politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Questioning the patriotism of Remain voters will not win th

Still a great jumper. It's like that one of her in a tank. Only it's with here in a jumper

Danny565 said:

FPT:

MarqueeMark said:

Danny565 said:

stodge said:

The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.

This can't be said often enough. A great many swing voters disregard "the ishoos" completely these days and just vote on which President they would prefer. God knows how many times at the last two elections I've heard things like "I'm usually Labour, but I just can't stand that Brown / can't see that Miliband standing next to Putin in photos / think that Cameron seems a nice dad and husband".

The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.

Er...I acknowledge it every time Osborne for PM is mentioned. And unlike most who go on about it, I will actually be voting on the matter...

Richard Nabavi and DavidL (to name just two) have repeatedly said it doesn't matter how dislikeable Osborne is, if the supposed "economic miracle" is still going on.

As any Labour canvasser from the last two elections will tell you, the view that you can convince voters to overlook the personality of leaders is rather optimistic.

Yet even Osborne was preferred to Corbyn in the last Opinium poll, until Labour get a credible leader Osborne's personality will not be a significant issue

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

But that isn't what is pertinent to the question at hand. What should be plotted is the daily rainfall total. Having a months worth of rain in a month isn't bad, having it in a day is.

blackburn63 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

blackburn63 said:

You still undecided TSE?

I'm still leaning towards Leave.

Yeah and I hope Arsenal win the league

Some of you Kippers do immense damage to Leave's cause with your attitude and sneering.

Judging your posts today and in the past, had Cameron announced he was voting for Leave, you'd be voting for Remain.

"Remain should avoid the language of David Cameron on UKIP when talking about Leavers"

He means Fruitcakes, Nutters and Loonies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

FPT:

MarqueeMark said:

Danny565 said:

stodge said:

The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.

This can't be said often enough. A great many swing voters disregard "the ishoos" completely these days and just vote on which President they would prefer. God knows how many times at the last two elections I've heard things like "I'm usually Labour, but I just can't stand that Brown / can't see that Miliband standing next to Putin in photos / think that Cameron seems a nice dad and husband".

The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.

Er...I acknowledge it every time Osborne for PM is mentioned. And unlike most who go on about it, I will actually be voting on the matter...

Richard Nabavi and DavidL (to name just two) have repeatedly said it doesn't matter how dislikeable Osborne is, if the supposed "economic miracle" is still going on.

As any Labour canvasser from the last two elections will tell you, the view that you can convince voters to overlook the personality of leaders is rather optimistic.

Yet even Osborne was preferred to Corbyn in the last Opinium poll, until Labour get a credible leader Osborne's personality will not be a significant issue

The Osborne-Corbyn poll pointed to a tight hung parliament.

It also suggested Osborne would end up PM, hung parliament or not

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

FPT:

MarqueeMark said:

Danny565 said:

stodge said:

The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.

This can't be said often enough. A great many swing voters disregard "the ishoos" completely these days and just vote on which President they would prefer. God knows how many times at the last two elections I've heard things like "I'm usually Labour, but I just can't stand that Brown / can't see that Miliband standing next to Putin in photos / think that Cameron seems a nice dad and husband".

The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.

Er...I acknowledge it every time Osborne for PM is mentioned. And unlike most who go on about it, I will actually be voting on the matter...

Richard Nabavi and DavidL (to name just two) have repeatedly said it doesn't matter how dislikeable Osborne is, if the supposed "economic miracle" is still going on.

As any Labour canvasser from the last two elections will tell you, the view that you can convince voters to overlook the personality of leaders is rather optimistic.

Yet even Osborne was preferred to Corbyn in the last Opinium poll, until Labour get a credible leader Osborne's personality will not be a significant issue

The Osborne-Corbyn poll pointed to a tight hung parliament.

It also suggested Osborne would end up PM, hung parliament or not

OICIPM??

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

But that isn't what is pertinent to the question at hand. What should be plotted is the daily rainfall total. Having a months worth of rain in a month isn't bad, having it in a day is.

