Howdy, Stranger!

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

How those saying Green 6 months before an election actually voted – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 22 in General
imageHow those saying Green 6 months before an election actually voted – politicalbetting.com

Thanks to leading political academic, Paula Sturridge, for highlighting this – what those who told pollsters six months before an election actually did on the day.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,450
    What the **** is that? Green voting intention at 20%+ before the last three elections??????
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,691
    Chris said:

    What the **** is that? Green voting intention at 20%+ before the last three elections??????

    No, 20% of those that said they would vote green actually did (in 2019).
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    Chris said:

    What the **** is that? Green voting intention at 20%+ before the last three elections??????

    No, this is an estimate of how the Green vote split at the actual election. So it’s 20% of c.5%
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,768
    Chris said:

    What the **** is that? Green voting intention at 20%+ before the last three elections??????

    No, those are the actual votes in the GE of people who had previously said they intended to vote Green.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    Chris said:

    What the **** is that? Green voting intention at 20%+ before the last three elections??????

    No.

    That's - "of people saying they were going to vote Green, how many actually voted Green?"

    It's an interesting measure of the extent to which the Greens are squeezed in an FPTP election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
    Meanwhile, my school was due to have a vaccine team in today.

    They had to cancel because three of them got Covid.

    Hardly their fault, but that means we’re looking at late November before ours can be jabbed.

    The one saving grace is around 50% of them have already had it so HI must be close.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    Just got into the Emirates. I was asked to prove my COVID vaccine status. Interestingly, my blue card from the vaccination itself was accepted. Obviously they can’t turn people away, but I had a glance at the list on the iPad and I reckon 85-90% of the entries were in green.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,818
    There is a nice overview on twitter on what is going wrong at the Californian ports

    https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1451543776992845834

    Basically there are too many containers and because only the owners can move their containers the blockage is hard to fix.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,264
    rcs1000 said:

    Chris said:

    What the **** is that? Green voting intention at 20%+ before the last three elections??????

    No.

    That's - "of people saying they were going to vote Green, how many actually voted Green?"

    It's an interesting measure of the extent to which the Greens are squeezed in an FPTP election.
    Repeat for other parties before I come to the conclusion that "the Tories could be regarded as being behind"
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    For all the criticism Corbyn gets he undoubtedly attracted some voters Labour had been unable to previously and will struggle with again.

    Not just greenies but various leftists, lots of students and even some WASPI women.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    tlg86 said:

    Just got into the Emirates. I was asked to prove my COVID vaccine status. Interestingly, my blue card from the vaccination itself was accepted. Obviously they can’t turn people away, but I had a glance at the list on the iPad and I reckon 85-90% of the entries were in green.

    What does green mean ?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,694
    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435
    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    Yes, that's right, and a cautionary note now. The Green programme and Corbyn Labour's programme had an enormous overlap - they were a bit more environmental but not much, and they didn't bother with McDonnell's attempt to present the programme as fiscally responsible, but by and large it was unclear why they were opposing Labour at all. I suspect their current VI includes a lot of people who find Starmer too centrist and too vague. If he doesn't offer some left-wing meat, we should probably be looking at the 26% model from 2015.

    Which is still a significant 2-3% of the total vote, and not to be sneezed at.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,450
    rcs1000 said:

    Chris said:

    What the **** is that? Green voting intention at 20%+ before the last three elections??????

    No.

    That's - "of people saying they were going to vote Green, how many actually voted Green?"

    It's an interesting measure of the extent to which the Greens are squeezed in an FPTP election.
    Oh, thank you, I see now.

    Well, at least 100% of them seem to have voted, which must be a better record than for most parties.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699
    Chris said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Chris said:

    What the **** is that? Green voting intention at 20%+ before the last three elections??????

    No.

    That's - "of people saying they were going to vote Green, how many actually voted Green?"

    It's an interesting measure of the extent to which the Greens are squeezed in an FPTP election.
    Oh, thank you, I see now.

    Well, at least 100% of them seem to have voted, which must be a better record than for most parties.
    It's more likely that it only includes those who said they voted at the relevant election.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,973
    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    eek said:

    There is a nice overview on twitter on what is going wrong at the Californian ports

    https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1451543776992845834

    Basically there are too many containers and because only the owners can move their containers the blockage is hard to fix.

    That's a horrible gridlock they've got there.

    Hopefully other container ports around the world are taking notice.
  • I totally get why people now vote Green. Its wanting to do something about the climate and frankly the society that drives the crisis without being the kind of loon who glues themselves to the M25 hoping to be run over.

    Nor can I say "its a waste of your vote" - people absolutely should vote for whoever they actually support. Makes a change from voting against the people you fear the most.
  • eek said:

    There is a nice overview on twitter on what is going wrong at the Californian ports

    https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1451543776992845834

    Basically there are too many containers and because only the owners can move their containers the blockage is hard to fix.

    Naah. Its simple. Use it to deflect from Brexit.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    I think that the absolute numbers need to be looked at. Weren't the Greens polling higher under Corbyn than Miliband? Therefore less Green fundi?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481
    edited October 22
    The Greens seem to be becoming for Labour what UKIP used to be for the Conservatives (certainly based on Yougov). Indeed 2019 was the first general election UKIP fell behind the Greens in voteshare at a UK general election since it was founded in 1993.

    Of course in most general elections except 2015 most of the UKIP vote went back to the Conservatives on polling day, as was also the case for the Brexit Party vote in 2019. However that did not necessarily help the Conservatives if they could not also win over voters in the centre eg in 2015 the Conservatives won a majority they failed to achieve in 2010 or 2017 despite UKIP getting 12% of the vote and their highest ever voteshare as Cameron won swing voters in the middle
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    For all the criticism Corbyn gets he undoubtedly attracted some voters Labour had been unable to previously and will struggle with again.

    Not just greenies but various leftists, lots of students and even some WASPI women.
    And, of course, the anti-Semites.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481
    edited October 22
    Hillary Clinton on the One Show being interviewed by Tom Daley and Alex Jones.

    Had she won in 2016 she could of course in an alternative universe be in the White House at this moment serving her second term
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    I think that the absolute numbers need to be looked at. Weren't the Greens polling higher under Corbyn than Miliband? Therefore less Green fundi?
    Ooohhh... that's a good point.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    eek said:

    There is a nice overview on twitter on what is going wrong at the Californian ports

    https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1451543776992845834

    Basically there are too many containers and because only the owners can move their containers the blockage is hard to fix.

    When I passed though Southampton on the Red Funnel there did seem to be a lot of containers stacked up. I wonder how many are empty.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,694

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    I get that Mike. Every individual will have their own motive and my guess is that Green voters are more clued up about the local state of play than the average voter.

