A CON election majority down to a 36% chance in the betting – politicalbetting.com

Burgessian said:

Northern_Al said:

1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it.
2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it.
3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency.
4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.

The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.

Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.

Charles said:

moonshine said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.

My predictions would be
Increased Tory majority 20%
Smaller Tory majority 55%
NOM 20%
Labour majority 5%

I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome

I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.

I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.

Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.

Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.

One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?

I suspect Hunt’s time has passed. But he’s clean as and when the Tories come to their senses

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: Verstappen fastest in first practice, four-tenths off Gasly and Bottas, Hamilton three-tenths further back.

I would read very little into that, beyond Gasly performing well again. He and Norris have been the midfield's standout performers this year.

Burgessian said:

Selebian said:

algarkirk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Farooq said:

algarkirk said:

eek said:

rkrkrk said:

That Labour majority is starting to tempt me... but it's probably just heart over head nonsense.

In other news, the financial times unearthed this gem of a political study from 2009: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/59819

Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."

Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).

Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.

For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.

This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.

Their Black Swan requires the following:
SNP to lose ground to Labour
The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall
The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.

While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.

I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago.
Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.

Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.

They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.

Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...

Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.

I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.

I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.

If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.

But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.

Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.

Burgessian said:

Northern_Al said:

1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it.
2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it.
3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency.
4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.

The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.

Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.

Burgessian said:

Selebian said:

algarkirk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Farooq said:

algarkirk said:

eek said:

rkrkrk said:

That Labour majority is starting to tempt me... but it's probably just heart over head nonsense.

In other news, the financial times unearthed this gem of a political study from 2009: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/59819

Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."

Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).

Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.

For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.

This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.

Their Black Swan requires the following:
SNP to lose ground to Labour
The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall
The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.

While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.

I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago.
Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.

Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.

They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.

Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...

Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.

I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.

I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.

If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.

But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.

Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.

Carnyx said:

Burgessian said:

Selebian said:

algarkirk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Farooq said:

algarkirk said:

eek said:

rkrkrk said:

That Labour majority is starting to tempt me... but it's probably just heart over head nonsense.

In other news, the financial times unearthed this gem of a political study from 2009: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/59819

Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."

Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).

Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.

For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.

This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.

Their Black Swan requires the following:
SNP to lose ground to Labour
The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall
The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.

While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.

I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago.
Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.

Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.

They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.

Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...

Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.

I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.

I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.

If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.

But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.

Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.

The trouble I have with that analysis is that the SNP are already displacing Tories at Westminster fairly [edit] successfully. So if that is your aim, why vote Labour? IIRC all the existing Tory seats are Tory-SNP battlegrounds, so again why vote Labour there?

NerysHughes said:

RochdalePioneers said:

tlg86 said:

eek said:

tlg86 said:

https://order-order.com/2021/11/19/watch-starmers-train-crash-hs2-interview/

Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.

So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.

Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news.
Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.

Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.

OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...

All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.

Burgessian said:

Selebian said:

algarkirk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Farooq said:

algarkirk said:

eek said:

rkrkrk said:

That Labour majority is starting to tempt me... but it's probably just heart over head nonsense.

In other news, the financial times unearthed this gem of a political study from 2009: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/59819

Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."

Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).

Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.

For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.

This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.

Their Black Swan requires the following:
SNP to lose ground to Labour
The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall
The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.

While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.

I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago.
Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.

Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.

They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.

Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...

Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.

I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.

I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.

If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.

But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.

Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.

BlancheLivermore said:

Hmm..

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-to-sue-the-new-european-over-buyers-remorse-article/

OldKingCole said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Hmm..

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-to-sue-the-new-european-over-buyers-remorse-article/

Obviously I'm not going not repeat what was alleged to have been said, but could end up in a VERY messy fight.

MaxPB said:

Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.

We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.

My predictions would be
Increased Tory majority 20%
Smaller Tory majority 55%
NOM 20%
Labour majority 5%

Increased Tory majority as we speak is wishful thinking, although that could change (very, very unlikely I would say).

And your Labour majority figure is 5% too high.

Odds are not just about "as we speak" though they're about what could happen. As we speak then a reduced Tory majority would be the only real game in town, but over three years things can change.

Of course it is. Which is why the market is fluctuating for a Tory majority after the last two weeks.

