going to come as welcome news to anybody but the Ponzi scheme has to come to an end at some point.Leon said:
Don't tempt Fate. There are rumours Long Covid does exactly thatSandyRentool said:
Actively killing people off is a bit harsh.Stocky said:
We are as one on this Sandy. Democracy won't save the planet. A Green Party has, at root, to be anti-the-species-that-caused-all-this. Most deep greens have simply given up. Best chance the planet has is to reduce rogue species numbers by, say, a virus that wipes out only humans ...SandyRentool said:Late to the party: The problem with the Green Party is that has become something of a greeny-Corbynite mush. Just as likely to wibble on about the bedroom tax or trans rights than talk about environmental issues.
They need to focus 100% on 'green' issues - climate change, habitat loss, species loss, pollution, etc. And take a hard line. Be eco-authoritarian. Will this set a ceiling on support? Of course it will. But with every other party turning green round the edges they need to be at the vanguard.
It may take a split for such a 'proper' Green Party to come into being. And of course that will bugger them even more at the ballot box.
A virus that makes everyone sterile would be good.
Full employment should not be difficult to achieve under such circumstances. Anybody who's left who struggles to find work in the new, more efficient economy can be employed by the state to progressively demolish and rewild defunct urban areas.
Pros and cons.
I myself don't think England is overpopulated - about 92% of it is not developed.
England 432 per sq km0 -
Backing the Tories at 1.58 isn't likely to be such a great bet. You'd be better off laying Labour at 2.72 which gives you marginally better odds that 1.58 on the Tories and gives you any other outcome for free.isam said:
I think Labour are worthy favs in Hartlepool really. They should be on past form, although other posters with local knowledge seem to disagreestodge said:
That aside, where's the market in which we can use this information?isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Should we be on the Conservatives at Evens to win Hartlepool because Starmer's ratings are so bad?
I've had a look at the Betfair market - £14 to back the Conservatives to win most seats at 1.58 or £24 on Labour at 2.58. Not exactly frantic - what would you suggest? Based on how bad Starmer's ratings are and the electoral mountain so often pointed out by OGH and others, I assume you'll be on at 1.58 - looks a good bet if you don't mind the cash sitting there for three years and, to be fair, it's still miles better than any savings account.
I am on Con most seats at 1.79
Con Maj anything above EVS I think is good
(For a binary market the lay price to back on the other choice is backA=layB/(layB-1) should you be interested)1 -
Does that follow? No variants but the initial strain was highly transmissible in itself and new infections dropped quickly and consistently as they are now. You could say lockdown effect but the figures stayed low over the summer and did not rise until after the children went back to school.Black_Rook said:0 -
Now if they had a banner saying something or other about only biological women can compete in women's sports.....they would be getting a visit from the plod over hate speech.Andy_JS said:
Why are some types of protesters allowed to hold banners like this without getting arrested, whereas others would be?Floater said:1 -
If Tommy Robinson held up a banner saying the same thing, he would quite rightly be arrested. But the same thing ought to happen to everyone else as well. You can't have different approaches based on the type of protestors.tlg86 said:1 -
Belief rather than facts it seems.ydoethur said:
The belief the Commission knew what they were doing.RobD said:
What were the experts predicting that the UK would be behind the EU if they went on their own basing their comments on?MattW said:OOf.