    However, if you look at the chart split for the LDs in particular, there is not much difference for 2015, 2017 and 2019. You would have thought if Greens voted primarily to keep Tories out, then there would have been more fluctuation.

    Which does lend credence to the view that it was Corbyn that enthused Green voters to switch to Labour.

    If that’s right, Labour’s position could actually be worse than suggested. Because it implies Labour lost underlying voters in 2019 and only did as well as it did because many Greens defected. SKS may not attract back those voters while not attracting Greens - which may cause him big problems.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    I think that the absolute numbers need to be looked at. Weren't the Greens polling higher under Corbyn than Miliband? Therefore less Green fundi?
    The VI is at the top of each graph. So yes for 2019.
    No for 2017.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364
    Evening all :)

    To kick off this evening's ramblings, an interesting NZ perspective on the NZ-UK FTA:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126758914/nzuk-trade-deal-new-zealand-pushed-back-on-british-contractors-entering-the-country
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Indeed.
    I have the luxury of being able to vote for anyone I please.
    Secure in the certainty that the Tory will get in.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481
    edited October 22
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    I get that Mike. Every individual will have their own motive and my guess is that Green voters are more clued up about the local state of play than the average voter.

    However, if you look at the chart split for the LDs in particular, there is not much difference for 2015, 2017 and 2019. You would have thought if Greens voted primarily to keep Tories out, then there would have been more fluctuation.

    Which does lend credence to the view that it was Corbyn that enthused Green voters to switch to Labour.

    If that’s right, Labour’s position could actually be worse than suggested. Because it implies Labour lost underlying voters in 2019 and only did as well as it did because many Greens defected. SKS may not attract back those voters while not attracting Greens - which may cause him big problems.
    Starmer if he is sensible will ignore Corbynite defectors to the Greens and focus on winning back Labour voters who went to the Tories and LDs in 2019. Much as Cameron ignored hard right Tory defectors to UKIP to focus on winning over centrist voters from Labour and the LDs in 2015 when he won a majority on an increased voteshare despite UKIP getting 12%
  • FPT for @Richard_Tyndall

    Given it's Friday evening, thought I'd have a look at booze (from Middle English bousen, to drink, which came from Middle Dutch buysen, to drink heavily, and before that from Proto-Germanic beuzą, one of their terms for beer)

    I'll start with beer, which joined us - unsurprisingly - from German bier. The origin for bier is apparently much disputed, and hard to trace as it's been used for about 1400 years. I'm happy to go with the quite common idea that it was borrowed by West Germanic 6C monks from Vulgar Latin biber, a drink, from Latin bibere to drink.

    If you fancy a lager, you might want to give it a while. Again from German, but not at all disputed, lagerbier is literally storehouse beer, or beer to be laid down. Lager for storehouse, comes from the same Proto-Indo-European root that we get the verb 'to lay' from.

    Ale, guess what, comes from Germany! Much longer ago, as ealu the Old English word shows. It is derived from Proto-Germanic aluth another word for beer. This may have a more interesting root , as it might be from Proto-Indo-European alu- which indicates magic, sorcery and intoxication.

    Prost!

    Evening Blanche

    Love the etymology posts.

    So here is one I was hoping you could help me with.

    Looking at wikipedia and various other sources, the word Constable is said to derive from he Latin "comes stabuli" (attendant to the stables).

    Wiki also mentions that in France there was a title of 'Connétable de France' or Constable of France.

    This latter ties in with what I was originally taught at University which is that Constable derives from Conné Table - or 'Known at the table' and it referred to the highest ranking commoner, usually the Steward of a castle, was known at (permitted to sit at) the table of the Lord.

    Have you come across this? I can't seem to find any other references to it.
    Hi Richard, I'm glad you're enjoying them!

    I only know of the Latin comes stabuli etymology for Constable, but am intrigued by the Conné Table idea. Sadly I haven't been able to find anything to support it either.

    The fact that the verb connaître has past participle connu, and doesn't conjugate to conné anywhere, makes me slightly sceptical of it, but that's not necessarily a problem - the Latin etymology changes m to nn and drops the s!

    I noticed from my quick searches that Connétable seems to still be an official position (elected parish head) in the Channel Islands, and a Brittany brand of sardines.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    How do you feel about that now? Was it the correct decision or not?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    I think that the absolute numbers need to be looked at. Weren't the Greens polling higher under Corbyn than Miliband? Therefore less Green fundi?
    Ooohhh... that's a good point.
    Yes a green poll of 6% is a broader group than 3%.

    Of course on current numbers that could be a big effect, though I think a fair number indicating Green at present are Corbynites in exile unlikely to back Starmer.

    Worth noting too that Greens in 2017 and 2019 were strongly pro second EU referendum, so might have been hooked back in when Labour adopted that as policy in the autumn 2019.

    In all these things past performance doesn't indicate future performance. Incidentally I voted Green in 2019.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    I think that the absolute numbers need to be looked at. Weren't the Greens polling higher under Corbyn than Miliband? Therefore less Green fundi?
    Ooohhh... that's a good point.
    Actually no? Seems to be a steady 3% in 2019-219

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

    and 2015-17
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

    but around 5% before 2015:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election

    which is logical - Greens coming over even before the tactical vote squeeze, because of Corbyn.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    I think that the absolute numbers need to be looked at. Weren't the Greens polling higher under Corbyn than Miliband? Therefore less Green fundi?
    Ooohhh... that's a good point.
    Actually no? Seems to be a steady 3% in 2019-219

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

    and 2015-17
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

    but around 5% before 2015:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election

    which is logical - Greens coming over even before the tactical vote squeeze, because of Corbyn.
    See, that's what I like: actual data.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    HYUFD said:

    Hillary Clinton on the One Show being interviewed by Tom Daley and Alex Jones.

    Had she won in 2016 she could of course in an alternative universe be in the White House at this moment serving her second term

    Watched that and she came across very well. Disappointed she wasnt asked about Impeachment: American Crime Story.

    Also and sort of on topic, there was a Green Party PPB on just before. Cant see the point of those so far from an election, even with COP26 coming up.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719

    tlg86 said:

    Just got into the Emirates. I was asked to prove my COVID vaccine status. Interestingly, my blue card from the vaccination itself was accepted. Obviously they can’t turn people away, but I had a glance at the list on the iPad and I reckon 85-90% of the entries were in green.

    What does green mean ?
    I assume that’s where they got a confirmation of the person being vaccinated.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    Yes, "who would I vote for if there were a GE tomorrow?" is a different question to "what's my favourite political party?" Pollsters ask the 1st but I bet some people answer the 2nd.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    edited October 22
    One thought: talking about Greens in a UK context is, if not nearly as bad as counting apples and oranges together, perhaps a bit like adding satsumas and mandarins, because the Scottish Greens are a separate party with a somewhat more centrist stance.

