Incoming extinction level event for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

rottenborough said:

kyf_100 said:

Sean_F said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

Monksfield said:

Leon said:

The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”

Almost everyone has deserted them

I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.

They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds

It's quite something that the Conservatives have destroyed both their right and left flank.

If you're a small state, social liberal, the party left you a decade ago.

If you're a small c, statist conservative worried about immigration, as you say, the 2m immigrants in the last 2 years say hi.

Who is the modern conservative party for, exactly?

Home owners, without mortgages, who like mass migration.

An interesting venn diagram (with a very small intersection I imagine!)

The country has been ruined thanks to around 150k of aging pensioner tory members who have given us Johnson, Truss and Sunak in succession. They are completely out of touch with the modern world and their party is about to be battered.

The fundamental problem is the tory membership. It is not a mass party representing various walks of life any more.

What's interesting, though, is that you think Labour is winning because it's representing the common man, others because it does the youth, others because they think SKS is a secret socialist, others because they think he's the real Tory and others because they think he'll get a serious grasp on migration.

He's quite happy for all of you to project at the moment, and garner your votes, but some of you are going to be disappointed.

Hard though it is it believe, there are still people voting Tory thinking that they’re the non-ideologically driven, pragmatic party of sound money, good economic judgement, integrity in public life and down-to-earth common sense…..

There is no party of sound money any more. The Tories worship at the shrine of Maggie in so many ways, but completely ignore that what she did was based on sound money (aided by windfalls from North Sea Oil and privatisations). That had to come before tax cuts.

Thatcher's approach was like selling all your furniture to pay for a holiday in the Maldives.

It’s like driving around some shitty town on the southern volga in about 1983

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

The boring answer seems to be it's a failure of regulation. Water companies raise money from the public to pay for infrastructure that reduces the need to dump shit in the river. Totally eliminating the need in all situations is likely to be deemed unaffordable.

Water companies fundamentally make their profits by doing as little infrastructure development as possible for the money they raise and OFWAT allowed them to get away with it. At the same time OFWAT was reluctant to raise water rates further, which are unpopular with the public.

So poor bang for the buck and probably not enough buck anyway. It's a crazy business model.

Might be crazy, but not necessarily irrational.

Companies exist to make profits. For quite a while now, the easier, more reliable and more profitable way to do that has been financial engineering, rather than the real thing.

On the other hand the weather is gorgeous and I can see girls in tiny skirts and we’re about to go to a fortress called BENDER

TransnistiUSSR can’t be as backwards as Leon describes. Because Leon describes. They have cellular coverage. Proper capitalist decadence

MarqueeMark said:

WillG said:

ToryJim said:

bobbob said:

Why didn’t they dump fishy rishi after the locals? Need to go back to basics and talk common sense ! Nobody likes starmer people just want the Tory’s and rishi out !!

There’s no evidence that it would have improved anything. The Tories are in a mess because they’re spending more time settling niche ideological scores than doing the job they were elected to do.

Had they took the responsibility of replacing Boris seriously and not indulged their internal fantasies by choosing an absolute fruitloop instead of a serious politician they might be in a less perilous situation. Once Truss decided to fully commit to larping as a caricature Thatcherite it was over for the Tories, obviously they needed to bundle Truss out of office with maximum speed but they were never going to be forgiven for choosing her to start with.

Once Truss fucked up the Tories were done, regardless of which leader they picked next.

I wonder if there is finally buyers remorse from those idiot MPs who supported her?

SHE LOST YOU YOUR JOB....

Absolutely pathetic. Only the voters in Norfolk are deciding whether or not to have another 5 years of Truss. The rest are deciding whether to have another 5 years of the Dismal Decline Manager at the helm of the ship of state - or deciding against it it would seem. You were a big fan of this turd - acquire a shred of class and own your mistake.

RochdalePioneers said:

TransnistiUSSR can’t be as backwards as Leon describes. Because Leon describes. They have cellular coverage. Proper capitalist decadence

Fair point. It is a weird mix - there are also some notably flash cars here as well. It’s not all late Soviet dystopia. Some people here are making good money - smuggling? Something worse? Amazing artisanal pottery?

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

One of the predicted consequences of global warming for Britain is more intense rainfall events. So all other things being equal you would expect an increase in the rainfall events that lead to sewage release.

This would be compounded by new housing developments which, if poorly planned, would increase the surface runoff, and so also increase the frequency of sewage release events.

Both of these can be anticipated, and so investment should have been planned to deal with them, but it means that, a priori, we shouldn't be surprised by an increase in these events.

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

I deal with waste regulators. They are underfunded. When the Environment Agency came about in 1996 I would get a regulatory visit once a week. At that same site they get a regulatory visit on average once a year. Is there any wonder if there is no scrutiny things turn bad.

It is a sad indictment of business that we expect them to act like a bunch of crooks and chancers unless there is a regulator watching their every move.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

It's odd, I see these MRP results and I simply don't believe the result will be anything like this. But I can't really say why. And what if that's because it's just unlike results we've seen before? What if this time really is different? I forecast for a living, and the hardest thing to know is when the paradigm has genuinely shifted, when your data are being drawn from a different distribution from before. In this case it's complicated by emotional involvement, too.
So I continue to say no, the result will not look like this. But if it is, we can't say we weren't warned.

