Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Ex-PBer Pedley now Ipsos pollster makes strong point here – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,702
edited October 2023 in General
Ex-PBer Pedley now Ipsos pollster makes strong point here – politicalbetting.com

For me the value of MRP will be if / when polls narrow. You don't need it right now to explain this leads to a massive Labour landslide. The more pertinent question is will there be a ~15 pt national swing (the biggest post war national swing ever)! Sceptical but lets see. pic.twitter.com/O7xXfOLyZa

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,140
    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Who tf is Pedley?
  • Options
    Farooq said:

    Who tf is Pedley?

    Ex-PBer, now Ipsos pollster
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,961

    Farooq said:

    Who tf is Pedley?

    Ex-PBer, now Ipsos pollster
    Who was he on PB?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,499
    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,296
    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    Does that not depend on the question though? I thought the West feared that Russia would invade and take over Europe (i.e. throughout the cold war)? The war in Ukraine has shown they cannot do that. That Ukraine has not ejected them from their territory is not in itself a testament to Russian strength.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,961
    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    Would like to read it please.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,329
    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    Is the gap to the Tories perhaps a little relevant? 75 majority with 20 SNP and 20 LDS is quite different to 75 majority with 35 each of the other two.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,778
    edited September 2023

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,898
    FPT

    “Deacon” Calvin Robinson has been suspended from GB News.

    GB News not letting a crisis go to waste and getting rid of another odd ball?
  • Options
    AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004
    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    I think one of the mistakes we made is thinking that the Russians would continue to be militarily incompetent like they were at the start of the war. They have, unfortunately, learned and adapted.

    Russia also has the advantage that they are not just willing to, but trying to, destroy the territory of Ukraine through laying millions of mines. Mines can hold ground, they don't help an advance.

    One of the other learnings is that tanks are incredibly vulnerable to new drone based weapons. I don't think anyone, yet, has figured out how to address this.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Who tf is Pedley?

    Ex-PBer, now Ipsos pollster
    Er thanks, I'd gathered that much already! :lol:
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,329

    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    Does that not depend on the question though? I thought the West feared that Russia would invade and take over Europe (i.e. throughout the cold war)? The war in Ukraine has shown they cannot do that. That Ukraine has not ejected them from their territory is not in itself a testament to Russian strength.
    I'd have thought it's been more the opposite. Eg I recall when the invasion happened the consensus was Ukraine would be overrun within days.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,961
    edited September 2023
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT

    “Deacon” Calvin Robinson has been suspended from GB News.

    GB News not letting a crisis go to waste and getting rid of another odd ball?
    ...
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,067
    FPT re Site Scumbag
    Nigel_Foremain said:

    » show previous quotes
    PB's resident Mr Thicky-No-Brains is talking complete bollox as ever. Sad thing is the dribbling old fool actually believes the crap he spouts, but sadly for him and his hate-mongering divisive loser nationalists, he is wrong.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/651563/uk-public-spending-per-capita-by-country/

    I see our resident scumbag has not expired yet. What a pity. GFY.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    I regret to inform you all that both Nigel and Malcolm are at it. Again
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,140
    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    And double that for a "massive landslide", perhaps.

  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,329
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT

    “Deacon” Calvin Robinson has been suspended from GB News.

    GB News not letting a crisis go to waste and getting rid of another odd ball?
    The place is a cesspit.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,067

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,578
    Farooq said:

    I regret to inform you all that both Nigel and Malcolm are at it. Again

    Now, now. Don't go digging into the private lives of others. Or are you working for GBeebies News?
  • Options
    Farooq said:

    I regret to inform you all that both Nigel and Malcolm are at it. Again

    I think we need a Woman In Love-off




  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,961
    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    For me it's a hundred or more. Blair 2005 at 66 seats was not described as a landslide, Boris 2019 at 80 seats was described as a landslide, so your defn may be the popular one.

    Still wrong, tho... 😀
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,067
    Farooq said:

    I regret to inform you all that both Nigel and Malcolm are at it. Again

    Only returning the SCUMBAG in kind. He has been told many times to F**K OFF and not post insults about me but the SCUMBAG excuse pretending to be a human has not the intellect to understand that.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,606
    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    That's about 160 seats more than the 2019 election. A lot.
  • Options
    AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    Does that not depend on the question though? I thought the West feared that Russia would invade and take over Europe (i.e. throughout the cold war)? The war in Ukraine has shown they cannot do that. That Ukraine has not ejected them from their territory is not in itself a testament to Russian strength.
    I'd have thought it's been more the opposite. Eg I recall when the invasion happened the consensus was Ukraine would be overrun within days.
    If Russia win or at the least there is a ceasefire on current borders then it will not stay like that. Russia has admitted that it wants to rebuild the Russian Empire. It would use the time to recover, rearm and have another go. After Ukraine it would be Poland and the Baltic states.

    Have you seen the vast amount of military equipment that Poland has been buying? Poland is no longer a poor nation and realises that it cannot rely on almost anyone else to defend itself. It has vivid memories of being torn asunder by the joint efforts of Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR.

    Poland, and it has to be said Romania too, are doing everything they possibly can to help Ukraine as at the very least it gives them time to arm themselves to defend against an aggressive Russia.

    The problem we have is that the Russian population has had 20 years of indoctrination by Putin and that most of them believe that they ought to reconquer these countries. How can you defeat that?
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,504
    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,140
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    Does that not depend on the question though? I thought the West feared that Russia would invade and take over Europe (i.e. throughout the cold war)? The war in Ukraine has shown they cannot do that. That Ukraine has not ejected them from their territory is not in itself a testament to Russian strength.
    I'd have thought it's been more the opposite. Eg I recall when the invasion happened the consensus was Ukraine would be overrun within days.
    Definitely the consensus among Putin.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144
    AlistairM said:

    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    I think one of the mistakes we made is thinking that the Russians would continue to be militarily incompetent like they were at the start of the war. They have, unfortunately, learned and adapted.