That data doesn't appear to be publicly available, along with the rainfall on the afore mentioned potting shed

But you see my point? I think the rainfall record in Cornwall is frankly irrelevant.

No, the rainfall record FOR ENGLAND, which happened for occur in Cornwall.

Yeah. But that only tells us that Yorkshire isn't wetter than Cornwall. In fact, it must be drier. Which may make the current rainfall (wait for it) even more unprecedented. The rainfall record in Yorkshire may be a tenth of that of Cornwall for all we know (obviously it isn't.. but we can't know that from one number saying the highest rainfall was at another point in the country).

To pick up on a couple of comments to my previous FPT, the view within the LDs from minute one of the Coalition was we had to be in it for the duration not just for 90% of the Parliament. The same was true for the Conservatives.

The predictable jibe from Threequidder about the LDs functioning as "an internal opposition" within the Coalition is part of the rewriting of history from those on the Conservative side who were never well disposed toward the Coalition but didn't have the courage to challenge Cameron directly. That view is fortunately countered by those of more sensible send pragmatic disposition within Conservative ranks.

The initial Coalition agreement was a frail creature and nobody could foresee a full five year legislative programme. I regret some of the measures the LDs supported but as they were in the Agreement it's all down to that dirty concept of compromise.

I am proud the Party managed to stop or water down some measures which were not part of the Agreement and I applaud the Conservatives who voted for LD measures with which they probably disagreed but which were part of the Agreement. Again, that's compromise.

I think there was a window of opportunity in 2012-13 to renegotiate the Coalition and its modus operandi. That might have ended the Agreement or strengthened it but to simply jog on with what was effectively a botched rushed arrangement organised by tired people was and is unsatisfactory.

As an LD, I regret the 2015 GE outcome but I don't regret for a nanosecond being in Government and having the power to get things done.

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

FPT:

MarqueeMark said:

Danny565 said:

stodge said:

The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.

This can't be said often enough. A great many swing voters disregard "the ishoos" completely these days and just vote on which President they would prefer. God knows how many times at the last two elections I've heard things like "I'm usually Labour, but I just can't stand that Brown / can't see that Miliband standing next to Putin in photos / think that Cameron seems a nice dad and husband".

The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.

Er...I acknowledge it every time Osborne for PM is mentioned. And unlike most who go on about it, I will actually be voting on the matter...

Richard Nabavi and DavidL (to name just two) have repeatedly said it doesn't matter how dislikeable Osborne is, if the supposed "economic miracle" is still going on.

As any Labour canvasser from the last two elections will tell you, the view that you can convince voters to overlook the personality of leaders is rather optimistic.

Yet even Osborne was preferred to Corbyn in the last Opinium poll, until Labour get a credible leader Osborne's personality will not be a significant issue

The Osborne-Corbyn poll pointed to a tight hung parliament.

It also suggested Osborne would end up PM, hung parliament or not

OICIPM??

OMPH-T-A-BITRICIPM?

Exactly!!

Actually TSE in spite of the impression you like to give I would suggest that Reckless maintained his mind on major political issues. It was the Tory party - or at least the leadership of that party - that changed their stated views.

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

FPT:

MarqueeMark said:

Danny565 said:

stodge said:

The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.

This can't be said often enough. A great many swing voters disregard "the ishoos" completely these days and just vote on which President they would prefer. God knows how many times at the last two elections I've heard things like "I'm usually Labour, but I just can't stand that Brown / can't see that Miliband standing next to Putin in photos / think that Cameron seems a nice dad and husband".

The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.

Er...I acknowledge it every time Osborne for PM is mentioned. And unlike most who go on about it, I will actually be voting on the matter...

Richard Nabavi and DavidL (to name just two) have repeatedly said it doesn't matter how dislikeable Osborne is, if the supposed "economic miracle" is still going on.

As any Labour canvasser from the last two elections will tell you, the view that you can convince voters to overlook the personality of leaders is rather optimistic.

Yet even Osborne was preferred to Corbyn in the last Opinium poll, until Labour get a credible leader Osborne's personality will not be a significant issue

Even if Labour don't get a credible leader before the election, there has to be a good chance of them doing so afterwards. Winning the election is one thing but life could be very difficult back in office, as it was for John Major.

