Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

My money is on these people giving Boris a bloody nose – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • HYUFD said:

    On topic, for this by-election (and, I think, for the next GE), the only way the left can win is if Lab and LD disband and become part of the Greens.

    If the whole of the centre to left of British politics became one Green Party, they'd easily win a majority.

    Is there any way it could happen?

    That would just mean fiscally conservative Remainers considering the LDs or even Starmer Labour would stick with the Tories as the Greens are too left for them
    The Greens would obviously have to change a bit for this to happen (cf German Greens).

    I think that most people voting left wing believe themselves more green than their right wing equivalents. I think they could all unite under a "Green" banner, and it could attract enough people from the centre to win.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,466
    In any case, sympathy vote or not, there's no way the Conservatives are losing this seat.
    You can quote me on that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    On topic, I'm expecting a sympathy vote for the Tories.

    James Brokenshire was a top bloke.

    Are death by-elections more likely to see the same party re-elected than other by-elections?
    For what it is worth, on a small sample.

    Last 10 by elections (non deaths)


    7 holds, 3 gains

    Last 10 by-elections (deaths
    )

    9 holds and 1 gain (all holds were Lab, the gain was LDs in Chesham)
    Good work, but I'll do that thing again where I say there are multiple factors involved.
    MLR analysis would be really interesting here, but I've sadly not got the time.
    I think Stuartinromford is right, as he often is, that if people want to kick the incumbents they will. I doubt death factors in all that much, or anything else really, unless its Brecon and Radnorshire and the incumbents let the disgraced MP subject to a recall petition restand.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,823
    HYUFD said:

    Old Bexley and Sidcup is the 122nd safest Tory seat, if Labour gained it Starmer would be heading for a landslide even bigger than Blair's in 1997. It is nowhere near happening on current polling, especially as it is in a strong Leave area

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html

    Starmer's landslide? Not really HY. It's a by election. I too think OB and S is a tall order, but if the lights are out* by then, which is not beyond the realms of possibility it would be ripe for a protest vote.

    * I will add the caveat that even if the lights are out Johnson may avoid the blame. I am not sure how, but he walked away from the petrol crisis unscathed, whilst Blair had hitherto been royally spanked in similar circumstances.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,950
    Dems find some spine

    https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/status/1448701957913337859?t=_85ye6b4_8hSICVRJH3W5A&s=19

    Let's see if they'll do same for actual legislators.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    fpt

    kinabalu said:

    Enough about Wagner or David Davis, Mick has cancelled Brown Sugar!

    The skydog slaver will no longer be whipping the women just around midnight or at any other time - not at a Stones gig anyway.

    Do they ever do Sweet Black Angel live?

    Apparently that was a political song about Angela Davis, a black woman facing a murder charge at the time it was written.

    Yes, I know the song. Doubt that's in the set but not for any special reason other than space and it's not really a standard. Great band, could make a case for goatdom, but I'd like to see them stop now and embrace pipe, slippers and recliner.
    Certainly one of the greatest bands of all time. McCartney showed himself up for the tosser he is (for at least the 1000th time) by calling them a 'blues cover band' in his recent interview.
    Oh dear. Certainly not JUST that. Still, Macca can be naff but when I did an exercise a while ago, which were my fav beatles songs, I got a slightly unwelcome surprise. More of his than Lennon's were in there.
    I yield to nobody in my love of the Stones but Macca has a point. There is a chasm between the degree to which the Beatles and the Stones advanced the development of Western popular music. Macca has a strong (in my view unanswerable) claim to being the greatest living Briton.
    When I was growing up he was my favourite Beatle. My Dad was a big Wings fan and we used to get a lot of Macca in the car (still love Live And Let Die and Band On The Run!).

    But then I saw him in the flesh.

    It was mid/late 90s on New Year's Eve, next to a London bridge (I was quite drunk and it was a long time ago, so I'm struggling with the details..). I was with a friend heading back to her place in Kensington when we spotted him walking with a tall blonde lady. We just said to each other "OMG It's Paul McCartney!" while continuing on our way.

    Then another drunk group - this one mostly young men - saw them and recognised him. One of them gleefully bounded over towards him and said excitedly "Oh my god, you're Paul McCartney aren't you?! I love you!"

    Macca clearly didn't like this. The guy wasn't in his face (he was socially distanced!), but Macca got in his face, put his nose to his nose, and shouted, "I want you to FUCK OFF and leave me alone!".

    I can understand his wish to be left alone, but it really put me off him.

    George has been my favourite Beatle ever since. I love the fact that he wrote Something, the song Sinatra called the greatest love song ever written, and My Sweet Lord which must be one of the most performed gospel songs since he wrote it.

    George Harrison is definitely the best Beatle.

    Not a dick.
    Wrote great music.

    What's not to like?
    All Things Must Pass was my album of the summer this year.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,734
    edited October 2021
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Old Bexley and Sidcup is the 122nd safest Tory seat, if Labour gained it Starmer would be heading for a landslide even bigger than Blair's in 1997. It is nowhere near happening on current polling, especially as it is in a strong Leave area

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html

    The Tories lost Orpington on a 26% swing in 1962. That didn’t lead to a Liberal election victory in 1964.

    That said, I would be surprised if the Tories lost. I think there will be a biggish sympathy vote for a start, and also Starmer is not pulling up any trees in the Hoke Counties as far as I can judge. In C&A there were numerous other factors at play, particularly planning. Is that the case here?
    Liberals can occasionally win shock mid term by elections in Tory or Labour safe seats, see Chesham too, Labour or the Tory wins in Tory or Labour seats in by elections however tend to reflect the national polls
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,797

    HYUFD said:

    Old Bexley and Sidcup is the 122nd safest Tory seat, if Labour gained it Starmer would be heading for a landslide even bigger than Blair's in 1997. It is nowhere near happening on current polling, especially as it is in a strong Leave area

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html

    Starmer's landslide? Not really HY. It's a by election. I too think OB and S is a tall order, but if the lights are out* by then, which is not beyond the realms of possibility it would be ripe for a protest vote.

    * I will add the caveat that even if the lights are out Johnson may avoid the blame. I am not sure how, but he walked away from the petrol crisis unscathed, whilst Blair had hitherto been royally spanked in similar circumstances.
    Indeed the Tory vote share went up in today's poll iirc....
  • Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,734
    edited October 2021

    HYUFD said:

    On topic, for this by-election (and, I think, for the next GE), the only way the left can win is if Lab and LD disband and become part of the Greens.

    If the whole of the centre to left of British politics became one Green Party, they'd easily win a majority.

    Is there any way it could happen?

    That would just mean fiscally conservative Remainers considering the LDs or even Starmer Labour would stick with the Tories as the Greens are too left for them
    The Greens would obviously have to change a bit for this to happen (cf German Greens).

    I think that most people voting left wing believe themselves more green than their right wing equivalents. I think they could all unite under a "Green" banner, and it could attract enough people from the centre to win.
    Even in Germany most centrist CDU voters who moved went SPD not Green
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Old Bexley and Sidcup is the 122nd safest Tory seat, if Labour gained it Starmer would be heading for a landslide even bigger than Blair's in 1997. It is nowhere near happening on current polling, especially as it is in a strong Leave area

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html

    The Tories lost Orpington on a 26% swing in 1962. That didn’t lead to a Liberal election victory in 1964.

