How the PM’s leader ratings are moving – politicalbetting.com

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

dixiedean said:

Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party.
There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved.
Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.

Rip up the HRA
Shoot the Immigrants
Make Space

I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.

We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.

GIN1138 said:

Sounds like Cummings is planning to launch a new political party to try and destroy the Conservatives? Wonder who he'd put up to lead it though?

Pagan2 said:

nico679 said:

Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .

As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage

Taz said:

another_richard said:

Taz said:

SandyRentool said:

Taz said:

SandyRentool said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

The images of 450 migrants simply beaching in Kent, in one single day, and then scattering are absolutely appalling for the Tories

TAKE BACK CONTROL?!

If they don't get a grip on this the government is fucked

Labour needs to make the most of this and push to welcome these people to the UK and help them. Their moral cowardice in not doing so shames left wing politics

Sorry, but are you fecking radge?

Wave goodbye to the Red Wall forever.

Sorry but SKS and his team need to do what is right and if that means losing the red wall to gain other seats so be it.

Why is it right to allow a bunch of young, fit blokes who have blagged their way across Europe to come and live here?

Those in genuine need are languishing in camps near to the conflict zones.

They are men, women and children. Many are unaccompanied children. It is right because they are desperate people,fleeing torture, wars, bigotry, prejudice and persecution. Look where they come from. Places like Somalia, Iran, Eritrea, Syria, S Sudan. They don’t tend to come from stable nations. God bless them all.

They're more likely to need Allah's blessing from that set of countries.

Why is that an issue worthy of comment ?

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

nico679 said:

Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .

As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage

The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay

IanB2 said:

Chairman of M&S explaining that Brexit means lorries to the EU (or NI) now carry 700 pages of forms for inspection and delays of 24-48 hours at borders mean some perishable goods are being destroyed. The new paperwork is employing a team of 13 people.

dixiedean said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Right, off to bed now. Hopefully tonight's little outbreak of zealous xenophobia will have calmed down a little by tomorrow.

Night all!

Zealous xenophobia? This is why it's impossible to have a debate on this issue, you immediately get accused of racism.

A debate?!

This is not a debate, it's a few people trying to pretend that any of a number of totally unworkable 'solutions' could be deployed to solve a very complex problem.

"Send them to St.Helena" or "sift them via Hunger Games" does not strike me as 'debate'.

Come on then Ben give us a solution that isnt "let them all in"

Well, partly I think it's a problem more in the perception than reality. I'd largely continue with the current approach, which is what HMG will do because there are far bigger problems to address than this one. 100,000 migrants a year is sustainable imo.

But if action must be seen to be done... Off the top of my head: maybe a route where people can work for full citizenship over a number (10+) of years, through taking employment, paying taxes, good conduct, etc.

You do know these refugee groups have the lowest levels of employment? What if after 2 years they still don't have a job or 4 years or 7 years etc?

Sigh. You know how hard it is for a refugee to get a job because of the restrictions currently placed on them right? I'm saying, let them work, make them work if they want to stay.

I worked with radiologists, computer science professors and even someone off the Soviet space programme. All accepted as refugees. All directed by DWP to cleaning and care work.

Aslan said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

Benpointer said:

Aslan said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

The images of 450 migrants simply beaching in Kent, in one single day, and then scattering are absolutely appalling for the Tories

TAKE BACK CONTROL?!

If they don't get a grip on this the government is fucked

The UK is far to weak. We need to do what the European countries are doing. Fuck middle class sensibilities, push them back out to sea like French and Greeks and house the ones that do make it in Algeria until they are processed. No right to enter the UK until asylum is granted. The UK needs to become a fortress island.

Fortunately our courts wouldn’t allow it and someone like the good law project would soon stop it.

Change the law, legislate, do whatever it takes. If it means burning the HRA then so be it. Enough is enough.

I don't like to be the bringer of bad news but that's ultimately where we'll end up if a solution is not found.

People won't accept legal niceities as an excuse for doing nothing - they'll vote for those who'll drive a cart and horses through them.