https://twitter.com/Jackstarbright/status/1378315301872353282
EC has a self-image problem, not an image problem.0 -
Other than personal prejudice what leads you to this conclusion?Foxy said:
Like Pravda without the journalistic strength.TimT said:
I think it is more code for an optimistic view of the UK, rather than a focus on how crap we are, or disasters, or tits.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378376774850068481
I find this kind of comment boring, the BBC believes in Britain, Channel 4 believes in Britain, the Sun believes in Britain, the Telegraph believes in Britain. They just don't all believe that means the same thing0 -
It was all rather peaceful in Leicestertlg86 said:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1378329057302081542?s=190 -
Would this be because the Netherlands is one of the few countries whose area, as well as population, regularly changes?Andy_JS said:
It's a good job this isn't an important matter, because there is clearly a huge amount of disagreement about what precisely the Netherlands' population density is.Sunil_Prasannan said:FPT
According to my "Sunil's Commonwealth" Excel file, I have Netherlands (European bit) down as 419 per sq. km (2019 data).Tres said:
Netherlands is 500+ according to most sources.Black_Rook said:
Netherlands 423 per sq kmTres said:
Wrong. The Netherlands has a denser population density.Black_Rook said:
England (as distinct from the UK - Wales and Scotland consisting largely of sparsely inhabited uplands) is more densely populated than every member of the EU27 except Malta. Let's not keep going shall we?Fishing said:
Also less economic growth, lower pensions, less innovation, more direlict areas.another_richard said:
Higher wages, more affordable housing, less pollution and transport congestion.Black_Rook said:
A declining population for a century or so would do Britain, and overpopulated England in particular, a power of good. The trick would be to resist at all costs the temptation to import young people and allow the population pyramid to invert. Labour shortages would mean higher wages for the surviving working age population, along with the incentive to automate, which can both only be a good thing. The growing pension burden can be alleviated by ramping up the retirement age, whilst incentivizing part-time working so that low-to-middle income codgers can keep slogging away for longer. The latter part's not going to come as welcome news to anybody but the Ponzi scheme has to come to an end at some point.Leon said:
Don't tempt Fate. There are rumours Long Covid does exactly thatSandyRentool said:
Actively killing people off is a bit harsh.Stocky said:
We are as one on this Sandy. Democracy won't save the planet. A Green Party has, at root, to be anti-the-species-that-caused-all-this. Most deep greens have simply given up. Best chance the planet has is to reduce rogue species numbers by, say, a virus that wipes out only humans ...SandyRentool said:Late to the party: The problem with the Green Party is that has become something of a greeny-Corbynite mush. Just as likely to wibble on about the bedroom tax or trans rights than talk about environmental issues.
They need to focus 100% on 'green' issues - climate change, habitat loss, species loss, pollution, etc. And take a hard line. Be eco-authoritarian. Will this set a ceiling on support? Of course it will. But with every other party turning green round the edges they need to be at the vanguard.
It may take a split for such a 'proper' Green Party to come into being. And of course that will bugger them even more at the ballot box.
A virus that makes everyone sterile would be good.
Full employment should not be difficult to achieve under such circumstances. Anybody who's left who struggles to find work in the new, more efficient economy can be employed by the state to progressively demolish and rewild defunct urban areas.
Pros and cons.
I myself don't think England is overpopulated - about 92% of it is not developed.
England 432 per sq km
Polders, etc. Just a thought.0 -
In the Philippines only health care workers are being vaccinated at the moment (Chinese vaccine). My ex neighbour lives there and we are still in contact.Andy_JS said:
It is a deliberate strategy in a lot of countries, like the Philippines, because they believe it's more important to give it to the people who are most likely to spread the virus.felix said:
Not just Italy - they're all at it. In Spain if you are in the 65-75 range you're too young for Pfizer or Moderna by 6-8 weeks and too old to be offered AZT. The level of madness is extraordinary to behold.rottenborough said:As Italy locks down again.
https://twitter.com/MilesMJohnson/status/13782854291417292810 -
On topic, a silly question.
When exactly do we expect the next GE to be due? FTPA said May of the 5th year, 2024, but I've lost track of the progress of replacing FTPA and I don't know whether the May deadline survives that replacement. In a close election, the flexibility to go later in the year, though perhaps not as late as December, may feel like something useful to the Tories.0 -
There just isn't a reason for the Tories to win Hartlepool. Labour held it in 2019 and since then the polls have narrowed in Labour's favour a few points. People who only vote about Brexit will stay home, and Brexit party voters who vote will split between the parties. Narrow win for Labour.isam said:
I think Labour are worthy favs in Hartlepool really. They should be on past form, although other posters with local knowledge seem to disagreestodge said:
That aside, where's the market in which we can use this information?isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Should we be on the Conservatives at Evens to win Hartlepool because Starmer's ratings are so bad?
I've had a look at the Betfair market - £14 to back the Conservatives to win most seats at 1.58 or £24 on Labour at 2.58. Not exactly frantic - what would you suggest? Based on how bad Starmer's ratings are and the electoral mountain so often pointed out by OGH and others, I assume you'll be on at 1.58 - looks a good bet if you don't mind the cash sitting there for three years and, to be fair, it's still miles better than any savings account.