    Also, thanks to the Holyrood system, there are different dynamics in Scotland. Though in a FPTP election that difference in dynamics will tend to be suppressed.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364
    Friday also means I can review the updated passenger transport numbers provided by the Government.

    National rail use has improved to between 60-70% of pre-Covid numbers. On the London Underground, 55-60% during the week but 70-75% at the weekend confirming the return of leisure traffic but a continued malaise in weekday commuter traffic.

    I read earlier in the week a poll showing 50% of working adults were back to normal working (full time attendance at the place of work), 25% were still WFH full time and 25% had adopted a hybrid pattern of between 1-3 days in the office per week. The rail and tube numbers support this to some extent.

    I'm going into an office environment (rented space as we gave up our previous office) one day per week on average. Some other colleagues are doing 3 days - only one person is doing 5 days. The coming of autumn and winter seems to be re-strengthening the desire to WFH more - oddly enough, the increased traffic (car levels at 90% of pre-Covid but light commercial and HGV volumes running at 115-125% of pre-Covid) and problems on the M25 are again persuading people of the benefit of home working.

    It's the variability - a colleague driving the M25 from near Heathrow to Reigate has told me the journey can take anywhere between 45 minutes and 3 hours depending on traffic and problems. She was due to set off from Reigate at 4pm and the journey planners were even then suggesting it would take nearly two hours for her to get home.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,585
    edited October 22
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
    I am totally onboard with compulsory vaccination, with medical (but not BS "religious" ) exemptions and only once the vaccine has received full approval, so not mandatory while still under emergency use authorization only. Here in the US vaccine mandates have existed for decades and have passed muster with SCOTUS on numerous occasions.

    Refusing vaccination during a pandemic is morally equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, IMO. It's not a case of protecting the unvaccinated: it's a case of protecting all of us.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554
    FPT @Alistair. I slightly disagree about the positivity rate increase in the sw. if we assume that the bulk of the 43,000 false negatives were actually positive, and that people are being retested (as my colleague was asked to do) then the positivity rate will be artificially enhanced. I think the sw rates will drop again next week. If the increase was as a result of increased spread by people wrongly going about their business then this would have been seen earlier. Not all the saw Pcr tests were faulty or run through the bad centre.
    I may be wrong of course.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Agreed. There's no reason to vote tactically in a safe seat. So even the 26% who went Labour in 2015 may have been significantly more in marginals.

    I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the Greens are overtaking the LibDems in some polls. Insofar as the LibDem vote is a "plague on both your houses" vote rather than a vote for their policies, they may be at risk of being displaced as the third party nationally. They could really do with a deal giving them a clear run in Blue Wall seats in exchange for some middle-class lomdon seats where the Greens could do very well.

    I wonder what would happen if Corbyn was denied a Labour seat and joined the Greens?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    I think that the absolute numbers need to be looked at. Weren't the Greens polling higher under Corbyn than Miliband? Therefore less Green fundi?
    The VI is at the top of each graph. So yes for 2019.
    No for 2017.
    Thanks, I hadn't spotted that.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    Good post.

    So the propensity for intending Greens to actually vote Green fell from 50% to 20% in 5 years.

    Does this support my contention that, because the mainstream parties have now eaten most of their lunch and are more attractive in Green terms, the Green Party itself is now irrelevant?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Agreed. There's no reason to vote tactically in a safe seat. So even the 26% who went Labour in 2015 may have been significantly more in marginals.

    I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the Greens are overtaking the LibDems in some polls. Insofar as the LibDem vote is a "plague on both your houses" vote rather than a vote for their policies, they may be at risk of being displaced as the third party nationally. They could really do with a deal giving them a clear run in Blue Wall seats in exchange for some middle-class lomdon seats where the Greens could do very well.

    I wonder what would happen if Corbyn was denied a Labour seat and joined the Greens?
    Already happened in Scotland, of course: the Greens are the 4th party, LDs the 5th.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,768

    FPT for @Richard_Tyndall

    Given it's Friday evening, thought I'd have a look at booze (from Middle English bousen, to drink, which came from Middle Dutch buysen, to drink heavily, and before that from Proto-Germanic beuzą, one of their terms for beer)

    I'll start with beer, which joined us - unsurprisingly - from German bier. The origin for bier is apparently much disputed, and hard to trace as it's been used for about 1400 years. I'm happy to go with the quite common idea that it was borrowed by West Germanic 6C monks from Vulgar Latin biber, a drink, from Latin bibere to drink.

    If you fancy a lager, you might want to give it a while. Again from German, but not at all disputed, lagerbier is literally storehouse beer, or beer to be laid down. Lager for storehouse, comes from the same Proto-Indo-European root that we get the verb 'to lay' from.

    Ale, guess what, comes from Germany! Much longer ago, as ealu the Old English word shows. It is derived from Proto-Germanic aluth another word for beer. This may have a more interesting root , as it might be from Proto-Indo-European alu- which indicates magic, sorcery and intoxication.

    Prost!

    Evening Blanche

    Love the etymology posts.

    So here is one I was hoping you could help me with.

    Looking at wikipedia and various other sources, the word Constable is said to derive from he Latin "comes stabuli" (attendant to the stables).

    Wiki also mentions that in France there was a title of 'Connétable de France' or Constable of France.

    This latter ties in with what I was originally taught at University which is that Constable derives from Conné Table - or 'Known at the table' and it referred to the highest ranking commoner, usually the Steward of a castle, was known at (permitted to sit at) the table of the Lord.

    Have you come across this? I can't seem to find any other references to it.
    Hi Richard, I'm glad you're enjoying them!

    I only know of the Latin comes stabuli etymology for Constable, but am intrigued by the Conné Table idea. Sadly I haven't been able to find anything to support it either.

    The fact that the verb connaître has past participle connu, and doesn't conjugate to conné anywhere, makes me slightly sceptical of it, but that's not necessarily a problem - the Latin etymology changes m to nn and drops the s!

    I noticed from my quick searches that Connétable seems to still be an official position (elected parish head) in the Channel Islands, and a Brittany brand of sardines.
    OTOH comes tabulae would work if we think tabula may have supplanted mensa at some stage, and comes (s)tabulae/I are hardly distinguishable.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    edited October 22

    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    Yes, that's right, and a cautionary note now. The Green programme and Corbyn Labour's programme had an enormous overlap - they were a bit more environmental but not much, and they didn't bother with McDonnell's attempt to present the programme as fiscally responsible, but by and large it was unclear why they were opposing Labour at all. I suspect their current VI includes a lot of people who find Starmer too centrist and too vague. If he doesn't offer some left-wing meat, we should probably be looking at the 26% model from 2015.

    Which is still a significant 2-3% of the total vote, and not to be sneezed at.
    Interesting that it was Milliband who did Green Taxes in Government on energy bills. 'Green Crap'.