    Russia also has the advantage that they are not just willing to, but trying to, destroy the territory of Ukraine through laying millions of mines. Mines can hold ground, they don't help an advance.

    One of the other learnings is that tanks are incredibly vulnerable to new drone based weapons. I don't think anyone, yet, has figured out how to address this.
    Gazprom production is down 25% year on year.

    Let that sink in.

    Things ain't exactly rosy in Moscow.
  • Options

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    Ironically, the greatest danger to children by far is that posed by people driving cars.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,329

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    Is the gap to the Tories perhaps a little relevant? 75 majority with 20 SNP and 20 LDS is quite different to 75 majority with 35 each of the other two.
    For me it doesn't impact the 'Labour landslide' aspect because that's about Labour seats. What it does impact is the 'Tory loss' aspect. Your second scenario is a bigger Tory loss than the first one.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,961
    AlistairM said:

    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    I think one of the mistakes we made is thinking that the Russians would continue to be militarily incompetent like they were at the start of the war. They have, unfortunately, learned and adapted.

    Russia also has the advantage that they are not just willing to, but trying to, destroy the territory of Ukraine through laying millions of mines. Mines can hold ground, they don't help an advance.

    One of the other learnings is that tanks are incredibly vulnerable to new drone based weapons. I don't think anyone, yet, has figured out how to address this.
    "Cope cages"' are actually pretty good, oddly. Mines, however...☹️

    Also that ground attack helicopters are, in this world of SAMs and shoulder-mounted weaponry, useless. Their role in this war has been more like mobile artillery, with rapid deployment and ballistic launching miles behind the lines.

    The growth of marine drones is brilliant.

    My favourite stat from this war (courtesy of The Chieftain) is that on any given day there will be approx 10,000 drones in theatre.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,313

    Sunak saying 20mph limits are against British values. Has he actually lost it?

    That must surely mean 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 speed limits are against British values too.

    No stop signs, speed limits. Nobody's gonna slow me down...we're on a highway to hell.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,499

    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    Does that not depend on the question though? I thought the West feared that Russia would invade and take over Europe (i.e. throughout the cold war)? The war in Ukraine has shown they cannot do that. That Ukraine has not ejected them from their territory is not in itself a testament to Russian strength.
    It’s a partial explanation as to why Russia has not collapsed under the weight of sanctions. And has been able to buy more weaponry than we expected

    It doesn’t mean Russia is gonna take all of Ukraine. It does mean it might be really hard for Ukraine to dislodge Russia from what they occupy now
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,606
    edited September 2023
    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    For me it's a hundred or more. Blair 2005 at 66 seats was not described as a landslide, Boris 2019 at 80 seats was described as a landslide, so your defn may be the popular one.

    Still wrong, tho... 😀
    Back in the real world Sir K will probably be under an overall majority, and will hope he only needs LD support and not SNP etc as well.

    The Tories lose control of events is they lose 40+ seats. Labour need 123 for a majority. The boggy middle ground is huge. I think there is a 60+% we will be in that area.

    Keeping the maths ridiculously simple, if Labour gain 45 seats form the Tories and no other change, the Tories lose control of events (320 seats) but Labour have only 247 seats. This would be fascinating, and some such picture is not impossible.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,067
    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,067
    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    PS , agree in London
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,606

    Sunak saying 20mph limits are against British values. Has he actually lost it?

    Electioneering has to be distinguished logically, morally and factually from all others aspects of politics.
  • Options

    Sunak saying 20mph limits are against British values. Has he actually lost it?

    Quite possibly. Before Uxbridge, Sunak's position looked fundamentally hopeless. Uxbridge gave him a glimmer of hope. It's almost certainly phoney, but Rishi is chasing it for all it's worth.

    Anyhoo... The Fundamental British Values (introduced under the coalition) are democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.

    I wonder which one Rishi wants to pin speed limits onto?
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,424
    edited September 2023
    AlistairM said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    Does that not depend on the question though? I thought the West feared that Russia would invade and take over Europe (i.e. throughout the cold war)? The war in Ukraine has shown they cannot do that. That Ukraine has not ejected them from their territory is not in itself a testament to Russian strength.
    I'd have thought it's been more the opposite. Eg I recall when the invasion happened the consensus was Ukraine would be overrun within days.
    If Russia win or at the least there is a ceasefire on current borders then it will not stay like that. Russia has admitted that it wants to rebuild the Russian Empire. It would use the time to recover, rearm and have another go. After Ukraine it would be Poland and the Baltic states.

    Have you seen the vast amount of military equipment that Poland has been buying? Poland is no longer a poor nation and realises that it cannot rely on almost anyone else to defend itself. It has vivid memories of being torn asunder by the joint efforts of Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR.

    Poland, and it has to be said Romania too, are doing everything they possibly can to help Ukraine as at the very least it gives them time to arm themselves to defend against an aggressive Russia.

    The problem we have is that the Russian population has had 20 years of indoctrination by Putin and that most of them believe that they ought to reconquer these countries. How can you defeat that?
    If Ukraine prevails then it will be mainly due to superiority in drones in number and capability.

    They used a drone to take out a valuable Russian radar station in Kursk yesterday. Ukrainian drone capabilities have come a long way from the TB2s that made such a splash early in the war.

    Edit: As an aside, it's clear that the rapid development of drones is on a par with other periods of rapid military development in the past, such as jet fighters, or tanks.

    A country whose military is trapped in 15-year military procurement projects is not well-placed to keep up with such developments.
  • Options
    I sometimes drive a car. I am not a "Motorist".
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,778
    edited September 2023
    linto said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    Where would you build motorways though? I can only think of a few routes in the north that need upgrading but haven't been, namely the A1 north of Newcastle, A69 to Carlisle and Sheffield to Manchester (A57). I think upgrades are valid but totally new motorways where from and to? Plus as it directly affects me I'd upgrade the A595 to a dual carriage way from Carlisle to Barrow.
    I may be showing my north and Cumbria biases here though.
    First I'd build in the North West is an 'M580' roughly from North Liverpool to Rochdale (and maybe beyond). Leave the A580 for more local last couple of miles traffic rather than cross country traffic.