    That said, I would be surprised if the Tories lost. I think there will be a biggish sympathy vote for a start, and also Starmer is not pulling up any trees in the Hoke Counties as far as I can judge. In C&A there were numerous other factors at play, particularly planning. Is that the case here?
    Liberals can occasionally win shock mid term by elections in Tory or Labour safe seats, see Chesham too, Labour or the Tories wins in Tory or Labour seats in by elections however tend to reflect the national polls
    Well, yes. But I’m saying I don’t think it likely.

    Doesn’t make it impossible. Nothing is impossible in politics, except maybe @bigjohnowls saying something vaguely complimentary about Starmer.
  • Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127

    Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?

    Yes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    On the question on whether Labour have a better than 5% chance, I'd actually say yes. Though not massively better.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,937
    OT but I couldn't resist. I read something by 'Ed' the barking Trump fan down thread and then I saw this and laughed out loud

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3NWLr74dOc
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,797

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    No wonder they were queuing...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,333
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    fpt

    kinabalu said:

    Enough about Wagner or David Davis, Mick has cancelled Brown Sugar!

    The skydog slaver will no longer be whipping the women just around midnight or at any other time - not at a Stones gig anyway.

    Do they ever do Sweet Black Angel live?

    Apparently that was a political song about Angela Davis, a black woman facing a murder charge at the time it was written.

    Yes, I know the song. Doubt that's in the set but not for any special reason other than space and it's not really a standard. Great band, could make a case for goatdom, but I'd like to see them stop now and embrace pipe, slippers and recliner.
    Certainly one of the greatest bands of all time. McCartney showed himself up for the tosser he is (for at least the 1000th time) by calling them a 'blues cover band' in his recent interview.
    Oh dear. Certainly not JUST that. Still, Macca can be naff but when I did an exercise a while ago, which were my fav beatles songs, I got a slightly unwelcome surprise. More of his than Lennon's were in there.
    I yield to nobody in my love of the Stones but Macca has a point. There is a chasm between the degree to which the Beatles and the Stones advanced the development of Western popular music. Macca has a strong (in my view unanswerable) claim to being the greatest living Briton.
    When I was growing up he was my favourite Beatle. My Dad was a big Wings fan and we used to get a lot of Macca in the car (still love Live And Let Die and Band On The Run!).

    But then I saw him in the flesh.

    It was mid/late 90s on New Year's Eve, next to a London bridge (I was quite drunk and it was a long time ago, so I'm struggling with the details..). I was with a friend heading back to her place in Kensington when we spotted him walking with a tall blonde lady. We just said to each other "OMG It's Paul McCartney!" while continuing on our way.

    Then another drunk group - this one mostly young men - saw them and recognised him. One of them gleefully bounded over towards him and said excitedly "Oh my god, you're Paul McCartney aren't you?! I love you!"

    Macca clearly didn't like this. The guy wasn't in his face (he was socially distanced!), but Macca got in his face, put his nose to his nose, and shouted, "I want you to FUCK OFF and leave me alone!".

    I can understand his wish to be left alone, but it really put me off him.

    George has been my favourite Beatle ever since. I love the fact that he wrote Something, the song Sinatra called the greatest love song ever written, and My Sweet Lord which must be one of the most performed gospel songs since he wrote it.

    George Harrison is definitely the best Beatle.

    Not a dick.
    Wrote great music.

    What's not to like?
    Paul was too soppy without John, John was too acid without Paul, George was too melodic without Lennon and McCartney. Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the band...
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    On topic, for this by-election (and, I think, for the next GE), the only way the left can win is if Lab and LD disband and become part of the Greens.

    If the whole of the centre to left of British politics became one Green Party, they'd easily win a majority.

    Is there any way it could happen?

    That would just mean fiscally conservative Remainers considering the LDs or even Starmer Labour would stick with the Tories as the Greens are too left for them
    The Greens would obviously have to change a bit for this to happen (cf German Greens).

    I think that most people voting left wing believe themselves more green than their right wing equivalents. I think they could all unite under a "Green" banner, and it could attract enough people from the centre to win.
    Even in Germany most centrist CDU voters who moved went SPD not Green
    But that isn't like my hypothetical scenario where the other existing left-wing parties disband, at least temporarily, to make a Green alliance
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    Either that is a very old photo or there is something weird going on.

    Given the type and style of cars in the queue I’m guessing the former.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,397

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    No wonder there were queues.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    edited October 2021
    ydoethur said:

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    Either that is a very old photo or there is something weird going on.

    Given the type and style of cars in the queue I’m guessing the former.
    At least mark the photo as 'illustrative' or include a tiny caption that is an example from previously, that's just shitty on top of being lazy. And shitty.
  • ydoethur said:

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    Either that is a very old photo or there is something weird going on.

    Given the type and style of cars in the queue I’m guessing the former.
    I think it is from the 2000 fuel protests.

    I know when some people got their knickers in a twist over the Guardian using an old photo of empty shelves I pointed out when you use agency photographs for websites you type in a phrase and sometimes it brings up an old photo which you end up using.
  • ydoethur said:

    Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?

    Yes.
    As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.

    Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.

    Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.

    I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775
    kjh said:

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    No wonder there were queues.
    It lols like a classic car rally. Those late nineties C class cars were something else
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    Either that is a very old photo or there is something weird going on.

    Given the type and style of cars in the queue I’m guessing the former.
    I think it is from the 2000 fuel protests.

    I know when some people got their knickers in a twist over the Guardian using an old photo of empty shelves I pointed out when you use agency photographs for websites you type in a phrase and sometimes it brings up an old photo which you end up using.
    I’m sure that’s right but they really should do better. It’s not as if they couldn’t find a new picture of queues is it? Although the ‘crisis’ is done in my part of Wiltshire, so may be they couldn’t. And just possibly some people have found a great excuse for a few more days wfh...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    Either that is a very old photo or there is something weird going on.

    Given the type and style of cars in the queue I’m guessing the former.
    I think it is from the 2000 fuel protests.

    I know when some people got their knickers in a twist over the Guardian using an old photo of empty shelves I pointed out when you use agency photographs for websites you type in a phrase and sometimes it brings up an old photo which you end up using.
    I suspect the Mail know exactly what they're doing. It got shared on here and we all clicked on it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    Either that is a very old photo or there is something weird going on.

    Given the type and style of cars in the queue I’m guessing the former.
    I think it is from the 2000 fuel protests.

    I know when some people got their knickers in a twist over the Guardian using an old photo of empty shelves I pointed out when you use agency photographs for websites you type in a phrase and sometimes it brings up an old photo which you end up using.
    Would make sense, especially as the board has only two columns before the decimal point.

    Amusing to think the protests were triggered over the fears that petrol might hit - gasp - £5 a gallon.

    And prices have near doubled since then.