Yes but we would be looking at the 2025 election then, not 2020

Well makes a change from those millions and millions of LD voters that didn't even vote LD that got upset about the coalition I guess

stodge said:

To pick up on a couple of comments to my previous FPT, the view within the LDs from minute one of the Coalition was we had to be in it for the duration not just for 90% of the Parliament. The same was true for the Conservatives.

The predictable jibe from Threequidder about the LDs functioning as "an internal opposition" within the Coalition is part of the rewriting of history from those on the Conservative side who were never well disposed toward the Coalition but didn't have the courage to challenge Cameron directly. That view is fortunately countered by those of more sensible send pragmatic disposition within Conservative ranks.
...

But too many Lib Dem MPs and ministers (never mind activists) looked and sounded as if they wanted to act as an opposition. That they didn't - their record on voting against the whip was not at all rebellious - is beside the point or maybe even reinforced a public impression that they wanted to say one thing and do another.

Perhaps the proof of the pudding was the 2015 election. What measures did the Lib Dems campaign on as having successfully delivered in government? If they were right to go into office (and I agree that they were) then it follows that they should be proud of and stand on their record, yet far too often they seemed to want to distance themselves from it.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

There are some of the more excitable types on Twitter this evening going on about Diane Abbot becoming shadow FS.
Seems an excellent idea to me.
Just hope she remembers that I was one of her staunchest supporters in Hertsmere CLP in 2010.

She's going to reward you by inviting you to join her on a motorbike holiday in what was East Germany.

I hope it's a motorbike with sidecar.
We can be like Olive and Arthur of On The Buses fame.

blackburn63 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

blackburn63 said:

You still undecided TSE?

I'm still leaning towards Leave.

Yeah and I hope Arsenal win the league

Man: I hope you're not going to be canvassing for Leave.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Actually TSE in spite of the impression you like to give I would suggest that Reckless maintained his mind on major political issues. It was the Tory party - or at least the leadership of that party - that changed their stated views.

Is that true? When Reckless joined the Conservative party it was much more Europhilic. Don't forget: in the 1990s, the debate - inside the highest levels of the Conservative Party - was not about in the EU or out the EU; it was in the Euro or out the Euro. People like Teddy Taylor were marginalised in a way that Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party simply are not done so today.

One quick nit-pick re the intro: I'm not sure it's fair to say that "Tory leaders do have a history have of changing their views on the EU", in this case implying that Thatcher did. She was campaigning in 1975 for the UK to stay in the EEC, which was a forerunner of, but a rather different beast to, the EU. I'm not sure that Thatcher's view ever changed on whether it would be in Britain's interest to be a member of an organisation like the EU; what changed was the organisation, not her opinion.

She did change her mind on whether Britain should have signed the SEA but that doesn't imply that it was necessarily wrong to join in the first place or that even the SEA made EEC / EC membership inadvisable, though she clearly felt that the Maastricht Treaty (never mind later ones) did.

david_herdson said:

One quick nit-pick re the intro: I'm not sure it's fair to say that "Tory leaders do have a history have of changing their views on the EU", in this case implying that Thatcher did. She was campaigning in 1975 for the UK to stay in the EEC, which was a forerunner of, but a rather different beast to, the EU. I'm not sure that Thatcher's view ever changed on whether it would be in Britain's interest to be a member of an organisation like the EU; what changed was the organisation, not her opinion.

She did change her mind on whether Britain should have signed the SEA but that doesn't imply that it was necessarily wrong to join in the first place or that even the SEA made EEC / EC membership inadvisable, though she clearly felt that the Maastricht Treaty (never mind later ones) did.

I meant in the sense, as the situation changes/evolves so do the views of Tory leaders, past and present.

Perhaps evolve would have been a better choice of word in the thread header than change

I just can't see Jezza's Ho as Foreign Secretary.

On the LDs.

The aim of a political party (as Jezza is now proving as the exception) is to be in power.

For the LDs, after all kinds of batshit crazy politics they found themselves...

...