    Others should continously be built linking new and existing towns, rather than forcing people to take diversions onto pre-existing routes.

    Eg a few other possible routes.

    Could do a North/South route from Oxford (and maybe further South), East of Birmingham, Burton, Uttoxeter, east of Stoke, Macclesfield, Rochdale and Burnley.

    Another good one could be a motorway or even an A-road (with a bridge across the Ribble) to the west of Preston across the Ribble uptowards Blackpool, rather than diverting all traffic through Preston or onto the M6. There's a lot of land in that region around Skelmersdale and Stockport that could be developed with some new towns with that infrastructure too.

    Others might have their own suggestions - and that's just trying to stick to the North West, without looking at other options like Cambridge to Oxford etc.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,148

    Sunak saying 20mph limits are against British values. Has he actually lost it?

    Speed limits for helicopters are anti-British...
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,313
    Scott_xP said:

    Sunak saying 20mph limits are against British values. Has he actually lost it?

    Speed limits for helicopters are anti-British...
    ..and 20mph speed limits for helicopters would be downright dangerous.
  • Options
    .
    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    To do what? Have 2 parents working to pay the bills?

    It may not be compulsory, but its pretty damned close.
  • Options
    Scott_xP said:

    Sunak saying 20mph limits are against British values. Has he actually lost it?

    Speed limits for helicopters are anti-British...
    If 20mph limits are unBritish, and given that I live on a 20mph road, does this mean I am foreign? Am I eligible for an EU passport?
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    Is the gap to the Tories perhaps a little relevant? 75 majority with 20 SNP and 20 LDS is quite different to 75 majority with 35 each of the other two.
    For me it doesn't impact the 'Labour landslide' aspect because that's about Labour seats. What it does impact is the 'Tory loss' aspect. Your second scenario is a bigger Tory loss than the first one.
    If we took it to extremes, which is the bigger majority:

    Biggest party 370 Second biggest party 270
    Biggest party 360 with the three next biggest parties all on 90 each

    Perhaps technically it is the former but I would say the latter in effect.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,504
    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,329
    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    And double that for a "massive landslide", perhaps.
    Yes. If it's only 2 digits it's a vanilla landslide not a massive one.
  • Options
    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,055
    algarkirk said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    For me it's a hundred or more. Blair 2005 at 66 seats was not described as a landslide, Boris 2019 at 80 seats was described as a landslide, so your defn may be the popular one.

    Still wrong, tho... 😀
    Back in the real world Sir K will probably be under an overall majority, and will hope he only needs LD support and not SNP etc as well.

    The Tories lose control of events is they lose 40+ seats. Labour need 123 for a majority. The boggy middle ground is huge. I think there is a 60+% we will be in that area.

    Keeping the maths ridiculously simple, if Labour gain 45 seats form the Tories and no other change, the Tories lose control of events (320 seats) but Labour have only 247 seats. This would be fascinating, and some such picture is not impossible.
    In that case the DUP becomes important again. A pity. However a few more non-Tory seats and they’ll return to the anonymity they deserve.
    Trouble is, of course, that Labour will have to rely on a rainbow coalition of support.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,994
    edited September 2023
    Are these figures the MRP numbers ?

    TheScreamingEagles said:
    Andy_JS said:
    Apart from Lab on 39%, does anyone have the shares for the other parties from the Times MRP?

    Con 26.3%

    Lib Dems 10.8%


    Con identical, LD and Labour higher than the supposed MRP numbers fpt.
  • Options
    .
    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    Again housing is the root of the problem.

    One income is very sustainable if you don't have to pay for housing.

    When effectively almost an entire take home salary can be consumed by rent alone, let alone trying to save for a deposit, then 2 becomes rather necessary.

    Unless you want people to live off welfare instead.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,898
    malcolmg said:

    Farooq said:

    I regret to inform you all that both Nigel and Malcolm are at it. Again

    Only returning the SCUMBAG in kind. He has been told many times to F**K OFF and not post insults about me but the SCUMBAG excuse pretending to be a human has not the intellect to understand that.
    Afternoon Malc! :D
  • Options

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
    Set against that, £800 a month looks awfully optimistic for housing.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    And double that for a "massive landslide", perhaps.
    Yes. If it's only 2 digits it's a vanilla landslide not a massive one.
    Any sensible LAB supporter, if offered it, would grab 340 seats with both hands. That is enough for a five year term. And would be a huge result for LAB who may start sub 200 on the new boundaries.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,760
    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    And double that for a "massive landslide", perhaps.
    Yes. If it's only 2 digits it's a vanilla landslide not a massive one.
    How about the following definitions.

    - Small majority: 0-30 seats
    - Working majority: 30-60 seats
    - Large majority: 60 seats plus
    - Landslide: 2-factor test:

    1. majority of 80 seats or more, and
    2. change in seat numbers on election night of 100 or more

    I do think the imagery of the ground moving is important in landslides so I agree 2001 and 1987 didn't really fit the bill.
  • Options

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
    Set against that, £800 a month looks awfully optimistic for housing.
    Statement of the bleeding obvious but that depends very much where you are.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,959
    Pulpstar said:

    Are these figures the MRP numbers ?

    TheScreamingEagles said:
    Andy_JS said:
    Apart from Lab on 39%, does anyone have the shares for the other parties from the Times MRP?

    Con 26.3%

    Lib Dems 10.8%


    Con identical, LD and Labour higher than the supposed MRP numbers fpt.