    No inflation, did somebody say?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Roger said:

    OT but I couldn't resist. I read something by 'Ed' the barking Trump fan down thread and then I saw this and laughed out loud

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3NWLr74dOc

    Oh Roger, good to see you are such a kn0b as ever, you do cheer me up. How’s the Pol Roger going?
  • ydoethur said:

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    Either that is a very old photo or there is something weird going on.

    Given the type and style of cars in the queue I’m guessing the former.
    I think it is from the 2000 fuel protests.

    I know when some people got their knickers in a twist over the Guardian using an old photo of empty shelves I pointed out when you use agency photographs for websites you type in a phrase and sometimes it brings up an old photo which you end up using.
    I’m sure that’s right but they really should do better. It’s not as if they couldn’t find a new picture of queues is it? Although the ‘crisis’ is done in my part of Wiltshire, so may be they couldn’t. And just possibly some people have found a great excuse for a few more days wfh...
    I don't know how the Mail operates but I do know of examples when you use a current photo it gets pulled because of copyright or exclusivity issues and the website automatically replaces it with a different but similar photo.

    It is why PB thread headers generally uses pictures we've screenshotted or taken ourselves.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Old Bexley and Sidcup is the 122nd safest Tory seat, if Labour gained it Starmer would be heading for a landslide even bigger than Blair's in 1997. It is nowhere near happening on current polling, especially as it is in a strong Leave area

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html

    The Tories lost Orpington on a 26% swing in 1962. That didn’t lead to a Liberal election victory in 1964.

    That said, I would be surprised if the Tories lost. I think there will be a biggish sympathy vote for a start, and also Starmer is not pulling up any trees in the Hoke Counties as far as I can judge. In C&A there were numerous other factors at play, particularly planning. Is that the case here?
    Liberals can occasionally win shock mid term by elections in Tory or Labour safe seats, see Chesham too, Labour or the Tories wins in Tory or Labour seats in by elections however tend to reflect the national polls
    Well, yes. But I’m saying I don’t think it likely.

    Doesn’t make it impossible. Nothing is impossible in politics, except maybe @bigjohnowls saying something vaguely complimentary about Starmer.
    Timing is obviously an issue given Webb hasn’t resigned yet but surely if OB&S and Leicester East by-elections are close date wise, Labour is going to throw all resources into the latter? Otherwise, SKS would face even more criticism in the event Labour lost LE.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127

    ydoethur said:

    Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?

    Yes.
    As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.

    Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.

    Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.

    I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
    I think it’s actually more a form of arrogance. If your view is right, everyone else is wrong. So why compromise? They need to understand they’re wrong and be brought round to the right way of thinking. And if they don’t, then they’re evil, so why work with them? Much as we are seeing with the increasingly nutty elements of the transgender lobby, who seem to think it’s perfectly OK to make death threats to those women who take the view that whatever they may wish to be, those who are possessed of penises at any given moment are men.

    The right, by contrast, want power and are not too fussy about how they get it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    Either that is a very old photo or there is something weird going on.

    Given the type and style of cars in the queue I’m guessing the former.
    I think it is from the 2000 fuel protests.

    I know when some people got their knickers in a twist over the Guardian using an old photo of empty shelves I pointed out when you use agency photographs for websites you type in a phrase and sometimes it brings up an old photo which you end up using.
    Would make sense, especially as the board has only two columns before the decimal point.

    Amusing to think the protests were triggered over the fears that petrol might hit - gasp - £5 a gallon.

    And prices have near doubled since then.

    No inflation, did somebody say?
    Actually, we're only now getting back to where we were in 2011. I think the oil price crash of 2014 was a factor in the Tories winning the 2015 election.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,337
    edited October 2021
    As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.
  • Boris should be fine. I still think there's a fair number of people who want to make sure the powers that be get the message on Brexit.

    Boris is the powers that be.
  • ydoethur said:

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    Either that is a very old photo or there is something weird going on.

    Given the type and style of cars in the queue I’m guessing the former.
    I think it is from the 2000 fuel protests.

    I know when some people got their knickers in a twist over the Guardian using an old photo of empty shelves I pointed out when you use agency photographs for websites you type in a phrase and sometimes it brings up an old photo which you end up using.
    I’m sure that’s right but they really should do better. It’s not as if they couldn’t find a new picture of queues is it? Although the ‘crisis’ is done in my part of Wiltshire, so may be they couldn’t. And just possibly some people have found a great excuse for a few more days wfh...
    But that would cost The Mail more, and neither the proprietor or the customers are prepared to pay more.

    Proper news coverage costs what it costs, which is why so many papers are utter dreck these days.

    Give him his due, Murdoch recognised this, which is why The Times is still halfway decent.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    MrEd said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Old Bexley and Sidcup is the 122nd safest Tory seat, if Labour gained it Starmer would be heading for a landslide even bigger than Blair's in 1997. It is nowhere near happening on current polling, especially as it is in a strong Leave area

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html

    The Tories lost Orpington on a 26% swing in 1962. That didn’t lead to a Liberal election victory in 1964.

    That said, I would be surprised if the Tories lost. I think there will be a biggish sympathy vote for a start, and also Starmer is not pulling up any trees in the Hoke Counties as far as I can judge. In C&A there were numerous other factors at play, particularly planning. Is that the case here?
    Liberals can occasionally win shock mid term by elections in Tory or Labour safe seats, see Chesham too, Labour or the Tories wins in Tory or Labour seats in by elections however tend to reflect the national polls
    Well, yes. But I’m saying I don’t think it likely.

    Doesn’t make it impossible. Nothing is impossible in politics, except maybe @bigjohnowls saying something vaguely complimentary about Starmer.
    Timing is obviously an issue given Webb hasn’t resigned yet but surely if OB&S and Leicester East by-elections are close date wise, Labour is going to throw all resources into the latter? Otherwise, SKS would face even more criticism in the event Labour lost LE.
    She won’t be resigning. And pending her appeal, she could be there for twelve months or more. It won’t be left vacant for that long.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,810

    As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the economy.

    People whose mode of transport runs on carrots are smug as well.

    https://twitter.com/grescoe/status/1446269882920800263
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,893
    edited October 2021

    Up to now, there have been no consequences unless they wanted to go abroad on holiday. The two most obvious measures that would I think get vaccination rates up significantly are these:
    1. The inability to attend/book tickets for large outdoor public or medium size indoor events unless people are fully vaccinated. Not just tested but vaccinated, because vaccinations are the key to getting infections down.
    2. In the case of an outbreak at schools, children in the class or maybe the year group to be sent home unless both they and their guardians have been fully vaccinated. Announce it now and bring it in immediately after the half term.

    Both of those things also impose bureaucratic and privacy costs on the majority of people who have been vaccinated. And though I'd like to get to 100% vaccination I'm not sure about the element of coercion involved.

    My concern is that people who have done the responsible thing, and are vaccinated, do not suffer because of those who reject the triumph of science that is the vaccines. The main problem here is with pressure on hospitals.

    An extreme option would be to reopen a few Nightingale hospitals to provide palliative Covid care for antivaxxers. This would stop them from using beds and highly trained medical staff who could be helping vaccinated patients with cancer, surgery, etc.