    Another impact of the bacon sandwich on Green vegetarians? :smile:
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364
    Ramblings (part 3).

    Better French polling for Marine Le Pen this evening - she holds a comfortable second even if Zemmour runs and irrespective of the LR candidate.

    Zemmour polls at 13% and among the LR possibles, Bertrand would poll 12% and both Barnier and Pecresse would manage a derisory 8% finishing fifth behind Melanchon.

    The trouble for LR is if Zemmour doesn't run, it doesn't help - Opinion Way did a poll with Bertrand as LR candidate and no Zemmour candidacy and it ended a 26-26 tie between Macron and Le Pen with Bertrand on 13%.

    Macron then won the run off 58-42 which is obviously nowhere as convincing as 2017 but it's still a clear win.

    At the moment, LR and the Socialists look trapped between the Le Pen rock and the Zemmour hard place.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    Not of our earth...

    Paging @Leon

    New Apple TV series.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlaHxL3mHAU
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Agreed. There's no reason to vote tactically in a safe seat. So even the 26% who went Labour in 2015 may have been significantly more in marginals.

    I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the Greens are overtaking the LibDems in some polls. Insofar as the LibDem vote is a "plague on both your houses" vote rather than a vote for their policies, they may be at risk of being displaced as the third party nationally. They could really do with a deal giving them a clear run in Blue Wall seats in exchange for some middle-class lomdon seats where the Greens could do very well.

    I wonder what would happen if Corbyn was denied a Labour seat and joined the Greens?
    I guess the idea of finding that good and accidental napalm experiments are roughly the extremes.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,768
    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
    I am totally onboard with compulsory vaccination, with medical (but not BS "religious" ) exemptions and only once the vaccine has received full approval, so not mandatory while still under emergency use authorization only. Here in the US vaccine mandates have existed for decades and have passed muster with SCOTUS on numerous occasions.

    Refusing vaccination during a pandemic is morally equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, IMO. It's not a case of protecting the unvaccinated: it's a case of protecting all of us.

    Adult vaccine mandates?

    You may think religions bs, but the alternative to tolerance of religious beliefs is burnings at the stake and planes flying into tall buildings.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    MattW said:

    Good post.

    So the propensity for intending Greens to actually vote Green fell from 50% to 20% in 5 years.

    Does this support my contention that, because the mainstream parties have now eaten most of their lunch and are more attractive in Green terms, the Green Party itself is now irrelevant?

    I think Corbynite Labour could swallow them, but less radical Starmerite Labour? We don't know yet. Did they move because of wanting a radical structural change in society? Or because they opposed Brexit? Or of course a bit of both.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    MattW said:

    Good post.

    So the propensity for intending Greens to actually vote Green fell from 50% to 20% in 5 years.

    Does this support my contention that, because the mainstream parties have now eaten most of their lunch and are more attractive in Green terms, the Green Party itself is now irrelevant?

    Given that the Green party now wants to subsidise the energy consumption of the rich by taxing private renters they seem to be having an existential crisis.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,585
    edited October 22
    IshmaelZ said:

    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
    I am totally onboard with compulsory vaccination, with medical (but not BS "religious" ) exemptions and only once the vaccine has received full approval, so not mandatory while still under emergency use authorization only. Here in the US vaccine mandates have existed for decades and have passed muster with SCOTUS on numerous occasions.

    Refusing vaccination during a pandemic is morally equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, IMO. It's not a case of protecting the unvaccinated: it's a case of protecting all of us.

    Adult vaccine mandates?
    Most US school jurisdictions have pretty strict vaccine mandates before a child can be enrolled.
    IshmaelZ said:

    You may think religions bs, but the alternative to tolerance of religious beliefs is burnings at the stake and planes flying into tall buildings.

    OK then, let's start a religion that requires the occasional human sacrifice and see how far it gets.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460

    I totally get why people now vote Green. Its wanting to do something about the climate and frankly the society that drives the crisis without being the kind of loon who glues themselves to the M25 hoping to be run over.

    Nor can I say "its a waste of your vote" - people absolutely should vote for whoever they actually support. Makes a change from voting against the people you fear the most.

    I'm conflicted on this. I absolutely think people should vote for what they truly believe in or at least truly prefer. I respect those who always do that. OTOH, I'd urge everyone who wants to end this "Boris" abomination to vote in each Con marginal for the party best placed to gain the seat, and I'll be disappointed if they don't.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592

    MattW said:

    Good post.

    So the propensity for intending Greens to actually vote Green fell from 50% to 20% in 5 years.

    Does this support my contention that, because the mainstream parties have now eaten most of their lunch and are more attractive in Green terms, the Green Party itself is now irrelevant?

    Given that the Green party now wants to subsidise the energy consumption of the rich by taxing private renters they seem to be having an existential crisis.
    It doesn't seem to have adversally affected their polling...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481
    edited October 22
    stodge said:

    Ramblings (part 3).

    Better French polling for Marine Le Pen this evening - she holds a comfortable second even if Zemmour runs and irrespective of the LR candidate.

    Zemmour polls at 13% and among the LR possibles, Bertrand would poll 12% and both Barnier and Pecresse would manage a derisory 8% finishing fifth behind Melanchon.

    The trouble for LR is if Zemmour doesn't run, it doesn't help - Opinion Way did a poll with Bertrand as LR candidate and no Zemmour candidacy and it ended a 26-26 tie between Macron and Le Pen with Bertrand on 13%.

    Macron then won the run off 58-42 which is obviously nowhere as convincing as 2017 but it's still a clear win.

    At the moment, LR and the Socialists look trapped between the Le Pen rock and the Zemmour hard place.

    At the presidential level it certainly still looks like a Macron v Le Pen runoff again.

    However don't forget the legislative elections are also next Spring and it is Les Republicains with the second highest number of seats in the Assemblee Nationale, not Le Pen's party and LR having performed well in local elections will aim to beat Macron's En Marche in the legislature even if they fail to win the presidency
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Good post.

    So the propensity for intending Greens to actually vote Green fell from 50% to 20% in 5 years.

    Does this support my contention that, because the mainstream parties have now eaten most of their lunch and are more attractive in Green terms, the Green Party itself is now irrelevant?

    Given that the Green party now wants to subsidise the energy consumption of the rich by taxing private renters they seem to be having an existential crisis.
    It doesn't seem to have adversally affected their polling...
    Have you seen the state of the electorate!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Good post.

    So the propensity for intending Greens to actually vote Green fell from 50% to 20% in 5 years.

    Does this support my contention that, because the mainstream parties have now eaten most of their lunch and are more attractive in Green terms, the Green Party itself is now irrelevant?

    Given that the Green party now wants to subsidise the energy consumption of the rich by taxing private renters they seem to be having an existential crisis.
    It doesn't seem to have adversally affected their polling...
    Taking from Peter to give to Paul is often supported by Paul.

