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

24

Comments

  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    edited October 22
    stodge said:

    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.
    Have there been movements in rental / owner occupier balance?

    I know some landlords who have actively avoided Newham for investment for a long time, as the regulation there was such a f*ckup in the early years after the 2005(ish) Act. No idea if it is still in such a mess.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562

    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?
    The Green share is definitely on the way up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election), but mostly the LibDems are on 8-10%, and the Greens (except YouGov and "Number Cruncher Politics") are mostly on 5-7%.

    One would think that the Greens would eclipse the LibDems, as has happened in other European countries.

    The problem is that to achieve that - IMHO - they need to start winning real elections: councils, byelections, etc. And that's not really happening.

    Let's look at the four byelections that have happened this parliament.

    In the Hartlepool byelection, they got just 1.2%.
    They didn't stand in Airdrie & Shots (?! why ?!)
    They lost their deposit and went backwards in Chesham & Amersham
    They didn't stand in Batley & Spen

    That's not the performance of a political party that is interested in winning and exercising power. They should be fighting every byelection and beating the LibDems there, and in council elections, etc.

    Otherwise they're a pressure group, not a political party.
  • 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.
    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.
    To add to your coalition of chaos factor in the Conservatives having a majority of English MPs.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,973
    rcs1000 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.
    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?
    The Green share is definitely on the way up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election), but mostly the LibDems are on 8-10%, and the Greens (except YouGov and "Number Cruncher Politics") are mostly on 5-7%.

    One would think that the Greens would eclipse the LibDems, as has happened in other European countries.

    The problem is that to achieve that - IMHO - they need to start winning real elections: councils, byelections, etc. And that's not really happening.

    Let's look at the four byelections that have happened this parliament.

    In the Hartlepool byelection, they got just 1.2%.
    They didn't stand in Airdrie & Shots (?! why ?!)
    They lost their deposit and went backwards in Chesham & Amersham
    They didn't stand in Batley & Spen

    That's not the performance of a political party that is interested in winning and exercising power. They should be fighting every byelection and beating the LibDems there, and in council elections, etc.

    Otherwise they're a pressure group, not a political party.
    The Greens don't seem to have the capability to do the intense campaigning that wins seats.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    rcs1000 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.
    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?
    The Green share is definitely on the way up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election), but mostly the LibDems are on 8-10%, and the Greens (except YouGov and "Number Cruncher Politics") are mostly on 5-7%.

    One would think that the Greens would eclipse the LibDems, as has happened in other European countries.

    The problem is that to achieve that - IMHO - they need to start winning real elections: councils, byelections, etc. And that's not really happening.

    Let's look at the four byelections that have happened this parliament.

    In the Hartlepool byelection, they got just 1.2%.
    They didn't stand in Airdrie & Shots (?! why ?!)
    They lost their deposit and went backwards in Chesham & Amersham
    They didn't stand in Batley & Spen

    That's not the performance of a political party that is interested in winning and exercising power. They should be fighting every byelection and beating the LibDems there, and in council elections, etc.

    Otherwise they're a pressure group, not a political party.
    The Greens did not save a single deposit at any byelection in the 2017 or 2019 parliaments.
  • 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.
    To add to your coalition of chaos factor in the Conservatives having a majority of English MPs.
    And in 2010, the third party had an interest in showing that coalition government can work at Westminster. The likely third party in 202x... rather less so.

    Still, don't have nightmares, everyone.
  • 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.
    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 ?
    The Conservatives under Boris are an empty vessel drifting on the tides and that's masked only by jokes and bluster.

    They've already got an air of mixed competence and incipient corruption developing about them, and that fish rots from the head. They are not governing in the interests of the whole nation - the only message the non-retired hear is: Go F**k Yourself - and there are nasty economic headwinds heading our way that will make it much worse. They've got themselves into a position where they're less trusted on tax & spend than Labour. Culturally, they're totally alien to anyone under 50 and haven't developed any inclusive centre-right narrative to isolate the radical Left and bring them in, so instead they're sympathetic to them. Meanwhile, they've squandered our early lead over the EU in the vaccine rollout and allowed a narrative to develop that Covid recovery challenges are the fault of Brexit. Thus, their mantle as the true defenders of Brexit could end up being a handicap for them not an asset.

    Labour have plenty of problems of their own but I don't rule out that they'll now look preferable to the Tories in 2023/ 2024.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945
    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.
    Wasn't that rather disloyal considering your regard for JC? Or was it just the maths in your constituency?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    Andy_JS 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'm not that bothered by compulsory vaccinations, because they've been shown to be so effective.
    If we have to have compulsion involved then it should be of something which is most effective and which is refused by the fewest number of people.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490

    rcs1000 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.
    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?
    The Green share is definitely on the way up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election), but mostly the LibDems are on 8-10%, and the Greens (except YouGov and "Number Cruncher Politics") are mostly on 5-7%.

    One would think that the Greens would eclipse the LibDems, as has happened in other European countries.

    The problem is that to achieve that - IMHO - they need to start winning real elections: councils, byelections, etc. And that's not really happening.

    Let's look at the four byelections that have happened this parliament.

    In the Hartlepool byelection, they got just 1.2%.
    They didn't stand in Airdrie & Shots (?! why ?!)
    They lost their deposit and went backwards in Chesham & Amersham
    They didn't stand in Batley & Spen

    That's not the performance of a political party that is interested in winning and exercising power. They should be fighting every byelection and beating the LibDems there, and in council elections, etc.

    Otherwise they're a pressure group, not a political party.
    The Greens don't seem to have the capability to do the intense campaigning that wins seats.
    That's the way the LDs win seats. If the Greens start to win seats I doubt it'll be the same.

    However I do like my bins collected.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    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 ?
    The Conservatives under Boris are an empty vessel drifting on the tides and that's masked only by jokes and bluster.

    They've already got an air of mixed competence and incipient corruption developing about them, and that fish rots from the head. They are not governing in the interests of the whole nation - the only message the non-retired hear is: Go F**k Yourself - and there are nasty economic headwinds heading our way that will make it much worse. They've got themselves into a position where they're less trusted on tax & spend than Labour. Culturally, they're totally alien to anyone under 50 and haven't developed any inclusive centre-right narrative to isolate the radical Left and bring them in, so instead they're sympathetic to them. Meanwhile, they've squandered our early lead over the EU in the vaccine rollout and allowed a narrative to develop that Covid recovery challenges are the fault of Brexit. Thus, their mantle as the true defenders of Brexit could end up being a handicap for them not an asset.

    Labour have plenty of problems of their own but I don't rule out that they'll now look preferable to the Tories in 2023/ 2024.
    The Conservatives will almost certainly win another majority in England again in 2023/24.