...in power.

And dear god did they get the mother of all shellackings from their own supporters (and ofc Lab=>LD switchers) for it.

Nick Clegg played a blinder IMO. To go from protest/NOTA party to being in government is an impossible hand and Nick did as well as he could, trying to balance his responsibilities to his voters on the one hand, and the government of which he was a part on the other.

I'm sure those Lab=>LD switchers would have preferred the LDs to refuse to go into coalition, but that ignored the realities of the vote share. Of course what they actually wanted was for the LDs to form a coalition with Lab.

Poor old Nick - I wonder how history will treat him. Harshly I suspect but I hope not.

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

But that isn't what is pertinent to the question at hand. What should be plotted is the daily rainfall total. Having a months worth of rain in a month isn't bad, having it in a day is.

I suspect, though, that the country's tolerance* for a given level of rain is lower than 100 years ago so you need to factor that secular trend in your analysis.

* By tolerance I mean increased run off due to concrete, building in risk areas, etc. I'm not referring to the fact that we have devolved into a bunch of whining jessies

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

But that isn't what is pertinent to the question at hand. What should be plotted is the daily rainfall total. Having a months worth of rain in a month isn't bad, having it in a day is.

That data doesn't appear to be publicly available, along with the rainfall on the afore mentioned potting shed

But you see my point? I think the rainfall record in Cornwall is frankly irrelevant.

No, the rainfall record FOR ENGLAND, which happened for occur in Cornwall.

Yeah. But that only tells us that Yorkshire isn't wetter than Cornwall. In fact, it must be drier. Which may make the current rainfall (wait for it) even more unprecedented. The rainfall record in Yorkshire may be a tenth of that of Cornwall for all we know (obviously it isn't.. but we can't know that from one number saying the highest rainfall was at another point in the country).

Yorkshire holds the record for the highest recorded rainfall in 2 hours in the British Isles. From 1956 - 6.1 inches in 2 hours. That's a lot of water.

CD13 said:

I just can't see Jezza's Ho as Foreign Secretary.

That is a deeply misogynist statement. I don't have any time for the person I think you are talking about but really, if that is your idea of humour you need to have a think to yourself.

TOPPING said:

On the LDs.

The aim of a political party (as Jezza is now proving as the exception) is to be in power.

For the LDs, after all kinds of batshit crazy politics they found themselves...

...

...in power.

And dear god did they get the mother of all shellackings from their own supporters (and ofc Lab=>LD switchers) for it.

Nick Clegg played a blinder IMO. To go from protest/NOTA party to being in government is an impossible hand and Nick did as well as he could, trying to balance his responsibilities to his voters on the one hand, and the government of which he was a part on the other.

I'm sure those Lab=>LD switchers would have preferred the LDs to refuse to go into coalition, but that ignored the realities of the vote share. Of course what they actually wanted was for the LDs to form a coalition with Lab.

Poor old Nick - I wonder how history will treat him. Harshly I suspect but I hope not.

A lot of socialists switched from Labour to Lib Dem because of Iraq and Blair, thinking that Lib Dems were Labour lite.

The Liberal part of Lib Dems are economic liberals and work comfortably with Conservatives. The Social Democrat liberals are not so keen on being economically liberal. So lots of Labour lite Lib Dems left after the coalition was formed.

The shake out of Labour switchers back to Labour should enable Lib Dems to show they are neither left nor right but liberal in both economic and social policies.

However, we are yet to see how the recent new joiners will feel about policy and they are nearly a third of the membership.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Actually TSE in spite of the impression you like to give I would suggest that Reckless maintained his mind on major political issues. It was the Tory party - or at least the leadership of that party - that changed their stated views.

Is that true? When Reckless joined the Conservative party it was much more Europhilic. Don't forget: in the 1990s, the debate - inside the highest levels of the Conservative Party - was not about in the EU or out the EU; it was in the Euro or out the Euro. People like Teddy Taylor were marginalised in a way that Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party simply are not done so today.