    Now I'd be quite happy for a transfer of wealth from private renters to subsidise my energy bills.

    But I don't see how it helps the environment or improves socioeconomic equality.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,650
    edited October 22
    deleted - replicate
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Greens were squeezed under Corbyn. Miliband not so much.

    I think that the absolute numbers need to be looked at. Weren't the Greens polling higher under Corbyn than Miliband? Therefore less Green fundi?
    Ooohhh... that's a good point.
    Yes a green poll of 6% is a broader group than 3%.

    Of course on current numbers that could be a big effect, though I think a fair number indicating Green at present are Corbynites in exile unlikely to back Starmer.

    Worth noting too that Greens in 2017 and 2019 were strongly pro second EU referendum, so might have been hooked back in when Labour adopted that as policy in the autumn 2019.

    In all these things past performance doesn't indicate future performance. Incidentally I voted Green in 2019.
    Greens aren't really about Greenery - and this administration is pursuing Greenery almost as far as it can within the boundaries of realism - it's about a radical alternative.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Good post.

    So the propensity for intending Greens to actually vote Green fell from 50% to 20% in 5 years.

    Does this support my contention that, because the mainstream parties have now eaten most of their lunch and are more attractive in Green terms, the Green Party itself is now irrelevant?

    Given that the Green party now wants to subsidise the energy consumption of the rich by taxing private renters they seem to be having an existential crisis.
    It doesn't seem to have adversally affected their polling...
    Taking from Peter to give to Paul is often supported by Paul.

    Now I'd be quite happy for a transfer of wealth from private renters to subsidise my energy bills.

    But I don't see how it helps the environment or improves socioeconomic equality.
    Illogical policy is the essence of populism. It works.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    Not of our earth...

    Paging @Leon

    New Apple TV series.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlaHxL3mHAU

    Portentous music - tick.
    Multi-ethnic cast - tick.
    Obligatory Chinese cast member - tick.
    But 'foreign' scenes to show this effects the world - i.e. London or Paris (because they think most Americans will only recognise Tower Bridge or the Eiffel Tower) - tick.
    Yet soldiers are always US - tick.
    And most plot is based in the US - tick.
    Hints of dark secrets - tick.
    Great special effects - tick.
    No hint of effective storyline - tick.
    Seen it all before - tick.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,650
    geoffw said:

    Correction to previous thread where I said:

    @BlancheLivermore " ... Proto-Germanic aluth another word for beer.... "

    Aluth looks similar to the Finnish word for beer, olut. It's seldom one can find connections of that kind between Fenno-Ugric words and Germanic ones, but that looks like one.
    In fact there is a connection, through Swedish öl (itself close to aluth = ale).


    edit: i.e. it is a loan word from Swedish like many others, unsurprisingly.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490

    I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.

    Bets along those lines - LD seats for example, are not available.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    So has anyone seen the news reports from Bulgaria ?

    Me neither so why aren't there any ?

    Bulgaria is a fascinating contrast with most other European countries with its minimal level of vaccination and allows comparison with previous waves of covid:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/bulgaria/

    Bulgaria currently has the UK equivalent of over 66k in hospital (the UK maxed at 39k last January) with 8k newly hospitalised yesterday:

    https://coronavirus.bg/bg/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Omnium said:

    I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.

    Bets along those lines - LD seats for example, are not available.
    Right now, I am just backing NOM - which I consider underpriced - and laying Rishi as next leader.

    A storm is coming.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364
    Ramblings (Part 4)

    I will be fascinated to see if there is any sign of a Conservative revival in the East London Labour heartland in next year's local election. A couple of by-elections had a strong Conservative vote - 30% in East Ham Central in May and a strong Conservative performance in Weavers in Tower Hamlets and Shaun Bailey won the Custom House Ward in the Mayoral election.

    May be something, may be nothing - the swing against Stephen Timms in December 2019 was 4.8% and to be honest that won't even dent Labour's majority. In 2018, Labour won Custom House by 57 points (72-15) - in May Bailey won by two points (38-36).

    A 29.5% swing replicated across Newham would see (on my rough calculations) Labour win 33 seats and the Conservatives 27 which just goes to show how strong the Labour stranglehold is.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Always knew you were a Corbynista, Mike :lol:
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490

    Omnium said:

    I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.

    Bets along those lines - LD seats for example, are not available.
    Right now, I am just backing NOM - which I consider underpriced - and laying Rishi as next leader.

    A storm is coming.
    Sure. I don't disagree, but I see no value at all in that. The consensus of Labour seats - now that's be a market.
  • I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.

    If the Conservatives are south of 40%, and they've maxed out on votes to their right, they ought to be eminently beatable.

    And yet they're not, it seems.

    I'm sure that some of that is Scotland, but it's not the only factor.

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Agreed. There's no reason to vote tactically in a safe seat. So even the 26% who went Labour in 2015 may have been significantly more in marginals.

    I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the Greens are overtaking the LibDems in some polls. Insofar as the LibDem vote is a "plague on both your houses" vote rather than a vote for their policies, they may be at risk of being displaced as the third party nationally. They could really do with a deal giving them a clear run in Blue Wall seats in exchange for some middle-class lomdon seats where the Greens could do very well.

    I wonder what would happen if Corbyn was denied a Labour seat and joined the Greens?
    Would the Greens want him? 2017 Jez would have been attractive, and quite a coup, but 2021 Jez has various bits of baggage...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    I know it's the four most dangerous words in politics but I honestly think: This time is different.

    If the Greens really breakthrough in the polling, and they seem to be doing so, then the best comparison may not be the Greens of the past but UKIP of 2015. They went from 3.1% to 12.6% in one leap despite many people assuming they'd fall back.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,645
    Looks like Merc have found some pace. They definitely needed to given the succession of brain dead strategy and tactical decisions this year.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629
    IshmaelZ said:

    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
    I am totally onboard with compulsory vaccination, with medical (but not BS "religious" ) exemptions and only once the vaccine has received full approval, so not mandatory while still under emergency use authorization only. Here in the US vaccine mandates have existed for decades and have passed muster with SCOTUS on numerous occasions.

    Refusing vaccination during a pandemic is morally equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, IMO. It's not a case of protecting the unvaccinated: it's a case of protecting all of us.

    Adult vaccine mandates?

    You may think religions bs, but the alternative to tolerance of religious beliefs is burnings at the stake and planes flying into tall buildings.
    Hang on, weren't said atrocities undertaken by the religious?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.

    If the Conservatives are south of 40%, and they've maxed out on votes to their right, they ought to be eminently beatable.

    And yet they're not, it seems.

    I'm sure that some of that is Scotland, but it's not the only factor.

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Agreed. There's no reason to vote tactically in a safe seat. So even the 26% who went Labour in 2015 may have been significantly more in marginals.