On the other hand, I don't think people will vote for asylum-seekers being left to drown off the English coast.

It's a very difficult issue, there are no easy solutions.

The easiest solution is to have their claims processed somewhere outside the UK. So they cross the Sahara, the Med, continental Europe, the Channel and then get put on a plane to Cape Verde.

Why would Cape Verde agree to take them?

Herein lies the issue.

Cape Verde, a poor country, would take them because we'd pay them, handsomely

That is the concept underlying the Rwanda idea, I believe

Even if they did.
What happens if the good folk of Cape Verde decide they no longer have patience with thousands upon thousands being dumped on them, and decide they want to return them whence they came? Here.

Interesting how they would be something "dumped" on the people of Cape Verde but they are "adding to our economy" when they come here.

pigeon said:

rcs1000 said:

pigeon said:

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

nico679 said:

Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .

As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage

The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay

Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.

So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.

And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.

As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:

1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem)
2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees)
3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)

No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.

rcs1000 said:

pigeon said:

rcs1000 said:

pigeon said:

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

nico679 said:

Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .

As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage

The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay

Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.

So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.

And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.

As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:

1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem)
2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees)
3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)

No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.

Imagine a situation where everyone had 2.1 kids, and life expectancy was static.

In that circumstance, the state is in a good state. The ratio of workers to retirees is stable.

Now imagine that the birth rate has dropped to 1. Now, every generation, there are half as many kids as parents. That's big trouble that is the pensions and healthcare of the retirees is paid by the workers. And that ratio is now looking uglier every generation. (And such a scenario encourages emigration too... Who wants to hang around and hand over all their paycheck to support oldies, further worsening the dependency ratio.)

Oh, but it gets worse. People are still living longer. So there are ever more retirees being supported by a smaller number of people of writing age.

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

pigeon said:

rcs1000 said:

pigeon said:

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

nico679 said:

Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .

As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage

The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay

Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.

So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.

And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.

As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:

1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem)
2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees)
3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)

No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.

Imagine a situation where everyone had 2.1 kids, and life expectancy was static.

In that circumstance, the state is in a good state. The ratio of workers to retirees is stable.

Now imagine that the birth rate has dropped to 1. Now, every generation, there are half as many kids as parents. That's big trouble that is the pensions and healthcare of the retirees is paid by the workers. And that ratio is now looking uglier every generation. (And such a scenario encourages emigration too... Who wants to hang around and hand over all their paycheck to support oldies, further worsening the dependency ratio.)

Oh, but it gets worse. People are still living longer. So there are ever more retirees being supported by a smaller number of people of writing age.

This is why our productivity issues are so important. If the average output of a worker is increasing by 2% a year then it will double over their working lives meaning that the unfavourable movement in the ratio of employees to retired are offset. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for some time making us ever more dependent on changing the ratio by immigration.

Looking after old people is low productivity. Staff-retiree ratios are basically fixed. And the number of people requiring residential care is increasing.

If only we could have a grown up conversation about how to pay for it.

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

dixiedean said:

Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party.
There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved.
Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.

Rip up the HRA
Shoot the Immigrants
Make Space

I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.

We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.

You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?

The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"

I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.

Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island

I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.

Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.

Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.

I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.

And people who have destroyed their papers?

Alistair said:

dixiedean said:

TOPPING said:

Just rewatched S1E1 of The West Wing.

Fantastic.

Such sharp dialogue might well watch the whole thing again.

Oh and a sub plot of some Cubans making their way to America some of whom died on the way and Pres. Bartlett says let the survivors in. That's how to do it.

I recommend it. Am near the end of Series 3 now.
Amazing to see how politics has changed for the worse over there in 20 years.
Yes, I know it's fictionalised.

West Wing was Dem wish fulfillment fantasy. American Politics was never like how it portrayed.

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

dixiedean said:

Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party.
There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved.
Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.

Rip up the HRA
Shoot the Immigrants
Make Space

I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.

We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.

You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?

The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"

I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.

Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island

I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.

Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.

Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.

I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.

And people who have destroyed their papers?