My Labour 0% is based on fact. And fact that is unlikely to change. The current direction of travel for the Tories is down, which is why your prediction of a Tory increased majority appears counter intuitive. When things change. Boris invents another vaccine, or Sunak replaces Johnson, maybe you wishful prediction will be borne out by the odds.

An increased Tory majority may be counterintuitive but counterintuitive things can happen and identifying which ones can happen and why is how we identify value.

Labour 0% is not fact. 0% means its impossible and never say never.

With a 1997-style swing (unlikely but possible) then Labour could gain a majority via English and Welsh seats, while picking up a handful of Scottish ones. Is that likely? No. Is it possible? Yes - and if its possible its not 0%

Overturning the Tory majority is going to take such a large swing that an overshoot into Labour majority is possible.

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Anna Soubry
@Anna_Soubry
·
2h
Listening to
@grantshapps on #Today it’s as if he’s taken a mind bending hallucinatory substance. Shapps is spinning the cancellation of #HS2 E leg & #HS3 as being better for passengers & investment/ levelling up than honouring the promise to deliver them both. The arrogance.

He repeated his 12m from Bradford to Leeds promise this morning, not as an aspiration, but saying "it will happen this decade".
Ditto tripling the capacity between Leeds and Manchester.

Nigelb said:

Northern_Al said:

Burgessian said:

Northern_Al said:

1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it.
2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it.
3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency.
4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.

The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.

Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.

But surely the point is that Boris is arguing that he hasn't broken his promises on rail. He's lying.
I, and others, might be more sympathetic if he'd said yes, I'm breaking my pledges because Covid means we can't afford it now.

I'm breaking my pledges because I don't give a damn about Yorkshire and the NE.

NerysHughes said:

RochdalePioneers said:

NerysHughes said:

RochdalePioneers said:

tlg86 said:

eek said:

tlg86 said:

https://order-order.com/2021/11/19/watch-starmers-train-crash-hs2-interview/

Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.

So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.

Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news.
Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.

Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.

OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...

All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.

The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.

My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.

MaxPB said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Hmm..

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-to-sue-the-new-european-over-buyers-remorse-article/

This seems extremely unlikely and it feels like publicity seeking by dying newspaper that has about 20 readers.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.

We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.

I disagree with the Austrian policy, but have much less issue with the French strategy.

Frankly, banning the unvaccinated from certain activities is not that uncontroversial. After all, the costs of the unvaccinated (such as health care) fall on all the citizens.

Yeah the best policy I've heard on it is making unvaccinated by choice people get additional insurance cover for COVID healthcare costs and if they don't then bill them for the cost of care.

MaxPB said:

Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.

We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.

BlancheLivermore said:

OldKingCole said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Hmm..

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-to-sue-the-new-european-over-buyers-remorse-article/

Obviously I'm not going not repeat what was alleged to have been said, but could end up in a VERY messy fight.

Maybe not..

@PoliticsForAlI
NEW: Downing Street have DENIED they are taking legal action against The New European

Andy_JS said:

MaxPB said:

Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.

We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.

Is forcing people to get vaccinated compatible with human rights legislation?

Carnyx said:

BlancheLivermore said:

OldKingCole said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Hmm..

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-to-sue-the-new-european-over-buyers-remorse-article/

Obviously I'm not going not repeat what was alleged to have been said, but could end up in a VERY messy fight.

Maybe not..

@PoliticsForAlI
NEW: Downing Street have DENIED they are taking legal action against The New European

Who would have paid the legal fees [edit] in the purely hypothetical case of a case being brought? HMG or Mr Johnson personally?

Andy_JS said:

MaxPB said:

Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.

We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.

Is forcing people to get vaccinated compatible with human rights legislation?

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

That Labour majority figure is way too high - I really can't see how it occurs without a complete Tory collapse.

For that 16% to make sense the chance of a Tory majority needs to be about 10% not 36%.

It would need Labour to recover quite dramatically in Scotland

As much chance of that as me being the next Pope

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

By the way, @TheScreamingEagles - how are Liverpool fans tolerating this nonsense:

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/fans/fan-experience/getting-to-anfield/stadium-checklist

Make sure you allow enough time for any necessary security checks which may include random searches. Small personal bags are permitted - please ensure your bags are no larger than A5 and only one bag per person is allowed. It is advised you only bring a bag if it is absolutely essential, please see our checklist of what can/cannot be brought in to the stadium here.

