That YouGov LAB lead poll is increasingly looking like an outlier – politicalbetting.com

rottenborough said:

Taz said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ping said:

Lol

I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!

Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?

I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.

My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.

If you call that living.

rottenborough said:

Angela punters - this is your moment...

I didn't even recognise her.

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Taz said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ping said:

Lol

I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!

Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?

I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.

My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.

If you call that living.

Well, I was thinking more of the just surviving side of living rather than the @seanT @leon lunch by the Parthian with two bottles of ouzo type of living.

Andy_Cooke said:

rottenborough said:

Burn...



Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico
You know. I've got to be honest. I'm starting to have my doubts as to how accurate that 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast is going to prove.


Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp

...infuriating when news stories focus on worst (v unlikely) scenario and then blame spim when it doesn't happen. Often ignoring that things are still quite bad even if they weren't worse



Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico

SPI-M said its R=1.5 and R=1.1 cases encompassed the "likely" envelope - ie covered the central 55-70% most likely scenarios. That means they said there was a 15-22.5% probability the number wld be *higher* than 7k/day.

I've read through the paper repeatedly (did so when it came out and pulled my hair out at the headlines) and I can't see this 15-22.5% probability mentioned.

"Four of these same models have further been used to explore the potential impact of a range of scenarios following changes in transmission. These scenarios assume changes in behaviour result in R values of 1.1, 1.5, or 2.0 on 6th September (In each of these scenarios, R drops over time after 6th September as vaccination and infection reduce the number of people who remain susceptible), and are run for a further eight weeks. These scenarios are shown in Figure 1 (R=1.1 – green; 1.5 – blue; 2.0 – red) for England’s hospital admissions.




SPI-M-O deems the scenario where R = 2.0 (red) to be an extreme trajectory for the epidemic over the next few weeks; it is a possible outcome, but highly unlikely. A scenario of this scale might be more likely were waning immunity to play a greater role (see paragraph 17 above) or if a new variant of concern were to emerge. In contrast, a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations. This range of R values, however, is not dissimilar to those seen for cases in Scotland in recent weeks.

The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector."

Personally, at the time, I viewed the statement that "a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations" to be pointing pretty strongly at "look at the green one"
Which, at September 21st, had 900-1400 with a central value of 1000 projected.

Describing it as "a 7000 hospitalisations per day forecast" is unworthy of anyone trying to analyse what was actually projected or said. Rhetoric rather than reason.

EDIT: In addition, calling it "A 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast" when the paper states:

"The projections represent what the trajectory might be if the epidemic continued to follow the trends seen in the latest available data up to 6th September. They are neither forecasts nor predictions and cannot fully reflect recent changes in transmission that have not yet filtered through into surveillance data"
... is just being an arse.
(Note that the bolding was actually in the paper itself when released)

Blue scenario was r=1.5 and goes to 7000 per day.

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Taz said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ping said:

Lol

I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!

Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?

I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.

My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.

If you call that living.

Oh, it's not a bad diet at all. Though I like to vary it with oatcakes (good with home made marmalade).

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?



https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1441414202996842502?s=20

Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.

The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario

Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Just not cricket....

Ryder Cup: Bryson DeChambeau hits 'huge' 417-yard drive - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/golf/58686340

That is absurd

…

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Taz said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ping said:

Lol

I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!

Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?

I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.

My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.

If you call that living.

Well, I was thinking more of the just surviving side of living rather than the @seanT @leon lunch by the Parthian with two bottles of ouzo type of living.

I had Vivera Steak tonight - plant based steak. It was ok, a bit like a processed grillsteak you’d get out of the freezer, but a weird thing was they have tiny amounts of fake blood coming out if it. Not much but enough to make me think it a bit odd. If you’ve made the choice to eat fake meat, surely you don’t want reminding of the feeling of blood dripping from it?!

bigjohnowls said:

WEAK WEAK WEAK

You talking about the Prime Minister?

.

bigjohnowls said:

Labour Conference banner now boiling some peoples piss

https://i0.wp.com/skwawkbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/redblue-labour-brighton.png?ssl=1

Thank goodness there isn't an energy, fuel and food supply crisis for Momentum types to worry about.