    196 seats seems generous on a 26.3% share.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,329
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    That's about 160 seats more than the 2019 election. A lot.
    It is, and rightly so. Landslide isn't a term that should be bandied about. I think it's on but it's a minority view and I do understand why.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    Does that not depend on the question though? I thought the West feared that Russia would invade and take over Europe (i.e. throughout the cold war)? The war in Ukraine has shown they cannot do that. That Ukraine has not ejected them from their territory is not in itself a testament to Russian strength.
    It’s a partial explanation as to why Russia has not collapsed under the weight of sanctions. And has been able to buy more weaponry than we expected

    It doesn’t mean Russia is gonna take all of Ukraine. It does mean it might be really hard for Ukraine to dislodge Russia from what they occupy now
    Early in the war I mentioned Croatia as a possible precedent for the way the war might play out. Crisis fight the Serbs to a standstill, rapidly modernized their armed forces during a couple of years of peace, and then swept the Serbs out in a rapid liberation campaign.

    I think that's a much more likely scenario than a repeat of the Korean ceasefire. Ukraine's indigenous capabilities are rapidly improving, F-16s are coming, Russia's stocks of Cold War equipment continue to be depleted.

    The potential difference is China. If China starts providing artillery, armoured vehicles and other supplies to Russia then the situation becomes much more difficult.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,778
    edited September 2023
    .

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
    Mean or median average?

    And even if its median, then 50% take home less than that. Plus of course parents skew to younger adults who earn less and have to rent, while high pay skews to older adults.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,329
    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    And double that for a "massive landslide", perhaps.
    Yes. If it's only 2 digits it's a vanilla landslide not a massive one.
    How about the following definitions.

    - Small majority: 0-30 seats
    - Working majority: 30-60 seats
    - Large majority: 60 seats plus
    - Landslide: 2-factor test:

    1. majority of 80 seats or more, and
    2. change in seat numbers on election night of 100 or more

    I do think the imagery of the ground moving is important in landslides so I agree 2001 and 1987 didn't really fit the bill.
    Done. Let's bookmark and frame.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,329

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    And double that for a "massive landslide", perhaps.
    Yes. If it's only 2 digits it's a vanilla landslide not a massive one.
    Any sensible LAB supporter, if offered it, would grab 340 seats with both hands. That is enough for a five year term. And would be a huge result for LAB who may start sub 200 on the new boundaries.
    I know what you mean. I actually wouldn't take that now but I think SKS would.
  • Options

    .

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
    Mean or median average?

    And even if its median, then 50% take home less than that. Plus of course parents skew to younger adults who earn less and have to rent, while high pay skews to older adults.
    Think it is based on median full time. And yes, as noted I agree, that in most of the country one single average wage is not enough to support a typical family.
  • Options
    PJHPJH Posts: 496
    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    If you are a family round my way, then £1800 would be more like the housing cost (rent, certainly, and this is an unfashionable London suburb, most other places are more expensive)
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,898
    Test
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,846

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
    Set against that, £800 a month looks awfully optimistic for housing.
    Also neglected council tax circa 150 to 200 and 200 on food for a family seems a bit low
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,140

    algarkirk said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    For me it's a hundred or more. Blair 2005 at 66 seats was not described as a landslide, Boris 2019 at 80 seats was described as a landslide, so your defn may be the popular one.

    Still wrong, tho... 😀
    Back in the real world Sir K will probably be under an overall majority, and will hope he only needs LD support and not SNP etc as well.

    The Tories lose control of events is they lose 40+ seats. Labour need 123 for a majority. The boggy middle ground is huge. I think there is a 60+% we will be in that area.

    Keeping the maths ridiculously simple, if Labour gain 45 seats form the Tories and no other change, the Tories lose control of events (320 seats) but Labour have only 247 seats. This would be fascinating, and some such picture is not impossible.
    In that case the DUP becomes important again. A pity. However a few more non-Tory seats and they’ll return to the anonymity they deserve.
    Trouble is, of course, that Labour will have to rely on a rainbow coalition of support.
    I think all this talk of Labour failing to get an overall majority is just Tory wishful thinking. The Tories aren't the natural governing party. In the last 30 years, with the exception of the 'Brexit' election that many people are making the mistake of taking as a baseline, the Tories have won only one parliamentary majority.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,329

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    Is the gap to the Tories perhaps a little relevant? 75 majority with 20 SNP and 20 LDS is quite different to 75 majority with 35 each of the other two.
    For me it doesn't impact the 'Labour landslide' aspect because that's about Labour seats. What it does impact is the 'Tory loss' aspect. Your second scenario is a bigger Tory loss than the first one.
    If we took it to extremes, which is the bigger majority:

    Biggest party 370 Second biggest party 270
    Biggest party 360 with the three next biggest parties all on 90 each

    Perhaps technically it is the former but I would say the latter in effect.
    Yes I get the point. The latter has more relative dominance.
  • Options
    .

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    Does that not depend on the question though? I thought the West feared that Russia would invade and take over Europe (i.e. throughout the cold war)? The war in Ukraine has shown they cannot do that. That Ukraine has not ejected them from their territory is not in itself a testament to Russian strength.
    It’s a partial explanation as to why Russia has not collapsed under the weight of sanctions. And has been able to buy more weaponry than we expected

    It doesn’t mean Russia is gonna take all of Ukraine. It does mean it might be really hard for Ukraine to dislodge Russia from what they occupy now
    Early in the war I mentioned Croatia as a possible precedent for the way the war might play out. Crisis fight the Serbs to a standstill, rapidly modernized their armed forces during a couple of years of peace, and then swept the Serbs out in a rapid liberation campaign.

    I think that's a much more likely scenario than a repeat of the Korean ceasefire. Ukraine's indigenous capabilities are rapidly improving, F-16s are coming, Russia's stocks of Cold War equipment continue to be depleted.

    The potential difference is China. If China starts providing artillery, armoured vehicles and other supplies to Russia then the situation becomes much more difficult.
    Not. Gonna. Happen.