    I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the Greens are overtaking the LibDems in some polls. Insofar as the LibDem vote is a "plague on both your houses" vote rather than a vote for their policies, they may be at risk of being displaced as the third party nationally. They could really do with a deal giving them a clear run in Blue Wall seats in exchange for some middle-class lomdon seats where the Greens could do very well.

    I wonder what would happen if Corbyn was denied a Labour seat and joined the Greens?
    Would the Greens want him? 2017 Jez would have been attractive, and quite a coup, but 2021 Jez has various bits of baggage...
    It will seem obvious in hindsight and we'll wonder how anyone ever missed reading the runes at the time.

    Well, the runes are here now and they're very clear.
  • MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Always knew you were a Corbynista, Mike :lol:
    Under FPTP you vote for the candidate on the ballot paper. Not their party. Not their party leader. Which is how so many people kind find themselves voting in all kinds of inexplicable ways for all kinds of people seen as less bad than the alternative.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.

    Bets along those lines - LD seats for example, are not available.
    Right now, I am just backing NOM - which I consider underpriced - and laying Rishi as next leader.

    A storm is coming.
    Sure. I don't disagree, but I see no value at all in that. The consensus of Labour seats - now that's be a market.
    Fair enough.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629

    FPT for @Richard_Tyndall

    Given it's Friday evening, thought I'd have a look at booze (from Middle English bousen, to drink, which came from Middle Dutch buysen, to drink heavily, and before that from Proto-Germanic beuzą, one of their terms for beer)

    I'll start with beer, which joined us - unsurprisingly - from German bier. The origin for bier is apparently much disputed, and hard to trace as it's been used for about 1400 years. I'm happy to go with the quite common idea that it was borrowed by West Germanic 6C monks from Vulgar Latin biber, a drink, from Latin bibere to drink.

    If you fancy a lager, you might want to give it a while. Again from German, but not at all disputed, lagerbier is literally storehouse beer, or beer to be laid down. Lager for storehouse, comes from the same Proto-Indo-European root that we get the verb 'to lay' from.

    Ale, guess what, comes from Germany! Much longer ago, as ealu the Old English word shows. It is derived from Proto-Germanic aluth another word for beer. This may have a more interesting root , as it might be from Proto-Indo-European alu- which indicates magic, sorcery and intoxication.

    Prost!

    Evening Blanche

    Love the etymology posts.

    So here is one I was hoping you could help me with.

    Looking at wikipedia and various other sources, the word Constable is said to derive from he Latin "comes stabuli" (attendant to the stables).

    Wiki also mentions that in France there was a title of 'Connétable de France' or Constable of France.

    This latter ties in with what I was originally taught at University which is that Constable derives from Conné Table - or 'Known at the table' and it referred to the highest ranking commoner, usually the Steward of a castle, was known at (permitted to sit at) the table of the Lord.

    Have you come across this? I can't seem to find any other references to it.
    Hi Richard, I'm glad you're enjoying them!

    I only know of the Latin comes stabuli etymology for Constable, but am intrigued by the Conné Table idea. Sadly I haven't been able to find anything to support it either.

    The fact that the verb connaître has past participle connu, and doesn't conjugate to conné anywhere, makes me slightly sceptical of it, but that's not necessarily a problem - the Latin etymology changes m to nn and drops the s!

    I noticed from my quick searches that Connétable seems to still be an official position (elected parish head) in the Channel Islands, and a Brittany brand of sardines.
    Is that you, Susie Dent? :)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    stodge said:

    Ramblings (Part 4)

    I will be fascinated to see if there is any sign of a Conservative revival in the East London Labour heartland in next year's local election. A couple of by-elections had a strong Conservative vote - 30% in East Ham Central in May and a strong Conservative performance in Weavers in Tower Hamlets and Shaun Bailey won the Custom House Ward in the Mayoral election.

    May be something, may be nothing - the swing against Stephen Timms in December 2019 was 4.8% and to be honest that won't even dent Labour's majority. In 2018, Labour won Custom House by 57 points (72-15) - in May Bailey won by two points (38-36).

    A 29.5% swing replicated across Newham would see (on my rough calculations) Labour win 33 seats and the Conservatives 27 which just goes to show how strong the Labour stranglehold is.

    Is there anything particularly demographic about the Conservative performance in Newham ?

    IIRC the only other parties who have had councillors in Newham this century have been Respect and the Christians.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 849
    Looking at Mike's data -

    There's a massive swing from Green in 2015 to Lab in 2017 and 2019.

    Perhaps voters are getting cannier?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,768

    IshmaelZ said:

    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
    I am totally onboard with compulsory vaccination, with medical (but not BS "religious" ) exemptions and only once the vaccine has received full approval, so not mandatory while still under emergency use authorization only. Here in the US vaccine mandates have existed for decades and have passed muster with SCOTUS on numerous occasions.

    Refusing vaccination during a pandemic is morally equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, IMO. It's not a case of protecting the unvaccinated: it's a case of protecting all of us.

    Adult vaccine mandates?

    You may think religions bs, but the alternative to tolerance of religious beliefs is burnings at the stake and planes flying into tall buildings.
    Hang on, weren't said atrocities undertaken by the religious?
    Yes. By the intolerant religious.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873

    I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.

    If the Conservatives are south of 40%, and they've maxed out on votes to their right, they ought to be eminently beatable.

    And yet they're not, it seems.

    I'm sure that some of that is Scotland, but it's not the only factor.

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Agreed. There's no reason to vote tactically in a safe seat. So even the 26% who went Labour in 2015 may have been significantly more in marginals.

    I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the Greens are overtaking the LibDems in some polls. Insofar as the LibDem vote is a "plague on both your houses" vote rather than a vote for their policies, they may be at risk of being displaced as the third party nationally. They could really do with a deal giving them a clear run in Blue Wall seats in exchange for some middle-class lomdon seats where the Greens could do very well.

    I wonder what would happen if Corbyn was denied a Labour seat and joined the Greens?
    Would the Greens want him? 2017 Jez would have been attractive, and quite a coup, but 2021 Jez has various bits of baggage...
    It will seem obvious in hindsight and we'll wonder how anyone ever missed reading the runes at the time.

    Well, the runes are here now and they're very clear.
    Are you expecting heavy Conservative losses in the Waitrose belt ?

    And if so is that because people cannot afford housing or because people don't want housing built or both ?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
    I am totally onboard with compulsory vaccination, with medical (but not BS "religious" ) exemptions and only once the vaccine has received full approval, so not mandatory while still under emergency use authorization only. Here in the US vaccine mandates have existed for decades and have passed muster with SCOTUS on numerous occasions.

    Refusing vaccination during a pandemic is morally equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, IMO. It's not a case of protecting the unvaccinated: it's a case of protecting all of us.