Arsenal tried to do something similar at the start of the season (you could only use a clear bag purchased from the Arsenal shop for £1), but thankfully enough fans kicked off that they reverted to allowing reasonable sized rucksacks in.

Not happy, the fan groups have been liaising with the club. There kick offs for a couple of pre season friendlies were delayed because the system couldn’t cope.

The club have offered £2 pints and cheaper food to allow the fans to get to the ground earlier.

But the teething problems aren’t as bad as they were in July/August.

Interesting that Liverpool have persisted with the policy. Arsenal folded after a couple of games! I only looked up Liverpool's policy, because I got this email from Arsenal yesterday:

We have been advised by Liverpool FC that there will be a zero-bag policy enforced (with the exception of medical bags) for supporters entering the stadium on Saturday, November 20, 2021.

There will be no bag drop/storage facility at the stadium so please avoid bringing a bag with you as you will be refused entry.

Not a problem for me as I drive to away games outside of London, but it's not great that away fans are being discriminated against in this way.

Why would you take a bag to the football in any event. That was only necessary when you used to take your own booze to the games , and that was a long time ago.

No_Offence_Alan said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

That Labour majority figure is way too high - I really can't see how it occurs without a complete Tory collapse.

For that 16% to make sense the chance of a Tory majority needs to be about 10% not 36%.

It would need Labour to recover quite dramatically in Scotland

As much chance of that as me being the next Pope

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

By the way, @TheScreamingEagles - how are Liverpool fans tolerating this nonsense:

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/fans/fan-experience/getting-to-anfield/stadium-checklist

Make sure you allow enough time for any necessary security checks which may include random searches. Small personal bags are permitted - please ensure your bags are no larger than A5 and only one bag per person is allowed. It is advised you only bring a bag if it is absolutely essential, please see our checklist of what can/cannot be brought in to the stadium here.

Arsenal tried to do something similar at the start of the season (you could only use a clear bag purchased from the Arsenal shop for £1), but thankfully enough fans kicked off that they reverted to allowing reasonable sized rucksacks in.

Not happy, the fan groups have been liaising with the club. There kick offs for a couple of pre season friendlies were delayed because the system couldn’t cope.

The club have offered £2 pints and cheaper food to allow the fans to get to the ground earlier.

But the teething problems aren’t as bad as they were in July/August.

Interesting that Liverpool have persisted with the policy. Arsenal folded after a couple of games! I only looked up Liverpool's policy, because I got this email from Arsenal yesterday:

We have been advised by Liverpool FC that there will be a zero-bag policy enforced (with the exception of medical bags) for supporters entering the stadium on Saturday, November 20, 2021.

There will be no bag drop/storage facility at the stadium so please avoid bringing a bag with you as you will be refused entry.

Not a problem for me as I drive to away games outside of London, but it's not great that away fans are being discriminated against in this way.

Why would you take a bag to the football in any event. That was only necessary when you used to take your own booze to the games , and that was a long time ago.

A Southampton fan travelling to Newcastle for a midweek 8.00 pm kick-off will need an overnight bag.

NerysHughes said:

eek said:

NerysHughes said:

RochdalePioneers said:

NerysHughes said:

RochdalePioneers said:

tlg86 said:

eek said:

tlg86 said:

https://order-order.com/2021/11/19/watch-starmers-train-crash-hs2-interview/

Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.

So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.

Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news.
Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.

Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.

OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...

All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.

The people who think the north has been shafted aren't necessarily the same people you refer to. Look at newspapers up north. TV. Hear red wall Tory MPs. They expected what they were promised. You aren't going to make them happy to keep voting Tory by both shafting them and then sneering at them that they are mistaken in being shafted.

My point is, is HS2 as popular as this site would seem to think it is since part of it has been cancelled. I would estimate that over the past two years the anti and pro HS2 posts have been 4 to 1 in favour of the anti stance, yet since part of it has been cancelled it has changed to 99 to 1 in favour of HS2.

Those statistics don't reflect my memory....

But hey I'm happy that you think HS2 is cancelled and everything is going to be all right.

I'm looking forward to the screams when people discover everything they were told on Thursday is based on fantasies (all the new "plans") and lies (yup your house is still blighted).