    China views Russia as a rival not an ally.

    Russia occupies historic Chinese territory they're still interested in and also China wants to be the large and in charge power in Asia, not their noisy northern neighbours.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,504
    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
    Set against that, £800 a month looks awfully optimistic for housing.
    Also neglected council tax circa 150 to 200 and 200 on food for a family seems a bit low
    I freely admit I was pulling figures out of thin air. But I was trying to be defensive - I think realistic spend is rather higher.
    And is £1500 per month really minimum wage now? It doesn't seem so very long ago that that's what I was earning after tax.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    Is the gap to the Tories perhaps a little relevant? 75 majority with 20 SNP and 20 LDS is quite different to 75 majority with 35 each of the other two.
    For me it doesn't impact the 'Labour landslide' aspect because that's about Labour seats. What it does impact is the 'Tory loss' aspect. Your second scenario is a bigger Tory loss than the first one.
    If we took it to extremes, which is the bigger majority:

    Biggest party 370 Second biggest party 270
    Biggest party 360 with the three next biggest parties all on 90 each

    Perhaps technically it is the former but I would say the latter in effect.
    Yes I get the point. The latter has more relative dominance.
    It's more specifically about cohesion. In the latter scenario the opposition is an implicit coalition, and a coalition will always have less internal cohesion, and be less united/effective than a single party (but having a greater variety of views part of the debate is a benefit as a result).
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,518
    Off topic: Dianne Feinstein has passed away.
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2023/09/29/dianne-feinstein-california-senator-dead/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein

    Governor Newsom will name a replacement. (More than one person wants the job.)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,994
    Cookie said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
    Set against that, £800 a month looks awfully optimistic for housing.
    Also neglected council tax circa 150 to 200 and 200 on food for a family seems a bit low
    I freely admit I was pulling figures out of thin air. But I was trying to be defensive - I think realistic spend is rather higher.
    And is £1500 per month really minimum wage now? It doesn't seem so very long ago that that's what I was earning after tax.
    40 hrs @ £10.23 = £1773.20 pre-tax.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,504
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    And double that for a "massive landslide", perhaps.
    Yes. If it's only 2 digits it's a vanilla landslide not a massive one.
    Any sensible LAB supporter, if offered it, would grab 340 seats with both hands. That is enough for a five year term. And would be a huge result for LAB who may start sub 200 on the new boundaries.
    I know what you mean. I actually wouldn't take that now but I think SKS would.
    In any case, there's not much practical difference between what you can do with a majority of 50 and a majority of 200. The only real benefit to a landslide is the guilty joy of seeing your opponents defeated.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,926
    edited September 2023
    What's next after the pro-motorist thing?

    50:50 abolish minimum wage/national parks I reckon.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
    Set against that, £800 a month looks awfully optimistic for housing.
    Also neglected council tax circa 150 to 200 and 200 on food for a family seems a bit low
    I freely admit I was pulling figures out of thin air. But I was trying to be defensive - I think realistic spend is rather higher.
    And is £1500 per month really minimum wage now? It doesn't seem so very long ago that that's what I was earning after tax.
    40 hrs @ £10.23 = £1773.20 pre-tax.
    37.5 hours is full time 9-5 (minimum wage earners don't normally get paid for breaks) and there's tax though.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370
    edited September 2023
    Chris said:

    algarkirk said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    For me it's a hundred or more. Blair 2005 at 66 seats was not described as a landslide, Boris 2019 at 80 seats was described as a landslide, so your defn may be the popular one.

    Still wrong, tho... 😀
    Back in the real world Sir K will probably be under an overall majority, and will hope he only needs LD support and not SNP etc as well.

    The Tories lose control of events is they lose 40+ seats. Labour need 123 for a majority. The boggy middle ground is huge. I think there is a 60+% we will be in that area.

    Keeping the maths ridiculously simple, if Labour gain 45 seats form the Tories and no other change, the Tories lose control of events (320 seats) but Labour have only 247 seats. This would be fascinating, and some such picture is not impossible.
    In that case the DUP becomes important again. A pity. However a few more non-Tory seats and they’ll return to the anonymity they deserve.
    Trouble is, of course, that Labour will have to rely on a rainbow coalition of support.
    I think all this talk of Labour failing to get an overall majority is just Tory wishful thinking. The Tories aren't the natural governing party. In the last 30 years, with the exception of the 'Brexit' election that many people are making the mistake of taking as a baseline, the Tories have won only one parliamentary majority.
    We were all saying Cameron was almost guaranteed an overall majority in 2008. Above the line, back then, this site was sensibly noting that such a swing was a hard act to pull off, and that caution was fair because Brown nearly pulled it back and did stop a majority.

    Plus, the SNP aren’t going away.
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 659

    algarkirk said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    For me it's a hundred or more. Blair 2005 at 66 seats was not described as a landslide, Boris 2019 at 80 seats was described as a landslide, so your defn may be the popular one.

    Still wrong, tho... 😀
    Back in the real world Sir K will probably be under an overall majority, and will hope he only needs LD support and not SNP etc as well.

    The Tories lose control of events is they lose 40+ seats. Labour need 123 for a majority. The boggy middle ground is huge. I think there is a 60+% we will be in that area.

    Keeping the maths ridiculously simple, if Labour gain 45 seats form the Tories and no other change, the Tories lose control of events (320 seats) but Labour have only 247 seats. This would be fascinating, and some such picture is not impossible.
    In that case the DUP becomes important again. A pity. However a few more non-Tory seats and they’ll return to the anonymity they deserve.
    Trouble is, of course, that Labour will have to rely on a rainbow coalition of support.
    Far from a given that the DUP would prop up either Labour or the Tories in the next parliament, no matter how much they were bribed. Half the party are determined never to speak to the Tories again.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,846

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
    Set against that, £800 a month looks awfully optimistic for housing.
    Also neglected council tax circa 150 to 200 and 200 on food for a family seems a bit low
    I freely admit I was pulling figures out of thin air. But I was trying to be defensive - I think realistic spend is rather higher.
    And is £1500 per month really minimum wage now? It doesn't seem so very long ago that that's what I was earning after tax.
    40 hrs @ £10.23 = £1773.20 pre-tax.
    37.5 hours is full time 9-5 (minimum wage earners don't normally get paid for breaks) and there's tax though.
    average wage is 32k a year which is 2042 after tax
  • Options

    .