I am on Con most seats at 1.79
Con Maj anything above EVS I think is good
0 -
Well, yes.RobD said:
Belief rather than facts it seems.ydoethur said:
The belief the Commission knew what they were doing.RobD said:
What were the experts predicting that the UK would be behind the EU if they went on their own basing their comments on?MattW said:OOf.
https://twitter.com/Jackstarbright/status/1378315301872353282
EC has a self-image problem, not an image problem.
With hindsight, it’s easy to look at UvdL and remember she has failed completely and disastrously in every job she has ever had. To the extent that if she were not a personal friend of Angela Merkel she would be unemployed and unemployable. A Chris Grayling, Amanda Spielman or Jared Kushner.
But it is also easy to forget that under her leadership the Commission had just succeeded in negotiating a deal with Britain that was not merely entirely on their terms but had actually somehow fooled the British into thinking they had got what they wanted.
So it’s not unexpected that people expected a better result for the EU given what had just happened. It didn’t however turn out quite that way.1 -
And this is very very good.
Maximum chance of success over minimum price.
https://twitter.com/Jackstarbright/status/13783180992927744071 -
That's a truly amazing concrete monstrosity!Foxy said:
It was all rather peaceful in Leicestertlg86 said:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1378329057302081542?s=191 -
Were they protesting against that hideous blight on their urban landscape?Black_Rook said:
That's a truly amazing concrete monstrosity!Foxy said:
It was all rather peaceful in Leicestertlg86 said:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1378329057302081542?s=190 -
No chance for CON in Hartlepool. LAB to win no problems.algarkirk said:
There just isn't a reason for the Tories to win Hartlepool. Labour held it in 2019 and since then the polls have narrowed in Labour's favour a few points. People who only vote about Brexit will stay home, and Brexit party voters who vote will split between the parties. Narrow win for Labour.isam said:
I think Labour are worthy favs in Hartlepool really. They should be on past form, although other posters with local knowledge seem to disagreestodge said:
That aside, where's the market in which we can use this information?isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Should we be on the Conservatives at Evens to win Hartlepool because Starmer's ratings are so bad?
I've had a look at the Betfair market - £14 to back the Conservatives to win most seats at 1.58 or £24 on Labour at 2.58. Not exactly frantic - what would you suggest? Based on how bad Starmer's ratings are and the electoral mountain so often pointed out by OGH and others, I assume you'll be on at 1.58 - looks a good bet if you don't mind the cash sitting there for three years and, to be fair, it's still miles better than any savings account.
I am on Con most seats at 1.79
Con Maj anything above EVS I think is good1 -
FTPA remains in place. May 2024 is the due date.Pro_Rata said:On topic, a silly question.
When exactly do we expect the next GE to be due? FTPA said May of the 5th year, 2024, but I've lost track of the progress of replacing FTPA and I don't know whether the May deadline survives that replacement. In a close election, the flexibility to go later in the year, though perhaps not as late as December, may feel like something useful to the Tories.
Government plans to abolish FTPA but hasn't yet
The new act would extend the max term for this parliament to 5 years (Dec 2024)
When a government has a compliant majority the FTPA is of no effect because a one clause bill can override it.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940027/Draft-Fixed-term-Parliaments-Act-Repeal-Bill.pdf0 -
It is a general issue of operating in an uncertain environment - the need to embrace good failures, and the need for redundancy - leanest or lowest price does not work.MattW said:And this is very very good.
Maximum chance of success over minimum price.
https://twitter.com/Jackstarbright/status/13783180992927744070 -
2024. I thought it was basically 5 years, and thus the last date was Dec 2024.Pro_Rata said:On topic, a silly question.
When exactly do we expect the next GE to be due? FTPA said May of the 5th year, 2024, but I've lost track of the progress of replacing FTPA and I don't know whether the May deadline survives that replacement. In a close election, the flexibility to go later in the year, though perhaps not as late as December, may feel like something useful to the Tories.
The Tories have an interesting possibility in going for a 'student holiday' period. Some seats are only Labour because the students are there and voting. If they happen to all be on holiday in the shires - or even better overseas...
However should that backfire then they'll get clobbered very badly.