I have no idea about HS2 and I have no idea how it will play, but the 28% figure from yesterday does not indicate that it is a widely popular scheme. From this site over the past 2 days you would think that figure would be 90%.

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It would need Labour to recover quite dramatically in Scotland

As much chance of that as me being the next Pope

No_Offence_Alan said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

That Labour majority figure is way too high - I really can't see how it occurs without a complete Tory collapse.

For that 16% to make sense the chance of a Tory majority needs to be about 10% not 36%.

It would need Labour to recover quite dramatically in Scotland

As much chance of that as me being the next Pope

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

By the way, @TheScreamingEagles - how are Liverpool fans tolerating this nonsense:

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/fans/fan-experience/getting-to-anfield/stadium-checklist

Make sure you allow enough time for any necessary security checks which may include random searches. Small personal bags are permitted - please ensure your bags are no larger than A5 and only one bag per person is allowed. It is advised you only bring a bag if it is absolutely essential, please see our checklist of what can/cannot be brought in to the stadium here.

Arsenal tried to do something similar at the start of the season (you could only use a clear bag purchased from the Arsenal shop for £1), but thankfully enough fans kicked off that they reverted to allowing reasonable sized rucksacks in.

Not happy, the fan groups have been liaising with the club. There kick offs for a couple of pre season friendlies were delayed because the system couldn’t cope.

The club have offered £2 pints and cheaper food to allow the fans to get to the ground earlier.

But the teething problems aren’t as bad as they were in July/August.

Interesting that Liverpool have persisted with the policy. Arsenal folded after a couple of games! I only looked up Liverpool's policy, because I got this email from Arsenal yesterday:

We have been advised by Liverpool FC that there will be a zero-bag policy enforced (with the exception of medical bags) for supporters entering the stadium on Saturday, November 20, 2021.

There will be no bag drop/storage facility at the stadium so please avoid bringing a bag with you as you will be refused entry.

Not a problem for me as I drive to away games outside of London, but it's not great that away fans are being discriminated against in this way.

Why would you take a bag to the football in any event. That was only necessary when you used to take your own booze to the games , and that was a long time ago.

A Southampton fan travelling to Newcastle for a midweek 8.00 pm kick-off will need an overnight bag.

rottenborough said:

While we all focused on east eu and Austria...

In the US:

"Average daily case reports have increased more than 20 percent over the past two weeks as outbreaks continue to worsen in the Upper Midwest."

NY Times

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.

We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.

I disagree with the Austrian policy, but have much less issue with the French strategy.

Frankly, banning the unvaccinated from certain activities is not that uncontroversial. After all, the costs of the unvaccinated (such as health care) fall on all the citizens.

Yeah the best policy I've heard on it is making unvaccinated by choice people get additional insurance cover for COVID healthcare costs and if they don't then bill them for the cost of care.

Carnyx said:

Burgessian said:

Selebian said:

algarkirk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Farooq said:

algarkirk said:

eek said:

rkrkrk said:

That Labour majority is starting to tempt me... but it's probably just heart over head nonsense.

In other news, the financial times unearthed this gem of a political study from 2009: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/59819

Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."

Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).

Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.

For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.

This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.

Their Black Swan requires the following:
SNP to lose ground to Labour
The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall
The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.

While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.

I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago.
Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.

Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.

They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.

Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...

Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.

I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.

I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.

If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.

But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.

Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.

The trouble I have with that analysis is that the SNP are already displacing Tories at Westminster fairly [edit] successfully. So if displacing Tories is your aim, why vote Labour? IIRC all the existing Tory seats are Tory-SNP battlegrounds, so again why vote Labour there?

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:

LostPassword said:

rottenborough said:

IshmaelZ said:

Dura_Ace said:

To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?

Someone's knifing him. Probably Rishi - he can pluck numbers out of his arse to frighten Johnson in the absolute certainty Johnson won't understand them.

The only thing that makes sense is that Sunak has panicked about interest rate rises whacking the public finances and has therefore somehow scared Johnson into breaking cast iron promises over rail. Even that doesn't make sense as this is investment over decades not day to day spending.

So we are left with just Sunak trying to help bring forward the day Johnson is booted out.

I'm not convinced. I think a more likely scenario is that Johnson wants to be able to make plenty of new expensive promises at the next election, and Sunak has told him he has to jettison some of his expensive promises from the last election first.