    I can't think of a less extreme option that achieves the same end without also punishing people who are vaccinated.
    The bureaucracy would be minimal. Let the school know, once, that you as a parent have been vaccinated and that'll do you forever. Let your local football club know, once, that you have been vaccinated as a season ticket holder or member, and that'll do you forever as it'll be on record whenever you buy tickets. Also, I am not suggesting that it need be done for smaller venues but only those large enough to pose significant risk as superspreader events, linked to the ticket buying process. The point isn't to extend the measures to so many public areas that virtually 100% of the population feels the need to get vaccinated, it's to extend it only enough to prompt enough of the remaining 21% to get vaccinated so that the rate of transmission falls back well below the R rate of 1.0.

    By comparison with what you have to do to go abroad, these measures are also very limited. To visit Portugal for my son's wedding last month, I had to arrange 3 separate vaccine tests of which only the one in Portugal was easy to do (at most local chemists rather than 30 miles away, and far cheaper), drop off the PCR test on return at a box 10 miles away (a wasted morning), and complete 2 separate lengthy passenger locator forms. If I made another trip I would have to do the same. How does that compare to letting your school know, just once, that you've had the jab? Let's get it in perspective.

    So the inconvenience is minimal. As for privacy, are you seriously saying there's a risk involved in declaring to a 3rd party that you've been vaccinated?

    You also need to bear in mind that a significant chunk of the population is still avoiding these events under the (not unreasonable) fear that they may end up sitting next to some numpty anti-vaxxer. Obviously we all have our own view of the risks but the fact is that a significant proportion of the vaccinated population probably view the risks as higher than you or I may, and still feel intimidated enough to stay away. When I went to the Molineux a week ago I was able to count on one hand the number of fans choosing to wear masks even in indoor spaces. It's not unreasonable to assume that at least 1 in 5 were unvaccinated, possibly more, and so the odds are that someone would have been sitting within 1 or 2 seats of you. Why should people concerned about catching Covid be forced to choose to dump their fears or stay away?



  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489

    As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.

    Errr, have you seen this...

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-energy-prices-crisis-rail-diesel-b1937543.html
  • tlg86 said:

    As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.

    Errr, have you seen this...

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-energy-prices-crisis-rail-diesel-b1937543.html
    Yes.

    Sounds like they want a bail out.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?

    Yes.
    As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.

    Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.

    Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.

    I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
    I think it’s actually more a form of arrogance. If your view is right, everyone else is wrong. So why compromise? They need to understand they’re wrong and be brought round to the right way of thinking. And if they don’t, then they’re evil, so why work with them? Much as we are seeing with the increasingly nutty elements of the transgender lobby, who seem to think it’s perfectly OK to make death threats to those women who take the view that whatever they may wish to be, those who are possessed of penises at any given moment are men.

    The right, by contrast, want power and are not too fussy about how they get it.
    Pretty much.

    That instinct can go too far, and the abasement at the feet of Bozza crosses that line (surely?). But honest mass appeal is healthy. In the way that the main Spanish centre-right party is called the Popular / People's Party.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127

    As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.

    The thought of what electric vehicles will do to his economy should keep MBS awake at night.

    But I’m assuming it doesn’t given that there are many far worse things he’s done that should keep him awake and apparently don’t.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    Speaking of by-elections, hoo-fecking-ray;

    Sarah Everard: Commissioner Philip Allott resigns
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-58915325
  • ydoethur said:

    As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.

    The thought of what electric vehicles will do to his economy should keep MBS awake at night.

    But I’m assuming it doesn’t given that there are many far worse things he’s done that should keep him awake and apparently don’t.
    I keep on telling Liverpool fans that they should all get electric cars as it will make Man City and Chelsea go bust, and now Newcastle United.
  • My favourite Stones related video is this one of their one-off backing singer Merry Clayton (so named because she was born on Christmas Day) going back to the Gimme Shelter studio (and some chat from Mick about it).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChONufP0FEs

    What it fails to mention is the sad fact that she miscarried that night.

    I highly recommend checking out Merry's 1969 eponymous album; this is the first track

    Southern Man
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513
    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    On topic, I'm expecting a sympathy vote for the Tories.

    James Brokenshire was a top bloke.

    Are death by-elections more likely to see the same party re-elected than other by-elections?
    For what it is worth, on a small sample.

    Last 10 by elections (non deaths)


    7 holds, 3 gains

    Last 10 by-elections (deaths
    )

    9 holds and 1 gain (all holds were Lab, the gain was LDs in Chesham)

    It seems that there was a run of 13 by-elections with death as the cause in Lab held seats until the recent two Con seat ones. Deaths in office used to be more common.
    I'd think that deaths would be more likely to occur in safe seats, as a marginal is less likely to be held by the same MP for as long, and so the MP is less likely to die while incumbent.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843

    As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.

    South Park did an episode on that very phenomenom 15 years ago.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert!

    And the real smug ones are those of us without vehicles at all. You think producing that electric car didn't have a carbon cost?
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Apart from the obvious question of whether Sinema will leave the Democrat caucus at some point, had anyone heard of the phrase "birddogging" before?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/were-going-to-make-her-life-unpleasant-activists-arent-finished-with-kyrsten-sinema/ar-AAPtVW0?li=BBnb7Kz

    I don't think she leaves. She wouldn't get elected as a Republican in Arizona, but I think she knows she's in a Purple State, and that the electoral geography might not be as favourable to a generic Democrat in 2024, and she therefore is going to be extremely moderate.

    It's almost certainly the correct choice.
    Except she is losing support with Independents. This seems like a bad thing for her re-election chances.

    Sure she's gaining with Republicans but how many of them will vote for her instead of the Trumpster come election day when Trump is on the ballot?
    Lets see.
    I think she will underperform both the Dem nominee (Probably Biden) and the generic house vote in Az
    I think she is genuinely at risk of being primaried at the moment.

    I think there is a significant chunk of Dem activists who thought they were getting former Green party member, most Left Wing member of the Arizona Statehouse, Sinema elected to the Senate. Not, voted with Trump more often than Joe Manchin, Sinema.
    The "moderate" stuff that always gets blocked is never anything the gods, guns and gays Trumpers particularly care about but infrastructure spending that polls well across the spectrum but which the Dems will get it in the neck for if it doesn't pass
    Arizona is one of the most fiscally conservative and libertarian states in the USA, it even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 when LBJ won a landslide nationally and of course it voted for McCain and Romney over Obama in 2008 and 2012.

    Biden only won Arizona with socially liberal but fiscally conservative voters who voted Libertarian in 2016 when Trump beat Hillary in the state but for him in 2020 solely to remove Trump. Sinema knows her state. It is not infrastructure spending she is blocking anyway but pork spending and big government expansion beyond that
    Strange then that Mark Kelly who is more a mainstream Democrat is far outpolling Sinema then.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,333

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    On topic, I'm expecting a sympathy vote for the Tories.

    James Brokenshire was a top bloke.