May 2024 is the easy fav. (Ties in with the locals etc)
1 -
The clock tower is Victorian, and generally agreed to be the centre of the city. In the background is the Haymarket Centre, which is a bit of an eyesore. Leicester City centre is a mixture of mostly Victorian gothic, and a fair bit of post war concrete. Most British cities are architecturally a mess.Black_Rook said:
That's a truly amazing concrete monstrosity!Foxy said:
It was all rather peaceful in Leicestertlg86 said:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1378329057302081542?s=191 -
Still probably May or perhaps June 2024. I don’t think the Tories will want another winter election, or even an autumn one.Pro_Rata said:On topic, a silly question.
When exactly do we expect the next GE to be due? FTPA said May of the 5th year, 2024, but I've lost track of the progress of replacing FTPA and I don't know whether the May deadline survives that replacement. In a close election, the flexibility to go later in the year, though perhaps not as late as December, may feel like something useful to the Tories.1 -
Yep. If they are still in front it is a no brainer. New boundaries in place.Omnium said:
2024. I thought it was basically 5 years, and thus the last date was Dec 2024.Pro_Rata said:On topic, a silly question.
When exactly do we expect the next GE to be due? FTPA said May of the 5th year, 2024, but I've lost track of the progress of replacing FTPA and I don't know whether the May deadline survives that replacement. In a close election, the flexibility to go later in the year, though perhaps not as late as December, may feel like something useful to the Tories.
The Tories have an interesting possibility in going for a 'student holiday' period. Some seats are only Labour because the students are there and voting. If they happen to all be on holiday in the shires - or even better overseas...
However should that backfire then they'll get clobbered very badly.
May 2024 is the easy fav. (Ties in with the locals etc)
And nobody likes to go full 5 years unless behind.
In case of events.1 -
This would be entirely understandable. Lord alone knows what some of our post-War architects were thinking.BluestBlue said:
Were they protesting against that hideous blight on their urban landscape?Black_Rook said:
That's a truly amazing concrete monstrosity!Foxy said:
It was all rather peaceful in Leicestertlg86 said:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1378329057302081542?s=190 -
Yes, they could use the one line bill to go earlier, but they couldn't to go later except by replacement. Certainly, the idea of going for GE out of student term time was one thing that had crossed my mind in terms of possible advantages of going a little later.algarkirk said:
FTPA remains in place. May 2024 is the due date.Pro_Rata said:On topic, a silly question.
When exactly do we expect the next GE to be due? FTPA said May of the 5th year, 2024, but I've lost track of the progress of replacing FTPA and I don't know whether the May deadline survives that replacement. In a close election, the flexibility to go later in the year, though perhaps not as late as December, may feel like something useful to the Tories.
Government plans to abolish FTPA but hasn't yet
The new act would extend the max term for this parliament to 5 years (Dec 2024)
When a government has a compliant majority the FTPA is of no effect because a one clause bill can override it.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940027/Draft-Fixed-term-Parliaments-Act-Repeal-Bill.pdf0 -
But why? From a purely partisan perspective - not that I would ever think that way - the short days, cold weather, and focus on Christmas and family seem by nature to blunt Labour's advantage in door-knocking, and more generally the public's willingness to focus on and be receptive to new policy proposals. It worked last time...ydoethur said:
Still probably May or perhaps June 2024. I don’t think the Tories will want another winter election, or even an autumn one.Pro_Rata said:On topic, a silly question.
When exactly do we expect the next GE to be due? FTPA said May of the 5th year, 2024, but I've lost track of the progress of replacing FTPA and I don't know whether the May deadline survives that replacement. In a close election, the flexibility to go later in the year, though perhaps not as late as December, may feel like something useful to the Tories.0 -
3
-
Alas, all of our cities and most of our towns suffer from carbuncles. The centres of many of the post-War New Towns consist of little else (the centre of Stevenage, for example, could do with being demolished and rebuilt almost entirely from scratch.) It'll be the work of centuries to put right all of the damage.Foxy said:
The clock tower is Victorian, and generally agreed to be the centre of the city. In the background is the Haymarket Centre, which is a bit of an eyesore. Leicester City centre is a mixture of mostly Victorian gothic, and a fair bit of post war concrete. Most British cities are architecturally a mess.Black_Rook said:
That's a truly amazing concrete monstrosity!Foxy said:
It was all rather peaceful in Leicestertlg86 said:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1378329057302081542?s=190 -
Under the FTPA the latest an election can be held is the 2nd of July 2024.