Reckless wasn't involved in the Tory party in any significant way in the 1990s. At least not at any significant level. Although he was involved with the party from early to mid 2000s he wasn't elected an MP until 2010 and was the 13th most rebellious Tory MP whilst he was a member of the party. He never moved in his views on the EU and only left the party when it became clear that Cameron was in no way serious about any significant change in our relationship with the EU. Remember Carswell gave as one of his reasons for leaving the realisation that Cameron would only try and negotiate the absolute minimum of change necessary to secure a Yes vote. Something that a number of PB Tories denied when it was claimed and which has now turned out to be absolutely correct.

It is the Tory party position under Cameron which has moved from the demand for significant change to one of slight tinkering.

He left the party for the self serving reason that he thought - quite wrongly because he is thick - that he would lose his seat to UKIP. In the end he lost it back to the tories.
Carswells reasons for leaving the tory party were all made up as well - he is no different to the typical LD, happy just to carp and not interested in the tricky problems of being in power. Instead he has joined a party of 'angry nativists'.

We have negotiations and we have a referendum, allegedly what UKIP want. Yet all you can do is pathetically bleat, 'foul!'

@PA: #Breaking Jeremy Corbyn says he has created a "unifying, dynamic, inclusive new shadow cabinet" with women taking the majority of roles.

RobD said:

Charles said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

But that isn't what is pertinent to the question at hand. What should be plotted is the daily rainfall total. Having a months worth of rain in a month isn't bad, having it in a day is.

I suspect, though, that the country's tolerance* for a given level of rain is lower than 100 years ago so you need to factor that secular trend in your analysis.

* By tolerance I mean increased run off due to concrete, building in risk areas, etc. I'm not referring to the fact that we have devolved into a bunch of whining jessies

Indigo and I are arguing over what counts as unprecedented in terms of rainfall. Ability to cope is not relevant for this particular point, although I must say I enjoyed you clarifying remark at the end there

Perhaps not surprisingly, 'months rainfall in a day' events are actually quite common. For example it is surprising how few days in December actually have any rain in most places in England. The average number of days with rain in December is either 11 or 12 depending on which records you look at. Newspapers and the media in general love these types of comparisons but they really aren't that meaningful. Its a lot of rain and our drainage systems probably won't deal with it. It has ever been so.

Richard_Tyndall said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

But that isn't what is pertinent to the question at hand. What should be plotted is the daily rainfall total. Having a months worth of rain in a month isn't bad, having it in a day is.

That data doesn't appear to be publicly available, along with the rainfall on the afore mentioned potting shed

But you see my point? I think the rainfall record in Cornwall is frankly irrelevant.

No, the rainfall record FOR ENGLAND, which happened for occur in Cornwall.

Yeah. But that only tells us that Yorkshire isn't wetter than Cornwall. In fact, it must be drier. Which may make the current rainfall (wait for it) even more unprecedented. The rainfall record in Yorkshire may be a tenth of that of Cornwall for all we know (obviously it isn't.. but we can't know that from one number saying the highest rainfall was at another point in the country).

Yorkshire holds the record for the highest recorded rainfall in 2 hours in the British Isles. From 1956 - 6.1 inches in 2 hours. That's a lot of water.

It is indeed. The worst I have been through was Hurricane Floyd, which dumped nearly 17" in less than 24 hours in parts of VA.

David_Evershed said:

TOPPING said:

On the LDs.

The aim of a political party (as Jezza is now proving as the exception) is to be in power.

For the LDs, after all kinds of batshit crazy politics they found themselves...

...

...in power.

And dear god did they get the mother of all shellackings from their own supporters (and ofc Lab=>LD switchers) for it.

Nick Clegg played a blinder IMO. To go from protest/NOTA party to being in government is an impossible hand and Nick did as well as he could, trying to balance his responsibilities to his voters on the one hand, and the government of which he was a part on the other.

I'm sure those Lab=>LD switchers would have preferred the LDs to refuse to go into coalition, but that ignored the realities of the vote share. Of course what they actually wanted was for the LDs to form a coalition with Lab.

Poor old Nick - I wonder how history will treat him. Harshly I suspect but I hope not.