    Are death by-elections more likely to see the same party re-elected than other by-elections?
    For what it is worth, on a small sample.

    Last 10 by elections (non deaths)


    7 holds, 3 gains

    Last 10 by-elections (deaths
    )

    9 holds and 1 gain (all holds were Lab, the gain was LDs in Chesham)

    It seems that there was a run of 13 by-elections with death as the cause in Lab held seats until the recent two Con seat ones. Deaths in office used to be more common.
    I'd think that deaths would be more likely to occur in safe seats, as a marginal is less likely to be held by the same MP for as long, and so the MP is less likely to die while incumbent.
    The real lesson is that 8 out of ten are holds...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    edited October 2021
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    On topic, I'm expecting a sympathy vote for the Tories.

    James Brokenshire was a top bloke.

    Are death by-elections more likely to see the same party re-elected than other by-elections?
    For what it is worth, on a small sample.

    Last 10 by elections (non deaths)


    7 holds, 3 gains

    Last 10 by-elections (deaths
    )

    9 holds and 1 gain (all holds were Lab, the gain was LDs in Chesham)

    It seems that there was a run of 13 by-elections with death as the cause in Lab held seats until the recent two Con seat ones. Deaths in office used to be more common.
    I'd think that deaths would be more likely to occur in safe seats, as a marginal is less likely to be held by the same MP for as long, and so the MP is less likely to die while incumbent.
    The real lesson is that 8 out of ten are holds...
    8 out of 10 cats prefer holds?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,122
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Apart from the obvious question of whether Sinema will leave the Democrat caucus at some point, had anyone heard of the phrase "birddogging" before?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/were-going-to-make-her-life-unpleasant-activists-arent-finished-with-kyrsten-sinema/ar-AAPtVW0?li=BBnb7Kz

    I don't think she leaves. She wouldn't get elected as a Republican in Arizona, but I think she knows she's in a Purple State, and that the electoral geography might not be as favourable to a generic Democrat in 2024, and she therefore is going to be extremely moderate.

    It's almost certainly the correct choice.
    Except she is losing support with Independents. This seems like a bad thing for her re-election chances.

    Sure she's gaining with Republicans but how many of them will vote for her instead of the Trumpster come election day when Trump is on the ballot?
    Lets see.
    I think she will underperform both the Dem nominee (Probably Biden) and the generic house vote in Az
    I think she is genuinely at risk of being primaried at the moment.

    I think there is a significant chunk of Dem activists who thought they were getting former Green party member, most Left Wing member of the Arizona Statehouse, Sinema elected to the Senate. Not, voted with Trump more often than Joe Manchin, Sinema.
    The "moderate" stuff that always gets blocked is never anything the gods, guns and gays Trumpers particularly care about but infrastructure spending that polls well across the spectrum but which the Dems will get it in the neck for if it doesn't pass
    Arizona is one of the most fiscally conservative and libertarian states in the USA, it even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 when LBJ won a landslide nationally and of course it voted for McCain and Romney over Obama in 2008 and 2012.

    Biden only won Arizona with socially liberal but fiscally conservative voters who voted Libertarian in 2016 when Trump beat Hillary in the state but for him in 2020 solely to remove Trump. Sinema knows her state. It is not infrastructure spending she is blocking anyway but pork spending and big government expansion beyond that
    Yeah, but...

    Arizona is changing.

    It's both becoming younger (and young'uns vote Democrat) and more Hispanic (who also skew Democrat). Indeed, it looks rather like New Mexico, which also used to be reliable Red, and has become increasingly Blue over time.


  • As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.

    Electricity also costs money, you know :lol:
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,636

    ydoethur said:

    Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?

    Yes.
    As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.

    Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.

    Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.

    I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
    I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.

    By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
  • kle4 said:

    As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.

    South Park did an episode on that very phenomenom 15 years ago.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert!

    And the real smug ones are those of us without vehicles at all. You think producing that electric car didn't have a carbon cost?
    This is true, I would be a cyclist but for the fact I've seen how drivers react/don't see cyclists on the road.

    My friends have often observed that I'm always smug for about a dozen reasons, they also observe that one of the circles of hell is reserved for smug bastards.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,147

    ydoethur said:

    Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?

    Yes.
    As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.

    Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.

    Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.

    I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
    I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.

    By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
    "I'm a loyalist..."

    No surrender!
  • ydoethur said:

    Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?

    Yes.
    As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.

    Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.

    Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.

    I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
    I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.

    By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
    To be fair Corbyn has caused untold damage to the labour brand and while Starmer is better, he is dull and lacks that something special quality which is making labour's climb back very slow
  • So this guy's defence is that he's a Scot with drinking and mental health issues.

    Glenrothes mosque terror plot accused said threats were 'a joke'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-58917262
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,950
    If the American political media was absolutely craven this is the only question they would ask and they would stop the interview if the subject couldn't give the correct answer.

    https://twitter.com/Rschooley/status/1448650847148142593
  • As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.

    Electricity also costs money, you know :lol:
    I've told you before, don't comment on things you know not.

    There's plenty of places that let you charge your vehicle for free.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,734
    edited October 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Apart from the obvious question of whether Sinema will leave the Democrat caucus at some point, had anyone heard of the phrase "birddogging" before?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/were-going-to-make-her-life-unpleasant-activists-arent-finished-with-kyrsten-sinema/ar-AAPtVW0?li=BBnb7Kz

    I don't think she leaves. She wouldn't get elected as a Republican in Arizona, but I think she knows she's in a Purple State, and that the electoral geography might not be as favourable to a generic Democrat in 2024, and she therefore is going to be extremely moderate.

    It's almost certainly the correct choice.
    Except she is losing support with Independents. This seems like a bad thing for her re-election chances.

    Sure she's gaining with Republicans but how many of them will vote for her instead of the Trumpster come election day when Trump is on the ballot?
    Lets see.
    I think she will underperform both the Dem nominee (Probably Biden) and the generic house vote in Az
    I think she is genuinely at risk of being primaried at the moment.

    I think there is a significant chunk of Dem activists who thought they were getting former Green party member, most Left Wing member of the Arizona Statehouse, Sinema elected to the Senate. Not, voted with Trump more often than Joe Manchin, Sinema.
    The "moderate" stuff that always gets blocked is never anything the gods, guns and gays Trumpers particularly care about but infrastructure spending that polls well across the spectrum but which the Dems will get it in the neck for if it doesn't pass
    Arizona is one of the most fiscally conservative and libertarian states in the USA, it even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 when LBJ won a landslide nationally and of course it voted for McCain and Romney over Obama in 2008 and 2012.

    Biden only won Arizona with socially liberal but fiscally conservative voters who voted Libertarian in 2016 when Trump beat Hillary in the state but for him in 2020 solely to remove Trump. Sinema knows her state. It is not infrastructure spending she is blocking anyway but pork spending and big government expansion beyond that
    Yeah, but...

    Arizona is changing.

    It's both becoming younger (and young'uns vote Democrat) and more Hispanic (who also skew Democrat). Indeed, it looks rather like New Mexico, which also used to be reliable Red, and has become increasingly Blue over time.