I reckon if the electoral college got through Streeting vs Rayner would be something like

PLP 22% Streeting 11.3% Rayner
Unions 14%/19.3%
CLPs 14%/19.3%

So basically a tie

Under OMOV Easy win Rayner circa 60/40

turbotubbs said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rottenborough said:

Burn...



Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico
You know. I've got to be honest. I'm starting to have my doubts as to how accurate that 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast is going to prove.


Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp

...infuriating when news stories focus on worst (v unlikely) scenario and then blame spim when it doesn't happen. Often ignoring that things are still quite bad even if they weren't worse



Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico

SPI-M said its R=1.5 and R=1.1 cases encompassed the "likely" envelope - ie covered the central 55-70% most likely scenarios. That means they said there was a 15-22.5% probability the number wld be *higher* than 7k/day.

I've read through the paper repeatedly (did so when it came out and pulled my hair out at the headlines) and I can't see this 15-22.5% probability mentioned.

"Four of these same models have further been used to explore the potential impact of a range of scenarios following changes in transmission. These scenarios assume changes in behaviour result in R values of 1.1, 1.5, or 2.0 on 6th September (In each of these scenarios, R drops over time after 6th September as vaccination and infection reduce the number of people who remain susceptible), and are run for a further eight weeks. These scenarios are shown in Figure 1 (R=1.1 – green; 1.5 – blue; 2.0 – red) for England’s hospital admissions.




SPI-M-O deems the scenario where R = 2.0 (red) to be an extreme trajectory for the epidemic over the next few weeks; it is a possible outcome, but highly unlikely. A scenario of this scale might be more likely were waning immunity to play a greater role (see paragraph 17 above) or if a new variant of concern were to emerge. In contrast, a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations. This range of R values, however, is not dissimilar to those seen for cases in Scotland in recent weeks.

The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector."

Personally, at the time, I viewed the statement that "a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations" to be pointing pretty strongly at "look at the green one"
Which, at September 21st, had 900-1400 with a central value of 1000 projected.

Describing it as "a 7000 hospitalisations per day forecast" is unworthy of anyone trying to analyse what was actually projected or said. Rhetoric rather than reason.

EDIT: In addition, calling it "A 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast" when the paper states:

"The projections represent what the trajectory might be if the epidemic continued to follow the trends seen in the latest available data up to 6th September. They are neither forecasts nor predictions and cannot fully reflect recent changes in transmission that have not yet filtered through into surveillance data"
... is just being an arse.
(Note that the bolding was actually in the paper itself when released)

Blue scenario was r=1.5 and goes to 7000 per day.

Yes, it does.
The green scenario was much more possible, though. As it said.
And they were explicitly not forecasts but projections of what would happen if the current trends were followed.

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

Angela punters - this is your moment...

Been saying all week its Rayner vs Streeting

Very soon SKS will only ever deliver one Leaders speech at Conference IMO

Streeting? Seriously?

Farooq said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://i0.wp.com/skwawkbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/smith-gmb-starmer.png?ssl=1

They are red wall voters

Utterly unbelievable

The Sun is anti Labour and anti Union. Seems fairly rational to not want, from their point of view, a Trojan horse within the walls?

Labour won with the sun onboard. Something that may not have escaped SKS. The print media,may be in decline but the MSM is still influential.

Andy_Cooke said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rottenborough said:

Burn...



Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico
You know. I've got to be honest. I'm starting to have my doubts as to how accurate that 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast is going to prove.


Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp

...infuriating when news stories focus on worst (v unlikely) scenario and then blame spim when it doesn't happen. Often ignoring that things are still quite bad even if they weren't worse



Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico

SPI-M said its R=1.5 and R=1.1 cases encompassed the "likely" envelope - ie covered the central 55-70% most likely scenarios. That means they said there was a 15-22.5% probability the number wld be *higher* than 7k/day.

I've read through the paper repeatedly (did so when it came out and pulled my hair out at the headlines) and I can't see this 15-22.5% probability mentioned.

