Betting on another CON majority – Part 2 – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

South Africa COVID update:

- New cases: 2,858
- Average: 1,975 (+310)
- Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6)
- In hospital: 2,232 (+3)
- In ICU: 231 (-2)
- New deaths: 6
- Average: 32 (+1)

That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging

Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....

I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats

Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.

Is PB really critting me for being faintly optimistic?!

Jeeez Denise

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

South Africa COVID update:

- New cases: 2,858
- Average: 1,975 (+310)
- Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6)
- In hospital: 2,232 (+3)
- In ICU: 231 (-2)
- New deaths: 6
- Average: 32 (+1)

That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging

Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....

I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats

Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.

Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

South Africa COVID update:

- New cases: 2,858
- Average: 1,975 (+310)
- Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6)
- In hospital: 2,232 (+3)
- In ICU: 231 (-2)
- New deaths: 6
- Average: 32 (+1)

That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging

Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....

I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats

Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.

Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.

I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)

OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty

It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)

It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta

It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity

That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries

I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

South Africa COVID update:

- New cases: 2,858
- Average: 1,975 (+310)
- Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6)
- In hospital: 2,232 (+3)
- In ICU: 231 (-2)
- New deaths: 6
- Average: 32 (+1)

That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging

Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....

I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats

Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.

Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.

I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)

OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty

It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)

It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta

It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity

That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries

I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

South Africa COVID update:

- New cases: 2,858
- Average: 1,975 (+310)
- Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6)
- In hospital: 2,232 (+3)
- In ICU: 231 (-2)
- New deaths: 6
- Average: 32 (+1)

That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging

Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....

I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats

Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.

Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.

I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)

OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty

It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)

It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta

It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity

That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries

I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

South Africa COVID update:

- New cases: 2,858
- Average: 1,975 (+310)
- Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6)
- In hospital: 2,232 (+3)
- In ICU: 231 (-2)
- New deaths: 6
- Average: 32 (+1)

That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging

Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....

I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats

Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.

Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.

I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)

OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty

It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)

It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta

It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity

That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries

I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly

In a way that is the worst of both worlds. Its worse than current situation, where being double / triple vaxxed and not vulnerable category, if you do get it, its very very unlikely to be fatal. You really should just go about your business and normal, and probably expect to be knocked for a week at some point in the next year.

Nor will it be infectious enough that it washes through quickly or scary enough to have people running for the hills. Instead here causes issues for another 6+ months until we start to lots of people having had the updated vaccine.

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

South Africa COVID update:

- New cases: 2,858
- Average: 1,975 (+310)
- Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6)
- In hospital: 2,232 (+3)
- In ICU: 231 (-2)
- New deaths: 6
- Average: 32 (+1)

That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging

Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....

I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats

Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.

Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.

I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)

OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty

It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)

It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta

It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity

That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries

I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly

In a way that is the worst of both worlds. Its worse than current situation, where being double / triple vaxxed and not vulnerable category, if you do get it, its very very unlikely to be fatal. You really should just go about your business and normal, and probably expect to be knocked for a week at some point in the next year.

Nor will it be infectious enough that it washes through quickly or scary enough to have people running for the hills. Instead here causes issues for another 6+ months until we start to lots of people having had the updated vaccine.

Always expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario: As that is what will generally happen

Covid Rule 1

moonshine said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

South Africa COVID update:

- New cases: 2,858
- Average: 1,975 (+310)
- Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6)
- In hospital: 2,232 (+3)
- In ICU: 231 (-2)
- New deaths: 6
- Average: 32 (+1)

That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging

Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....

I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats

Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.

Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.

I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)

OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty

It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)

It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta

It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity

That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries

I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly

In a way that is the worst of both worlds. Its worse than current situation, where being double / triple vaxxed and not vulnerable category, if you do get it, its very very unlikely to be fatal. You really should just go about your business and normal, and probably expect to be knocked for a week at some point in the next year.

Nor will it be infectious enough that it washes through quickly or scary enough to have people running for the hills. Instead here causes issues for another 6+ months until we start to lots of people having had the updated vaccine.