    The question is whether Labour can win enough Tory marginals to get a hung parliament and then make Starmer PM with SNP and LD confidence and supply if combined Labour and the SNP and LDs have more seats than the Conservatives and DUP and NI Unionists
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372
    HYUFD said:

    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

    By election time it will be obvious to everyone that there is only one question: will the government be Tory or a Labour led centre left alliance. Everyone will know that in all the seats that can change hands you vote either Tory or for the party that can beat them, in every case that is LD, Lab or SNP.

    Greens will vote Green in Bootle, Brighton Pavilion and South Holland but many won't do so where it would let in a Tory.

  • 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.
    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.
    Lots of things could happen over the next few years and I think it's only human to graft past outcomes onto the future to help us make sense of it.

    There won't be a 1997 wipeout even if Starmer wins, and nor will it be like the 2010 coalition. It will be something different.

    If I were a Tory I'd be trying to get behind Liz Truss to eject Boris in 2022 or 2023 as she is hardworking, has an ability to advocate common sense on cultural issues, believes in economic and personal freedom, and gets a hearing outside the party faithful as well as withing it.
  • 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 ?
    The Conservatives under Boris are an empty vessel drifting on the tides and that's masked only by jokes and bluster.

    They've already got an air of mixed competence and incipient corruption developing about them, and that fish rots from the head. They are not governing in the interests of the whole nation - the only message the non-retired hear is: Go F**k Yourself - and there are nasty economic headwinds heading our way that will make it much worse. They've got themselves into a position where they're less trusted on tax & spend than Labour. Culturally, they're totally alien to anyone under 50 and haven't developed any inclusive centre-right narrative to isolate the radical Left and bring them in, so instead they're sympathetic to them. Meanwhile, they've squandered our early lead over the EU in the vaccine rollout and allowed a narrative to develop that Covid recovery challenges are the fault of Brexit. Thus, their mantle as the true defenders of Brexit could end up being a handicap for them not an asset.

    Labour have plenty of problems of their own but I don't rule out that they'll now look preferable to the Tories in 2023/ 2024.
    How has the UK 'squandered our early lead over the EU in the vaccine rollout' ?

    Other countries were going to catch up on the first and second doses and the UK is well ahead on booster vaccinations. Other countries will catch up on those in a few months.

    Meanwhile there have been fewer restrictions in the UK than in other countries.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    edited October 22

    rcs1000 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.
    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?
    The Green share is definitely on the way up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election), but mostly the LibDems are on 8-10%, and the Greens (except YouGov and "Number Cruncher Politics") are mostly on 5-7%.

    One would think that the Greens would eclipse the LibDems, as has happened in other European countries.

    The problem is that to achieve that - IMHO - they need to start winning real elections: councils, byelections, etc. And that's not really happening.

    Let's look at the four byelections that have happened this parliament.

    In the Hartlepool byelection, they got just 1.2%.
    They didn't stand in Airdrie & Shots (?! why ?!)
    They lost their deposit and went backwards in Chesham & Amersham
    They didn't stand in Batley & Spen

    That's not the performance of a political party that is interested in winning and exercising power. They should be fighting every byelection and beating the LibDems there, and in council elections, etc.

    Otherwise they're a pressure group, not a political party.
    The Greens don't seem to have the capability to do the intense campaigning that wins seats.
    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562

    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/

    Bulgaria - IIRC - declined to participate in the EU vaccine program, and then neglected to bother buying many of their own.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    edited October 22

    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.
    These people come on show with conditions that xyz are off limits.. never expect more than not a lot.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,650
    rcs1000 said:

    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/

    Bulgaria - IIRC - declined to participate in the EU vaccine program, and then neglected to bother buying many of their own.
    ISTR they went for the Russian Sputnik.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    Do you really think it’s their green credentials that is responsible for their decent polling?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490
    MattW said:

    rcs1000 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.
    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?
    The Green share is definitely on the way up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election), but mostly the LibDems are on 8-10%, and the Greens (except YouGov and "Number Cruncher Politics") are mostly on 5-7%.

    One would think that the Greens would eclipse the LibDems, as has happened in other European countries.

    The problem is that to achieve that - IMHO - they need to start winning real elections: councils, byelections, etc. And that's not really happening.

    Let's look at the four byelections that have happened this parliament.

    In the Hartlepool byelection, they got just 1.2%.
    They didn't stand in Airdrie & Shots (?! why ?!)
    They lost their deposit and went backwards in Chesham & Amersham
    They didn't stand in Batley & Spen

    That's not the performance of a political party that is interested in winning and exercising power. They should be fighting every byelection and beating the LibDems there, and in council elections, etc.

    Otherwise they're a pressure group, not a political party.
    The Greens don't seem to have the capability to do the intense campaigning that wins seats.
    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.
    I'll not try to do any toasting, but I do rather think that the LDs are fanatical dogmatists. Their main issue is that they've forgotten what the thing was that they really wanted to get behind. Thus they appear pragmatic.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    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 ?
    The Conservatives under Boris are an empty vessel drifting on the tides and that's masked only by jokes and bluster.

    They've already got an air of mixed competence and incipient corruption developing about them, and that fish rots from the head. They are not governing in the interests of the whole nation - the only message the non-retired hear is: Go F**k Yourself - and there are nasty economic headwinds heading our way that will make it much worse. They've got themselves into a position where they're less trusted on tax & spend than Labour. Culturally, they're totally alien to anyone under 50 and haven't developed any inclusive centre-right narrative to isolate the radical Left and bring them in, so instead they're sympathetic to them. Meanwhile, they've squandered our early lead over the EU in the vaccine rollout and allowed a narrative to develop that Covid recovery challenges are the fault of Brexit. Thus, their mantle as the true defenders of Brexit could end up being a handicap for them not an asset.

    Labour have plenty of problems of their own but I don't rule out that they'll now look preferable to the Tories in 2023/ 2024.
    I agree but the Tories will keep winning as long as Labour remains the sort of party it currently is, ie. one that isn't trusted outside the big cities and university towns, suspected of being anti-patriotic and more concerned about injustice in other parts of the world than in the UK for example.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Roger said:

    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.
    Wasn't that rather disloyal considering your regard for JC? Or was it just the maths in your constituency?
    It was to do with my particular constituency.

    JC was a curates egg in my book. Good in parts and rotten in other parts. I could only have voted Labour if I were in a marginal, and I was not.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    rcs1000 said:

    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/

    Bulgaria - IIRC - declined to participate in the EU vaccine program, and then neglected to bother buying many of their own.
    Well whatever they did buy was much more than they wanted as they had to give many away to other countries.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    In the 2019 GE there was a majority in the popular vote for a second referendum (Lab, LD, Green SNP, PC etc).
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    In the 2019 GE there was a majority in the popular vote for a second referendum (Lab, LD, Green SNP, PC etc).
    That wasn't on the ballot paper. The GE was the GE.
  • Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Omnium said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    In the 2019 GE there was a majority in the popular vote for a second referendum (Lab, LD, Green SNP, PC etc).
    That wasn't on the ballot paper. The GE was the GE.
    Of course. But it is a pretence that the electorate was increasingly Eurosceptic. The signs of buyers remorse for Brexit were already there.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,993
    edited October 22
    Andy_JS 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.