"Four of these same models have further been used to explore the potential impact of a range of scenarios following changes in transmission. These scenarios assume changes in behaviour result in R values of 1.1, 1.5, or 2.0 on 6th September (In each of these scenarios, R drops over time after 6th September as vaccination and infection reduce the number of people who remain susceptible), and are run for a further eight weeks. These scenarios are shown in Figure 1 (R=1.1 – green; 1.5 – blue; 2.0 – red) for England’s hospital admissions.




SPI-M-O deems the scenario where R = 2.0 (red) to be an extreme trajectory for the epidemic over the next few weeks; it is a possible outcome, but highly unlikely. A scenario of this scale might be more likely were waning immunity to play a greater role (see paragraph 17 above) or if a new variant of concern were to emerge. In contrast, a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations. This range of R values, however, is not dissimilar to those seen for cases in Scotland in recent weeks.

The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector."

Personally, at the time, I viewed the statement that "a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations" to be pointing pretty strongly at "look at the green one"
Which, at September 21st, had 900-1400 with a central value of 1000 projected.

Describing it as "a 7000 hospitalisations per day forecast" is unworthy of anyone trying to analyse what was actually projected or said. Rhetoric rather than reason.

EDIT: In addition, calling it "A 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast" when the paper states:

"The projections represent what the trajectory might be if the epidemic continued to follow the trends seen in the latest available data up to 6th September. They are neither forecasts nor predictions and cannot fully reflect recent changes in transmission that have not yet filtered through into surveillance data"
... is just being an arse.
(Note that the bolding was actually in the paper itself when released)

Blue scenario was r=1.5 and goes to 7000 per day.

Yes, it does.
The green scenario was much more possible, though. As it said.
And they were explicitly not forecasts but projections of what would happen if the current trends were followed.

I understand that, but I really do question the whole nexus of spi-m and the media. They must realise that it will be interpreted that way. You almost suspect they are trying to manipulate people into taking more care.

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.

What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.

We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...

Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.

Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.

OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.

Clear now?

No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.

If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now.
There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands.
The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?

This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.

The media combined with bosses with an agenda to push to avoid paying more have created a panic.

And the PM is folding like a cheap suit.

"WEAK WEAK WEAK"

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.

What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.

We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...

Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.

Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.

OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.

Clear now?

No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.

If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now.
There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands.
The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?

This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.

BP were saying 5 or 6 closed - but 100 out of 1200 without at least one fuel. And that was first thing this morning.

Be interesting to,know what it would be usually. They won’t run at full capacity all the time I’d imagine.

Carnyx said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Taz said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ping said:

Lol

I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!

Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?

I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.

My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.

If you call that living.

Oh, it's not a bad diet at all. Though I like to vary it with oatcakes (good with home made marmalade).

Oh, oatcakes with marmalade. I've never tried that and I love a good oatcake. Thanks.

Mexicanpete said:

.

bigjohnowls said:

Labour Conference banner now boiling some peoples piss

https://i0.wp.com/skwawkbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/redblue-labour-brighton.png?ssl=1

Thank goodness there isn't an energy, fuel and food supply crisis for Momentum types to worry about.

Well exactly

Could ask same about the timing / focus by SKS on factional shit,

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?



https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1441414202996842502?s=20

Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.

The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario

Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?

Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wait-40-years-for-another-scottish-independence-vote-says-boris-johnson-kwb7njq99

Local news tonight: Motorists are being urged not to panic buy.

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.

What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.

We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...

Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.

Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.

OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.

Clear now?

No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.

If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now.
There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands.
The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?

This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.

That D-notices stuff was like a shard of fucking gold. "There is no problem, and to prove it we should jump straight to the most draconian response we can." Honestly, I nearly went out to fill up then and there.

There is a tenuous link to Covid stats reporting. Every day that the number of new Covid deaths is reported is another that cancer deaths isn’t. Covid is not the biggest cause of death in the U.K. currently. It wouldn’t hurt to tone down the reporting. With respect to fuel, how often have petrol stations been out of (some or all) fuel in the past? Not reported.