Always expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario: As that is what will generally happen

Covid Rule 1

The worst case scenario is a variant that is completely nullified by Sinovax but interacts with mrna immunity in a very nasty way.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration.
FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.

The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.

Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.

I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.

Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/what-sector-is-the-uk-government-spending-too-much-on

As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.

Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration.
FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.

The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.

Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.

I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.

Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/what-sector-is-the-uk-government-spending-too-much-on

As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.

Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.

Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well

Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.

Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.

May I ask how you normally vote?

Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.

One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration.
FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.

The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.

Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.

I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.

Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/what-sector-is-the-uk-government-spending-too-much-on

As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.

Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.

Why is it morally bankrupt to allow people to contribute to foreign aid to the extent that they want to rather than forcing them to do so against their will to meet an arbitrary target, and doing so clearly against their democratic will into the bargain? I would say that that's the morally bankrupt position.

Of course you wouldn't have to change your views, but you can still give voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so.

Leon said:

moonshine said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

South Africa COVID update:

- New cases: 2,858
- Average: 1,975 (+310)
- Positivity rate: 9.8% (+0.6)
- In hospital: 2,232 (+3)
- In ICU: 231 (-2)
- New deaths: 6
- Average: 32 (+1)

That doesn't look like a cytokine storm of the South African state. It actually looks like an infectious new strain with no increased virulence. Modestly encouraging

Its a Sunday in a country that doesn't test that much....

I'm talking about the hospital/ICU stats

Come you know the deal. It takes time for it to feed through to hospitalizations. A week ago positivity was low, now its 10%.

Give it a week or two, if we don't see the sort of India meltdown, then we can breath more easily. If we do, then we want to see if it is mostly unvaxxed or not.

I'm gonna make a wild prediction after 2 nice G&Ts (but only 2)

OMIKRON THE MIGHTY will turn out to be not so mighty, but still nasty

It will be notably more infectious than Delta, but not wildly so (not 500%)

It will have a similar or slightly lesser virulence than Delta

It will breakthrough vax immunity to an extent, but not generally enough to hospitalise people, it will however cause serious problems with reinfection of the previously infected, and it will be a bitch to anyone unvaxed with zero immunity

That sets us up for a bumpy winter, but not an apocalypse (not in the UK), I do fear what it might mean in much less vaxxed countries

I have literally just plucked these firm opinions from my lower colon, so treat accordingly

In a way that is the worst of both worlds. Its worse than current situation, where being double / triple vaxxed and not vulnerable category, if you do get it, its very very unlikely to be fatal. You really should just go about your business and normal, and probably expect to be knocked for a week at some point in the next year.

Nor will it be infectious enough that it washes through quickly or scary enough to have people running for the hills. Instead here causes issues for another 6+ months until we start to lots of people having had the updated vaccine.

Always expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario: As that is what will generally happen

Covid Rule 1

The worst case scenario is a variant that is completely nullified by Sinovax but interacts with mrna immunity in a very nasty way.

They must have workshopped that, back in Wuhan

Probably coming in winter '22

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Omnium said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration.
FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.

The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.

Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.

I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.

Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/what-sector-is-the-uk-government-spending-too-much-on

As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.

Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.

Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well

Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.

Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.

May I ask how you normally vote?

No 'normal' vote. I have voted Referendum Party, UKIP and Independent at various times. The only one of those I would consider post referendum is Independent. Also spoiled my ballot as at the last GE. I will always turn up to vote but in the current climate I can see no party I would support as they are all, for very different reasons, anathema to me.

If Davey would drop his Europhilia I would seriously consider the Lib Dems. I would even consider Starmer as I am not repelled by him in the way I was by Corbyn. But probably not as his underlying ideology is not one I could agree with. If someone held a gun to my head it would be anyone but Johnson as I think he is an incompetent fraud and unfit to run a stag do. The calibre of the local MP also matters to me so it would all depend on who is both PM and the local candidates next time around.

Respectable position to hold. For me my next vote will be about removing Johnson, as I think him unfit to be PM.

But it is my party's fault for putting up Corbyn against him, a man who I am now ashamed to have supported.

Many of us Tories are getting pretty ashamed of Boris CHB. Admittedly if we'd known then what we know now I'd doubt we'd have gone with Swinson.