    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 ?
    The Conservatives under Boris are an empty vessel drifting on the tides and that's masked only by jokes and bluster.

    They've already got an air of mixed competence and incipient corruption developing about them, and that fish rots from the head. They are not governing in the interests of the whole nation - the only message the non-retired hear is: Go F**k Yourself - and there are nasty economic headwinds heading our way that will make it much worse. They've got themselves into a position where they're less trusted on tax & spend than Labour. Culturally, they're totally alien to anyone under 50 and haven't developed any inclusive centre-right narrative to isolate the radical Left and bring them in, so instead they're sympathetic to them. Meanwhile, they've squandered our early lead over the EU in the vaccine rollout and allowed a narrative to develop that Covid recovery challenges are the fault of Brexit. Thus, their mantle as the true defenders of Brexit could end up being a handicap for them not an asset.

    Labour have plenty of problems of their own but I don't rule out that they'll now look preferable to the Tories in 2023/ 2024.
    I agree but the Tories will keep winning as long as Labour remains the sort of party it currently is, ie. one that isn't trusted outside the big cities and university towns, suspected of being anti-patriotic and more concerned about injustice in other parts of the world than in the UK for example.
    I accept that in Corbyn's time Labour was "suspected of being anti-patriotic and more concerned about injustice in other parts of the world than in the UK", as you put it. Do you have any evidence that this is still the case? It is precisely that perception that Starmer and others have set about changing. Indeed, I haven't heard anything from Labour recently about injustices outside the UK. And, although he may not have succeeded yet, Starmer is doing all he can to kill the 'Labour is anti-patriotic' meme. Maybe they have to be renamed New Labour to convince you.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    Do you really think it’s their green credentials that is responsible for their decent polling?
    No, but I think it was UKIP's Euroscepticism that was behind its decent polling.

    I was comparing Green to UKIP.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    MattW said:

    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:

    Evening and thanks for that.

    I was lazily thinking comes stabuli was a speculative, just so story sort of etymology. In fact the title dates all the way back to C4th Byzantium, which I think makes the derivation rock solid.
  • Andy_JS 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.

    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 ?
    The Conservatives under Boris are an empty vessel drifting on the tides and that's masked only by jokes and bluster.

    They've already got an air of mixed competence and incipient corruption developing about them, and that fish rots from the head. They are not governing in the interests of the whole nation - the only message the non-retired hear is: Go F**k Yourself - and there are nasty economic headwinds heading our way that will make it much worse. They've got themselves into a position where they're less trusted on tax & spend than Labour. Culturally, they're totally alien to anyone under 50 and haven't developed any inclusive centre-right narrative to isolate the radical Left and bring them in, so instead they're sympathetic to them. Meanwhile, they've squandered our early lead over the EU in the vaccine rollout and allowed a narrative to develop that Covid recovery challenges are the fault of Brexit. Thus, their mantle as the true defenders of Brexit could end up being a handicap for them not an asset.

    Labour have plenty of problems of their own but I don't rule out that they'll now look preferable to the Tories in 2023/ 2024.
    I agree but the Tories will keep winning as long as Labour remains the sort of party it currently is, ie. one that isn't trusted outside the big cities and university towns, suspected of being anti-patriotic and more concerned about injustice in other parts of the world than in the UK for example.
    I accept that in Corbyn's time Labour was "suspected of being anti-patriotic and more concerned about injustice in other parts of the world than in the UK", as you put it. Do you have any evidence that this is still the case? It is precisely that perception that Starmer and others have set about changing. Indeed, I haven't heard anything from Labour recently about injustices outside the UK. And, although he may not have succeeded yet, Starmer is doing all he can to kill the 'Labour is anti-patriotic' meme. Maybe they have to be renamed New Labour to convince you.
    Labour will lose in 2024 - if it does - because of perceptions on the economy. The anti-UK angle is dead and buried and that is very clear to mostly all voters. "Sir" Keir Starmer will never be able to be sold as anti-UK as Corbyn was.

    I think Labour polling 40% is obviously very likely - but their number is pretty much fixed, it is the Tory vote that needs to fall if Labour is to win
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    Do you really think it’s their green credentials that is responsible for their decent polling?
    No, but I think it was UKIP's Euroscepticism that was behind its decent polling.

    I was comparing Green to UKIP.
    Yes, why vote Green instead of the alternatives, which all have Green edges?

    Either the others are not Green enough, not trusted to carry it through, or the voters see a fundamental change to a capitalist consumer economy as the core of a new Greener society. Or all of the above.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    Labour lead, probably yes. Chaos with Covid, not me.
  • HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364
    MattW said:


    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.

    It wasn't a problem until 2010 - even then it didn't have to be a problem but Nick Clegg was trapped into a coalition by some brilliant politics from David Cameron and William Hague and made two catastrophic unforced errors.

    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.
  • 2010 LDs should have just done C&S
  • Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    Labour lead, probably yes. Chaos with Covid, not me.
    How are you tubbs?

    The signs on COVID are not good, I have the same feeling I had at a similar time last year and many here called me foolish for saying we needed another lockdown. I'm not calling for that quite yet but we need to put some restrictions back in.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490
    Foxy said:

    Omnium said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    In the 2019 GE there was a majority in the popular vote for a second referendum (Lab, LD, Green SNP, PC etc).
    That wasn't on the ballot paper. The GE was the GE.
    Of course. But it is a pretence that the electorate was increasingly Eurosceptic. The signs of buyers remorse for Brexit were already there.
    Perhaps. Let's see in a year or two though. When the next GE takes place it'll clearly just about being a GE. However it'll be the best measure of whether there really is a substantial rejoin thought.

    The LDs might just run on that.

    I'm sure I (marginal leaver) have no crystal ball, but I'm even more sure that the remainers don't either.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    I would go 50/50 on each.

    I really don't know where the covid situation goes next. It could be the peak today, or we could be in the foothills before a new peak. Even the best situation is going to be a mess for other services.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
    That's not how it works. Almost certainly he'll need SNP support.
  • Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
    That's not how it works. Almost certainly he'll need SNP support.
    He will need SNP support but they won't be going into a coalition, at most it will be some sort of limited C&S deal.