A lot of socialists switched from Labour to Lib Dem because of Iraq and Blair, thinking that Lib Dems were Labour lite.

The Liberal part of Lib Dems are economic liberals and work comfortably with Conservatives. The Social Democrat liberals are not so keen on being economically liberal. So lots of Labour lite Lib Dems left after the coalition was formed.

The shake out of Labour switchers back to Labour should enable Lib Dems to show they are neither left nor right but liberal in both economic and social policies.

However, we are yet to see how the recent new joiners will feel about policy and they are nearly a third of the membership.

I think you're right about the Labour Lite but not sure it was on account of Blair/Iraq - we'd had 2005 for them to flounce about that.

Or rather, not only on account of it. I think also it was that Lab supporters found themselves unable to vote for Brown following the economic collapse. Pictures of queues outside Northern Rock (a long way from dodgy CDS sales) and the genuine fear of a bank run, amongst other things, rendered Lab unfit for government in the eyes of many sensible Lab types. Rightly or wrongly they perceived an enormous mismanagement of the economy.

Of course to vote Cons was unthinkable, so LDs it was.

GeoffM said:

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

I just can't see Jezza's Ho as Foreign Secretary.

That is a deeply misogynist statement. I don't have any time for the person I think you are talking about but really, if that is your idea of humour you need to have a think to yourself.

Nothing wrong with that. You need to lighten up.

No its a pathetic comment. Abbott is as crass as they come a political idiot. CD13's comment was totally needless.

MTimT said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

But that isn't what is pertinent to the question at hand. What should be plotted is the daily rainfall total. Having a months worth of rain in a month isn't bad, having it in a day is.

That data doesn't appear to be publicly available, along with the rainfall on the afore mentioned potting shed

But you see my point? I think the rainfall record in Cornwall is frankly irrelevant.

No, the rainfall record FOR ENGLAND, which happened for occur in Cornwall.

Well, if that rain fell in Cornwall, what is the record for England?

You missed out a word - 'rest' as in the 'rest of England'.

Corbyn for PM ‏@Corbyn4nextPM 21h21 hours ago
Lynton Crosby (Tory election strategist)is to be given knighthood for a contribution to public services,

JosiasJessop said:

Charles said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

But that isn't what is pertinent to the question at hand. What should be plotted is the daily rainfall total. Having a months worth of rain in a month isn't bad, having it in a day is.

I suspect, though, that the country's tolerance* for a given level of rain is lower than 100 years ago so you need to factor that secular trend in your analysis.

* By tolerance I mean increased run off due to concrete, building in risk areas, etc. I'm not referring to the fact that we have devolved into a bunch of whining jessies

Our resilience to flooding is much poorer. 100 years ago most houses had very little to get damaged in a flood; now we have wall-to-wall carpets, TVs, fitted kitchens etc, etc. Where a quick sluice-out would have been the main job in some houses, now it's much more complex.

Waterproof plaster in houses susceptible to flooding has to be a partial way forward. It means you don't have to chop out the polluted plaster that got wet, wait for the walls to dry, and then replaster before you move back in.

Very true. If you look at the old houses in many of these areas prone to flooding - the Middle and lower Trent Valley is a good example - then they tended to have flagged lower floors and all the furniture was removable. The idea was that if a flood was coming you moved everything upstairs, opened your front and back doors and let the water flow through. A good flow through helped prevent the build up of sediment as well although some was inevitable.

flightpath01 said:

MTimT said:

flightpath01 said:

MTimT said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

But that isn't what is pertinent to the question at hand. What should be plotted is the daily rainfall total. Having a months worth of rain in a month isn't bad, having it in a day is.

That data doesn't appear to be publicly available, along with the rainfall on the afore mentioned potting shed

But you see my point? I think the rainfall record in Cornwall is frankly irrelevant.

No, the rainfall record FOR ENGLAND, which happened for occur in Cornwall.

Well, if that rain fell in Cornwall, what is the record for England?

You missed out a word - 'rest' as in the 'rest of England'.

No, I didn't.

Oh yes you did.