Hi Omnium, hope you are too keeping well. Thank you for your kind words of late.

I always thought Johnson would be a disastrous PM and it is a shame that a party that has produced leaders like Churchill and Thatcher, has been reduced to this.

Swinson was one of my few good calls of GE19, I said she would be awful and she was.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuartinromford said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuartinromford said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

kinabalu said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.

I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.

Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.

In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.

So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?

I think I called peak Johnson very early on and some were determined that I was wrong.

I remember someone here calling it- congratulations, it seemed incredibly foolhardy at the time. Pretty much up to conference season, Starmer's position seemed touch-and-go.

What was your basis, or was it the feelings in your waters? Not that feelings in waters should be knocked.

My feeling is that Johnson has never been particularly popular and he had a bounce when the restrictions were lifted. But his previous poor record did not mean it would last.

I simultaneously believed that Starmer has never been really unpopular - certainly not to Corbyn levels as Stats for Trots or one other user here believes - and therefore he's never been a lost cause. LAbour's polled over 40% with him as leader, there's no real reason they can't again.

I think Starmer is likely to repeat Corbyn 2017 - just depends where the Tories end up, Labour is almost at its ceiling already.

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration.
FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.

The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.

Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.

I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.

Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/what-sector-is-the-uk-government-spending-too-much-on

As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.

Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.

Why is it morally bankrupt to allow people to contribute to foreign aid to the extent that they want to rather than forcing them to do so against their will to meet an arbitrary target, and doing so clearly against their democratic will into the bargain? I would say that that's the morally bankrupt position.

Of course you wouldn't have to change your views, but you can still give voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuartinromford said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuartinromford said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

kinabalu said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.

I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.

Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.

In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.

So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?

I think I called peak Johnson very early on and some were determined that I was wrong.

I remember someone here calling it- congratulations, it seemed incredibly foolhardy at the time. Pretty much up to conference season, Starmer's position seemed touch-and-go.

What was your basis, or was it the feelings in your waters? Not that feelings in waters should be knocked.

My feeling is that Johnson has never been particularly popular and he had a bounce when the restrictions were lifted. But his previous poor record did not mean it would last.

I simultaneously believed that Starmer has never been really unpopular - certainly not to Corbyn levels as Stats for Trots or one other user here believes - and therefore he's never been a lost cause. LAbour's polled over 40% with him as leader, there's no real reason they can't again.

I think Starmer is likely to repeat Corbyn 2017 - just depends where the Tories end up, Labour is almost at its ceiling already.

SandyRentool said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration.
FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.

The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.

Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.

I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.

Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/what-sector-is-the-uk-government-spending-too-much-on

As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.

Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.

Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well

Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.

Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.

May I ask how you normally vote?

Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.

One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.

I wish this were true, but it is not.

The Woke - and they now constitute the majority of the activist left in the English Speaking World - want entirely different things to everyone else, and they view the human comedy in a much darker, more religiose way

I can find no common ground with them. I hate them and the destruction they have done, and will do

You seem happy enough to shag them, mind.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration.
FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.

The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.

Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.

I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.

Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/what-sector-is-the-uk-government-spending-too-much-on

As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.

Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.

Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well

Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.

Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.

May I ask how you normally vote?

No 'normal' vote. I have voted Referendum Party, UKIP and Independent at various times. The only one of those I would consider post referendum is Independent. Also spoiled my ballot as at the last GE. I will always turn up to vote but in the current climate I can see no party I would support as they are all, for very different reasons, anathema to me.

If Davey would drop his Europhilia I would seriously consider the Lib Dems. I would even consider Starmer as I am not repelled by him in the way I was by Corbyn. But probably not as his underlying ideology is not one I could agree with. If someone held a gun to my head it would be anyone but Johnson as I think he is an incompetent fraud and unfit to run a stag do. The calibre of the local MP also matters to me so it would all depend on who is both PM and the local candidates next time around.

Respectable position to hold. For me my next vote will be about removing Johnson, as I think him unfit to be PM.

But it is my party's fault for putting up Corbyn against him, a man who I am now ashamed to have supported.

Anabobazina said:

Andy_JS said:

This is a different person to the one we already know about, I think.