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Fpt on ukraine for @TimS

    I read an interesting article the other day, by an economist, who said we have consistently underestimated Russian economic strength - see the PPP data - which has in turn led us to underestimate its military strength. It was quite persuasive

    I’ll try and dig out the link

    Does that not depend on the question though? I thought the West feared that Russia would invade and take over Europe (i.e. throughout the cold war)? The war in Ukraine has shown they cannot do that. That Ukraine has not ejected them from their territory is not in itself a testament to Russian strength.
    It’s a partial explanation as to why Russia has not collapsed under the weight of sanctions. And has been able to buy more weaponry than we expected

    It doesn’t mean Russia is gonna take all of Ukraine. It does mean it might be really hard for Ukraine to dislodge Russia from what they occupy now
    Early in the war I mentioned Croatia as a possible precedent for the way the war might play out. Crisis fight the Serbs to a standstill, rapidly modernized their armed forces during a couple of years of peace, and then swept the Serbs out in a rapid liberation campaign.

    I think that's a much more likely scenario than a repeat of the Korean ceasefire. Ukraine's indigenous capabilities are rapidly improving, F-16s are coming, Russia's stocks of Cold War equipment continue to be depleted.

    The potential difference is China. If China starts providing artillery, armoured vehicles and other supplies to Russia then the situation becomes much more difficult.
    Not. Gonna. Happen.

    China views Russia as a rival not an ally.

    Russia occupies historic Chinese territory they're still interested in and also China wants to be the large and in charge power in Asia, not their noisy northern neighbours.
    The Chinese don't like the Russians, but they dislike democracies more.

    If they had a free choice between a victorious Ukraine providing a morale boost to democracies, or a stronger Russia keeping democracies distracted and disheartened, then they'd go for a stronger Russia.

    The diplomacy that is going on to deter China from becoming involved on Russia's side is vitally important, and it's also an important element of sanctions on Russia. These have to be made as effective as possible as a warning to China.
  • Options

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    Let's say you earn £1500 a month after tax. £800 of that goes in housing, £200 on groceries, £200 on utilities, £100 on transport costs (conservatively) - that leaves you £200 a month on 'lifestyle' - that includes clothing everyone, repairs and replacenents, holidays, rainy day saving, saving for a pension. Feel free to tell me any of my costs are out but I'd argue that managing all this is almost impossible.
    I agree with you, but average full time salary is about £2,200 after tax. Your example is minimum wage.
    Set against that, £800 a month looks awfully optimistic for housing.
    Also neglected council tax circa 150 to 200 and 200 on food for a family seems a bit low
    I freely admit I was pulling figures out of thin air. But I was trying to be defensive - I think realistic spend is rather higher.
    And is £1500 per month really minimum wage now? It doesn't seem so very long ago that that's what I was earning after tax.
    40 hrs @ £10.23 = £1773.20 pre-tax.
    37.5 hours is full time 9-5 (minimum wage earners don't normally get paid for breaks) and there's tax though.
    £10.42 @ 37.5 = £1486.31 after tax

    https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/hourly.php
  • Options
    sladeslade Posts: 1,940
    Both South Norfolk by-elections were Lib Dem holds.
  • Options
    AlsoLei said:

    algarkirk said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    For me it's a hundred or more. Blair 2005 at 66 seats was not described as a landslide, Boris 2019 at 80 seats was described as a landslide, so your defn may be the popular one.

    Still wrong, tho... 😀
    Back in the real world Sir K will probably be under an overall majority, and will hope he only needs LD support and not SNP etc as well.

    The Tories lose control of events is they lose 40+ seats. Labour need 123 for a majority. The boggy middle ground is huge. I think there is a 60+% we will be in that area.

    Keeping the maths ridiculously simple, if Labour gain 45 seats form the Tories and no other change, the Tories lose control of events (320 seats) but Labour have only 247 seats. This would be fascinating, and some such picture is not impossible.
    In that case the DUP becomes important again. A pity. However a few more non-Tory seats and they’ll return to the anonymity they deserve.
    Trouble is, of course, that Labour will have to rely on a rainbow coalition of support.
    Far from a given that the DUP would prop up either Labour or the Tories in the next parliament, no matter how much they were bribed. Half the party are determined never to speak to the Tories again.
    No point bribing the DUP when the DUP don't want to form an Executive, as without an Executive the bribe money can't be spent.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,606
    edited September 2023

    algarkirk said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    For me it's a hundred or more. Blair 2005 at 66 seats was not described as a landslide, Boris 2019 at 80 seats was described as a landslide, so your defn may be the popular one.

    Still wrong, tho... 😀
    Back in the real world Sir K will probably be under an overall majority, and will hope he only needs LD support and not SNP etc as well.

    The Tories lose control of events is they lose 40+ seats. Labour need 123 for a majority. The boggy middle ground is huge. I think there is a 60+% we will be in that area.

    Keeping the maths ridiculously simple, if Labour gain 45 seats form the Tories and no other change, the Tories lose control of events (320 seats) but Labour have only 247 seats. This would be fascinating, and some such picture is not impossible.
    In that case the DUP becomes important again. A pity. However a few more non-Tory seats and they’ll return to the anonymity they deserve.
    Trouble is, of course, that Labour will have to rely on a rainbow coalition of support.
    Yes. The most interesting element of the 2024 election is how few seats the Tories have to lose to lose control, and how few Labour have to win to have a decent prospect of gaining control.