Anyway, enough about @Leon

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

dixiedean said:

TOPPING said:

Just rewatched S1E1 of The West Wing.

Fantastic.

Such sharp dialogue might well watch the whole thing again.

Oh and a sub plot of some Cubans making their way to America some of whom died on the way and Pres. Bartlett says let the survivors in. That's how to do it.

I recommend it. Am near the end of Series 3 now.
Amazing to see how politics has changed for the worse over there in 20 years.
Yes, I know it's fictionalised.

West Wing was Dem wish fulfillment fantasy. American Politics was never like how it portrayed.

My wife painted Allison Janney's dogs, and therefore I got to meet her when she came round to our house.

She was completely delightful. I just thought I should mention that.

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

dixiedean said:

Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party.
There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved.
Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.

Rip up the HRA
Shoot the Immigrants
Make Space

I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.

We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.

You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?

The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"

I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.

Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island

I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.

Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.

Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.

I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.

And people who have destroyed their papers?

The same problem as we have now. They would stay interned until identified.

I would also regard proof of identity as a core part of establishing a successful asylum claim.

And what is the philosophical issue with doing interning offshore rather than onshore?

The provision of legal and health services is more difficult.

The practical issue is that no country is willing to be our offshore centre. We could institute internment camps domestically much more quickly.

I suspect that arrivals of bogus cases would drop promptly, so the camps may not need to be that extensive.

Gallowgate said:

Morning everyone. I wonder what fresh hell today will bring?

Jonathan said:

So long as we are significantly richer and privileged people will come to the UK for a better life. With the Internet there is no hiding. It’s all there, plain to see. There we are on our island enjoying, if not flaunting, the relative luxury our forefathers created for us. The less fortunate will come to be part of that and do the all things we don’t want to do.

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

Closer with Survation tonight

Tories 39%
Labour 35%
LDs 11%

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1417559489700630541?s=20

Interesting labour and lib dems managing better numbers. Normally it is one or the other.

Electoral Calculus gives a hung parliament on those numbers from Survation with Tories 310, Labour 247, SNP 55, LDs 15.

So Starmer could be PM with SNP, LD and Green and PC support, the Tories would certainly need the DUP to have a chance of staying in office.

IDS, Raab, Villiers and Steve Baker would lose their seats

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

Where are you getting these figures from?

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.

The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border

Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:

Where are you getting these figures from?

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.

However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%

https://www.survation.com/survation-19-july-2021-uk-politics-survey/

Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Here https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1417559489700630541?s=20 and it is UK figures and UK figures alone that matter for UK elections.

For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM

Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.

Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.

You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections

BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.

Here is the url you so revealingly published:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.

Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:

SNP gains from SCon:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland)
Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)

SNP gains from SLD:
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross
Edinburgh West
North East Fife
Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)

As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.

However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.

As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.

If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours

I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.

It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.

As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.

Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 3 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair

Nah, wouldn’t happen. He’d pass a bill moving from FPTP to a more proportionate system in the hope of retaining power,and he’d dissolve parliament.

He couldn't pass it without SNP support and even if he managed to before they left the Commons even under PR we would likely see a repeat of the 2015 result and a Tory and UKIP/Farage combined majority on votes (add in the DUP too) to screw the SNP and end all spending to Scotland as soon as possible as English voters turned English Nationalist

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

Closer with Survation tonight

Tories 39%
Labour 35%
LDs 11%

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1417559489700630541?s=20

Interesting labour and lib dems managing better numbers. Normally it is one or the other.

Electoral Calculus gives a hung parliament on those numbers from Survation with Tories 310, Labour 247, SNP 55, LDs 15.

So Starmer could be PM with SNP, LD and Green and PC support, the Tories would certainly need the DUP to have a chance of staying in office.

IDS, Raab, Villiers and Steve Baker would lose their seats

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

Where are you getting these figures from?

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.

The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border

Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:

Where are you getting these figures from?

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.

However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%

https://www.survation.com/survation-19-july-2021-uk-politics-survey/

Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Here https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1417559489700630541?s=20 and it is UK figures and UK figures alone that matter for UK elections.

For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM

Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.

Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.