    This is why it's better for Labour to nullify the SNP as much as possible by helping the Lib Dems to do better
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 849

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
    I have never heard SKS attacking Nippy.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859
    Smashed in Soho. London stays winning. Fuck plan b, fuck labour, fuck Keith and fuck Sadiq. #keeplondonopen
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    edited October 22

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
    If as is likely the Tories still have most seats in a hung parliament Starmer won't be able to get into power unless the SNP not only vote the Tories down but actively give him a confidence and supply agreement too. Even if the LDs won 20-30 seats and Labour got 270 seats ie higher than 2010 and 2017, they would still need SNP support to form a government and the Tories would still likely have most seats
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364
    MaxPB said:

    Smashed in Soho. London stays winning. Fuck plan b, fuck labour, fuck Keith and fuck Sadiq. #keeplondonopen

    Coherent as always. Enjoy your evening #enjoythenightbushome
  • https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1451451173920256076?t=2_FXz2zGG0o5CG0YOL6W5g

    I am totally shocked, not.

    The lead is clearly significantly down and the underlying numbers are showing that this process is continuing. Polling parity and then Labour lead very soon.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    In the 2019 GE there was a majority in the popular vote for a second referendum (Lab, LD, Green SNP, PC etc).
    The Progressive Alliance, you mean?

    Con+UKIP+BXP+DUP+UUP got fewer votes :)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,490

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
    That's not how it works. Almost certainly he'll need SNP support.
    He will need SNP support but they won't be going into a coalition, at most it will be some sort of limited C&S deal.

    This is why it's better for Labour to nullify the SNP as much as possible by helping the Lib Dems to do better
    The others need to vote him in to start with. The SNP will happily pull the rug, and I imagine that they'd like that. The LDs or Greens will be super-cautious. Very precise terms, and certainly c&s.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    Labour lead, probably yes. Chaos with Covid, not me.
    How are you tubbs?

    The signs on COVID are not good, I have the same feeling I had at a similar time last year and many here called me foolish for saying we needed another lockdown. I'm not calling for that quite yet but we need to put some restrictions back in.
    I wouldn't think new legal restrictions will be brought in. Johnson has tied the government to the mast, and will sail on in the storm. We might hit the rocks or we might not.

    I think though that there may well be a mass stay at home, as was seen in some US States. Without government support that could be quite difficult for some businesses.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,493

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    Labour lead, probably yes. Chaos with Covid, not me.
    How are you tubbs?

    The signs on COVID are not good, I have the same feeling I had at a similar time last year and many here called me foolish for saying we needed another lockdown. I'm not calling for that quite yet but we need to put some restrictions back in.
    NO. No more restrictions. They were a mistake last time and they are a mistake now.
    I was talking to a headmaster of an infant school today. So many kids in year 2 especially with a) massive gaps in their education and b) massive issues of emotional resilience. What we have done to that generation is criminal.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    Labour lead, probably yes. Chaos with Covid, not me.
    How are you tubbs?

    The signs on COVID are not good, I have the same feeling I had at a similar time last year and many here called me foolish for saying we needed another lockdown. I'm not calling for that quite yet but we need to put some restrictions back in.
    I’m well thanks. I feel we are at the height of the storm, and it will start to look better soon. The boosters will help, the kids have all had Covid so their rates will drop, and fast, and it will look better in a months time.
    And society is open.
    Covid has been tough for many, and many have died or been bereaved. I’ve been lucky, no one in my family or friends has died. Maybe that colours my perception? Maybe being a cancer survivor (9 years now) I feel we should live while we can, and not put things on hold.
    Keep the faith, and stay well.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    stodge said:

    MattW said:


    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.

    It wasn't a problem until 2010 - even then it didn't have to be a problem but Nick Clegg was trapped into a coalition by some brilliant politics from David Cameron and William Hague and made two catastrophic unforced errors.

    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.
    Which bit of historical experience out of interest? Bear in mind how glittering the prize was compared to his realistic expectations when he became an MP

    His catastrophic error was accepting the booby prize position of DPM. Great office of state or I walk, he should v said.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,407
    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    Indeed, but I think there's an element of the public that wishes to say "a pox on both your houses" and votes for a third party deliberately. Wasted voting be damned.

    Up until 2010 that third party vote went to the Lib Dems. In 2015 that third party vote went to UKIP.

    I think 2017 and 2019 were the exceptions to the rule. Corbyn plus Brexit combined to drive people to pick one side or another.

    2023/24 could be a reversion to mean and a meaningful third party vote returns, this time in the form of the Greens. Not for especially Green reasons, but because UKIP and the Lib Dems have died and certain people don't see that big of a difference between Starmer or Johnson so the polarisation is reduced.
  • 2010 LDs should have just done C&S

    No. The minority Tory government wouldn't have lasted, there would have been another general election in the autumn and the Tories would have won it handsomely.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Smashed in Soho. London stays winning. Fuck plan b, fuck labour, fuck Keith and fuck Sadiq. #keeplondonopen

    Coherent as always. Enjoy your evening #enjoythenightbushome
    #notgoingsarfoftheriverrhistimeonightguv
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
    That's not how it works. Almost certainly he'll need SNP support.
    He will need SNP support but they won't be going into a coalition, at most it will be some sort of limited C&S deal.

    This is why it's better for Labour to nullify the SNP as much as possible by helping the Lib Dems to do better
    The others need to vote him in to start with. The SNP will happily pull the rug, and I imagine that they'd like that. The LDs or Greens will be super-cautious. Very precise terms, and certainly c&s.
    If NOM, I would expect a Labour minority government before a further election a few months later. 1974 revisited.

    My money is still on Con majority, albeit reduced.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    Cookie said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    Labour lead, probably yes. Chaos with Covid, not me.
    How are you tubbs?

    The signs on COVID are not good, I have the same feeling I had at a similar time last year and many here called me foolish for saying we needed another lockdown. I'm not calling for that quite yet but we need to put some restrictions back in.
    NO. No more restrictions. They were a mistake last time and they are a mistake now.
    I was talking to a headmaster of an infant school today. So many kids in year 2 especially with a) massive gaps in their education and b) massive issues of emotional resilience. What we have done to that generation is criminal.
    Schools must not be locked down again under any circumstances in my opinion. No. No. No.
  • stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Smashed in Soho. London stays winning. Fuck plan b, fuck labour, fuck Keith and fuck Sadiq. #keeplondonopen

    Coherent as always. Enjoy your evening #enjoythenightbushome
    Sadiq? How about the Tories keep Rory and don't have to embarrass themselves with Sean Bailey? Plan B? You mean the government policy in waiting that Max will be praising next week?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    Labour lead, probably yes. Chaos with Covid, not me.
    How are you tubbs?