    The Tories lose control, though not all hope, if they lose 41 seats - making them 324. They almost certainly lose all hope if they lose 51 seats, making them 314.

    They can lose this number by losing 20 to the LDs and 31 to Labour. Labour then have 233 seats, Tories have 314 and SFAICS Labour would lead the (extremely rainbow) government.

    This starkly contrasts with the 123 seats Labour need for an absolute majority.

    All my figures can be out by one or two, but the principle remains. I suggest that this element will make the 2024 election particularly fascinating as the polls tighten.
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    What's next after the pro-motorist thing?

    50:50 abolish minimum wage/national parks I reckon.

    I love how those things are comparable in your eyes.

    If Sir Keir Starmer is smart he could gain a march on Sunak and be MORE pro motorist than Sunak.

    Driving is more important for hard stretched working families and swing voters who can't chill at home then go out for the day on a bus pass.

    Starmer could point to Sunak and the Tories neglect of investment in our roads and pledge to do more, invest more.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,140
    biggles said:

    Chris said:

    algarkirk said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    For me it's a hundred or more. Blair 2005 at 66 seats was not described as a landslide, Boris 2019 at 80 seats was described as a landslide, so your defn may be the popular one.

    Still wrong, tho... 😀
    Back in the real world Sir K will probably be under an overall majority, and will hope he only needs LD support and not SNP etc as well.

    The Tories lose control of events is they lose 40+ seats. Labour need 123 for a majority. The boggy middle ground is huge. I think there is a 60+% we will be in that area.

    Keeping the maths ridiculously simple, if Labour gain 45 seats form the Tories and no other change, the Tories lose control of events (320 seats) but Labour have only 247 seats. This would be fascinating, and some such picture is not impossible.
    In that case the DUP becomes important again. A pity. However a few more non-Tory seats and they’ll return to the anonymity they deserve.
    Trouble is, of course, that Labour will have to rely on a rainbow coalition of support.
    I think all this talk of Labour failing to get an overall majority is just Tory wishful thinking. The Tories aren't the natural governing party. In the last 30 years, with the exception of the 'Brexit' election that many people are making the mistake of taking as a baseline, the Tories have won only one parliamentary majority.
    We were all saying Cameron was almost guaranteed an overall majority in 2008. Above the line, back then, this site was sensibly noting that such a swing was a hard act to pull off, and that caution was fair because Brown nearly pulled it back and did stop a majority.

    Plus, the SNP aren’t going away.
    Are you agreeing with me about the strength of Tory wishful thinking here? I suspect not, but maybe you should have explained why you think things are different now.
  • Options

    Eabhal said:

    What's next after the pro-motorist thing?

    50:50 abolish minimum wage/national parks I reckon.

    I love how those things are comparable in your eyes.

    If Sir Keir Starmer is smart he could gain a march on Sunak and be MORE pro motorist than Sunak.

    Driving is more important for hard stretched working families and swing voters who can't chill at home then go out for the day on a bus pass.

    Starmer could point to Sunak and the Tories neglect of investment in our roads and pledge to do more, invest more.
    Whatever happened to Mondeo man?
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    For me it's a hundred or more. Blair 2005 at 66 seats was not described as a landslide, Boris 2019 at 80 seats was described as a landslide, so your defn may be the popular one.

    Still wrong, tho... 😀
    Back in the real world Sir K will probably be under an overall majority, and will hope he only needs LD support and not SNP etc as well.

    The Tories lose control of events is they lose 40+ seats. Labour need 123 for a majority. The boggy middle ground is huge. I think there is a 60+% we will be in that area.

    Keeping the maths ridiculously simple, if Labour gain 45 seats form the Tories and no other change, the Tories lose control of events (320 seats) but Labour have only 247 seats. This would be fascinating, and some such picture is not impossible.
    In that case the DUP becomes important again. A pity. However a few more non-Tory seats and they’ll return to the anonymity they deserve.
    Trouble is, of course, that Labour will have to rely on a rainbow coalition of support.
    Yes. The most interesting element of the 2024 election is how few seats the Tories have to lose to lose control, and how few Labour have to win to have a decent prospect of gaining control.

    The Tories lose control, though not all hope, if they lose 41 seats - making them 324. They almost certainly lose all hope if they lose 51 seats, making them 314.

    They can lose this number by losing 20 to the LDs and 31 to Labour. Labour then have 233 seats, Tories have 314 and SFAICS Labour would lead the (extremely rainbow) government.

    This starkly contrasts with the 123 seats Labour need for an absolute majority.

    All my figures can be out by one or two, but the principle remains.
    Those weak coalition numbers where Labour has fewer than 300 seats, and the Tories around the same, must keep Starmer up at night. Given the country’s underlying issues, winning the next election (and even lasting five years) would be hard.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370

    Eabhal said:

    What's next after the pro-motorist thing?

    50:50 abolish minimum wage/national parks I reckon.

    I love how those things are comparable in your eyes.

    If Sir Keir Starmer is smart he could gain a march on Sunak and be MORE pro motorist than Sunak.

    Driving is more important for hard stretched working families and swing voters who can't chill at home then go out for the day on a bus pass.

    Starmer could point to Sunak and the Tories neglect of investment in our roads and pledge to do more, invest more.
    Whatever happened to Mondeo man?
    I think he has to drive a Puma.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,926

    Eabhal said:

    What's next after the pro-motorist thing?

    50:50 abolish minimum wage/national parks I reckon.

    I love how those things are comparable in your eyes.

    If Sir Keir Starmer is smart he could gain a march on Sunak and be MORE pro motorist than Sunak.

    Driving is more important for hard stretched working families and swing voters who can't chill at home then go out for the day on a bus pass.