You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections

BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.

Here is the url you so revealingly published:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.

Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:

SNP gains from SCon:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland)
Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)

SNP gains from SLD:
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross
Edinburgh West
North East Fife
Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)

As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.

However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.

As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.

If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours

I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.

It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.

As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would still have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.

Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 5 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Jonathan, so long as the benefits system requires neither a longstanding residency nor contributions it'll be a huge draw.

IanB2 said:

Chairman of M&S explaining that Brexit means lorries to the EU (or NI) now carry 700 pages of forms for inspection and delays of 24-48 hours at borders mean some perishable goods are being destroyed. The new paperwork is employing a team of 13 people.

StuartDickson said:

BBC R4 Today: food supply industry starting to fail (CEO of British Meatprocessors Association)

!!!

Being beamed into a lot of Blue Wall seats.

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

Closer with Survation tonight

Tories 39%
Labour 35%
LDs 11%

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1417559489700630541?s=20

Interesting labour and lib dems managing better numbers. Normally it is one or the other.

Electoral Calculus gives a hung parliament on those numbers from Survation with Tories 310, Labour 247, SNP 55, LDs 15.

So Starmer could be PM with SNP, LD and Green and PC support, the Tories would certainly need the DUP to have a chance of staying in office.

IDS, Raab, Villiers and Steve Baker would lose their seats

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

Where are you getting these figures from?

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.

The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border

Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:

Where are you getting these figures from?

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.

However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%

https://www.survation.com/survation-19-july-2021-uk-politics-survey/

Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Here https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1417559489700630541?s=20 and it is UK figures and UK figures alone that matter for UK elections.

For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM

Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.

Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.

You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections

BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.

Here is the url you so revealingly published:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.

Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:

SNP gains from SCon:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland)
Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)

SNP gains from SLD:
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross
Edinburgh West
North East Fife
Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)

As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.

However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.

As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.

If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours

I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.

It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.

As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would still have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.

Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 5 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair

I'm far from sure that such policies would be as enduringly popular as you blithely assume.

Alistair said:

Gallowgate said:

Morning everyone. I wonder what fresh hell today will bring?

The crucial Wednesday Covid numbers.

Either "peak" delight confirmed or the depth of despair of ever increasing cases.

Nigelb said:

Why the GOP Made a Mistake Killing Off Biden’s IRS Plan

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/20/actually-republicans-should-get-behind-bidens-irs-plan-500208
...The point of Biden’s plan wasn’t to boost audits but to close the “tax gap” — the amount of taxes currently owed but not paid. We know firsthand that it’s a gigantic number — in 2019 alone it totaled $574 billion, and it’s estimated to reach $7 trillion over the next 10 years. In perspective, that’s equal to the amount of federal income taxes that the bottom 90 percent of individual earners pay in federal taxes on an annual basis.

...Here’s an amazing stat: Workers who get a W-2 pay 99 percent of the taxes they owe. It’s those who funnel income through financial vehicles the IRS doesn’t or can’t monitor who pay as little as 50 percent of what they owe. The tax gap has grown because an increasing number of filers, particularly upper earners, do not receive W-2s or other forms that report their income. This is fundamentally unfair and unsustainable.

Biden’s idea for strengthening the IRS wasn’t to add audits, but to improve technology — which is a smart use of federal money to bring in revenue. When we were at the IRS, audits were pretty much the only tool we had to find most of that missing income. But it was and is an inefficient tool. While there is an essential role for audits, they bring in less than 0.5 percent of IRS revenue, and 20 to 40 percent of audits produce nothing.

The main reason the tax system works when it does is that taxpayers, knowing that they and the IRS have the same information about their income, simply pay what they owe. So the best way to do that for wealthy tax-avoiders is to enhance the reporting of sources of income that aren’t currently collected by the IRS....

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

pigeon said:

rcs1000 said:

pigeon said:

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

nico679 said:

Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .

As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage

The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay

Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.

So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.

And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.

As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:

1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem)
2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees)
3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)

No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.

Imagine a situation where everyone had 2.1 kids, and life expectancy was static.