    Adult vaccine mandates?

    You may think religions bs, but the alternative to tolerance of religious beliefs is burnings at the stake and planes flying into tall buildings.
    Hang on, weren't said atrocities undertaken by the religious?
    Yes. By the intolerant religious.
    Nobody ever expects them.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364
    HYUFD said:

    At the presidential level it certainly still looks like a Macron v Le Pen runoff again.

    However don't forget the legislative elections are also next Spring and it is Les Republicains with the second highest number of seats in the Assemblee Nationale, not Le Pen's party and LR having performed well in local elections will aim to beat Macron's En Marche in the legislature even if they fail to win the presidency

    I agree - it's very likely we'll see another spell of "co-habitation" as the French call it with Macron as President and an LR Prime Minister. It's a big ask for LR to take a majority (289 seats) from a starting point of 105. En Marche has 270 and relies on two smaller parties for its majority.

    The question is whether LR can find support elsewhere to form a Government.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 982
    edited October 22
    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Correction to previous thread where I said:
    @BlancheLivermore " ... Proto-Germanic aluth another word for beer.... "

    Aluth looks similar to the Finnish word for beer, olut. It's seldom one can find connections of that kind between Fenno-Ugric words and Germanic ones, but that looks like one.

    In fact there is a connection, through Swedish öl (itself close to aluth = ale).

    edit: i.e. it is a loan word from Swedish like many others, unsurprisingly.
    On unusual beer word connections, the Spanish cerveza is from the Latin cervesia, which seems to come from the Proto-Celtic for beer, kurmi.

    This is also the root for the (or a?) Welsh word for beer, cwrw

    And, it seems the Irish coirm and Scots Gaelic cuirm
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    A relevant question is whether the pattern is even more marked in marginal seats with hard-fought local campaigns, and less so in safe seats where voters know their vote is destined for the bin anyway?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    edited October 22
    IshmaelZ said:

    FPT for @Richard_Tyndall

    Given it's Friday evening, thought I'd have a look at booze (from Middle English bousen, to drink, which came from Middle Dutch buysen, to drink heavily, and before that from Proto-Germanic beuzą, one of their terms for beer)

    I'll start with beer, which joined us - unsurprisingly - from German bier. The origin for bier is apparently much disputed, and hard to trace as it's been used for about 1400 years. I'm happy to go with the quite common idea that it was borrowed by West Germanic 6C monks from Vulgar Latin biber, a drink, from Latin bibere to drink.

    If you fancy a lager, you might want to give it a while. Again from German, but not at all disputed, lagerbier is literally storehouse beer, or beer to be laid down. Lager for storehouse, comes from the same Proto-Indo-European root that we get the verb 'to lay' from.

    Ale, guess what, comes from Germany! Much longer ago, as ealu the Old English word shows. It is derived from Proto-Germanic aluth another word for beer. This may have a more interesting root , as it might be from Proto-Indo-European alu- which indicates magic, sorcery and intoxication.

    Prost!

    Evening Blanche

    Love the etymology posts.

    So here is one I was hoping you could help me with.

    Looking at wikipedia and various other sources, the word Constable is said to derive from he Latin "comes stabuli" (attendant to the stables).

    Wiki also mentions that in France there was a title of 'Connétable de France' or Constable of France.

    This latter ties in with what I was originally taught at University which is that Constable derives from Conné Table - or 'Known at the table' and it referred to the highest ranking commoner, usually the Steward of a castle, was known at (permitted to sit at) the table of the Lord.

    Have you come across this? I can't seem to find any other references to it.
    Hi Richard, I'm glad you're enjoying them!

    I only know of the Latin comes stabuli etymology for Constable, but am intrigued by the Conné Table idea. Sadly I haven't been able to find anything to support it either.

    The fact that the verb connaître has past participle connu, and doesn't conjugate to conné anywhere, makes me slightly sceptical of it, but that's not necessarily a problem - the Latin etymology changes m to nn and drops the s!

    I noticed from my quick searches that Connétable seems to still be an official position (elected parish head) in the Channel Islands, and a Brittany brand of sardines.
    OTOH comes tabulae would work if we think tabula may have supplanted mensa at some stage, and comes (s)tabulae/I are hardly distinguishable.
    Evening both.

    "Constable" is still an office in certain parts of the Church of England, with the position going back nearly 1000 years. CofE tradition often acts as a lens onto older offices and language, often for example parish boundaries still follow medieval boundaries.

    There are several Cathedrals (eg York Minster) that have Cathedral Constabularies, who are responsible for security in the Cathedral and its precincts (another similar word), and specifically night watch. In York Minster it dates back to 1109.

    I also know of one Cathedral with a (hopefully unused now) prison cell - Durham. But there must be others.

    The Churchwarden of a normal parish church is also a constable (not sure how formal the title is) in that they have an extant power of arrest for offences committed in the church / churhyard. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act iirc.

    One more. In one British translation of the Bible - I think the New English Bible from around 1950-60 - the word "Constable" is used in a parable about settling disputes. Also one American version from the 1970s - the New American Standard Bible, Luke 12:58:

    For while you are going with your opponent to appear before the magistrate, on your way there make an effort to settle with him, in order that he may not drag you before the judge, and the judge turn you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison.


    To me in an English context, that has a feel of the Constable being the official responsible for the local prison cell in the village centre. Other version use "Officer".

    OF course we also used to have the "Parish Constable" in the parish tier of local government, and before that when ecclesiastical parishes had a role in government.

    Refs:
    https://pathways.churchofengland.org/job/pathways/2354/cathedral-constable-liverpool-cathedral
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_constable
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Minster_Police
    https://biblehub.com/luke/12-58.htm
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_English_Bible

    York Minster Police:

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481
    edited October 22

    I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.

    If the Conservatives are south of 40%, and they've maxed out on votes to their right, they ought to be eminently beatable.

    And yet they're not, it seems.

    I'm sure that some of that is Scotland, but it's not the only factor.

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Agreed. There's no reason to vote tactically in a safe seat. So even the 26% who went Labour in 2015 may have been significantly more in marginals.

    I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the Greens are overtaking the LibDems in some polls. Insofar as the LibDem vote is a "plague on both your houses" vote rather than a vote for their policies, they may be at risk of being displaced as the third party nationally. They could really do with a deal giving them a clear run in Blue Wall seats in exchange for some middle-class lomdon seats where the Greens could do very well.

    I wonder what would happen if Corbyn was denied a Labour seat and joined the Greens?
    Would the Greens want him? 2017 Jez would have been attractive, and quite a coup, but 2021 Jez has various bits of baggage...
    It will seem obvious in hindsight and we'll wonder how anyone ever missed reading the runes at the time.

    Well, the runes are here now and they're very clear.
    Are you expecting heavy Conservative losses in the Waitrose belt ?