Repealing the FTPA isn't as easy as assumed, it's going to be tricky trying to restore a royal prerogative power especially as the government is going to argue the prerogative powers are not judicially reviewable, that's why the government has got the Lords involved at this early stage.0 -
It's not quite as bad as it looks! I think the Haymarket Centre was the second indoor shopping centre in England, after the Bull ring in Brum. It is light, airy and recently refurbished. It is always busy as it contains TK Max and Primark, and a number of other fairly cheap stores, with cheap parking on the rooftop multistorey. People have to live, and cannot live on architecture alone.BluestBlue said:
Were they protesting against that hideous blight on their urban landscape?Black_Rook said:
That's a truly amazing concrete monstrosity!Foxy said:
It was all rather peaceful in Leicestertlg86 said:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1378329057302081542?s=190 -
Well, the 'awful' weather has been glorious. Several enjoyable hours in the garden with non-stop sunshine.0
-
*was always busy, shurely?Foxy said:
It's not quite as bad as it looks! I think the Haymarket Centre was the second indoor shopping centre in England, after the Bull ring in Brum. It is light, airy and recently refurbished. It is always busy as it contains TK Max and Primark, and a number of other fairly cheap stores, with cheap parking on the rooftop multistorey. People have to live, and cannot live on architecture alone.BluestBlue said:
Were they protesting against that hideous blight on their urban landscape?Black_Rook said:
That's a truly amazing concrete monstrosity!Foxy said:
It was all rather peaceful in Leicestertlg86 said:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1378329057302081542?s=190 -
Perhaps you'd care to clarify? - seems out of line with the 'five year term'.TheScreamingEagles said:Under the FTPA the latest an election can be held is the 2nd of July 2024.
Repealing the FTPA isn't as easy as assumed, it's going to be tricky trying to restore a royal prerogative power especially as the government is going to argue the prerogative powers are not judicially reviewable, that's why the government has got the Lords involved at this early stage.0 -
Ok .. a poor product that not enough of the electorate wanted to buy into. There were enough people who were appalled at the product and voted accordingly. A seriously inept Tory campaign did not help the Tories and helped Labour.Gallowgate said:
40% of the country voted for that 'product' in 2017. To say they were selling a product people did not want is not good analysis.squareroot2 said:
Simples. Labour was selling a product people did not want.Gallowgate said:
Jeremy Corbyn was a meme and then it stopped being funny.Andy_JS said:i still don't understand why Labour did so well in 2017 and then so badly just 2 years later.
0 -
Why attempt to restore the prerogative? Presumably a short bill that explicitly places the matter of dissolution in the hands of the sitting Prime Minister would have the same effect?TheScreamingEagles said:Under the FTPA the latest an election can be held is the 2nd of July 2024.
Repealing the FTPA isn't as easy as assumed, it's going to be tricky trying to restore a royal prerogative power especially as the government is going to argue the prerogative powers are not judicially reviewable, that's why the government has got the Lords involved at this early stage.3 -
There are some food shops, but yes, mostly closed at the moment. There are a lot of closed up shops and cafes in Leicester that I think a lot won't reopen. The Haymarket will be fine though. It is a great location.Black_Rook said:
*was always busy, shurely?Foxy said:
It's not quite as bad as it looks! I think the Haymarket Centre was the second indoor shopping centre in England, after the Bull ring in Brum. It is light, airy and recently refurbished. It is always busy as it contains TK Max and Primark, and a number of other fairly cheap stores, with cheap parking on the rooftop multistorey. People have to live, and cannot live on architecture alone.BluestBlue said:
Were they protesting against that hideous blight on their urban landscape?Black_Rook said:
That's a truly amazing concrete monstrosity!Foxy said:
It was all rather peaceful in Leicestertlg86 said:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1378329057302081542?s=190 -
Probably some culture war reasons...Black_Rook said:
Why attempt to restore the prerogative? Presumably a short bill that explicitly places the matter of dissolution in the hands of the sitting Prime Minister would have the same effect?TheScreamingEagles said:Under the FTPA the latest an election can be held is the 2nd of July 2024.