In that circumstance, the state is in a good state. The ratio of workers to retirees is stable.

Now imagine that the birth rate has dropped to 1. Now, every generation, there are half as many kids as parents. That's big trouble that is the pensions and healthcare of the retirees is paid by the workers. And that ratio is now looking uglier every generation. (And such a scenario encourages emigration too... Who wants to hang around and hand over all their paycheck to support oldies, further worsening the dependency ratio.)

Oh, but it gets worse. People are still living longer. So there are ever more retirees being supported by a smaller number of people of writing age.

This is why our productivity issues are so important. If the average output of a worker is increasing by 2% a year then it will double over their working lives meaning that the unfavourable movement in the ratio of employees to retired are offset. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for some time making us ever more dependent on changing the ratio by immigration.

Looking after old people is low productivity. Staff-retiree ratios are basically fixed. And the number of people requiring residential care is increasing.

If only we could have a grown up conversation about how to pay for it.

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

M&S warns of higher prices and less choice in Northern Ireland - BBC News

https://twitter.com/BBCRichardM/status/1417714468004536322?s=20

What was the EU's objection to the "Trusted Trader" scheme? It's not like M&S Sandwiches are difficult to identify....

The scheme wasn't designed to be a mass waiver so that all products from all suppliers get included. Which is what would have to happen for it to be the solution being touted.

If you are a supplier big enough with customer demand large enough to supply products by the full vehicle this is easy. Sadly few are - it is the mixed loads that are the problem, and almost all of the loads for supermarket goods are mixed.

By mixed I mean hundreds or thousands of different products. Each needing its own ream of paperwork at our government's insistence. If we were happy to accept the status quo - that our standards are their standards because we wrote their standards - then we could make all of this go away.

The whole point about Trusted Traders is it should be all products, from all suppliers.

The Trusted Trader should be self-declaring and paying what duties are due, just as we self-declare and pay all sorts of other taxes. If they are found to be committing fraud, they get a hefty fine and lose Trusted Trader status.

The EU doesn't work like that.

williamglenn said:

U.S. COVID update: Florida dumps 3 days of cases, number in hospital rising fast

- New cases: 61,262
- Average: 38,229 (+2,827)
- In hospital: 27,143 (+1,603)
- In ICU: 7,046 (+564)
- New deaths: 315

https://twitter.com/bnodesk/status/1417672678144626690

CarlottaVance said:

Looks like the Spectator hasn't learned Johnson's lesson about taking on Rashford:

https://twitter.com/MarcusRashford/status/1417560450393329666?s=20

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

Closer with Survation tonight

Tories 39%
Labour 35%
LDs 11%

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1417559489700630541?s=20

Interesting labour and lib dems managing better numbers. Normally it is one or the other.

Electoral Calculus gives a hung parliament on those numbers from Survation with Tories 310, Labour 247, SNP 55, LDs 15.

So Starmer could be PM with SNP, LD and Green and PC support, the Tories would certainly need the DUP to have a chance of staying in office.

IDS, Raab, Villiers and Steve Baker would lose their seats

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

Where are you getting these figures from?

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.

The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border

Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:

Where are you getting these figures from?

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.

However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%

https://www.survation.com/survation-19-july-2021-uk-politics-survey/

Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Here https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1417559489700630541?s=20 and it is UK figures and UK figures alone that matter for UK elections.

For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM

Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.

Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.

You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections

BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.

Here is the url you so revealingly published:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.

Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:

SNP gains from SCon:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland)
Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)

SNP gains from SLD:
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross
Edinburgh West
North East Fife
Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)

As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.

However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.

As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.

If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours

I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.

It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.

As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would still have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.

Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 5 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair

I'm far from sure that such policies would be as enduringly popular as you blithely assume.

If there was an indyref2 and the Scottish Nationalists won then English voters would immediately demand as hard a negotiation line as possible with the SNP and Scottish government in Scexit talks and no concessions whatsoever to the SNP.

Exactly the same as European voters demanded the EU take as hard a line as possible with the Tories and UK government after the Brexit vote.