    The signs on COVID are not good, I have the same feeling I had at a similar time last year and many here called me foolish for saying we needed another lockdown. I'm not calling for that quite yet but we need to put some restrictions back in.
    The big difference between then and now is or are the vaccines. With 79% double vaccinated, the numbers likely to need hospital treatment and at risk of death from Covid are well down on where we were last year when we went into autumn with new variants and an unvaccinated and therefore unprotected population.

    As to any kind of "restrictions" going forward, I am told by the "experts" on here even after 5-6 months, there is still plenty of protection afforded by vaccination and that is enhanced considerably by the booster vaccination. I am eligible for mine at the end of next month and while some are wanting to "jump ahead" and get theirs early I don't see why.

    There's an argument for greater personal responsibility in terms of personal hygiene (hand washing and perhaps not going out and about if you are unwell) though whether the average drunk in Soho on a Friday night gets that in lieu of political ranting is debatable.

    That's the problem with the current debate - no nuance or shades of grey - if you advocate no restrictions, you're accused of letting the virus loose and risking the lives of the elderly. If you advocate mask wearing or restrictions, you're accused of wanting to destroy the economy and attacking individual freedom.

    Unfortunately, that's where we are - a dialogue not so much of the deaf but the daft.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
    If as is likely the Tories still have most seats in a hung parliament Starmer won't be able to get into power unless the SNP not only vote the Tories down but actively give him a confidence and supply agreement too. Even if the LDs won 20-30 seats and Labour got 270 seats ie higher than 2010 and 2017, they would still need SNP support to form a government and the Tories would still likely have most seats
    The SNP's difficulty will be that they won't have that much of a choice.

    Back Labour, however grudgingly, or leave the Conservatives in place. Do the second, even passively, and they are in a similar position to a certain blended family member on a certain website.

    They can cause trouble, any relationship will be ugly, and there will be limits on what a not-Conservative government can do, but they can only really go one way.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    MattW said:


    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.

    It wasn't a problem until 2010 - even then it didn't have to be a problem but Nick Clegg was trapped into a coalition by some brilliant politics from David Cameron and William Hague and made two catastrophic unforced errors.

    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.
    Which bit of historical experience out of interest? Bear in mind how glittering the prize was compared to his realistic expectations when he became an MP

    His catastrophic error was accepting the booby prize position of DPM. Great office of state or I walk, he should v said.
    Should have insisted on 2 or 3 specific ministries to take total control of.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699

    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Smashed in Soho. London stays winning. Fuck plan b, fuck labour, fuck Keith and fuck Sadiq. #keeplondonopen

    Coherent as always. Enjoy your evening #enjoythenightbushome
    Sadiq? How about the Tories keep Rory and don't have to embarrass themselves with Sean Bailey? Plan B? You mean the government policy in waiting that Max will be praising next week?
    I doubt it, he's been quite vocal in his criticism of them as of late.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    Indeed, but I think there's an element of the public that wishes to say "a pox on both your houses" and votes for a third party deliberately. Wasted voting be damned.

    Up until 2010 that third party vote went to the Lib Dems. In 2015 that third party vote went to UKIP.

    I think 2017 and 2019 were the exceptions to the rule. Corbyn plus Brexit combined to drive people to pick one side or another.

    2023/24 could be a reversion to mean and a meaningful third party vote returns, this time in the form of the Greens. Not for especially Green reasons, but because UKIP and the Lib Dems have died and certain people don't see that big of a difference between Starmer or Johnson so the polarisation is reduced.
    Yes. But you're a big fan of the PM.
    Those who aren't don't see him as being no different in the slightest. At all.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    MattW said:


    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.

    It wasn't a problem until 2010 - even then it didn't have to be a problem but Nick Clegg was trapped into a coalition by some brilliant politics from David Cameron and William Hague and made two catastrophic unforced errors.

    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.
    Which bit of historical experience out of interest? Bear in mind how glittering the prize was compared to his realistic expectations when he became an MP

    His catastrophic error was accepting the booby prize position of DPM. Great office of state or I walk, he should v said.
    Should have insisted on 2 or 3 specific ministries to take total control of.
    That would also work.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
    If as is likely the Tories still have most seats in a hung parliament Starmer won't be able to get into power unless the SNP not only vote the Tories down but actively give him a confidence and supply agreement too. Even if the LDs won 20-30 seats and Labour got 270 seats ie higher than 2010 and 2017, they would still need SNP support to form a government and the Tories would still likely have most seats
    The SNP's difficulty will be that they won't have that much of a choice.

    Back Labour, however grudgingly, or leave the Conservatives in place. Do the second, even passively, and they are in a similar position to a certain blended family member on a certain website.

    They can cause trouble, any relationship will be ugly, and there will be limits on what a not-Conservative government can do, but they can only really go one way.
    Yes. If the SNP keep Johnson in power, they would be destroyed in the election that would soon follow. I don't think the Parliamentary SNP would do it.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 849

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
    If as is likely the Tories still have most seats in a hung parliament Starmer won't be able to get into power unless the SNP not only vote the Tories down but actively give him a confidence and supply agreement too. Even if the LDs won 20-30 seats and Labour got 270 seats ie higher than 2010 and 2017, they would still need SNP support to form a government and the Tories would still likely have most seats
    The SNP's difficulty will be that they won't have that much of a choice.

    Back Labour, however grudgingly, or leave the Conservatives in place. Do the second, even passively, and they are in a similar position to a certain blended family member on a certain website.

    They can cause trouble, any relationship will be ugly, and there will be limits on what a not-Conservative government can do, but they can only really go one way.
    Labour will accept a Indyref2 as the deal breaker so a LAB/SNP Type coalition of chaos is very much on the cards.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364
    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:


    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.

    Which bit of historical experience out of interest? Bear in mind how glittering the prize was compared to his realistic expectations when he became an MP

    His catastrophic error was accepting the booby prize position of DPM. Great office of state or I walk, he should v said.
    The Liberals had "worked with" Labour in both the 1920s and 1970s and on both occasions Labour had used the experience to gut the Liberals at the subsequent election. That's essentially what happened between 2010-15.

    Clegg believed his strong personal relationship with Cameron would give him some political leverage but it didn't.

    In order not to be a dead fly, you have to make sure you stay clear of both the flypaper AND the honey. Cameron and Hague lured the LDs into the honey trap of coalition - it was politically brilliant and made the LDs look like third-rate amateurs.

    I supported the coalition in 2010 but the AV stupidity and the student fees U-turn were catastrophic and unnecessary political errors which were perpetuated by a political leader picked not because of his political acumen but because he was seen as the "response" to Cameron just as Cameron himself was seen as the "response" to Blair.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554
    stodge said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    Labour lead, probably yes. Chaos with Covid, not me.
    How are you tubbs?