Repealing the FTPA isn't as easy as assumed, it's going to be tricky trying to restore a royal prerogative power especially as the government is going to argue the prerogative powers are not judicially reviewable, that's why the government has got the Lords involved at this early stage.0 -
Unfortunately, he also called in Elvis!isam said:
Worth a try. Brown called him in too I think, right near the election campaign in 2010ydoethur said:
Don’t like Mandelson, and don’t trust him. But the fact is with his help Tony Blair won three elections.isam said:
The fact he is thinking of bringing in Mandelson is almost an acknowledgement that he is strugglingCharles said:
Grasping at straws... he did shit the first time but he gets a do-over 😂rottenborough said:
"Starmer may not have been able to cut through amid the dominance of Covid, yet the near invisibility of his first year gives him an unsullied opportunity once politics resumes from this spring. There is a cliche that says you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. But that is exactly what Starmer now has."isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?Gallowgate said:
You can use polling data to backup the point that Keir is currently less popular than Boris Johnson, granted, but that doesn't tell us with any certainty how he's going to fare in the next election. There's frankly too many events that could occur in the meantime.RobD said:
To be fair he backs up what he says with polling data.CorrectHorseBattery said:
We could build a simple program to replace you.isam said:The latest in a series of headers full of excuses for Sir Keir's underperformance. You can understand why - if Sir Keir is seen to be a failure then Remainers who like to blame Corbyn for the majority Boris won will have to face the truth; it was all about Brexit, not Jezza
while (true) {
console.write("Keir Starmer is crap");
}
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Martin Kettle - Guardian
If he is willing and available, Starmer would be completely mad not to bring him in,
0 -
Grey almost all day here down south!SandyRentool said:Well, the 'awful' weather has been glorious. Several enjoyable hours in the garden with non-stop sunshine.
0 -
Click the download report hereOmnium said:
Perhaps you'd care to clarify? - seems out of line with the 'five year term'.TheScreamingEagles said:Under the FTPA the latest an election can be held is the 2nd of July 2024.
Repealing the FTPA isn't as easy as assumed, it's going to be tricky trying to restore a royal prerogative power especially as the government is going to argue the prerogative powers are not judicially reviewable, that's why the government has got the Lords involved at this early stage.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06111/
On page 8 you'll notice this
Following the early election, in December 2019, the next election is scheduled to take place on 2 May 2024. Parliament will be dissolved on 26 March 2024.
and
There is provision for the Prime Minister to make an order to extend this date for a maximum of two months to deal with unexpected developments. He/she must set out the reasons for the delay, and such an order must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it can be made. One precedent is the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001 which delayed local elections by one month. (In 2001, the general election was held on the same day as the delayed local elections.)0 -
Enjoy the coming snow....SandyRentool said:Well, the 'awful' weather has been glorious. Several enjoyable hours in the garden with non-stop sunshine.
0 -
Edit.0
-
This anti-ramping is so dull.londonpubman said:
No chance for CON in Hartlepool. LAB to win no problems.algarkirk said:
There just isn't a reason for the Tories to win Hartlepool. Labour held it in 2019 and since then the polls have narrowed in Labour's favour a few points. People who only vote about Brexit will stay home, and Brexit party voters who vote will split between the parties. Narrow win for Labour.isam said:
I think Labour are worthy favs in Hartlepool really. They should be on past form, although other posters with local knowledge seem to disagreestodge said:
That aside, where's the market in which we can use this information?isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Should we be on the Conservatives at Evens to win Hartlepool because Starmer's ratings are so bad?
I've had a look at the Betfair market - £14 to back the Conservatives to win most seats at 1.58 or £24 on Labour at 2.58. Not exactly frantic - what would you suggest? Based on how bad Starmer's ratings are and the electoral mountain so often pointed out by OGH and others, I assume you'll be on at 1.58 - looks a good bet if you don't mind the cash sitting there for three years and, to be fair, it's still miles better than any savings account.
I am on Con most seats at 1.79
Con Maj anything above EVS I think is good
CON clearly has *a* chance, and those actually involved in Teesside politics think it's a good chance.0 -
Because Boris Johnson is a power hungry arse.Black_Rook said:
Why attempt to restore the prerogative? Presumably a short bill that explicitly places the matter of dissolution in the hands of the sitting Prime Minister would have the same effect?TheScreamingEagles said:Under the FTPA the latest an election can be held is the 2nd of July 2024.