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.

What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.

We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...

Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.

Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.

OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.

Clear now?

No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.

If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now.
There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands.
The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?

This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.

That D-notices stuff was like a shard of fucking gold. "There is no problem, and to prove it we should jump straight to the most draconian response we can." Honestly, I nearly went out to fill up then and there.

To be fair we also had the gem of an opinion that "paying more isn't a solution we should ban any company from paying more" earlier today too.

Labour’s dream ticket.

https://twitter.com/normanjam671/status/1441404871693910018?s=21

Philip_Thompson said:

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.

What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.

We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...

Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.

Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.

OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.

Clear now?

No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.

If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now.
There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands.
The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?

This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.

The media combined with bosses with an agenda to push to avoid paying more have created a panic.

And the PM is folding like a cheap suit.

"WEAK WEAK WEAK"

The Guardian seems to have the most responsible front page confirming Boris decision to grant visas to foreign workers (note not just EU)

In other media the figure of 5,000 is mentioned and to be honest it is the right thing to do, and highlights the new visa quota scheme that we could not have done while in the EU

bigjohnowls said:

Great thats all Labour needs now an intervention from Jezza

Corbyn – Starmer is ignoring country’s needs to attack members and unions

Which country does he mean? I'm assuming Palestine based on his past record.

Taz said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.

What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.

We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...

Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.

Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.

OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.

Clear now?

No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.

If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now.
There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands.
The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?

This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.

BP were saying 5 or 6 closed - but 100 out of 1200 without at least one fuel. And that was first thing this morning.

Be interesting to,know what it would be usually. They won’t run at full capacity all the time I’d imagine.

Mind, it's a bit shitty if your local petrol retailer can't provide unleaded or whatever you need for your wheels.

Farooq said:

Taz said:

Philip_Thompson said:

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

turbotubbs said:

IshmaelZ said:

MaxPB said:

What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.

What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.

We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...

Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.

Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.

OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.

Clear now?

No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.

If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now.
There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands.
The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?

This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.

The media combined with bosses with an agenda to push to avoid paying more have created a panic.

And the PM is folding like a cheap suit.

"WEAK WEAK WEAK"

I said this before. The govt have been stitched up by a media wanting a story to,fill columns and drive clicks and the bosses and haulage companies wanting labour. The govt have been stitched up and fell for it.

People using attention-seeking bastardry to get their way? Wherever did they get the idea?

This govt has the unique ability to fold late in the day after stating they won’t. As they did on school meals. Of,course the tactic is as old as god but the govt response is usually inept.

Pulpstar said:

Can see this ending 7-1 by the end of today

US beating the EU again !!

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?



https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1441414202996842502?s=20

Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.

The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario

Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?

Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wait-40-years-for-another-scottish-independence-vote-says-boris-johnson-kwb7njq99

But recently you’ve been saying the Tories will ‘never’ allow another Indy ref. Is this some new exciting meaning of the word ‘never’ that I don’t know about?

In any case since Rayner is being discussed I believe she was a granny at 39, which indicates generation is a somewhat eeeeelastic term.

IshmaelZ said:

Farooq said:

IshmaelZ said:

Farooq said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Farooq said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Omnium said:

eek said:

bigjohnowls said:

F**king useless nonentity. Bring on a leadership challenge

Michael Savage
@michaelsavage
More than one union leader has “gone for” Starmer at a key meeting tonight. Sounds pretty brutal. Row over party rules now clearly threatening to overshadow a conference he himself has talked up as key to his leadership.

And replace him with who exactly?

Quite.

Starmer isn't great as a leader, although he has some really good traits that will help him.

Labour will split sooner or later, and to be fair to the left it really is the moderates that are betraying the cause. However the cause is some daft c19 manifesto written by a layabout.

What Starmer needs to do is get the split done with - off goes Corbyn, off goes McDonald, and then I think it stops. No sensible Labour politician will throw themselves over the cliff. Maybe Abbot, Dawn whatever, Long-Bailey, and Burgeon.