    The signs on COVID are not good, I have the same feeling I had at a similar time last year and many here called me foolish for saying we needed another lockdown. I'm not calling for that quite yet but we need to put some restrictions back in.
    The big difference between then and now is or are the vaccines. With 79% double vaccinated, the numbers likely to need hospital treatment and at risk of death from Covid are well down on where we were last year when we went into autumn with new variants and an unvaccinated and therefore unprotected population.

    As to any kind of "restrictions" going forward, I am told by the "experts" on here even after 5-6 months, there is still plenty of protection afforded by vaccination and that is enhanced considerably by the booster vaccination. I am eligible for mine at the end of next month and while some are wanting to "jump ahead" and get theirs early I don't see why.

    There's an argument for greater personal responsibility in terms of personal hygiene (hand washing and perhaps not going out and about if you are unwell) though whether the average drunk in Soho on a Friday night gets that in lieu of political ranting is debatable.

    That's the problem with the current debate - no nuance or shades of grey - if you advocate no restrictions, you're accused of letting the virus loose and risking the lives of the elderly. If you advocate mask wearing or restrictions, you're accused of wanting to destroy the economy and attacking individual freedom.

    Unfortunately, that's where we are - a dialogue not so much of the deaf but the daft.
    Yes, for some reason we are stuck in very polarised debates (PB and the rest of the country). I would be accepting of plan b if I genuinely thought it was needed, but as it stands I don’t. I’m as sure as I’ve been about anything that the kids Covid cases can not sustain at current rates. The only issue for me is if other age groups increase, but tbh the vaccines are suppressing spread. We know this because there are no restrictions in place and the current R is estimated at 1 to 1.2. Boosters will make a huge difference, as shown by th3 latest data on Pfizer with three doses and the cases in Israel after they started boosting.
    I understand how others will not agree. Superficially it looks like last autumn, just before things went wrong. But it’s not, because vaccines plus recovered infections means more than 90% of over 18’s have antibodies/some degree of immunity.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 940

    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 ?
    The Conservatives under Boris are an empty vessel drifting on the tides and that's masked only by jokes and bluster.

    They've already got an air of mixed competence and incipient corruption developing about them, and that fish rots from the head. They are not governing in the interests of the whole nation - the only message the non-retired hear is: Go F**k Yourself - and there are nasty economic headwinds heading our way that will make it much worse. They've got themselves into a position where they're less trusted on tax & spend than Labour. Culturally, they're totally alien to anyone under 50 and haven't developed any inclusive centre-right narrative to isolate the radical Left and bring them in, so instead they're sympathetic to them. Meanwhile, they've squandered our early lead over the EU in the vaccine rollout and allowed a narrative to develop that Covid recovery challenges are the fault of Brexit. Thus, their mantle as the true defenders of Brexit could end up being a handicap for them not an asset.

    Labour have plenty of problems of their own but I don't rule out that they'll now look preferable to the Tories in 2023/ 2024.
    Even accepting that I am rather unusual in my views, I don't accept that the tories are culturally alien to anyone under 50. Far from it. They appeal instead to people a large group of people with low expectations of government, and who know what they are up to and don't actually mind. I would count myself in this group. For someone who sees the essential purpose of government being to avert the mounting existential catastrophe of human existence for another day, they are a pretty good bet. Johnson in particular. He manages to bat off at least some of the insane, crazy shit that people keep making up as solutions to the unbearable contradictions of living in a post post industrial society, and in normal times gets snuck in under the radar by ambitious idiots under the guise of progress with all sorts of intolerably stupid outcomes for society. Johnson is ok. The bribing pensioners stuff is morally intolerable, but an acceptable price for holding off the more extreme antics of the woke. Overall, he gets a 6/10
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498
    edited October 22
    Bns Stroud has now tabled her amdt discussed in this thread. Clear scope issues - it has nothing to do with the Bill. Clerks likely to have given very firm feedback but much is being made of the Lords being “self regulating” and it’s up to them if they want to abandon rules 1/ https://twitter.com/nmdacosta/status/1451135389444546561 https://twitter.com/nmdacosta/status/1451641226474795012/photo/1

    If the Lords back this amendment, abandoning all adherence to scope, it will be viewed as a 10/10 breach of trust / way of doing things. It will send a shudder down govt as to what it means for other leg. hawks for Lords reform will rightly circle 5/

    As with Brexit leg that got hijacked, some Lords may be aware that the fact the legislation has a hard deadline for Royal Assent means the Parliament Acts cannot be used. There is no way to override the Lords on a short timescale and this strengthens their hand 6/

    But for all the reasons stated above regarding how BIG a step it would be for the Lords to vote for this, the question for the Lords is whether THIS is the amendment they want to start the war on. Once it starts the contamination will spread across the leg programme 7/

    Irrespective of the merits or not of reinstating the UC uplift, the wider ramifications are significant. With Budget votes just around the corner, MPs also have a much more powerful and conventional tool to show their disagreement should they so wish. End/
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,395
    edited October 22
    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    MattW said:


    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.

    It wasn't a problem until 2010 - even then it didn't have to be a problem but Nick Clegg was trapped into a coalition by some brilliant politics from David Cameron and William Hague and made two catastrophic unforced errors.

    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.
    Which bit of historical experience out of interest? Bear in mind how glittering the prize was compared to his realistic expectations when he became an MP

    His catastrophic error was accepting the booby prize position of DPM. Great office of state or I walk, he should v said.
    Should have insisted on 2 or 3 specific ministries to take total control of.
    Yes, it's amazing how the Lib Dems didn't realise how much power they had after the 2010 election (compared to say the DUP after May's election). The Tories were so desperate to be in power after 13 years of defeat that Nick Clegg could have been Chancellor, and at the very least got PR for local elections and a democratic House of Lords.

    But all they got was cuts to Income tax (which anybody with a few IQ points would know the Tories would take credit for), and a vote for introducing AV (not an actuall immediate change to the voting sytem, but vote for a very slightly more proportionate electoral system), which they agreed to by *INCREASING* student fees, something which their policy of eliminating gave half of their votes.

    Nick Clegg was a *ucking knob
  • Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    I reject your last sentence

    The evidence is it is the young and unvaccinated being affected and the vaccines are working

    The Downing Street charts were evidence that there is no need to panic and it seems Labour agrees
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,407
    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That being said... the other three parties were Europhilic, while the population was increasingly Eurosceptic.

    Pretty much all the main UK political parties are Green (to one extent or another), so it's harder for them to differentiate.
    Indeed, but I think there's an element of the public that wishes to say "a pox on both your houses" and votes for a third party deliberately. Wasted voting be damned.

    Up until 2010 that third party vote went to the Lib Dems. In 2015 that third party vote went to UKIP.

    I think 2017 and 2019 were the exceptions to the rule. Corbyn plus Brexit combined to drive people to pick one side or another.