Repealing the FTPA isn't as easy as assumed, it's going to be tricky trying to restore a royal prerogative power especially as the government is going to argue the prerogative powers are not judicially reviewable, that's why the government has got the Lords involved at this early stage.2 -
Population (2019): 17,399,821Andy_JS said:
It's a good job this isn't an important matter, because there is clearly a huge amount of disagreement about what precisely the Netherlands' population density is.Sunil_Prasannan said:FPT
According to my "Sunil's Commonwealth" Excel file, I have Netherlands (European bit) down as 419 per sq. km (2019 data).Tres said:
Netherlands is 500+ according to most sources.Black_Rook said:
Netherlands 423 per sq kmTres said:
Wrong. The Netherlands has a denser population density.Black_Rook said:
England (as distinct from the UK - Wales and Scotland consisting largely of sparsely inhabited uplands) is more densely populated than every member of the EU27 except Malta. Let's not keep going shall we?Fishing said:
Also less economic growth, lower pensions, less innovation, more direlict areas.another_richard said:
Higher wages, more affordable housing, less pollution and transport congestion.Black_Rook said:
A declining population for a century or so would do Britain, and overpopulated England in particular, a power of good. The trick would be to resist at all costs the temptation to import young people and allow the population pyramid to invert. Labour shortages would mean higher wages for the surviving working age population, along with the incentive to automate, which can both only be a good thing. The growing pension burden can be alleviated by ramping up the retirement age, whilst incentivizing part-time working so that low-to-middle income codgers can keep slogging away for longer. The latter part's not going to come as welcome news to anybody but the Ponzi scheme has to come to an end at some point.Leon said:
Don't tempt Fate. There are rumours Long Covid does exactly thatSandyRentool said:
Actively killing people off is a bit harsh.Stocky said:
We are as one on this Sandy. Democracy won't save the planet. A Green Party has, at root, to be anti-the-species-that-caused-all-this. Most deep greens have simply given up. Best chance the planet has is to reduce rogue species numbers by, say, a virus that wipes out only humans ...SandyRentool said:Late to the party: The problem with the Green Party is that has become something of a greeny-Corbynite mush. Just as likely to wibble on about the bedroom tax or trans rights than talk about environmental issues.
They need to focus 100% on 'green' issues - climate change, habitat loss, species loss, pollution, etc. And take a hard line. Be eco-authoritarian. Will this set a ceiling on support? Of course it will. But with every other party turning green round the edges they need to be at the vanguard.
It may take a split for such a 'proper' Green Party to come into being. And of course that will bugger them even more at the ballot box.
A virus that makes everyone sterile would be good.
Full employment should not be difficult to achieve under such circumstances. Anybody who's left who struggles to find work in the new, more efficient economy can be employed by the state to progressively demolish and rewild defunct urban areas.
Pros and cons.
I myself don't think England is overpopulated - about 92% of it is not developed.
England 432 per sq km
Area (Euopean): 41,545 sq. km.
density: 419/sq. km.1 -
I am on Con to win. Though there is a palpable sense of apathy for the English elections at present.Gallowgate said:
This anti-ramping is so dull.londonpubman said:
No chance for CON in Hartlepool. LAB to win no problems.algarkirk said:
There just isn't a reason for the Tories to win Hartlepool. Labour held it in 2019 and since then the polls have narrowed in Labour's favour a few points. People who only vote about Brexit will stay home, and Brexit party voters who vote will split between the parties. Narrow win for Labour.isam said:
I think Labour are worthy favs in Hartlepool really. They should be on past form, although other posters with local knowledge seem to disagreestodge said:
That aside, where's the market in which we can use this information?isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Should we be on the Conservatives at Evens to win Hartlepool because Starmer's ratings are so bad?
I've had a look at the Betfair market - £14 to back the Conservatives to win most seats at 1.58 or £24 on Labour at 2.58. Not exactly frantic - what would you suggest? Based on how bad Starmer's ratings are and the electoral mountain so often pointed out by OGH and others, I assume you'll be on at 1.58 - looks a good bet if you don't mind the cash sitting there for three years and, to be fair, it's still miles better than any savings account.
I am on Con most seats at 1.79
Con Maj anything above EVS I think is good
CON clearly has *a* chance, and those actually involved in Teesside politics think it's a good chance.0 -
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1378394708242804749
Why would BoJo want somebody from the most left-wing organisation on Earth to be in his team? Or did the Daily Mail lie to me again2 -
Thanks. I hadn't appreciated that May was explicitly favoued.TheScreamingEagles said:
Click the download report hereOmnium said:
Perhaps you'd care to clarify? - seems out of line with the 'five year term'.TheScreamingEagles said:Under the FTPA the latest an election can be held is the 2nd of July 2024.