I can believe that it's possible but not for reasons of liking Starmer or Labour or even hating Rishi. The country has changed in many more ways than people can articulate since the 2016 referendum. It has been so gradual that no one references it but leaving the EU has been huge. People talk about immigration numbers and boats and Rwanda but it's all crap. The country looks and feels very different and not in a good way. All our safety blankets have disappeared. It's much easier to see for those who spend timen in other EU countries where it hasn't changed and see that it's so much more joyous and cosmopolitan.

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

One of the predicted consequences of global warming for Britain is more intense rainfall events. So all other things being equal you would expect an increase in the rainfall events that lead to sewage release.

This would be compounded by new housing developments which, if poorly planned, would increase the surface runoff, and so also increase the frequency of sewage release events.

Both of these can be anticipated, and so investment should have been planned to deal with them, but it means that, a priori, we shouldn't be surprised by an increase in these events.

Not to mention an increasing population. Who, even if living 4 to a room, persist in using showers, toilets and using water in general.

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

Eabhal said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

It's odd, I see these MRP results and I simply don't believe the result will be anything like this. But I can't really say why. And what if that's because it's just unlike results we've seen before? What if this time really is different? I forecast for a living, and the hardest thing to know is when the paradigm has genuinely shifted, when your data are being drawn from a different distribution from before. In this case it's complicated by emotional involvement, too.
So I continue to say no, the result will not look like this. But if it is, we can't say we weren't warned.

Even if the exit poll comes out with similar numbers many of us - me included - won't believe it.

I'm trying to remember my reaction to the SNP 58/59 in 2015. I probably didn't believe it then. They got 56 in the end.

I always believe Sir John Curtice.

He knows precisely what he's doing, and his exit polls are as accurate as they can be.

I wonder if the exit poll is set up to take account of potentially huge swings like this. They will have to poll a much larger number of constituencies, including some of the very safest seats.

An article on the details of how the exit poll works would be interesting, to answer questions like this. Would take a bit of research.

Doogle1941 said:

DavidL said:

In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.

Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.

Think what has happened.
The government locked down the country preventing people from going to work, they deployed the mrna, they allowed millions to settle in the country overwhelming public services, they began to implement net zero signifying the total destruction of the economy, they sent billions to Ukraine whilst preventing a peace deal leading to a great loss of life amongst the young and destabilising the West.

Very subtle

Roger said:

It's much easier to see for those who spend timen in other EU countries where it hasn't changed and see that it's so much more joyous and cosmopolitan.

Greetings from joyous and cosmopolitan Ireland where the happy population is fighting with the gardaí to prevent any building works they suspect is intended to house asylum seekers.

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

I deal with waste regulators. They are underfunded. When the Environment Agency came about in 1996 I would get a regulatory visit once a week. At that same site they get a regulatory visit on average once a year. Is there any wonder if there is no scrutiny things turn bad.

A regulatory visit every week sounds like a whole bunch of red tape waiting to be cut.

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TransnistiUSSR can’t be as backwards as Leon describes. Because Leon describes. They have cellular coverage. Proper capitalist decadence

Fair point. It is a weird mix - there are also some notably flash cars here as well. It’s not all late Soviet dystopia. Some people here are making good money - smuggling? Something worse? Amazing artisanal pottery?

If you ever wonder why the Transnistrans are not keen on Moldovan rule, then read up about how the Romanians under Antonescu ruled Transnistra from 1941-44.

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

LostPassword said:

Roger said:

It's much easier to see for those who spend timen in other EU countries where it hasn't changed and see that it's so much more joyous and cosmopolitan.

Greetings from joyous and cosmopolitan Ireland where the happy population is fighting with the gardaí to prevent any building works they suspect is intended to house asylum seekers.

But they are doing so in far less of a lumpen, yeomanlike, gammony, Hartleypoolite way than their British counterparts that Roger dislikes so. Just a bit of Celtic boisterousness. Right-wingery from the non-British European nations is always looked on as a forgivable foible by the hardcore remainer. Elegant blackshirts and passionate Poujadistes - all very picturesque.

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

I deal with waste regulators. They are underfunded. When the Environment Agency came about in 1996 I would get a regulatory visit once a week. At that same site they get a regulatory visit on average once a year. Is there any wonder if there is no scrutiny things turn bad.

A regulatory visit every week sounds like a whole bunch of red tape waiting to be cut.

The red tape was cut.

And here we are with rivers and streams full of sewerage and "stop the stink" campaigns in Stoke and Haverfordwest.

Perhaps there is a happy medium between once a week and once a year?

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

I deal with waste regulators. They are underfunded. When the Environment Agency came about in 1996 I would get a regulatory visit once a week. At that same site they get a regulatory visit on average once a year. Is there any wonder if there is no scrutiny things turn bad.

A regulatory visit every week sounds like a whole bunch of red tape waiting to be cut.

The red tape was cut.

And here we are with rivers and streams full of sewerage and "stop the stink" campaigns in Stoke and Haverfordwest.

The Lib Dem campaign features water quite heavily. It is just the sort of light green issue that works well in target seats.

Emblematic too as to how the Tories have been running down the country, feeding bungs to shareholders and literally shit service to customers.

OFWATs plan for Thames Water is a scandal that we will hear more of.

https://www.cityam.com/thames-water-and-ofwat-tight-lipped-on-plans-to-cut-fines-and-avoid-nationalisation/

Just going through the MRP in electoral calculus and some of the result seem non-sensical: whopping leads for Labour in Portsmouth North, but next door in Fareham the Tories cling on.