Yay! It's pantomime season on PB

stodge said:

To pick up on a couple of comments to my previous FPT, the view within the LDs from minute one of the Coalition was we had to be in it for the duration not just for 90% of the Parliament. The same was true for the Conservatives.

The predictable jibe from Threequidder about the LDs functioning as "an internal opposition" within the Coalition is part of the rewriting of history from those on the Conservative side who were never well disposed toward the Coalition but didn't have the courage to challenge Cameron directly. That view is fortunately countered by those of more sensible send pragmatic disposition within Conservative ranks.

The initial Coalition agreement was a frail creature and nobody could foresee a full five year legislative programme. I regret some of the measures the LDs supported but as they were in the Agreement it's all down to that dirty concept of compromise.

I am proud the Party managed to stop or water down some measures which were not part of the Agreement and I applaud the Conservatives who voted for LD measures with which they probably disagreed but which were part of the Agreement. Again, that's compromise.

I think there was a window of opportunity in 2012-13 to renegotiate the Coalition and its modus operandi. That might have ended the Agreement or strengthened it but to simply jog on with what was effectively a botched rushed arrangement organised by tired people was and is unsatisfactory.

As an LD, I regret the 2015 GE outcome but I don't regret for a nanosecond being in Government and having the power to get things done.

I think all of that is fair and as I said on pt I think the lib Dems did the right thing for the country. I assume there is an analysis of the lib/con marginals? Was it left libs leaving or lib con switchers that did for you? I think if in the early stages it had been done as more business than pleasure it might have been a bit different. Interesting from this and previous thread is that it is the cons who like clegg most - which may not be a good thing for a lib dem leader!

surbiton said:

bigjohnowls said:

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

FPT:

MarqueeMark said:

Danny565 said:

stodge said:

The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.

This can't be said often enough. A great many swing voters disregard "the ishoos" completely these days and just vote on which President they would prefer. God knows how many times at the last two elections I've heard things like "I'm usually Labour, but I just can't stand that Brown / can't see that Miliband standing next to Putin in photos / think that Cameron seems a nice dad and husband".

The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.

Er...I acknowledge it every time Osborne for PM is mentioned. And unlike most who go on about it, I will actually be voting on the matter...

Richard Nabavi and DavidL (to name just two) have repeatedly said it doesn't matter how dislikeable Osborne is, if the supposed "economic miracle" is still going on.

As any Labour canvasser from the last two elections will tell you, the view that you can convince voters to overlook the personality of leaders is rather optimistic.

Yet even Osborne was preferred to Corbyn in the last Opinium poll, until Labour get a credible leader Osborne's personality will not be a significant issue

The Osborne-Corbyn poll pointed to a tight hung parliament.

It also suggested Osborne would end up PM, hung parliament or not

OICIPM??

OMPH-T-A-BITRICIPM?

Exactly!!

Tim would be so proud

LOL Tim hates Corbyn more than most PB Tories TBF

What is Tim's twitter account called ?

Scroll down the front page ogh quotes him in an obl piece.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

flightpath01 said:

MTimT said:

flightpath01 said:

MTimT said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

But that isn't what is pertinent to the question at hand. What should be plotted is the daily rainfall total. Having a months worth of rain in a month isn't bad, having it in a day is.

That data doesn't appear to be publicly available, along with the rainfall on the afore mentioned potting shed

But you see my point? I think the rainfall record in Cornwall is frankly irrelevant.

No, the rainfall record FOR ENGLAND, which happened for occur in Cornwall.

Well, if that rain fell in Cornwall, what is the record for England?

You missed out a word - 'rest' as in the 'rest of England'.

No, I didn't.

Oh yes you did.

Yay! It's pantomime season on PB

oh no its not

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:

I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.

I just knocked this up for the monthly rainfall data from Bradford, the nearest Metoffice collection centre that has been open since 1908, the graph appears broadly the same now as it did 100 years ago.

http://i.imgur.com/afUZEGX.jpg

Do you have a moving average on that chart?

The gradient of the trend line is 0.001!

Eskdalemuir weather station has a gradient of 0.0225 on it's monthly rainfall

Of note is that these figures obviously don't have this December in them yet.