Repealing the FTPA isn't as easy as assumed, it's going to be tricky trying to restore a royal prerogative power especially as the government is going to argue the prerogative powers are not judicially reviewable, that's why the government has got the Lords involved at this early stage.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06111/
On page 8 you'll notice this
Following the early election, in December 2019, the next election is scheduled to take place on 2 May 2024. Parliament will be dissolved on 26 March 2024.
and
There is provision for the Prime Minister to make an order to extend this date for a maximum of two months to deal with unexpected developments. He/she must set out the reasons for the delay, and such an order must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it can be made. One precedent is the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001 which delayed local elections by one month. (In 2001, the general election was held on the same day as the delayed local elections.)
Ok, so May 2024 is an even more likely date than I'd thought.
0 -
If that is you and Rochdale I remain confident in my assessment!Gallowgate said:
This anti-ramping is so dull.londonpubman said:
No chance for CON in Hartlepool. LAB to win no problems.algarkirk said:
There just isn't a reason for the Tories to win Hartlepool. Labour held it in 2019 and since then the polls have narrowed in Labour's favour a few points. People who only vote about Brexit will stay home, and Brexit party voters who vote will split between the parties. Narrow win for Labour.isam said:
I think Labour are worthy favs in Hartlepool really. They should be on past form, although other posters with local knowledge seem to disagreestodge said:
That aside, where's the market in which we can use this information?isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Should we be on the Conservatives at Evens to win Hartlepool because Starmer's ratings are so bad?
I've had a look at the Betfair market - £14 to back the Conservatives to win most seats at 1.58 or £24 on Labour at 2.58. Not exactly frantic - what would you suggest? Based on how bad Starmer's ratings are and the electoral mountain so often pointed out by OGH and others, I assume you'll be on at 1.58 - looks a good bet if you don't mind the cash sitting there for three years and, to be fair, it's still miles better than any savings account.
I am on Con most seats at 1.79
Con Maj anything above EVS I think is good
CON clearly has *a* chance, and those actually involved in Teesside politics think it's a good chance.1 -
Your assessment is just wrong. Objectively, CON clearly have a chance. In fact CON MPs are very confident if the reports are to be believed.londonpubman said:
If that is you and Rochdale I remain confident in my assessment!Gallowgate said:
This anti-ramping is so dull.londonpubman said:
No chance for CON in Hartlepool. LAB to win no problems.algarkirk said:
There just isn't a reason for the Tories to win Hartlepool. Labour held it in 2019 and since then the polls have narrowed in Labour's favour a few points. People who only vote about Brexit will stay home, and Brexit party voters who vote will split between the parties. Narrow win for Labour.isam said:
I think Labour are worthy favs in Hartlepool really. They should be on past form, although other posters with local knowledge seem to disagreestodge said:
That aside, where's the market in which we can use this information?isam said:
No one can claim to know about the next election with certainty - that's why you look at the data, compare it with previous trends, listen to what people are saying and use your brain to make a judgement - how do you think gamblers make a living?
Sir Keir may be a decent bloke, I am sure he means well, but that doesn't stop me noticing that his ratings are crap, and that Leaders of the Opposition with such ratings, whose party trails in the polls, when up against a PM that the public find more charismatic, don't really get the top job. I am banging on about it because no one else seems to want to admit it. This place is called politcal betting after all, and I am someone who bets a lot, and likes politics, I assumed others might too
Should we be on the Conservatives at Evens to win Hartlepool because Starmer's ratings are so bad?
I've had a look at the Betfair market - £14 to back the Conservatives to win most seats at 1.58 or £24 on Labour at 2.58. Not exactly frantic - what would you suggest? Based on how bad Starmer's ratings are and the electoral mountain so often pointed out by OGH and others, I assume you'll be on at 1.58 - looks a good bet if you don't mind the cash sitting there for three years and, to be fair, it's still miles better than any savings account.
I am on Con most seats at 1.79
Con Maj anything above EVS I think is good
CON clearly has *a* chance, and those actually involved in Teesside politics think it's a good chance.
But no, that isn't me. I know very little about Teesside politics.0