London would have to take as hard a line as possible with Edinburgh as Brussels took with London in the Brexit talks or be replaced by a government that would.

CarlottaVance said:

M&S warns of higher prices and less choice in Northern Ireland - BBC News

https://twitter.com/BBCRichardM/status/1417714468004536322?s=20

What was the EU's objection to the "Trusted Trader" scheme? It's not like M&S Sandwiches are difficult to identify....

Charles said:

Taz said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

Closer with Survation tonight

Tories 39%
Labour 35%
LDs 11%

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1417559489700630541?s=20

Interesting labour and lib dems managing better numbers. Normally it is one or the other.

Electoral Calculus gives a hung parliament on those numbers from Survation with Tories 310, Labour 247, SNP 55, LDs 15.

So Starmer could be PM with SNP, LD and Green and PC support, the Tories would certainly need the DUP to have a chance of staying in office.

IDS, Raab, Villiers and Steve Baker would lose their seats

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

Where are you getting these figures from?

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.

The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border

Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:

Where are you getting these figures from?

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.

However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%

https://www.survation.com/survation-19-july-2021-uk-politics-survey/

Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Here https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1417559489700630541?s=20 and it is UK figures and UK figures alone that matter for UK elections.

For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM

Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.

Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:

Scotnat 47.7%
Scotcon 23%
Scotlab 19.6%
Scotlib 6%
Scotgreen 2.1%
Scotreform 0.4%

Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.

You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections

BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.

Here is the url you so revealingly published:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23&SCOTLAB=19.6&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.4&SCOTGreen=2.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.

Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:

SNP gains from SCon:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland)
Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)

SNP gains from SLD:
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross
Edinburgh West
North East Fife
Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)

As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.

However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.

As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.

If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours

I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.

It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.

As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.

Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 3 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair

Nah, wouldn’t happen. He’d pass a bill moving from FPTP to a more proportionate system in the hope of retaining power,and he’d dissolve parliament.

And it would be appropriate for Scottish MPs to vote on that?

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

M&S warns of higher prices and less choice in Northern Ireland - BBC News

https://twitter.com/BBCRichardM/status/1417714468004536322?s=20

What was the EU's objection to the "Trusted Trader" scheme? It's not like M&S Sandwiches are difficult to identify....

The scheme wasn't designed to be a mass waiver so that all products from all suppliers get included. Which is what would have to happen for it to be the solution being touted.

If you are a supplier big enough with customer demand large enough to supply products by the full vehicle this is easy. Sadly few are - it is the mixed loads that are the problem, and almost all of the loads for supermarket goods are mixed.

By mixed I mean hundreds or thousands of different products. Each needing its own ream of paperwork at our government's insistence. If we were happy to accept the status quo - that our standards are their standards because we wrote their standards - then we could make all of this go away.

The whole point about Trusted Traders is it should be all products, from all suppliers.

The Trusted Trader should be self-declaring and paying what duties are due, just as we self-declare and pay all sorts of other taxes. If they are found to be committing fraud, they get a hefty fine and lose Trusted Trader status.

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

dixiedean said:

Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party.
There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved.
Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.

Rip up the HRA
Shoot the Immigrants
Make Space

I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.

We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.

You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?

The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"

I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.

Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island

I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.

Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.

Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.

I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.

And people who have destroyed their papers?

The same problem as we have now. They would stay interned until identified.

I would also regard proof of identity as a core part of establishing a successful asylum claim.

And what is the philosophical issue with doing interning offshore rather than onshore?

The provision of legal and health services is more difficult.

The practical issue is that no country is willing to be our offshore centre. We could institute internment camps domestically much more quickly.

I suspect that arrivals of bogus cases would drop promptly, so the camps may not need to be that extensive.

Isn't this an example of a false dichotomy?

There's no reason why we cannot both:

(a) improve the funding (and speed) of immigration assessment in the UK
while
(b) choosing to process those who come via unconventional routes (i.e. seaborne from France) off-shore

I agree. I just don't think any country is willing to be our offshore internment camp.

Investment in legal services is much needed in this country, not just in asylum law. Things go far too slowly.