    Even in 2020 Trump got 49% in Arizona (and Jorgensen the Libertarian go 1.5%) so over 50% of Arizonans voted GOP or Libertarian, US wide 51% voted for Biden.

    New Mexico is even more Democrat than nationally however, 54% voted for Biden in New Mexico in 2020.

    New Mexico voted for JFK and LBJ and for Obama and even for Gore, it has always been more blue than its neighbour.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,734

    ydoethur said:

    Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?

    Yes.
    As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.

    Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.

    Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.

    I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
    I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.

    By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
    Plenty of rightwing Tories of course felt the same about Cameron when he was elected leader in 2005, some drifting off to UKIP as some leftwing Labour supporters have gone Green
  • Alistair said:
    It's just dawned on me that if Trump wins in 2024 he'll get Congress to affirm that he won the 2020 election.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Apart from the obvious question of whether Sinema will leave the Democrat caucus at some point, had anyone heard of the phrase "birddogging" before?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/were-going-to-make-her-life-unpleasant-activists-arent-finished-with-kyrsten-sinema/ar-AAPtVW0?li=BBnb7Kz

    I don't think she leaves. She wouldn't get elected as a Republican in Arizona, but I think she knows she's in a Purple State, and that the electoral geography might not be as favourable to a generic Democrat in 2024, and she therefore is going to be extremely moderate.

    It's almost certainly the correct choice.
    Except she is losing support with Independents. This seems like a bad thing for her re-election chances.

    Sure she's gaining with Republicans but how many of them will vote for her instead of the Trumpster come election day when Trump is on the ballot?
    Lets see.
    I think she will underperform both the Dem nominee (Probably Biden) and the generic house vote in Az
    I think she is genuinely at risk of being primaried at the moment.

    I think there is a significant chunk of Dem activists who thought they were getting former Green party member, most Left Wing member of the Arizona Statehouse, Sinema elected to the Senate. Not, voted with Trump more often than Joe Manchin, Sinema.
    The "moderate" stuff that always gets blocked is never anything the gods, guns and gays Trumpers particularly care about but infrastructure spending that polls well across the spectrum but which the Dems will get it in the neck for if it doesn't pass
    Arizona is one of the most fiscally conservative and libertarian states in the USA, it even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 when LBJ won a landslide nationally and of course it voted for McCain and Romney over Obama in 2008 and 2012.

    Biden only won Arizona with socially liberal but fiscally conservative voters who voted Libertarian in 2016 when Trump beat Hillary in the state but for him in 2020 solely to remove Trump. Sinema knows her state. It is not infrastructure spending she is blocking anyway but pork spending and big government expansion beyond that
    Yeah, but...

    Arizona is changing.

    It's both becoming younger (and young'uns vote Democrat) and more Hispanic (who also skew Democrat). Indeed, it looks rather like New Mexico, which also used to be reliable Red, and has become increasingly Blue over time.


    Even in 2020 Trump got 49% in Arizona (and Jorgensen the Libertarian go 1.5%) so over 50% of Arizonans voted GOP or Libertarian, US wide 51% voted for Biden.

    New Mexico is even more Democrat than nationally however, 54% voted for Biden in New Mexico in 2020
    @rcs1000 would know more as I think he lives there but my impression is AZ is getting a lot of people fleeing from California. Not sure how it counterbalances the trends but I think AZ is likely to remain purple for a while to come.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127

    Alistair said:
    It's just dawned on me that if Trump wins in 2024 he'll get Congress to affirm that he won the 2020 election.
    That would solve the problem then, as he would immediately be ineligible for 2024 and be stripped of the Presidency.

    Elected twice, serves once. Win, win, win.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,734
    Aslan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Apart from the obvious question of whether Sinema will leave the Democrat caucus at some point, had anyone heard of the phrase "birddogging" before?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/were-going-to-make-her-life-unpleasant-activists-arent-finished-with-kyrsten-sinema/ar-AAPtVW0?li=BBnb7Kz

    I don't think she leaves. She wouldn't get elected as a Republican in Arizona, but I think she knows she's in a Purple State, and that the electoral geography might not be as favourable to a generic Democrat in 2024, and she therefore is going to be extremely moderate.

    It's almost certainly the correct choice.
    Except she is losing support with Independents. This seems like a bad thing for her re-election chances.

    Sure she's gaining with Republicans but how many of them will vote for her instead of the Trumpster come election day when Trump is on the ballot?
    Lets see.
    I think she will underperform both the Dem nominee (Probably Biden) and the generic house vote in Az
    I think she is genuinely at risk of being primaried at the moment.

    I think there is a significant chunk of Dem activists who thought they were getting former Green party member, most Left Wing member of the Arizona Statehouse, Sinema elected to the Senate. Not, voted with Trump more often than Joe Manchin, Sinema.
    The "moderate" stuff that always gets blocked is never anything the gods, guns and gays Trumpers particularly care about but infrastructure spending that polls well across the spectrum but which the Dems will get it in the neck for if it doesn't pass
    Arizona is one of the most fiscally conservative and libertarian states in the USA, it even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 when LBJ won a landslide nationally and of course it voted for McCain and Romney over Obama in 2008 and 2012.

    Biden only won Arizona with socially liberal but fiscally conservative voters who voted Libertarian in 2016 when Trump beat Hillary in the state but for him in 2020 solely to remove Trump. Sinema knows her state. It is not infrastructure spending she is blocking anyway but pork spending and big government expansion beyond that
    Strange then that Mark Kelly who is more a mainstream Democrat is far outpolling Sinema then.
    Kelly is no leftwinger either and he is on only 43% against his likely GOP opponent in the most recent 2022 poll despite incumbency
    https://f.hubspotusercontent40.net/hubfs/7453540/AZPOP/210907_AZPOP/Arizona Public Opinion Pulse (AZPOP) Senate Toplines and Selected Crosstabs.pdf

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543

    It's just dawned on me that if Trump wins in 2024 he'll get Congress to affirm that he won the 2020 election.

    He wants Republicans to boycott the midterms. Congress will be majority Democrat
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    So this guy's defence is that he's a Scot with drinking and mental health issues.

    Glenrothes mosque terror plot accused said threats were 'a joke'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-58917262

    Says in there that he attempted suicide in 2018 and was a self-harmer.

    Doesn’t excuse his behaviour by any stretch but he’s clearly not right in the head.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,239
    In about half an hour the last ever Al Italia flight will touch down in Rome, after which this airline, which started passenger flights in 1947, will be no more.
  • As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.

    Electricity also costs money, you know :lol:
    I've told you before, don't comment on things you know not.

    Arrogant as well as smug! :p
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    HYUFD said:

    Aslan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Apart from the obvious question of whether Sinema will leave the Democrat caucus at some point, had anyone heard of the phrase "birddogging" before?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/were-going-to-make-her-life-unpleasant-activists-arent-finished-with-kyrsten-sinema/ar-AAPtVW0?li=BBnb7Kz

    I don't think she leaves. She wouldn't get elected as a Republican in Arizona, but I think she knows she's in a Purple State, and that the electoral geography might not be as favourable to a generic Democrat in 2024, and she therefore is going to be extremely moderate.