They're also using 23% for the Conservatives, 45% for Labour and 11% for Reform - so that skews it a fair bit - and a low figure of 9% for the LDs.

Again, Epsom and Ewell still looks like value for the LDs at 9/1 - that's two MRPs that have had them leading it closely, after tactical voting now - and it seems just the sort of seat in Surrey that could swing heavily to them.

I've topped up.

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

I deal with waste regulators. They are underfunded. When the Environment Agency came about in 1996 I would get a regulatory visit once a week. At that same site they get a regulatory visit on average once a year. Is there any wonder if there is no scrutiny things turn bad.

A regulatory visit every week sounds like a whole bunch of red tape waiting to be cut.

The red tape was cut.

And here we are with rivers and streams full of sewerage and "stop the stink" campaigns in Stoke and Haverfordwest.

The Lib Dem campaign features water quite heavily. It is just the sort of light green issue that works well in target seats.

Emblematic too as to how the Tories have been running down the country, feeding bungs to shareholders and literally shit service to customers.

OFWATs plan for Thames Water is a scandal that we will hear more of.

https://www.cityam.com/thames-water-and-ofwat-tight-lipped-on-plans-to-cut-fines-and-avoid-nationalisation/

So what is OFWAT’s plan given that it hasn’t been announced to the market?

LostPassword said:

Roger said:

It's much easier to see for those who spend timen in other EU countries where it hasn't changed and see that it's so much more joyous and cosmopolitan.

Greetings from joyous and cosmopolitan Ireland where the happy population is fighting with the gardaí to prevent any building works they suspect is intended to house asylum seekers.

You wouldn't notice as half the population seem to have second -or in many cases first-homes on the Cote d'Azur. My neighbours there are irish. just had their place renovated by Rumanian builders.

Nigelb said:

Bryant isn't always right, but this thread about levelling up is spot on.
Can Labour do significantly better, though ?
(They probably can't do worse.)

Few policies have made me so angry as the Tories’ ‘levelling up’. 🧵
They turned it into a competition between local authorities who wasted millions on developing plans that were going nowhere. They doled out taxpayers’ cash to the constituencies of their favourite MPs...
https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798439650472044

Spot on. The money that has come to Bradford has been in the Shipley and Keighley constituencies, not the solid red* city constituencies.


*Were solid red, Hamas may play a role this time.

FF43 said:

StillWaters said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

The boring answer seems to be it's a failure of regulation. Water companies raise money from the public to pay for infrastructure that reduces the need to dump shit in the river. Totally eliminating the need in all situations is likely to be deemed unaffordable.

Water companies fundamentally make their profits by doing as little infrastructure development as possible for the money they raise and OFWAT allowed them to get away with it. At the same time OFWAT was reluctant to raise water rates further, which are unpopular with the public.

So poor bang for the buck and probably not
enough buck anyway. It's a crazy business
model.

Not really. The returns that companies can generate are dependent on the regulated asset base. The only way that increases is via approved capital investment in infrastructure.

I suppose you could make a remote argument that there is an incentive to invest inefficiently so you have an excuse to argue for more investment at the next review but that’s pretty tenuous.

The fundamental failure was the regulators miscalculation of the cost of debt and the failure to impose leverage limitations

Exactly. The "miscalculation of the cost of debt" when water companies encourage the regulator to so miscalculate means the water companies have to invest less capital for the water rates raised and therefore do less shit-in-river reduction. The water companies can then arbitrage the cost of debt to their profit. The "fundamentally" in my note above covers that explanation.

Simply raising capital on the government account is much better value.

The water rate payer has got poor value for money out of the privatised water companies in England. But this hides another question. Infrastructure is expensive. How much are people prepared to pay through their water bills for reducing shit in rivers?

No - you misunderstand.

The regulator assumed a higher cost of debt than was actually the case (this was fixed in the last review). Companies were able to finance more cheaply. Hence the incentive was to maximise the amount of debt in the capital structure. This has caused its own issues, but actually created an incentive to invest *more* because they could earn supernormal returns. However the regulator had also capped the total RAB meaning that there was no increase in returns for incremental investment resulting in large dividends instead.

Thames Water itself is operating fine. The issue is that Macquarie looted the holding company and now the new owners are refusing to invest additional equity (because the increase in the cost of debt makes the capital structure non-viable).

What it created was an incentive to invest

Sean_F said:

Perhaps, like the 1920’s Liberals, a party just stops representing any significant element of the population. The Conservatives’ strategy of talking right, acting left, and lining their own pockets seems to have reached the end of the road.

Centre right politics is probably pointless now, in the UK.

That's excoriating. And possible.

My analysis back post-Brexit was that there was an opportunity for a broader N-S voting coalition around right of centre.

But that opportunity is now gone with the coming tumbling of the red wall, the self-consignment of the Tories to the 'place of gnashing and grinding of teeth'
by their leadership, and the imagined rise of the latest version of the more radical right.

So now I'm looking for something anchored more around the centre-left core of Labour.

LostPassword said:

Roger said:

It's much easier to see for those who spend timen in other EU countries where it hasn't changed and see that it's so much more joyous and cosmopolitan.

Greetings from joyous and cosmopolitan Ireland where the happy population is fighting with the gardaí to prevent any building works they suspect is intended to house asylum seekers.

@Woger means the kind of previously joyous, but still cosmopolitan people who stalk the corridors of Monaco hotels, wistfully remembering their yachts. Which were seized in sanctions.