PS. whatever=Butler.

Ken Loach....on Starmer, Jezza and "proper Labour".

https://youtu.be/PVP6PlX_UUA

Let me guess "proper Labour" are antisemites like him?

careful, I like reading your posts and I don't want you booted

Why would I get booted for asking if the antisemite Ken Loach who was "against the witch-hunt" until he got expelled out of the Labour Party like other antisemites prefers other antisemites like himself? 🤔

Antisemites like Loach have a tendency to stick together.

Because even if you feel ready to defend yourself against defamation claims, the site owners mightn't want to join you in your defence. The burden of proof for getting booted for potentially defamatory comments is necessarily lower than for a defamation claim.

Nah, a jew hater is a jew hater, slice it how you like.

You can quote me on that. I'm not afraid, the site has a single use throwaway email address for me, and a spoofed IP address filtered through a VPN.

So you're safe. The site isn't. That was my only point.

I was kidding, the site knows exactly who I am. But honestly, if you can't call a known associate of Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, who can you call what?

It is a matter for the moderators to police the site, not individual posters

bigjohnowls said:

@DAILYMIRROR - Soft Left MP who backs KS: “This is an unmitigated disaster. When we’re supposed to be reconnecting with working people, we’re having a punch-up with ourselves.
“What I want to know is: is Keir a leader or is he doing the dirty work of the person who wants to be next leader?”

Did they ask Kinnock that question? History tells us that he was the latter but at the time he was trying to be leader and next PM as well.

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Taz said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ping said:

Lol

I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!

Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?

I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.

My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.

If you call that living.

Well, I was thinking more of the just surviving side of living rather than the @seanT @leon lunch by the Parthian with two bottles of ouzo type of living.

I was just kidding, I love porridge.

No better way to start the day. Maple syrup on mine. Lightly drizzled.

I prefer honey on my porridge.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

Can see this ending 7-1 by the end of today

US beating the EU again !!

British players a bit of a weak link?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bigjohnowls said:

Great thats all Labour needs now an intervention from Jezza

Corbyn – Starmer is ignoring country’s needs to attack members and unions

Has he publicly intervened tonight

I did hear McDonnell rattling a few a cages earlier

Either way, being criticised by Jez and John is probably quite handy for the Labour leadership.

Taz said:

Labour’s dream ticket.

https://twitter.com/normanjam671/status/1441404871693910018?s=21

For the Tories

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bigjohnowls said:

Great thats all Labour needs now an intervention from Jezza

Corbyn – Starmer is ignoring country’s needs to attack members and unions

Has he publicly intervened tonight

I did hear McDonnell rattling a few a cages earlier

Either way, being criticised by Jez and John is probably quite handy for the Labour leadership.

I don't think any of this is helping Labour, to be honest. Starmer simply lost about two or three points in the polls to the Greens when he first suspended Corbyn, and now he seems to have lost another two or three. Likewise I don't think Corbyn and McDonnell are helping much themselves, either.

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?



https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1441414202996842502?s=20

Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.

The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario

Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?

Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wait-40-years-for-another-scottish-independence-vote-says-boris-johnson-kwb7njq99

Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.

"your potential voters".

Not many Scots in Epping.

Actually our MP, the great Dame Eleanor Laing, is a Scot born and raised

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?



https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1441414202996842502?s=20

Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.

The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario

Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?

Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wait-40-years-for-another-scottish-independence-vote-says-boris-johnson-kwb7njq99

Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.

I have rejected @HYUFD utter nonsense on indyref2 for as long as I can remember

He is an embarrassment, talks about Scotland as an enemy, and yet seems to think he speaks for those of us who value the union, are connected directly with immediate family in Scotland, and know that someday indyref2 may happen , indeed may be beneficial for the union to happen, and I just ask that he is considered as a one off with unbending views

The other day he was lecturing me on politics in Wales when I actually live here, have children and grandchildren here and use Wales NHS and education and have been involved for over 50 years in Welsh politics

Indeed I nearly became the youngest councilor in Wales but had to let that go to become, at the time, the youngest golf club captain in Wales

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IshmaelZ said:

Farooq said:

IshmaelZ said:

Farooq said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Farooq said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Omnium said:

eek said:

bigjohnowls said:

F**king useless nonentity. Bring on a leadership challenge

Michael Savage
@michaelsavage
More than one union leader has “gone for” Starmer at a key meeting tonight. Sounds pretty brutal. Row over party rules now clearly threatening to overshadow a conference he himself has talked up as key to his leadership.