    It's almost certainly the correct choice.
    Except she is losing support with Independents. This seems like a bad thing for her re-election chances.

    Sure she's gaining with Republicans but how many of them will vote for her instead of the Trumpster come election day when Trump is on the ballot?
    Lets see.
    I think she will underperform both the Dem nominee (Probably Biden) and the generic house vote in Az
    I think she is genuinely at risk of being primaried at the moment.

    I think there is a significant chunk of Dem activists who thought they were getting former Green party member, most Left Wing member of the Arizona Statehouse, Sinema elected to the Senate. Not, voted with Trump more often than Joe Manchin, Sinema.
    The "moderate" stuff that always gets blocked is never anything the gods, guns and gays Trumpers particularly care about but infrastructure spending that polls well across the spectrum but which the Dems will get it in the neck for if it doesn't pass
    Arizona is one of the most fiscally conservative and libertarian states in the USA, it even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 when LBJ won a landslide nationally and of course it voted for McCain and Romney over Obama in 2008 and 2012.

    Biden only won Arizona with socially liberal but fiscally conservative voters who voted Libertarian in 2016 when Trump beat Hillary in the state but for him in 2020 solely to remove Trump. Sinema knows her state. It is not infrastructure spending she is blocking anyway but pork spending and big government expansion beyond that
    Strange then that Mark Kelly who is more a mainstream Democrat is far outpolling Sinema then.
    Kelly is no leftwinger either and he is on only 43% against his likely GOP opponent in the most recent 2022 poll despite incumbency
    https://f.hubspotusercontent40.net/hubfs/7453540/AZPOP/210907_AZPOP/Arizona Public Opinion Pulse (AZPOP) Senate Toplines and Selected Crosstabs.pdf

    Re Aslan’s point, I haven’t actually seen any polling on Sinema, not on 538 anyway.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    Scott_xP said:

    It's just dawned on me that if Trump wins in 2024 he'll get Congress to affirm that he won the 2020 election.

    He wants Republicans to boycott the midterms. Congress will be majority Democrat
    Let's fecking hope so.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:
    It's just dawned on me that if Trump wins in 2024 he'll get Congress to affirm that he won the 2020 election.
    That would solve the problem then, as he would immediately be ineligible for 2024 and be stripped of the Presidency.

    Elected twice, serves once. Win, win, win.
    :lol: Brilliant!!
  • IanB2 said:

    In about half an hour the last ever Al Italia flight will touch down in Rome, after which this airline, which started passenger flights in 1947, will be no more.

    Partially finally brought to a end by the Italian investment in a national high speed railway network.
  • ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:
    It's just dawned on me that if Trump wins in 2024 he'll get Congress to affirm that he won the 2020 election.
    That would solve the problem then, as he would immediately be ineligible for 2024 and be stripped of the Presidency.

    Elected twice, serves once. Win, win, win.
    Shush!
  • As an aside, my friends have noted people who drive electric/hybrid vehicles are absolutely the smuggest bastards in the world since the fuel crisis kicked off.

    We laugh at you peasants spending so much money on fuel and we are also wonderful for the environment.

    Electricity also costs money, you know :lol:
    I've told you before, don't comment on things you know not.

    There's plenty of places that let you charge your vehicle for free.
    For free?

    You mean it costs someone else to pay for that energy use and environmental damage?
  • IanB2 said:

    In about half an hour the last ever Al Italia flight will touch down in Rome, after which this airline, which started passenger flights in 1947, will be no more.

    Well, it's going to be replaced by a new stated-owned ITA.

    Italia Trasporto Aereo
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_Trasporto_Aereo
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:
    It's just dawned on me that if Trump wins in 2024 he'll get Congress to affirm that he won the 2020 election.
    That would solve the problem then, as he would immediately be ineligible for 2024 and be stripped of the Presidency.

    Elected twice, serves once. Win, win, win.
    If only. Who would declare him ineligible (even if he had 'served' twice), the Congress who just affirmed his win retroactively, or the Supreme Court with no reason to go against their fellow politicians (for such is what they are at least as much as they are jurists) in that Congress?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127

    IanB2 said:

    In about half an hour the last ever Al Italia flight will touch down in Rome, after which this airline, which started passenger flights in 1947, will be no more.

    Partially finally brought to a end by the Italian investment in a national high speed railway network.
    No risk of BA suffering likewise the way this lot are dicking about with HS2.
  • ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    In about half an hour the last ever Al Italia flight will touch down in Rome, after which this airline, which started passenger flights in 1947, will be no more.

    Partially finally brought to a end by the Italian investment in a national high speed railway network.
    No risk of BA suffering likewise the way this lot are dicking about with HS2.
    Well, Alitalia's going to be replaced by a new stated-owned "ITA".

    Italia Trasporto Aereo
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_Trasporto_Aereo
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    ...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    edited October 2021
    Just finished the 2nd part of the New Labour doc.

    After being reminded what TB helped N Ireland achieve I am left even more bewildered why almost no one in today's Labour will give him the time of day.

    It was and is a towering political and diplomatic achievement that will long feature in the history books.

    Meanwhile, Owen Jones and Aaron whats his name and all the others, fart crap on social media having achieved precisely nothing. *



    * edit: other than a Tory 80 seat win of course.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:
    It's just dawned on me that if Trump wins in 2024 he'll get Congress to affirm that he won the 2020 election.
    That would solve the problem then, as he would immediately be ineligible for 2024 and be stripped of the Presidency.

    Elected twice, serves once. Win, win, win.
    If only. Who would declare him ineligible (even if he had 'served' twice), the Congress who just affirmed his win retroactively, or the Supreme Court with no reason to go against their fellow politicians (for such is what they are at least as much as they are jurists) in that Congress?
    The irony is the constitution is unambiguous. ‘No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice.’ So it’s not about time served, it’s about number of elections. If he won an election and retrospectively changed the result fo the previous one he would boot himself out of office.

    This has of course led to ambiguity about whether two term Presidents might still be eligible to be Veeps, but that hardly applies to Trump.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    Hadn't considered this aspect, but in fairness there were some real corkers in Scotland.

    Philip Cowley
    @philipjcowley
    ·
    6h
    Praise be!

    The Boundary Commission for Scotland have managed something their counterparts in England and Wales could not – and have proposed constituency names shorter than the ones currently in use.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    kle4 said:

    Hadn't considered this aspect, but in fairness there were some real corkers in Scotland.

    Philip Cowley
    @philipjcowley
    ·
    6h
    Praise be!

    The Boundary Commission for Scotland have managed something their counterparts in England and Wales could not – and have proposed constituency names shorter than the ones currently in use.

    Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, plus Ross, Skye and Lochaber are no more.

    Welcome Highland North, Highland Central and Highland East and Elgin.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:
    It's just dawned on me that if Trump wins in 2024 he'll get Congress to affirm that he won the 2020 election.
    That would solve the problem then, as he would immediately be ineligible for 2024 and be stripped of the Presidency.