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

Bryant isn't always right, but this thread about levelling up is spot on.
Can Labour do significantly better, though ?
(They probably can't do worse.)

Few policies have made me so angry as the Tories’ ‘levelling up’. 🧵
They turned it into a competition between local authorities who wasted millions on developing plans that were going nowhere. They doled out taxpayers’ cash to the constituencies of their favourite MPs...
https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798439650472044

https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798448223609302

...of election bribes to a bunch of Tory constituencies.
The policy is wrong, morally and economically.
Gove says it’s like an unfinished cathedral. It’s much worse than that.

A far better principle would be ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’.

No, it would not.

Would you care to explain why it is wrong?

Casino_Royale said:

Just going through the MRP in electoral calculus and some of the result seem non-sensical: whopping leads for Labour in Portsmouth North, but next door in Fareham the Tories cling on.

They're also using 23% for the Conservatives, 45% for Labour and 11% for Reform - so that skews it a fair bit - and a low figure of 9% for the LDs.

Again, Epsom and Ewell still looks like value for the LDs at 9/1 - that's two MRPs that have had them leading it closely, after tactical voting now - and it seems just the sort of seat in Surrey that could swing heavily to them.

I've topped up.

I don't think it right on Romsey and Southampton North either. I think the LDs will do well there.

SandyRentool said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

Bryant isn't always right, but this thread about levelling up is spot on.
Can Labour do significantly better, though ?
(They probably can't do worse.)

Few policies have made me so angry as the Tories’ ‘levelling up’. 🧵
They turned it into a competition between local authorities who wasted millions on developing plans that were going nowhere. They doled out taxpayers’ cash to the constituencies of their favourite MPs...
https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798439650472044

https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798448223609302

...of election bribes to a bunch of Tory constituencies.
The policy is wrong, morally and economically.
Gove says it’s like an unfinished cathedral. It’s much worse than that.

A far better principle would be ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’.

No, it would not.

Would you care to explain why it is wrong?

Because what's the point of having the ability if the benefits are taken from you?

WRT Electoral Calculus. Predictions. A question from a non statistician.

The high - low range. (Eg Tories 37-225). Is this a range of what could happen if the vote shares are as predicted or is it about the range if vote shares change?

(If it is the first it is no more use than only excluding one horse from predictions about winning the derby).

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

I deal with waste regulators. They are underfunded. When the Environment Agency came about in 1996 I would get a regulatory visit once a week. At that same site they get a regulatory visit on average once a year. Is there any wonder if there is no scrutiny things turn bad.

A regulatory visit every week sounds like a whole bunch of red tape waiting to be cut.

The red tape was cut.

And here we are with rivers and streams full of sewerage and "stop the stink" campaigns in Stoke and Haverfordwest.

The Lib Dem campaign features water quite heavily. It is just the sort of light green issue that works well in target seats.

Emblematic too as to how the Tories have been running down the country, feeding bungs to shareholders and literally shit service to customers.

OFWATs plan for Thames Water is a scandal that we will hear more of.

https://www.cityam.com/thames-water-and-ofwat-tight-lipped-on-plans-to-cut-fines-and-avoid-nationalisation/

Interesting you say that . The subject of the sewage in rivers and beaches came up over dinner at neighbours who admitted they normally vote Tory but are so disgusted with this issue that they said they’re voting Lib Dem . The Tories are toast in Eastbourne!

Of course people rarely vote just on a single issue but often highlight one thing in conversation .

SouthamObserver said:

MattW said:

Sean_F said:

Perhaps, like the 1920’s Liberals, a party just stops representing any significant element of the population. The Conservatives’ strategy of talking right, acting left, and lining their own pockets seems to have reached the end of the road.

Centre right politics is probably pointless now, in the UK.

That's excoriating. And possible.

My analysis back post-Brexit was that there was an opportunity for a broader N-S voting coalition around right of centre.

But that opportunity is now gone with the coming tumbling of the red wall, the self-consignment of the Tories to the 'place of gnashing and grinding of teeth'
by their leadership, and the imagined rise of the latest version of the more radical right.

So now I'm looking for something anchored more around the centre-left core of Labour.

There is definitely a place for a strong centre right party in the UK. What it looks like is the issue. The Boomer generation is passing into history. All that generation's assumptions, ways of seeing the world and experiences are therefore doing the same. The Tories need to win over the under-50s. If Labour wins this general election, the under-50s becomes the under-55s. That is the challenge. Right now, they are talking to the generation PB posters like myself and Leon belong to. And we are part of a dying demographic.

The future centre right party is called labour !!

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

Eabhal said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

It's odd, I see these MRP results and I simply don't believe the result will be anything like this. But I can't really say why. And what if that's because it's just unlike results we've seen before? What if this time really is different? I forecast for a living, and the hardest thing to know is when the paradigm has genuinely shifted, when your data are being drawn from a different distribution from before. In this case it's complicated by emotional involvement, too.
So I continue to say no, the result will not look like this. But if it is, we can't say we weren't warned.

Even if the exit poll comes out with similar numbers many of us - me included - won't believe it.

I'm trying to remember my reaction to the SNP 58/59 in 2015. I probably didn't believe it then. They got 56 in the end.

I always believe Sir John Curtice.

He knows precisely what he's doing, and his exit polls are as accurate as they can be.

I wonder if the exit poll is set up to take account of potentially huge swings like this. They will have to poll a much larger number of constituencies, including some of the very safest seats.