    2023/24 could be a reversion to mean and a meaningful third party vote returns, this time in the form of the Greens. Not for especially Green reasons, but because UKIP and the Lib Dems have died and certain people don't see that big of a difference between Starmer or Johnson so the polarisation is reduced.
    Yes. But you're a big fan of the PM.
    Those who aren't don't see him as being no different in the slightest. At all.
    Oh I'm not thinking of myself, I do see a difference.

    Actually I'm more thinking @bigjohnowls and similar.
  • Somebody can explain how the Lib Dems went from scrapping tuition fees to voting to increase them
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,980

    stodge said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    Labour lead, probably yes. Chaos with Covid, not me.
    How are you tubbs?

    The signs on COVID are not good, I have the same feeling I had at a similar time last year and many here called me foolish for saying we needed another lockdown. I'm not calling for that quite yet but we need to put some restrictions back in.
    The big difference between then and now is or are the vaccines. With 79% double vaccinated, the numbers likely to need hospital treatment and at risk of death from Covid are well down on where we were last year when we went into autumn with new variants and an unvaccinated and therefore unprotected population.

    As to any kind of "restrictions" going forward, I am told by the "experts" on here even after 5-6 months, there is still plenty of protection afforded by vaccination and that is enhanced considerably by the booster vaccination. I am eligible for mine at the end of next month and while some are wanting to "jump ahead" and get theirs early I don't see why.

    There's an argument for greater personal responsibility in terms of personal hygiene (hand washing and perhaps not going out and about if you are unwell) though whether the average drunk in Soho on a Friday night gets that in lieu of political ranting is debatable.

    That's the problem with the current debate - no nuance or shades of grey - if you advocate no restrictions, you're accused of letting the virus loose and risking the lives of the elderly. If you advocate mask wearing or restrictions, you're accused of wanting to destroy the economy and attacking individual freedom.

    Unfortunately, that's where we are - a dialogue not so much of the deaf but the daft.
    Yes, for some reason we are stuck in very polarised debates (PB and the rest of the country). I would be accepting of plan b if I genuinely thought it was needed, but as it stands I don’t. I’m as sure as I’ve been about anything that the kids Covid cases can not sustain at current rates. The only issue for me is if other age groups increase, but tbh the vaccines are suppressing spread. We know this because there are no restrictions in place and the current R is estimated at 1 to 1.2. Boosters will make a huge difference, as shown by th3 latest data on Pfizer with three doses and the cases in Israel after they started boosting.
    I understand how others will not agree. Superficially it looks like last autumn, just before things went wrong. But it’s not, because vaccines plus recovered infections means more than 90% of over 18’s have antibodies/some degree of immunity.
    There is also a lack of clarity/understanding about what Plan B is.

    If it is simply the official govt plan, which is vaccine passports for big events and nightclubs, masks (presumably in supermarkets and public transport), and encouraging wfh then it is not really a big deal, either in restrictions or change from current status quo.

    Lots of clubs and big events are already using vaccine passports, others go further and demand a recent negative test. Whether masks are voluntary or legally required but not enforced, won't make much difference to mask usage. Javid or Boris asking businesses to switch to wfh will have an impact at the margins at most.

    So if thats all it is, whilst I think its unnecessary, it's not a big deal. But presumably those who favour plan B are expecting/desiring it to be govt Plan B plus more restrictions, otherwise why the big clamour for it?
  • CatMan said:

    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    MattW said:


    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.

    It wasn't a problem until 2010 - even then it didn't have to be a problem but Nick Clegg was trapped into a coalition by some brilliant politics from David Cameron and William Hague and made two catastrophic unforced errors.

    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.
    Which bit of historical experience out of interest? Bear in mind how glittering the prize was compared to his realistic expectations when he became an MP

    His catastrophic error was accepting the booby prize position of DPM. Great office of state or I walk, he should v said.
    Should have insisted on 2 or 3 specific ministries to take total control of.
    Yes, it's amazing how the Lib Dems didn't realise how much power they had after the 2010 election (compared to say the DUP after May's election). The Tories were so desperate to be in power after 13 years of defeat that Nick Clegg could have been Chancellor, and at the very least got PR for local elections and a democratic House of Lords.

    But all they got was cuts to Income tax (which anybody with a few IQ points would know the Tories would take credit for), and a vote for introducing AV (not an actuall immediate change to the voting sytem, but vote for a very slightly more proportionate electoral system), which they agreed to by *INCREASING* student fees, something which their policy of eliminating gave half of their votes.

    Nick Clegg was a *ucking nobb
    In practice they got shish-kebabed. Gordon Brown refused to sit in Downing Street any longer and resigned. Which forced Cameron to form a government in a minority, and put the pressure on Clegg to bring the LD parliamentary party with him.

    He should have held out of course. But Cameron could have said "you had your chance" and gone minority on him...
  • Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 849

    Somebody can explain how the Lib Dems went from scrapping tuition fees to voting to increase them

    They got epic trolled by the NUS.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    edited October 22

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    If most of the new cases are young people, and most of the deaths are people who refused the vaccine, things aren't as bad as they might seem. Covid-19 isn't serious in most young people, and if you refused the vaccine that's your decision to risk your life.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364

    Somebody can explain how the Lib Dems went from scrapping tuition fees to voting to increase them

    The only explanation I can possible offer was Clegg was nobbled by the Treasury civil servants who told him just how bad the public finances had been left by Labour (remember Liam Byrne's "there is no money left" note).

    I suppose from a decade on I'm wondering why we couldn't have borrowed a bit more to ensure tuition fees remained non-existent for domestic students. I mean, we're on course to borrow £150 billion or more this year and no one seems that bothered - we could have continued to keep university tuition free quite easily.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,407
    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    MattW said:


    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.

    It wasn't a problem until 2010 - even then it didn't have to be a problem but Nick Clegg was trapped into a coalition by some brilliant politics from David Cameron and William Hague and made two catastrophic unforced errors.

    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.
    Which bit of historical experience out of interest? Bear in mind how glittering the prize was compared to his realistic expectations when he became an MP

    His catastrophic error was accepting the booby prize position of DPM. Great office of state or I walk, he should v said.
    On a personal level for him was DPM really that bad a prize?

    He was possibly the most substantial DPM ever. As part of the Quad, Clegg and Alexander basically had a veto and great input over almost every policy across the whole of government not just a small part of it.

    The great mistake was having supped on one side of the fence trying to reposition themselves immediately back to the middle which pleased nobody. Centre Lefties didn't forgive them for going into office, while Centre Righties saw them rejecting everything they'd done and the Tories were given free reign to claim all the credit and be the continuation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    edited October 22

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    Death rates are still far below January. The remaining rise in cases is mainly amongst under 30s and especially under 18s most of whom have not yet been fully vaccinated.