    Elected twice, serves once. Win, win, win.
    If only. Who would declare him ineligible (even if he had 'served' twice), the Congress who just affirmed his win retroactively, or the Supreme Court with no reason to go against their fellow politicians (for such is what they are at least as much as they are jurists) in that Congress?
    The irony is the constitution is unambiguous. ‘No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice.’ So it’s not about time served, it’s about number of elections. If he won an election and retrospectively changed the result fo the previous one he would boot himself out of office.

    This has of course led to ambiguity about whether two term Presidents might still be eligible to be Veeps, but that hardly applies to Trump.
    A clever lawyer could find an argument no doubt, no matter how absurd it might be. How about "it says elected 'to the office'. Though he was most definitely elected, he did not get to go 'to the office' of President, ergo it does not count".

    Even he would find the classic move hard, which is to change your constitution, and say therefore the previous term limits are reset. Even Putin got lazy and did that last time, when he was at least creative previously in going down to PM.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:
    It's just dawned on me that if Trump wins in 2024 he'll get Congress to affirm that he won the 2020 election.
    That would solve the problem then, as he would immediately be ineligible for 2024 and be stripped of the Presidency.

    Elected twice, serves once. Win, win, win.
    If only. Who would declare him ineligible (even if he had 'served' twice), the Congress who just affirmed his win retroactively, or the Supreme Court with no reason to go against their fellow politicians (for such is what they are at least as much as they are jurists) in that Congress?
    The irony is the constitution is unambiguous. ‘No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice.’ So it’s not about time served, it’s about number of elections. If he won an election and retrospectively changed the result fo the previous one he would boot himself out of office.

    This has of course led to ambiguity about whether two term Presidents might still be eligible to be Veeps, but that hardly applies to Trump.
    A clever lawyer could find an argument no doubt, no matter how absurd it might be.
    Possibly.

    But we’re in luck, Donald Trump has Rudy Giuliani.

    Good night.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486

    ydoethur said:

    Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?

    Yes.
    As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.

    Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.

    Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.

    I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
    I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.

    By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
    I'm curious what they see as a "positive reason to vote Labour" is for them?

    Is it a particular policy e.g. nationalise the electric companies?

    Or something more non-specific like a sense of direction?

    Genuine question.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,893
    On topic, I used to know Old Bexley and Sidcup quite well, having been brought up there for 18 years, attended Longlands Primary and Chis and Sid, listened to my long departed (Conservative voting) Mum as she recounted with pride how Ted Heath attended the local day centre coffee mornings, etc etc.

    Sidcup does strike me as containing the sort of suburban areas where Labour has elsewhere in the country made some progress even as its white working class vote has been lost. It's not as posh as Bromley and Chislehurst or Beckenham by a long chalk. But what it just is is very, very Tory, and area of middle-class suburbia where the Tory vote has always been pretty strong. Take the former MP's personal vote out of it by looking at other elections and you come to the same conclusion. For example in 2016 when Sadiq Khan was thrashing Zac Goldsmith, Goldsmith still outpolled Khan by a ratio of 2.5:1 in the parliamentary constituency.

    So much as I would like to indulge in some wishful thinking, I don't think there's any particular value in the odds on Labour. Potential for a decent swing close to double digits maybe, but still one that leaves Labour well short.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,103

    Just finished the 2nd part of the New Labour doc.

    After being reminded what TB helped N Ireland achieve I am left even more bewildered why almost no one in today's Labour will give him the time of day.

    It was and is a towering political and diplomatic achievement that will long feature in the history books.

    Meanwhile, Owen Jones and Aaron whats his name and all the others, fart crap on social media having achieved precisely nothing. *



    * edit: other than a Tory 80 seat win of course.

    I . R .A. Q

    Labour folk generally aren't keen on war criminals

    Apart from KL and his obsession with Adolph
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,797
    kjh said:

    Don't know if this has been mentioned but there was amusement at my work over the Mail's latest attempt at a panic buying story:

    One in six people are working from home because they cannot buy enough fuel for their daily commute as figures show petrol storage tanks in South East were just 30% full at weekend

    With it illustrated by a photo of cars queueing at a filling station selling unleaded at 81p.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10091823/One-six-people-working-home-buy-fuel-daily-commute.html

    No wonder there were queues.
    Plagiarism
    ......
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    One thing I don’t think has been pondered, despite biggest leads for Tories, it was still only yougov who showed Labour lead, so whatever they are doing differently it’s also the most susceptible to changing wildly in a short space of time? 🤔
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    I'd be pretty shocked if the LDs actually win Old Bexley. They could put in a decent performance to move into 2nd place.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941
    UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941
    UK local R

    image
  • theakestheakes Posts: 671
    By the last week the Lib Dems will be running second in the polls, then anything could happen.
  • Just finished the 2nd part of the New Labour doc.

    After being reminded what TB helped N Ireland achieve I am left even more bewildered why almost no one in today's Labour will give him the time of day.

    It was and is a towering political and diplomatic achievement that will long feature in the history books.

    Meanwhile, Owen Jones and Aaron whats his name and all the others, fart crap on social media having achieved precisely nothing. *



    * edit: other than a Tory 80 seat win of course.

    I . R .A. Q

    Labour folk generally aren't keen on war criminals

    Apart from KL and his obsession with Adolph
    All three men to have won general elections for Labour from 1945 onwards are war criminals. It's par for the course.

    Attlee's role in the partition of India, Blair in Iraq, and Harold Wilson’s Labour Party government that won power in 1964 armed Iraq’s regime in the mid-1960s as it massacred Kurds and set the process in motion to illegally evict the Chagos Islanders in the Indian Ocean. An even less-known policy was the Wilson government’s support for, and side-role in facilitating, the Indonesian government’s massacre of up to a million people in 1965.

    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-05-02-british-government-ministers-have-been-complicit-in-millions-of-deaths-since-1945-so-dont-be-surprised-that-they-wont-face-justice-over-coronavirus/

    It's why I could never be a lefty/Labour person, full of war criminals.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    On topic, I used to know Old Bexley and Sidcup quite well, having been brought up there for 18 years, attended Longlands Primary and Chis and Sid, listened to my long departed (Conservative voting) Mum as she recounted with pride how Ted Heath attended the local day centre coffee mornings, etc etc.

    Sidcup does strike me as containing the sort of suburban areas where Labour has elsewhere in the country made some progress even as its white working class vote has been lost. It's not as posh as Bromley and Chislehurst or Beckenham by a long chalk. But what it just is is very, very Tory, and area of middle-class suburbia where the Tory vote has always been pretty strong. Take the former MP's personal vote out of it by looking at other elections and you come to the same conclusion. For example in 2016 when Sadiq Khan was thrashing Zac Goldsmith, Goldsmith still outpolled Khan by a ratio of 2.5:1 in the parliamentary constituency.

    So much as I would like to indulge in some wishful thinking, I don't think there's any particular value in the odds on Labour. Potential for a decent swing close to double digits maybe, but still one that leaves Labour well short.

    Thanks for that. Personally, I don’t see Labour getting DD swings but SKS would be delighted if he did.
This discussion has been closed.