    And if so is that because people cannot afford housing or because people don't want housing built or both ?
    People who cannot afford housing and rent tend to go Labour, that is mainly in London and other big cities and the suburbs.

    People who own housing but don't want new housing built near them tend to go LD and to a lesser extent Green, that is mainly in the Home Counties and the South outside London
  • I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.

    If the Conservatives are south of 40%, and they've maxed out on votes to their right, they ought to be eminently beatable.

    And yet they're not, it seems.

    I'm sure that some of that is Scotland, but it's not the only factor.

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Agreed. There's no reason to vote tactically in a safe seat. So even the 26% who went Labour in 2015 may have been significantly more in marginals.

    I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the Greens are overtaking the LibDems in some polls. Insofar as the LibDem vote is a "plague on both your houses" vote rather than a vote for their policies, they may be at risk of being displaced as the third party nationally. They could really do with a deal giving them a clear run in Blue Wall seats in exchange for some middle-class lomdon seats where the Greens could do very well.

    I wonder what would happen if Corbyn was denied a Labour seat and joined the Greens?
    Would the Greens want him? 2017 Jez would have been attractive, and quite a coup, but 2021 Jez has various bits of baggage...
    It will seem obvious in hindsight and we'll wonder how anyone ever missed reading the runes at the time.

    Well, the runes are here now and they're very clear.
    The bit that I think we're all underplaying (partly because it's so damn scary) is how big the Coalition of Chaos landing zone is.

    It's very easy to imagine a situation where the Conservatives have unambiguously lost, and are Boris (or Rishi, or Lizzie) Nomates, but where they still have the most seats, and maybe the most votes as well.

    2010 worked, partly because the Conservatives were looking to their left anyway, and partly because Cam and Clegg were substantial human beings.

    Hard to see anyone, in any party, with that degree of stature right now.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
    I'm not that bothered by compulsory vaccinations, because they've been shown to be so effective.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319

    FPT @Alistair. I slightly disagree about the positivity rate increase in the sw. if we assume that the bulk of the 43,000 false negatives were actually positive, and that people are being retested (as my colleague was asked to do) then the positivity rate will be artificially enhanced. I think the sw rates will drop again next week. If the increase was as a result of increased spread by people wrongly going about their business then this would have been seen earlier. Not all the saw Pcr tests were faulty or run through the bad centre.
    I may be wrong of course.

    That's why I was taking from the 3rd onwards. As I understand it the retesting only started this week. So wouldn't have been reflected in the figures I chose. Am i wrong there?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364

    stodge said:

    Ramblings (Part 4)

    I will be fascinated to see if there is any sign of a Conservative revival in the East London Labour heartland in next year's local election. A couple of by-elections had a strong Conservative vote - 30% in East Ham Central in May and a strong Conservative performance in Weavers in Tower Hamlets and Shaun Bailey won the Custom House Ward in the Mayoral election.

    May be something, may be nothing - the swing against Stephen Timms in December 2019 was 4.8% and to be honest that won't even dent Labour's majority. In 2018, Labour won Custom House by 57 points (72-15) - in May Bailey won by two points (38-36).

    A 29.5% swing replicated across Newham would see (on my rough calculations) Labour win 33 seats and the Conservatives 27 which just goes to show how strong the Labour stranglehold is.

    Is there anything particularly demographic about the Conservative performance in Newham ?

    IIRC the only other parties who have had councillors in Newham this century have been Respect and the Christians.
    I don't know - it might be something, it might be nothing. Borough wide Khan beat Bailey by 23 points (49.5-26.5) so the Custom House looks a real outlier. If that were repeated next year, it would represent a big shift on 2018 when Labour beat the Conservatives by 52 (67-15) but it would be a 14.5% swing to the Conservatives which would gain them the sum total of bugger all.

    On a 14.5% swing, Labour would still win all 60 seats - I'm just interested to see if there is any hint of a Conservative revival in this most solid of Labour areas. To keep on topic the Greens came third with 5.5% - in 2018, they polled 5.2% across the Borough so they don't look to be making sweeping progress at this time. There's one Ward where they are second to Labour but they trail 67-20 on 2018 numbers.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554
    Alistair said:

    FPT @Alistair. I slightly disagree about the positivity rate increase in the sw. if we assume that the bulk of the 43,000 false negatives were actually positive, and that people are being retested (as my colleague was asked to do) then the positivity rate will be artificially enhanced. I think the sw rates will drop again next week. If the increase was as a result of increased spread by people wrongly going about their business then this would have been seen earlier. Not all the saw Pcr tests were faulty or run through the bad centre.
    I may be wrong of course.

    That's why I was taking from the 3rd onwards. As I understand it the retesting only started this week. So wouldn't have been reflected in the figures I chose. Am i wrong there?
    I think last week, certainly my colleague was contacted last week and chose not to get tested ( he had eventually had a positive PCR). I guess we’ll see next week, but it doesn’t make sense to me that are rates have gone so high just with a few people not isolating.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    I keep saying that NOM is value and the idea the Tories are streets ahead with another majority nailed on is for the birds.

    This explains why.

    If the Conservatives are south of 40%, and they've maxed out on votes to their right, they ought to be eminently beatable.

    And yet they're not, it seems.

    I'm sure that some of that is Scotland, but it's not the only factor.

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Agreed. There's no reason to vote tactically in a safe seat. So even the 26% who went Labour in 2015 may have been significantly more in marginals.

    I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the Greens are overtaking the LibDems in some polls. Insofar as the LibDem vote is a "plague on both your houses" vote rather than a vote for their policies, they may be at risk of being displaced as the third party nationally. They could really do with a deal giving them a clear run in Blue Wall seats in exchange for some middle-class lomdon seats where the Greens could do very well.

    I wonder what would happen if Corbyn was denied a Labour seat and joined the Greens?
    Would the Greens want him? 2017 Jez would have been attractive, and quite a coup, but 2021 Jez has various bits of baggage...
    It will seem obvious in hindsight and we'll wonder how anyone ever missed reading the runes at the time.

    Well, the runes are here now and they're very clear.
    The bit that I think we're all underplaying (partly because it's so damn scary) is how big the Coalition of Chaos landing zone is.

    It's very easy to imagine a situation where the Conservatives have unambiguously lost, and are Boris (or Rishi, or Lizzie) Nomates, but where they still have the most seats, and maybe the most votes as well.

    2010 worked, partly because the Conservatives were looking to their left anyway, and partly because Cam and Clegg were substantial human beings.

    Hard to see anyone, in any party, with that degree of stature right now.
    Yes, but once someone has woken up to the reality that our PM is naked, it is exceedingly difficult for them to imagine him clothed, imperially or otherwise. It’s a one way street, and the only question is the speed of the traffic.
This discussion has been closed.