"@zerohedge
Omicron Is "Extremely Mild" Says Doctor Who First Discovered Strain As Numerous Mutations "Destabilize" The Virus"

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1465016467125149701

That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.

I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.

moonshine said:

Leon said:

FrankBooth said:

Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.

Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs

This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024

The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.

Anabobazina said:

Andy_JS said:

This is a different person to the one we already know about, I think.

"@zerohedge
Omicron Is "Extremely Mild" Says Doctor Who First Discovered Strain As Numerous Mutations "Destabilize" The Virus"

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1465016467125149701

That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.

I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.

Leon said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Andy_JS said:

This is a different person to the one we already know about, I think.

"@zerohedge
Omicron Is "Extremely Mild" Says Doctor Who First Discovered Strain As Numerous Mutations "Destabilize" The Virus"

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1465016467125149701

That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.

I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.

Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.

Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times

Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?

Leon said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Andy_JS said:

This is a different person to the one we already know about, I think.

"@zerohedge
Omicron Is "Extremely Mild" Says Doctor Who First Discovered Strain As Numerous Mutations "Destabilize" The Virus"

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1465016467125149701

That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.

I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.

Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.

Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times

Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?

vino said:

I think a lot of posters fail to understand how popular Boris is still with the former Labour red wall voters - He can still do no wrong because of Brexit.He is given the benefit of any doubt on any thing - these voters agree he is a "buffoon" but he's ours buffoon. If Boris is removed from the Conservative party that's when these votes - mine included will be up for grabs
The only thing in my opinion that could trip him up is the Channel immigration - these comments by the French interior minister will resonate with many
"“It’s better that the British ask themselves why so many migrants want to go to the UK. This is first because the labour market of your country works in part with clandestine immigrants because in your country you can work and even pay taxes without having any identity papers or be in any kind of regular situation."

Philip_Thompson said:

moonshine said:

Leon said:

FrankBooth said:

Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.

Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs

This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024

The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.

That sounds like a plot from the US House of Cards.

bigjohnowls said:

vino said:

I think a lot of posters fail to understand how popular Boris is still with the former Labour red wall voters - He can still do no wrong because of Brexit.He is given the benefit of any doubt on any thing - these voters agree he is a "buffoon" but he's ours buffoon. If Boris is removed from the Conservative party that's when these votes - mine included will be up for grabs
The only thing in my opinion that could trip him up is the Channel immigration - these comments by the French interior minister will resonate with many
"“It’s better that the British ask themselves why so many migrants want to go to the UK. This is first because the labour market of your country works in part with clandestine immigrants because in your country you can work and even pay taxes without having any identity papers or be in any kind of regular situation."

Spot on Vino about Boris and his red wall popularity.

SKS is a disaster with those voters. Offers them nothing and is THE face of remain.

Labour couldn't have a worse leader in that respect for winning back the marginal red wall seats.

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Andy_JS said:

This is a different person to the one we already know about, I think.

"@zerohedge
Omicron Is "Extremely Mild" Says Doctor Who First Discovered Strain As Numerous Mutations "Destabilize" The Virus"

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1465016467125149701

That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.

I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.

Zero Hedge is GuidoFawkes for finance. Only with a lower quality of information. And commentators.

Bit harsh. Zerohedge normally doesn't fall for such blatantly bogus nonsense as this South African GP story, which has already been debunked 3 thousand times

Covid makes fools of everyone. Covid Rule 3?

Is there a media outlet in the UK the South African GP hasn't been on over the past 24hrs? Repeating the same, well I haven't seen any seriously ill people (well you are a GP) and I phoned a mate in a hospital and they don't have any at the moment.

Yes, it's here in the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-59450988

moonshine said:

Leon said:

FrankBooth said:

Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.

Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs

This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024

The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

Andy_JS said:

This is a different person to the one we already know about, I think.

"@zerohedge
Omicron Is "Extremely Mild" Says Doctor Who First Discovered Strain As Numerous Mutations "Destabilize" The Virus"

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1465016467125149701

That’s just the same story from the lady who was on Marr this morning, albeit with an absolutely bizarre conspiracy theory edge to the reporting.

I can only assume ‘Zero Hedge’ is a bit of a plum.