And replace him with who exactly?

Quite.

Starmer isn't great as a leader, although he has some really good traits that will help him.

Labour will split sooner or later, and to be fair to the left it really is the moderates that are betraying the cause. However the cause is some daft c19 manifesto written by a layabout.

What Starmer needs to do is get the split done with - off goes Corbyn, off goes McDonald, and then I think it stops. No sensible Labour politician will throw themselves over the cliff. Maybe Abbot, Dawn whatever, Long-Bailey, and Burgeon.

PS. whatever=Butler.

Ken Loach....on Starmer, Jezza and "proper Labour".

https://youtu.be/PVP6PlX_UUA

Let me guess "proper Labour" are antisemites like him?

careful, I like reading your posts and I don't want you booted

Why would I get booted for asking if the antisemite Ken Loach who was "against the witch-hunt" until he got expelled out of the Labour Party like other antisemites prefers other antisemites like himself? 🤔

Antisemites like Loach have a tendency to stick together.

Because even if you feel ready to defend yourself against defamation claims, the site owners mightn't want to join you in your defence. The burden of proof for getting booted for potentially defamatory comments is necessarily lower than for a defamation claim.

Nah, a jew hater is a jew hater, slice it how you like.

You can quote me on that. I'm not afraid, the site has a single use throwaway email address for me, and a spoofed IP address filtered through a VPN.

So you're safe. The site isn't. That was my only point.

I was kidding, the site knows exactly who I am. But honestly, if you can't call a known associate of Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, who can you call what?

It is a matter for the moderators to police the site, not individual posters

And considering the moderator was posting and didn't intervene, some people want to call the "moderation" card prematurely in order to shut down the debate.

Saying you can't call Loach an antisemite is like saying you can't call Trump a racist. Or orange. Or bad.

The truth is an absolute defence.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?



https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1441414202996842502?s=20

Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.

The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario

Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?

Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wait-40-years-for-another-scottish-independence-vote-says-boris-johnson-kwb7njq99

Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.

I have rejected @HYUFD utter nonsense on indyref2 for as long as I can remember

He is an embarrassment, talks about Scotland as an enemy, and yet seems to think he speaks for those of us who value the union, are connected directly with immediate family in Scotland, and know that someday indyref2 may happen , indeed may be beneficial for the union to happen, and I just ask that he is considered as a one off with unbending views

The other day he was lecturing me on politics in Wales when I actually live here, have children and grandchildren here and use Wales NHS and education and have been involved for over 50 years in Welsh politics

Indeed I nearly became the youngest councilor in Wales but had to let that go to become, at the time, the youngest golf club captain in Wales

Wow, so you've been an old fogey for a VERY long time!

EDIT - almost as long as I've been an old fool . . .

ping said:

Scott_xP said:

And here it is. Folks can make up their own mind.
GB News is just a disaster. I came close to a breakdown: ANDREW NEIL | Daily Mail Online
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10026417/GB-News-just-disaster-came-close-breakdown-ANDREW-NEIL.html

“Another suggestion was that we should put secret cameras in classrooms to show how Left-wing the teachers were.”

Seriously shitty “journalism” from GB news.

Murdoch will be along shortly to show them how it is done.

Amateur hour.

Fox News UK will be Murdoch's channel and not GB.

MarqueeMark said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar is v unimpressed with Keir Starmer's conference plan to change leadership rules:

“I don’t think it should be our focus. It is certainly not my focus. I’m going to conference to talk about the issues I care about."

Bit bold not to give a shiny shit about the rules that delivered up Corbyn as Labour leader!

Maybe the MPs should understand their job a bit better as gatekeepers and not nominate a Corbyn for shits and giggles "to widen the debate"?