This might sound like a political tactic with diminishing returns, but then I've been continually surprised by the general public's willingness to trust Johnson, so I am ready to be amazed when they do so again.

The bridge to Ireland is back on!

I thought it was a 3-way tunnel, with a roundabout underneath the Isle Of Man.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

On Starmer's changed view of HS2 I wonder if he has thought this through

The whole costs of both HS2 and NPR will now be additional to the total 96 billion announced and in view of his other high spending commitments on home insulation and green investment where is all this money coming from

It will be popular in metropolitan areas but these are already labour but with just 28% giving it the thumbs up yesterday it may not be the vote winner he thinks it is

Furthermore his opposition to HS2 is going to be played on repeat and has he thought how the Greens will react as he could lose supporters to the Greens

In politics nothing is as simple as it seems

Lets pick this apart:
1. The "£96bn announced" hasn't been announced. Its a press release statement with nothing behind it. As an example, part of your £96bn is the 12-minute journey time Leeds to Bradford which isn't even yet a project, its an "we'll ask Network Rail" and will then be "subject to a business case" and treasury approval.
2. When you strip away pre-announced and already budgeted monies the total is £54bn. So no, HS2E / NPR is not additional to the £96bn £54bn -large chunks are still HS2E / NPR
3. Where the money comes from is where all the money comes from. We borrow money. Invest in something. Receive a return on the investment. Its called "capitalism"
4. From the sizeable choir of angry red wall Tories and at least one mayor, the areas in question are not already Labour.
5. Opposition to 2015 Euston plans - which have already been curtailed - is not going to get Boris off the hook. People are not stupid.

Big_G, you are supposedly past your previous "defend at all costs" position. This isn't even a shit sandwich as they have cancelled the bread roll. All the people celebrating the end of blight on their homes are now realising the blight continues indefinitely. All the people being told "this delivers quicker" can see that the previous 2043 timeline is now a much sooner 2043.

Please stop. They aren't worth it. Let the remaining PB parrots try and excuse this fiasco.

I am not taking any lectures from someone who is anti anything HMG does and yesterday was fine by me and many others

Your idea you are always the expert, always right, and attempts to insult those who see things differently referring to them as stupid is arrogant and simply an attempt to close down debate

OldKingCole said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

Northern_Al said:

Burgessian said:

Northern_Al said:

1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it.
2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it.
3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency.
4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.

The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.

Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.

But surely the point is that Boris is arguing that he hasn't broken his promises on rail. He's lying.
I, and others, might be more sympathetic if he'd said yes, I'm breaking my pledges because Covid means we can't afford it now.

I'm breaking my pledges because I don't give a damn about Yorkshire and the NE.

Red Wall Tory MPs - start job hunting because in 2023 you are going to need to find a new career.

I sometimes, briefly, wonder what happens to one-term MP's. Fairly easy to go back to their old jobs of course.

Carnyx said:

BlancheLivermore said:

OldKingCole said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Hmm..

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-to-sue-the-new-european-over-buyers-remorse-article/

Obviously I'm not going not repeat what was alleged to have been said, but could end up in a VERY messy fight.

Maybe not..

@PoliticsForAlI
NEW: Downing Street have DENIED they are taking legal action against The New European

Who would have paid the legal fees [edit] in the purely hypothetical case of a case being brought? HMG or Mr Johnson personally?

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Just seen that Austria are making vaccination compulsory. That seems completely mental. I'm about as pro-vax as anyone can be but the idea of the state mandating what someone can and can't do with their own body seems crazy. It's ultimately the same reason I'm in favour of abortion, contraception and any other medical intervention based on personal choice.

We're watching Europe go down a really authoritarian path right now and it's very worrying.

Well if it results in Austria getting 100% double vaccination it should ensure they have the lowest Covid death rate in Europe, maybe even the world, from next year.

However yes I do have concerns about the compulsion element too

IshmaelZ said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Hmm..

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-to-sue-the-new-european-over-buyers-remorse-article/

"Around thirty current and former journalists from the Telegraph were present at the Garrick Club dinner." One of them, ex hypothesi, a bean-spiller. Plus waiting staff.

Wowser.

ETA how utterly splendid if his cor lumme public speaking style, and a woman scorned, turn out to be his nemeses.