An article on the details of how the exit poll works would be interesting, to answer questions like this. Would take a bit of research.

There's a bit here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50716626

The exit poll is based on 144 constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales. The constituencies are chosen to be demographically representative of the country, balanced between rural and urban seats, and weighted slightly in favour of marginal areas.

When was the last time the exit poll was significantly out?

I want to say 1997, where it overestimated the Labour vote and somewhat underestimated the Labour seat count because tactical voting monkeyed its all the predictions. Since then it's been pretty much bang on. Even in 2015 it was only out by around 15 seats.

I think it underestimated the Tories by 35 seats in 1992.

1997 was after 1992!

StillWaters said:

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

I deal with waste regulators. They are underfunded. When the Environment Agency came about in 1996 I would get a regulatory visit once a week. At that same site they get a regulatory visit on average once a year. Is there any wonder if there is no scrutiny things turn bad.

A regulatory visit every week sounds like a whole bunch of red tape waiting to be cut.

The red tape was cut.

And here we are with rivers and streams full of sewerage and "stop the stink" campaigns in Stoke and Haverfordwest.

The Lib Dem campaign features water quite heavily. It is just the sort of light green issue that works well in target seats.

Emblematic too as to how the Tories have been running down the country, feeding bungs to shareholders and literally shit service to customers.

OFWATs plan for Thames Water is a scandal that we will hear more of.

https://www.cityam.com/thames-water-and-ofwat-tight-lipped-on-plans-to-cut-fines-and-avoid-nationalisation/

So what is OFWAT’s plan given that it hasn’t been announced to the market?

The leak (!) is that Thames Water is not going to be fined for 5 years, and allowed overflows in order to keep the company viable, rather than go insolvent.

SandyRentool said:

tlg86 said:

SandyRentool said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

Bryant isn't always right, but this thread about levelling up is spot on.
Can Labour do significantly better, though ?
(They probably can't do worse.)

Few policies have made me so angry as the Tories’ ‘levelling up’. 🧵
They turned it into a competition between local authorities who wasted millions on developing plans that were going nowhere. They doled out taxpayers’ cash to the constituencies of their favourite MPs...
https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798439650472044

https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798448223609302

...of election bribes to a bunch of Tory constituencies.
The policy is wrong, morally and economically.
Gove says it’s like an unfinished cathedral. It’s much worse than that.

A far better principle would be ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’.

No, it would not.

Would you care to explain why it is wrong?

Because what's the point of having the ability if the benefits are taken from you?

A slice of your pie is given to someone with no pie. You still have plenty to fill your plate. And in many cases, still way more than enough.

We aren't advocating 99% income tax rates.

But isn't that what that quote implies? I live with my parents. I don't have a mortgage. Take that principle to it's logical conclusion and my tax rate should be through the roof.

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

Bryant isn't always right, but this thread about levelling up is spot on.
Can Labour do significantly better, though ?
(They probably can't do worse.)

Few policies have made me so angry as the Tories’ ‘levelling up’. 🧵
They turned it into a competition between local authorities who wasted millions on developing plans that were going nowhere. They doled out taxpayers’ cash to the constituencies of their favourite MPs...
https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798439650472044

https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798448223609302

...of election bribes to a bunch of Tory constituencies.
The policy is wrong, morally and economically.
Gove says it’s like an unfinished cathedral. It’s much worse than that.

A far better principle would be ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’.

No, it would not.

“To each according to their likelihood of voting Conservative” is presumably your preferred policy?

nico679 said:

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

I deal with waste regulators. They are underfunded. When the Environment Agency came about in 1996 I would get a regulatory visit once a week. At that same site they get a regulatory visit on average once a year. Is there any wonder if there is no scrutiny things turn bad.

A regulatory visit every week sounds like a whole bunch of red tape waiting to be cut.

The red tape was cut.

And here we are with rivers and streams full of sewerage and "stop the stink" campaigns in Stoke and Haverfordwest.

The Lib Dem campaign features water quite heavily. It is just the sort of light green issue that works well in target seats.

Emblematic too as to how the Tories have been running down the country, feeding bungs to shareholders and literally shit service to customers.

OFWATs plan for Thames Water is a scandal that we will hear more of.

https://www.cityam.com/thames-water-and-ofwat-tight-lipped-on-plans-to-cut-fines-and-avoid-nationalisation/

Interesting you say that . The subject of the sewage in rivers and beaches came up over dinner at neighbours who admitted they normally vote Tory but are so disgusted with this issue that they said they’re voting Lib Dem . The Tories are toast in Eastbourne!

Of course people rarely vote just on a single issue but often highlight one thing in conversation .

Yes, it spontaneously came up when I had lunch with Mrs Foxys family last weekend on the IoW.

Roger said:

LostPassword said:

Roger said:

LostPassword said:

Roger said:

It's much easier to see for those who spend timen in other EU countries where it hasn't changed and see that it's so much more joyous and cosmopolitan.

Greetings from joyous and cosmopolitan Ireland where the happy population is fighting with the gardaí to prevent any building works they suspect is intended to house asylum seekers.

You wouldn't notice as half the population seem to have second -or in many cases first-homes on the Cote d'Azur. My neighbours there are irish. just had their place renovated by Rumanian builders.

Roger. It's not exactly a surprise that the small minority of people who can afford to live on the Cote d'Azur are we happy as Larry. It's not representative of a huge difference between Europe and Britain created by Brexit.