    Otherwise if we do not accept vaccinations are the way out and just rely on masks and lockdowns again as soon as we get a rise in cases, especially as we head into winter, we will never get out. Masks and lockdowns will be with us for the rest of our lives
  • Andy_JS said:

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    If most of the new cases are young people, and most of the deaths are people who refused the vaccine, things aren't as bad as they might seem.
    Many on here were predicting herd immunity well before now leading to falling cases, hospital admissions and deaths.

    Those armchair experts clearly were not very expert.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 849
    edited October 22
    stodge said:

    Somebody can explain how the Lib Dems went from scrapping tuition fees to voting to increase them

    The only explanation I can possible offer was Clegg was nobbled by the Treasury civil servants who told him just how bad the public finances had been left by Labour (remember Liam Byrne's "there is no money left" note).

    I suppose from a decade on I'm wondering why we couldn't have borrowed a bit more to ensure tuition fees remained non-existent for domestic students. I mean, we're on course to borrow £150 billion or more this year and no one seems that bothered - we could have continued to keep university tuition free quite easily.
    Increasing tuition fees was the correct decision. There's no way supermarket workers should have to pay for the middle class lifestyle.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    tlg86 said:

    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%
    I suspect that Corbyn had a greater appeal to Green voters than Starmer will. I’d use the 2015 numbers (50%) as a starting point not 17/19
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 993
    For now, but a lot can change and quite quickly. I don't think you can categorically rule anything out with Covid.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    MattW said:


    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.

    It wasn't a problem until 2010 - even then it didn't have to be a problem but Nick Clegg was trapped into a coalition by some brilliant politics from David Cameron and William Hague and made two catastrophic unforced errors.

    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.
    Which bit of historical experience out of interest? Bear in mind how glittering the prize was compared to his realistic expectations when he became an MP

    His catastrophic error was accepting the booby prize position of DPM. Great office of state or I walk, he should v said.
    On a personal level for him was DPM really that bad a prize?

    He was possibly the most substantial DPM ever. As part of the Quad, Clegg and Alexander basically had a veto and great input over almost every policy across the whole of government not just a small part of it.

    The great mistake was having supped on one side of the fence trying to reposition themselves immediately back to the middle which pleased nobody. Centre Lefties didn't forgive them for going into office, while Centre Righties saw them rejecting everything they'd done and the Tories were given free reign to claim all the credit and be the continuation.
    Free REIN please - means letting a horse do what it likes.

    Alexander looked more substantial than clegg precisely because of having a proper job.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699
    Andy_JS said:

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    If most of the new cases are young people, and most of the deaths are people who refused the vaccine, things aren't as bad as they might seem. Covid-19 isn't serious in most young people, and if you refused the vaccine that's your decision to risk your life.
    There were some stats earlier in the week showing the number of deaths (or maybe serious cases) amongst the oldest cohort were equal/similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated. That's quite something when you consider the huge take up of vaccines in that cohort.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    Vaccines are the way out though. But even against the original Covid the vaccines weren’t 100%. And a lot of those dying are unvaccinated fools. It’s been complicated, but we are in a massively better position now than we’ve been since feb 2020.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    edited October 22
    O/T

    My latest project is finding out what percentage of MPs elected since 2010 are women, because the overall figure is 34% (222 out of 650), but I think the figure will be much closer to 50% for those elected since that date. Therefore with retirements it may not be long before the percentage is much higher than 34%.
  • Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    Vaccines are the way out though. But even against the original Covid the vaccines weren’t 100%. And a lot of those dying are unvaccinated fools. It’s been complicated, but we are in a massively better position now than we’ve been since feb 2020.
    But not out, as so many here predicted. We aren't out of COVID by a long way
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435

    Somebody can explain how the Lib Dems went from scrapping tuition fees to voting to increase them

    I do remember the general hilarity, even among LibDem MPs, when Harriet Harman politely asked Clegg if he could give an update on progress towards abolition.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,407

    Andy_JS said:

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    If most of the new cases are young people, and most of the deaths are people who refused the vaccine, things aren't as bad as they might seem.
    Many on here were predicting herd immunity well before now leading to falling cases, hospital admissions and deaths.

    Those armchair experts clearly were not very expert.
    We've got herd immunity already. That's why hospital admissions and deaths are so very low despite the total absence of legal restrictions, next to nobody bothering with ridiculous face coverings etc

    If we didn't have it, we'd have exponential growth, a lot of deaths and a collapsing NHS.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,309
    edited October 22

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    I cannot recall anyone suggesting deaths would be eliminated nor will they be as this becomes endemic

    I had my booster today and the vaccines are working for 6 months from second, so the acceleration in boosters is essential, but so is condemning those who refuse to be vaccinated

    It must also be remembered it was the JCVI who irresponsibly delayed the vaccination of the young people and they need calling out.

    My wife and I have a flu vaccine every year and still people die of flu and covid will be much the same for the foreseeable future

    The vaccines have saved over 130,000 deaths so far and they will succeed to reduce this to a flu like status, and only if a new variant comes along will lockdowns be required again
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554

    Andy_JS said:

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    If most of the new cases are young people, and most of the deaths are people who refused the vaccine, things aren't as bad as they might seem.
    Many on here were predicting herd immunity well before now leading to falling cases, hospital admissions and deaths.

    Those armchair experts clearly were not very expert.
    Partly because delta is so much more infectious. Original Covid would be crushed by the vaccines, delta not so much.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,407
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    MattW said:


    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.

    It wasn't a problem until 2010 - even then it didn't have to be a problem but Nick Clegg was trapped into a coalition by some brilliant politics from David Cameron and William Hague and made two catastrophic unforced errors.

    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.
    Which bit of historical experience out of interest? Bear in mind how glittering the prize was compared to his realistic expectations when he became an MP

    His catastrophic error was accepting the booby prize position of DPM. Great office of state or I walk, he should v said.
    On a personal level for him was DPM really that bad a prize?

    He was possibly the most substantial DPM ever. As part of the Quad, Clegg and Alexander basically had a veto and great input over almost every policy across the whole of government not just a small part of it.

    The great mistake was having supped on one side of the fence trying to reposition themselves immediately back to the middle which pleased nobody. Centre Lefties didn't forgive them for going into office, while Centre Righties saw them rejecting everything they'd done and the Tories were given free reign to claim all the credit and be the continuation.
    Free REIN please - means letting a horse do what it likes.

    Alexander looked more substantial than clegg precisely because of having a proper job.
    I thought it was reign as in leadership, like a monarch.

    The PM doesn't have a "proper job" of doing an actual department because he has his finger in every pie. Clegg did too. If he'd limited himself to one department could he have kept as close an eye on all the others?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    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.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
This discussion has been closed.