The numerous mutations theory has a fair grounding in science, there's lots of research going into the apparent extinction of it in Japan which is thought to be for this reason.

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Fishing said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Yes, this administration has actively prioritised reversing policies of the 2010-2015 administration.
FTPA, Triple Lock, 0.7% GNP for overseas aid etc.

The first two of those I support dumping even if I don't support this Government. The triple lock is simply a bribe to a client vote. The FTPA was always a waste of time anyway. The Overseas Aid changes are unsupportable.

Yes they didn't go nearly far enough. Giving any aid at all through taxes while there are any number of charities that people can give to if they want is unsupportable.

I think the only reasoned answer to that comment is 'Bollocks'.

Not sure you understand what "reasoned" means then. Also note that more than half the people of this country agree with me, not you.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/what-sector-is-the-uk-government-spending-too-much-on

As it currently stands what the majority want matters when we vote either in elections or at referendums. It has no basis in what is right, moral or sensible. Nor should I change my views just because a majority don't agree with me. I don't expect Europhiles to change their views of the EU just because a majority voted to leave. Nor should I have capitulated when for decades a majority wanted to stay.

Your position is morally bankrupt even if it is a view held by the majority.

Richard as you know, you are one of the few Tories who seems to have any sense of an ideology, however much I might disagree with some of it. Hope you are keeping well

Evening CHB. All very well thanks. To be fair I am not really any sort of Tory. I have only voted for them once since the Thatcher days and that was a misguided support for a local MP who was a friend but who turned out to be as fallible (or actually a lot more fallible) than most MPs. None of the Tories either locally or nationally have enthused me since then and most have actively repulsed me. I am content to be in a minority on most issues. I wish it were not so but one has to be realistic.

Well, I think you are to the right of me nonetheless and so despite our ideological differences, I see you have something which you draw from. I am afraid the current Tory Party is bankrupt of such standards.

May I ask how you normally vote?

Just to add I may be significantly to the right of you economically - indeed I am sure I am - but I suspect that socially we hold very similar views. Our main area of difference would probably be regarding the place of the State in people's lives.

One of the reasons I find it so easy to discuss things on PB or with friends from across the political spectrum is the realisation long ago that most people want the same things for their country. It is just the manner in which they think they should be achieved that differs.

I wish this were true, but it is not.

The Woke - and they now constitute the majority of the activist left in the English Speaking World - want entirely different things to everyone else, and they view the human comedy in a much darker, more religiose way

I can find no common ground with them. I hate them and the destruction they have done, and will do

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Wondered when BJO would be back to say Starmer must resign.

Leading in polls and more popular than Johnson, still let's get Corbyn back and give the Tories another landslide

FrancisUrquhart said:

IshmaelZ said:

I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.

Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

bigjohnowls said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Wondered when BJO would be back to say Starmer must resign.

Leading in polls and more popular than Johnson, still let's get Corbyn back and give the Tories another landslide

You are in for a terrible realisation after the next GE.

Who said owt about get Corbyn back?

Who would you like instead of Starmer?

moonshine said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

IshmaelZ said:

I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.

Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.

Yes. But it’s 20 patients out of presumably several thousand covid patients she’s seen in the last 2 years nearly.

IshmaelZ said:

I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuartinromford said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuartinromford said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

kinabalu said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Yes but again we are ignoring the fact that the next general election will be after 10 years of a Conservative government in power.

Of those such elections since universal suffrage in 1918 ie 1945, 1964 and 1992 and 1997 the Conservatives got 30% of the seats, 48% of the seats, 51% of the seats and 25% of the seats respectively.

In all cases bar 1992 below the 49.5% average number of seats the Conservatives have won at general elections over the last century.

Mmm, true, but the sample is even tinier than Fishing's century of outcomes, and the Consercvatives are notably good at changing leader and pretending it's an exciting new government. These are fun exercises, but they impose a statistical model on a score of very different events. I'm not convinced that looking at the very different Conservative Party against the very different Labour Party in the wildly different circumstances of, say, 1935, tells us anything at all. Virtually all the voters from then are now no longer with us, and issues that excited them like German rearmament are entirely irrelevant now. Do we expect whatever happens in 2023 to be a useful guide to what will happen in 2122?