Don't you notice the absence of bright young Europeans working in your town and city centres? Do you think Americans would be happy if you were restricted to living in the State of Georgia and to live or work elsewhere was made difficult? Don't you see how it would slowly become a backwater?

No.

Not the case.

No.

SouthamObserver said:

MattW said:

Sean_F said:

Perhaps, like the 1920’s Liberals, a party just stops representing any significant element of the population. The Conservatives’ strategy of talking right, acting left, and lining their own pockets seems to have reached the end of the road.

Centre right politics is probably pointless now, in the UK.

That's excoriating. And possible.

My analysis back post-Brexit was that there was an opportunity for a broader N-S voting coalition around right of centre.

But that opportunity is now gone with the coming tumbling of the red wall, the self-consignment of the Tories to the 'place of gnashing and grinding of teeth'
by their leadership, and the imagined rise of the latest version of the more radical right.

So now I'm looking for something anchored more around the centre-left core of Labour.

There is definitely a place for a strong centre right party in the UK. What it looks like is the issue. The Boomer generation is passing into history. All that generation's assumptions, ways of seeing the world and experiences are therefore doing the same. The Tories need to win over the under-50s. If Labour wins this general election, the under-50s becomes the under-55s. That is the challenge. Right now, they are talking to the generation PB posters like myself and Leon belong to. And we are part of a dying demographic.

That "generation's" assumptions may include the following:

1. government is about political parties;
2. there's this kind of scale that goes left-centre-right.

And you seem to have just made both of them :-)

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

StillWaters said:

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

I deal with waste regulators. They are underfunded. When the Environment Agency came about in 1996 I would get a regulatory visit once a week. At that same site they get a regulatory visit on average once a year. Is there any wonder if there is no scrutiny things turn bad.

A regulatory visit every week sounds like a whole bunch of red tape waiting to be cut.

The red tape was cut.

And here we are with rivers and streams full of sewerage and "stop the stink" campaigns in Stoke and Haverfordwest.

The Lib Dem campaign features water quite heavily. It is just the sort of light green issue that works well in target seats.

Emblematic too as to how the Tories have been running down the country, feeding bungs to shareholders and literally shit service to customers.

OFWATs plan for Thames Water is a scandal that we will hear more of.

https://www.cityam.com/thames-water-and-ofwat-tight-lipped-on-plans-to-cut-fines-and-avoid-nationalisation/

So what is OFWAT’s plan given that it hasn’t been announced to the market?

The leak (!) is that Thames Water is not going to be fined for 5 years, and allowed overflows in order to keep the company viable, rather than go insolvent.

That is ridiculous. If that is OFWAT's plan, then it's high time it was abolished.

It may not be true, but that is what my relative told me at my IoW lunch at the weekend. He lives in a Thames Water area on the mainland.

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

Eabhal said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

It's odd, I see these MRP results and I simply don't believe the result will be anything like this. But I can't really say why. And what if that's because it's just unlike results we've seen before? What if this time really is different? I forecast for a living, and the hardest thing to know is when the paradigm has genuinely shifted, when your data are being drawn from a different distribution from before. In this case it's complicated by emotional involvement, too.
So I continue to say no, the result will not look like this. But if it is, we can't say we weren't warned.

Even if the exit poll comes out with similar numbers many of us - me included - won't believe it.

I'm trying to remember my reaction to the SNP 58/59 in 2015. I probably didn't believe it then. They got 56 in the end.

I always believe Sir John Curtice.

He knows precisely what he's doing, and his exit polls are as accurate as they can be.

I wonder if the exit poll is set up to take account of potentially huge swings like this. They will have to poll a much larger number of constituencies, including some of the very safest seats.

An article on the details of how the exit poll works would be interesting, to answer questions like this. Would take a bit of research.

There's a bit here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50716626

The exit poll is based on 144 constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales. The constituencies are chosen to be demographically representative of the country, balanced between rural and urban seats, and weighted slightly in favour of marginal areas.

When was the last time the exit poll was significantly out?

I want to say 1997, where it overestimated the Labour vote and somewhat underestimated the Labour seat count because tactical voting monkeyed its all the predictions. Since then it's been pretty much bang on. Even in 2015 it was only out by around 15 seats.

How do Exit pollsters interpret DNAs? I have a well-honed peroration on the sanctity of the secret ballot for such an event.

Often, exit polls visit the same polling stations at the same times at different elections, so they aren't as such counting the numbers but the movement compared with last time (when the aggregate result with all votes counted, including crucially those people who have a peroration on the sanctity of the secret ballot in their back pocket, is known).

Your cases is a classic one where it doesn't matter to them because you're resolved not to say under any circumstances. What would be more problematic is if (say) Labour voters were systematically more likely to refuse to say this year compared with in 2019 for some reason.

Alphabet_Soup said:

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

Eabhal said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

It's odd, I see these MRP results and I simply don't believe the result will be anything like this. But I can't really say why. And what if that's because it's just unlike results we've seen before? What if this time really is different? I forecast for a living, and the hardest thing to know is when the paradigm has genuinely shifted, when your data are being drawn from a different distribution from before. In this case it's complicated by emotional involvement, too.
So I continue to say no, the result will not look like this. But if it is, we can't say we weren't warned.

Even if the exit poll comes out with similar numbers many of us - me included - won't believe it.

I'm trying to remember my reaction to the SNP 58/59 in 2015. I probably didn't believe it then. They got 56 in the end.

I always believe Sir John Curtice.