I think the best leadership election rules any party has come across yet is the Tory one where the MP gatekeepers narrow the choice down to 2, from which the members then get the final say. I think that despite the fact that the first time the system was used it gave us IDS, and the third time it gave us Theresa May.

MPs and members need to make a smart choice. You can't rig the system if people are determined to make a bad choice.

Newsnight correspondent Mark Urban just uttered nonsense on the programme when he said the AfD are polling "around half" of what they got at the previous German election. In fact they're polling around 11-12% and got 12.6% at the last election.

Night in Soho. Insanely rocking

London is on fire at the moment. It really is the Roaring Twenties. Never seen it so hedonistic

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?



https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1441414202996842502?s=20

Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.

The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario

Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?

Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wait-40-years-for-another-scottish-independence-vote-says-boris-johnson-kwb7njq99

Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.

I have rejected @HYUFD utter nonsense on indyref2 for as long as I can remember

He is an embarrassment, talks about Scotland as an enemy, and yet seems to think he speaks for those of us who value the union, are connected directly with immediate family in Scotland, and know that someday indyref2 may happen , indeed may be beneficial for the union to happen, and I just ask that he is considered as a one off with unbending views

The other day he was lecturing me on politics in Wales when I actually live here, have children and grandchildren here and use Wales NHS and education and have been involved for over 50 years in Welsh politics

Indeed I nearly became the youngest councilor in Wales but had to let that go to become, at the time, the youngest golf club captain in Wales

I have never said Scots are the enemy, the SNP however certainly are the enemy.

We have a Tory government, which you no longer clearly support, which has correctly made clear it will refuse an indyref2 for 40 years while it remains in power via its leader the PM.

You were saying the LDs have no hope anywhere in Wales, yet 2 Welsh seats, Brecon and Radnor and Ceredigion, are even in the top 50 LD target seats

And today the lib dems managed to come 'bottom' of the Wales only poll at just 4%, with labour on 37, conservatives on 31 and Plaid on 15

As I said you have no idea about the current state of politics in Wales and even today that has been proven

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?



https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1441414202996842502?s=20

Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.

The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario

Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?

Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wait-40-years-for-another-scottish-independence-vote-says-boris-johnson-kwb7njq99

Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.

I have rejected @HYUFD utter nonsense on indyref2 for as long as I can remember

He is an embarrassment, talks about Scotland as an enemy, and yet seems to think he speaks for those of us who value the union, are connected directly with immediate family in Scotland, and know that someday indyref2 may happen , indeed may be beneficial for the union to happen, and I just ask that he is considered as a one off with unbending views

The other day he was lecturing me on politics in Wales when I actually live here, have children and grandchildren here and use Wales NHS and education and have been involved for over 50 years in Welsh politics

Indeed I nearly became the youngest councilor in Wales but had to let that go to become, at the time, the youngest golf club captain in Wales

I have never said Scots are the enemy, the SNP however certainly are the enemy.

We have a Tory government, which you no longer clearly support, which has correctly made clear it will refuse an indyref2 for 40 years while it remains in power via its leader the PM.

You were saying the LDs have no hope anywhere in Wales, yet 2 Welsh seats, Brecon and Radnor and Ceredigion, are even in the top 50 LD target seats

If you say that the Scots can't determine their own future, no matter how they vote, then you absolutely are calling the Scots themselves your enemy.

You beat your political enemies in the ballot box, not with truncheons.

We did beat them in 2014 in a once in a generation vote.

They will not get another for a genuine generation as long as we Tories are in power.

All we need to do is refuse indyref2, we do not yet need to arrest Nationalist leaders for holding an illegal vote as the Spanish have been trying to do with the Catalan nationalist leader in exile via arrest warrant in Italy today.

For as long as the UK government refuses an indyref2 no such vote can be legal and Sturgeon has ruled out a wildcat referendum and UDI anyway

Anecdata. On my way home there was a several hundred metre queue at 2300 for petrol at Sainsbury. Texaco nearby sold out.

The blitz spirit, hey?