There are differences of course but it always holds true I think that the longer a party has been in power, the more difficult it is for it to get re elected

JohnsonIan Governments have only been in play for two years, so the longevity clause doesn't apply. What went on before felt very, very different.

Good point but "Johnsonian Governments" - do I not like that phrase. It imbues a gravitas most unmerited.

I think the use of the plural is the more depressing element of that phrase.

Oh god yes. Already at 2 (technically). But not to worry, the tide it is a changing. Feeling it now. Just starting to maybe feel it.

In a way, the tide changed back in June- Hartlepool (or the immediate aftermath) was the high point of this Johnson wave. It's been ebbing since, and has now got to the interesting point where Bozza is doing worse than this time last year, is definitely below 40%. Not enough to think he will definitely lose next time, but his ongoing triumph isn't nailed on either.

So what was it about June? End of vaccination as a big story? Realising that Rayner and her friends weren't the answer? Something else?

I think I called peak Johnson very early on and some were determined that I was wrong.

I remember someone here calling it- congratulations, it seemed incredibly foolhardy at the time. Pretty much up to conference season, Starmer's position seemed touch-and-go.

What was your basis, or was it the feelings in your waters? Not that feelings in waters should be knocked.

My feeling is that Johnson has never been particularly popular and he had a bounce when the restrictions were lifted. But his previous poor record did not mean it would last.

I simultaneously believed that Starmer has never been really unpopular - certainly not to Corbyn levels as Stats for Trots or one other user here believes - and therefore he's never been a lost cause. LAbour's polled over 40% with him as leader, there's no real reason they can't again.

I think Starmer is likely to repeat Corbyn 2017 - just depends where the Tories end up, Labour is almost at its ceiling already.

I'm not sure I agree that Johnson's never been popular. He clearly has been, in many quite surprising quarters. He has a way of cutting through that few other politicians can match.

But what he definitely also is is Marmite. Those who see through the schtick absolutely hate him for his many and egregious faults.

I would suggest the key change is that recent events have turned quite a few of the former category into the latter. Not by any means all, but enough to make a difference.

That also may make it very hard for him to win back the lost support - although a new leader may be able to, but presumably wouldn't have that 'cut through' to start with.

Starmer, equally, people didn't seem to have any strong views about, possibly because he's been so overshadowed by events. So while they didn't like him, they see no reason to hate him and are willing to consider him.

Some here are convinced Starmer is hated and is as unpopular as Corbyn, this has clearly never been the case.

It cannot just be Johnson going down, Starmer's ratings are also way up

Andy_JS said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Wondered when BJO would be back to say Starmer must resign.

Leading in polls and more popular than Johnson, still let's get Corbyn back and give the Tories another landslide

Labour won't be facing Boris Johnson at the next election. I'm pretty sure about that.

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

IshmaelZ said:

I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.

Because it is totally anecdotal based on her experience of 20 patients.

Sure, but that doesn’t make the interview invalid.

Anabobazina said:

IshmaelZ said:

I'm struggling to understand why we are not allowed to believe the South African GP story. As a source on how many people are how ill in the country I'd put a practising GP pretty fcuking high on the credibility list.

Yes, I’m struggling with that too. My comment above related to the reporting of her testimony on some niche site for cranks called Zero Hedge. I have no problem with her making the testimony nor it being widely used: she is at the frontline.

bigjohnowls said:

Benpointer said:

moonshine said:

Leon said:

FrankBooth said:

Matthew Goodwin made a good point on the woke/social justice issue. Around 15% of the population in the UK has a negative view of Britain/it's past etc. They are disproportionately vocal on social media, in universities and generally very censorious in their behaviour. Labour probably needs the support of a lot of them but if they pander to these voters they're doomed.

Yes, that sounds about right. 15% of the country but about 70% of really active Labour members and MPs

This is why they cannot win, at the moment. The Dems are in a similar position in America, and entirely reliant on Trump standing again to have a chance in 2024

The telegraph today has a theory that Biden will send Kamala to SCOTUS so he can have a second go at succession planning.

Is there a SCOTUS vacancy imminent?

As many as he wants prior to mid terms. After that no.