He knows precisely what he's doing, and his exit polls are as accurate as they can be.

I wonder if the exit poll is set up to take account of potentially huge swings like this. They will have to poll a much larger number of constituencies, including some of the very safest seats.

An article on the details of how the exit poll works would be interesting, to answer questions like this. Would take a bit of research.

There's a bit here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50716626

The exit poll is based on 144 constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales. The constituencies are chosen to be demographically representative of the country, balanced between rural and urban seats, and weighted slightly in favour of marginal areas.

When was the last time the exit poll was significantly out?

I want to say 1997, where it overestimated the Labour vote and somewhat underestimated the Labour seat count because tactical voting monkeyed its all the predictions. Since then it's been pretty much bang on. Even in 2015 it was only out by around 15 seats.

How do Exit pollsters interpret DNAs? I have a well-honed peroration on the sanctity of the secret ballot for such an event.

They ask you to fill in a replica ballot paper, without anyone looking, and put it into a replica ballot box, so the secrecy of the ballot is preserved. It's one of the details that must help it to work as well as it does.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Nigelb said:

Bryant isn't always right, but this thread about levelling up is spot on.
Can Labour do significantly better, though ?
(They probably can't do worse.)

Few policies have made me so angry as the Tories’ ‘levelling up’. 🧵
They turned it into a competition between local authorities who wasted millions on developing plans that were going nowhere. They doled out taxpayers’ cash to the constituencies of their favourite MPs...
https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798439650472044

He has a point on some of the schemes, but it isn't totally ludicrous (and isn't likely to change under Labour) for there to be a degree of competition between local authorities for funding of projects (as opposed to ongoing services). Say central government is funding flood mitigation schemes, in a sense why not have a competition to see which project is the best use of funds.

The money spent developing projects isn't necessarily wasted even if the funding bid is unsuccessful. Plans aren't just binned - they can be implemented in other (often more modest) forms with existing funds, improved upon, or used as the basis for future bids.

Your assuming that the competition system produces the right answer. This is rarely the case. It's a lot of time wasted for a system that ends up picking no better.

SandyRentool said:

tlg86 said:

SandyRentool said:

tlg86 said:

SandyRentool said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

Bryant isn't always right, but this thread about levelling up is spot on.
Can Labour do significantly better, though ?
(They probably can't do worse.)

Few policies have made me so angry as the Tories’ ‘levelling up’. 🧵
They turned it into a competition between local authorities who wasted millions on developing plans that were going nowhere. They doled out taxpayers’ cash to the constituencies of their favourite MPs...
https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798439650472044

https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798448223609302

...of election bribes to a bunch of Tory constituencies.
The policy is wrong, morally and economically.
Gove says it’s like an unfinished cathedral. It’s much worse than that.

A far better principle would be ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’.

No, it would not.

Would you care to explain why it is wrong?

Because what's the point of having the ability if the benefits are taken from you?

A slice of your pie is given to someone with no pie. You still have plenty to fill your plate. And in many cases, still way more than enough.

We aren't advocating 99% income tax rates.

But isn't that what that quote implies? I live with my parents. I don't have a mortgage. Take that principle to it's logical conclusion and my tax rate should be through the roof.

Well no. You may not have major outgoings at present, but you may be saving up for a deposit on your own home, for example.

Ability to pay is gauged on a macro rather than micro level. Hence you end up with highly paid people claiming that they are virtually on the bread line, due to their lifestyle choices.

"Lifestyle choices" like needing to pay rent or mortgages?

"Lifestyle choices" like bringing up children?

One of the biggest differences in living expenses is simply if you're paying for the roof over your head or not. If you live rent or mortgage free then costs are completely different to if you need to spend a grand or more a month on rent/mortgage.

Earning £500 a month extra doesn't make up for spending £1000 a month extra.

Foxy said:

nico679 said:

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

rkrkrk said:

Aaron Bell standing down

The oddest thing about Aaron’s resignation letter was the pop at the Environment Agency re: Walley’s Quarry.

Regulation is at the heart of the issue. You cannot moan about the failure of a regulator to deliver effective regulation when you and your party routinely denigrate regulation as evil red tape that ties honest businesses in knots. The Tory Government that Aaron supports has promoted a culture of ineffective regulation. The Environment Agency and other environmental regulators are not encouraged to do their jobs effectively.

This failure to recognise the appropriate balance between enterprise and regulation has consequences, such as the shit in rivers crisis. Which has cost them many votes.

And it’s one of the main reasons I will never vote Tory.

I'm still of the belief that the 'shit in the rivers crisis' is mostly invented. Yes, there's too much pollution being sent in, but is it really much more than before, given the way that reporting the incidents has changed?

(Not that I'm calling for progress on stopping this shit from happening.)

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-do-water-companies-spill-sewage-into-rivers-and-seas-and-how-does-uk-water-quality-compare-to-other-countries#:~:text=Water companies are sometimes allowed,spills are happening too often.

That's not quite the same thing, as it ignores the last clause in my comment.

Sewage has routinely been released into water for years, especially during high-rainfall events. AIUI reporting of these was manually done - or at least, was *supposed* to be manually done. The accusation was that many releases wre not reported, or the amounts dramatically under-reported.

A program started to allow automated monitoring of such releases, which means that the figures are properly reported.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/

The argument is that the figures do not show a massive real increase in the amount released; just that the amount released is not being properly reported for the first time. The increase occurring whilst the program is being implemented in the mid-2010s may well point to this, and the fact decreases occur towards the end of the program.