    Starmer could point to Sunak and the Tories neglect of investment in our roads and pledge to do more, invest more.
    You've misunderstood - I think they are equal chance of being the next gammon-bait topic, not equating their intrinsic value to the nation.

    You also misunderstood earlier about my long post about the pro-motorist policy. I wasn't arguing the points, just laying out the various uncertainties over why it may or may not be successful for picking up more votes.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,606
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    "massive Labour landslide"? Impossible, surely!

    I think we should agree what 'Labour landslide' means so that punditry can be properly evaluated against the outcome.

    For me it means an overall majority of 75 or higher.
    And double that for a "massive landslide", perhaps.
    Yes. If it's only 2 digits it's a vanilla landslide not a massive one.
    Any sensible LAB supporter, if offered it, would grab 340 seats with both hands. That is enough for a five year term. And would be a huge result for LAB who may start sub 200 on the new boundaries.
    I know what you mean. I actually wouldn't take that now but I think SKS would.
    In any case, there's not much practical difference between what you can do with a majority of 50 and a majority of 200. The only real benefit to a landslide is the guilty joy of seeing your opponents defeated.
    I want a Labour government, please. If I were Sir K and were offered 320 seats now or take my chance in 2024 I would take the minority government 320 right now. It is going to be a bumpy ride.

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,897
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    What's next after the pro-motorist thing?

    50:50 abolish minimum wage/national parks I reckon.

    I love how those things are comparable in your eyes.

    If Sir Keir Starmer is smart he could gain a march on Sunak and be MORE pro motorist than Sunak.

    Driving is more important for hard stretched working families and swing voters who can't chill at home then go out for the day on a bus pass.

    Starmer could point to Sunak and the Tories neglect of investment in our roads and pledge to do more, invest more.
    You've misunderstood - I think they are equal chance of being the next gammon-bait topic, not equating their intrinsic value to the nation.

    You also misunderstood earlier about my long post about the pro-motorist policy. I wasn't arguing the points, just laying out the various uncertainties over why it may or may not be successful for picking up more votes.
    Bring back the stagecoach! Complete with armed guards and hanging for highwaypersons!
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 659
    edited September 2023
    Eabhal said:

    What's next after the pro-motorist thing?

    50:50 abolish minimum wage/national parks I reckon.

    National parks would be more likely - he doesn't want to touch anything close to actual economics.

    Since he's concentrating on absolute trivia, perhaps there might be something around dogshit? Funding a national squad of Dogshit Detectives to go after people who don't pick up after their pets?

    Or go the other way and appeal to boomer nostalgia: vote Tory to bring back white dogshit.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370
    edited September 2023
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    What's next after the pro-motorist thing?

    50:50 abolish minimum wage/national parks I reckon.

    I love how those things are comparable in your eyes.

    If Sir Keir Starmer is smart he could gain a march on Sunak and be MORE pro motorist than Sunak.

    Driving is more important for hard stretched working families and swing voters who can't chill at home then go out for the day on a bus pass.

    Starmer could point to Sunak and the Tories neglect of investment in our roads and pledge to do more, invest more.
    You've misunderstood - I think they are equal chance of being the next gammon-bait topic, not equating their intrinsic value to the nation.

    You also misunderstood earlier about my long post about the pro-motorist policy. I wasn't arguing the points, just laying out the various uncertainties over why it may or may not be successful for picking up more votes.
    I’d put even money on a bonkers ECHR announcement at conference. Maybe a silly referendum pledge?

    If not that, then something like abolishing VAT and green levies on fuel.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,897
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    On topic:

    1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.

    2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.

    3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.

    5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?

    1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.

    2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.

    3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.

    4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.

    5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
    I always fail to see why so many parents use cars for what, in my youth, was a walk- or cycle-able journey.
    In our youth both my wife and I, at opposite ends of the country, walked around a mile to primary school. My wife, by the time she was about 7, was considered responsible enough to lead several younger children from the part of the estate where they lived, to school.
    For very good reasons. Eg

    1: Parents/pupils want a choice to go to good schools, not just be dumped in the closest school they can happen to walk to. If driving past a school you don't like allows you to help your kids education, that's a price well worth paying in my eyes.

    2: People are more wary of letting kids be unsupervised in public nowadays, whether justified or not, because of too many stories of people harming kids etc. I wouldn't let my kids walk to or play in the park next to our estate unsupervised which doesn't even involved crossing any roads, let alone much further, to school.

    And probably most importantly 3: Both parents in most families nowadays work so can't simply walk to a school and back home, they need to drop the kids off at school then continue their drive to get to their place of work. Dropping kids off at 8:45am and being at work for 9am is easier with a car.

    'Back in the day' when mum walked the kids to school is easier if mum didn't have to go to work.
    It is not compulsory
    Well, it kind of is. Supporting three or four people on a median salary is, I would say, almost impossible.
    Choice of lifestyle and location more like or choice of work etc.
    PS , agree in London
    Hello, Malky. Hope you have been OK over in the west. Still breezy and now sunny here in the east.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,926
    edited September 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    What's next after the pro-motorist thing?

    50:50 abolish minimum wage/national parks I reckon.

    I love how those things are comparable in your eyes.

    If Sir Keir Starmer is smart he could gain a march on Sunak and be MORE pro motorist than Sunak.

    Driving is more important for hard stretched working families and swing voters who can't chill at home then go out for the day on a bus pass.

    Starmer could point to Sunak and the Tories neglect of investment in our roads and pledge to do more, invest more.
    You've misunderstood - I think they are equal chance of being the next gammon-bait topic, not equating their intrinsic value to the nation.

    You also misunderstood earlier about my long post about the pro-motorist policy. I wasn't arguing the points, just laying out the various uncertainties over why it may or may not be successful for picking up more votes.
    Bring back the stagecoach! Complete with armed guards and hanging for highwaypersons!
    Roughly 5% chance. Perhaps 15% death penalty?
This discussion has been closed.