But yes, we need to dump less shit in the water.

I deal with waste regulators. They are underfunded. When the Environment Agency came about in 1996 I would get a regulatory visit once a week. At that same site they get a regulatory visit on average once a year. Is there any wonder if there is no scrutiny things turn bad.

A regulatory visit every week sounds like a whole bunch of red tape waiting to be cut.

The red tape was cut.

And here we are with rivers and streams full of sewerage and "stop the stink" campaigns in Stoke and Haverfordwest.

The Lib Dem campaign features water quite heavily. It is just the sort of light green issue that works well in target seats.

Emblematic too as to how the Tories have been running down the country, feeding bungs to shareholders and literally shit service to customers.

OFWATs plan for Thames Water is a scandal that we will hear more of.

https://www.cityam.com/thames-water-and-ofwat-tight-lipped-on-plans-to-cut-fines-and-avoid-nationalisation/

Interesting you say that . The subject of the sewage in rivers and beaches came up over dinner at neighbours who admitted they normally vote Tory but are so disgusted with this issue that they said they’re voting Lib Dem . The Tories are toast in Eastbourne!

Of course people rarely vote just on a single issue but often highlight one thing in conversation .

Yes, it spontaneously came up when I had lunch with Mrs Foxys family last weekend on the IoW.

It's a simple, tangible problem that sums up problems with both government and private enterprise.

Perfect bitesize politics. The same as small boats. Both water related.

🎵Britannia rule the waves 🎵

Roger said:

LostPassword said:

Roger said:

LostPassword said:

Roger said:

LostPassword said:

Roger said:

It's much easier to see for those who spend timen in other EU countries where it hasn't changed and see that it's so much more joyous and cosmopolitan.

Greetings from joyous and cosmopolitan Ireland where the happy population is fighting with the gardaí to prevent any building works they suspect is intended to house asylum seekers.

You wouldn't notice as half the population seem to have second -or in many cases first-homes on the Cote d'Azur. My neighbours there are irish. just had their place renovated by Rumanian builders.

Roger. It's not exactly a surprise that the small minority of people who can afford to live on the Cote d'Azur are we happy as Larry. It's not representative of a huge difference between Europe and Britain created by Brexit.

Don't you notice the absence of bright young Europeans working in your town and city centres? Do you think Americans would be happy if you were restricted to living in the State of Georgia and to live or work elsewhere was made difficult? Don't you see how it would slowly become a backwater?

Roger. I live in Ireland.

You're a lucky person. You can travel and work as freely as I used to be able to.

No. I still have 17 months until I qualify for Irish citizenship. Until then I am only as free to travel and work as anyone else with a British passport.

Casino_Royale said:

Eabhal said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

It's odd, I see these MRP results and I simply don't believe the result will be anything like this. But I can't really say why. And what if that's because it's just unlike results we've seen before? What if this time really is different? I forecast for a living, and the hardest thing to know is when the paradigm has genuinely shifted, when your data are being drawn from a different distribution from before. In this case it's complicated by emotional involvement, too.
So I continue to say no, the result will not look like this. But if it is, we can't say we weren't warned.

Even if the exit poll comes out with similar numbers many of us - me included - won't believe it.

I'm trying to remember my reaction to the SNP 58/59 in 2015. I probably didn't believe it then. They got 56 in the end.

I always believe Sir John Curtice.

He knows precisely what he's doing, and his exit polls are as accurate as they can be.

Be careful. SJC's exit polls had the advantage of unchanged boundaries for 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019. The new boundaries are going to fudge things up a bit. ☹️

bondegezou said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Nigelb said:

Bryant isn't always right, but this thread about levelling up is spot on.
Can Labour do significantly better, though ?
(They probably can't do worse.)

Few policies have made me so angry as the Tories’ ‘levelling up’. 🧵
They turned it into a competition between local authorities who wasted millions on developing plans that were going nowhere. They doled out taxpayers’ cash to the constituencies of their favourite MPs...
https://x.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1796798439650472044

He has a point on some of the schemes, but it isn't totally ludicrous (and isn't likely to change under Labour) for there to be a degree of competition between local authorities for funding of projects (as opposed to ongoing services). Say central government is funding flood mitigation schemes, in a sense why not have a competition to see which project is the best use of funds.

The money spent developing projects isn't necessarily wasted even if the funding bid is unsuccessful. Plans aren't just binned - they can be implemented in other (often more modest) forms with existing funds, improved upon, or used as the basis for future bids.

Your assuming that the competition system produces the right answer. This is rarely the case. It's a lot of time wasted for a system that ends up picking no better.

Competition doesn't always produce the "right" answer in the sense that the best proposed scheme is successful, but I suspect it is a hell of a lot more likely to do so than just dishing out cash and hoping for the best. If competition really was random, Arsenal would have won the FA Cup a hell of a lot less over time and Torquay United a hell of a lot more - the FA Cup quite often isn't won by the best team in the tournament (this year for instance) but it's normally won by one of the best.

The case for competition is particularly strong for large capital projects - not everyone can have a really expensive road scheme or re-wilding project for example, and giving equal funding to everyone means NONE of them get done.

I get the point more on small projects. The public chess board thing was crackers for instance. Just give local authorities with poor park facilities a few grand to do it if it's so important to Sunak - or better yet don't waste time with hypothecation at all and fund parks services better. There, the cost of running the competition is simply disproportionate.