Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair punters now make it a 66% chance that Trump will survi

13

Comments

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    The PVI analysis also means there are four seats which are excellent indicators of the Con share nationally.

    Saffron Walden (deduct 19 points)
    Daventry (deduct 21 points)
    Birmingham Perry Barr (add 15 points)
    Northampton South (deduct 5 points).

    Only the last is an actual marginal.


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    edited April 2018

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited April 2018
    Still, I can see the appeal. Anything the US can do, we can surely do better, and if they can elect Trump as President, then the only way to outdo them in the insanity stakes is to elect Jeremy Corbyn as PM, John McDonnell as Chancellor, and (our Trump card) Diane Abbott as Home Sec, responsible for security in the UK.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    Floater said:

    So, to be clear, Labour's latest attack line is that Theresa May should take a decision on military action without consulting the US?

    Are you expecting something grown up and joined up.... from today's LABOUR party?


    Well, I had the pleasure of hearing Diane Abbott explaining their policy on the Today programme this morning.

    Presumably they put up Ms Abbott on the grounds that the Shadow Secretary for Defence is even worse, hard though that is to credit.
    To be fair to Abbott, she did accept that Assad was almost certainly responsible for the chemical attacks, though it had to be dragged out of her.
    My face was so deeply thrust into my palms by that stage that I must have missed that.
    I am sure when they accepted Diane for Cambridge, there was some terrible mix up and a David Abbott got rejected.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    I saw this little summary on Trump associates earlier.

    Trump former campaign chairman: indicted
    Trump WH national security adviser: pleads guilty
    Trump former deputy campaign chairman: pleads guilty
    Trump campaign foreign policy adviser: pleads guilty
    Trump personal lawyer and close confidant: under criminal investigation

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Floater said:

    So, to be clear, Labour's latest attack line is that Theresa May should take a decision on military action without consulting the US?

    Are you expecting something grown up and joined up.... from today's LABOUR party?


    Well, I had the pleasure of hearing Diane Abbott explaining their policy on the Today programme this morning.

    Presumably they put up Ms Abbott on the grounds that the Shadow Secretary for Defence is even worse, hard though that is to credit.
    Ah yes - this interview

    https://order-order.com/2018/04/13/diane-abbott-car-crash-ww2-only-time-wed-back-military-action/
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    The pro-Con seats are a mix of ex-mining / industrial and rural Scotland plus Wyre Forest which had the Independent MP. Chesterfield had a LibDem MP who would have got lots of tactical votes from natural Conservatives.

    The anti-Con seats tend to those with heavy demographic change or where natural Conservative voters have switched tactically to the LibDems. Hove has become like Brighton and Wallasey like Liverpool.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Floater said:

    Floater said:

    So, to be clear, Labour's latest attack line is that Theresa May should take a decision on military action without consulting the US?

    Are you expecting something grown up and joined up.... from today's LABOUR party?


    Well, I had the pleasure of hearing Diane Abbott explaining their policy on the Today programme this morning.

    Presumably they put up Ms Abbott on the grounds that the Shadow Secretary for Defence is even worse, hard though that is to credit.
    Ah yes - this interview

    https://order-order.com/2018/04/13/diane-abbott-car-crash-ww2-only-time-wed-back-military-action/
    Did you threaten to overrule him...

    Worryingly the person who was shown up by that particular interview later became Tory leader.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Trump self-declares as a "germophobe" so he couldn't possibly be associated with any suggestion he could go anywhere near urine,especially in Moscow,with sex-workers.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
    NW Leics was +3.6 in 2005, +8.45 in 2010, +12.60 in 2015 and +15.80 in 2017 so yes, very much trending Tory.


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    Trump self-declares as a "germophobe" so he couldn't possibly be associated with any suggestion he could go anywhere near urine,especially in Moscow,with sex-workers.

    He may be a germophobe but politically he's a virus.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:



    So as an LD, and past supporter of the last Coalition, would be most happy with Jezza as a minority government, kept on a short leash by a post Cable LD leader.

    I take the opposite view myself. As a Lib Dem I'd be utterly horrified if my party did anything at all to prop up a Corbyn government. The man is a monster, frankly.

    Support for a Tory government would be unwise, and a majority LD government seems some way off.

    I am not suggesting Coalition, or even Confidence and Supply, but could see a LD party supporting some minority Lab gov legislation.
    The Lib Dems would lose my vote if there was any chance of them propping up a Corbyn government.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
    NW Leics was +3.6 in 2005, +8.45 in 2010, +12.60 in 2015 and +15.80 in 2017 so yes, very much trending Tory.


    The only marginal of the 10 Leics seats is Loughborough, which still is a bellwether.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Trump self-declares as a "germophobe" so he couldn't possibly be associated with any suggestion he could go anywhere near urine,especially in Moscow,with sex-workers.

    Urine is normally sterile so that excuse won't wash.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
    NW Leics was +3.6 in 2005, +8.45 in 2010, +12.60 in 2015 and +15.80 in 2017 so yes, very much trending Tory.


    The only marginal of the 10 Leics seats is Loughborough, which still is a bellwether.
    Could Labour please make a special effort there next time? The gain to public life would be considerable if they could take it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    edited April 2018
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:



    So as an LD, and past supporter of the last Coalition, would be most happy with Jezza as a minority government, kept on a short leash by a post Cable LD leader.

    I take the opposite view myself. As a Lib Dem I'd be utterly horrified if my party did anything at all to prop up a Corbyn government. The man is a monster, frankly.

    Support for a Tory government would be unwise, and a majority LD government seems some way off.

    I am not suggesting Coalition, or even Confidence and Supply, but could see a LD party supporting some minority Lab gov legislation.
    The Lib Dems would lose my vote if there was any chance of them propping up a Corbyn government.
    They are not going to be propping up a Tory one.

    In practice any such NoC outcome would lead to a second election.

    All theoretical though. I think it quite likely that none of the parties will have the current leader at the next General Election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    Trump self-declares as a "germophobe" so he couldn't possibly be associated with any suggestion he could go anywhere near urine,especially in Moscow,with sex-workers.

    Urine is normally sterile so that excuse won't wash.
    Maybe that explanation was just him taking the piss...
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    I should say PVI does not cover Northern Ireland. I have the underying data for Con/Lab/LD, although I am focussing on the Tories.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
    NW Leics was +3.6 in 2005, +8.45 in 2010, +12.60 in 2015 and +15.80 in 2017 so yes, very much trending Tory.


    The only marginal of the 10 Leics seats is Loughborough, which still is a bellwether.
    Loughborough trended somewhat to the Tories until 2015, which was reversed in 2017. As I say though, PVI creates new "marginals".
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
    NW Leics was +3.6 in 2005, +8.45 in 2010, +12.60 in 2015 and +15.80 in 2017 so yes, very much trending Tory.


    The only marginal of the 10 Leics seats is Loughborough, which still is a bellwether.
    Could Labour please make a special effort there next time? The gain to public life would be considerable if they could take it.
    Nicky Morgan is a good constituency MP, without her personal vote it is quite possible that May would have found it even harder to form a government.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    The most up-and-down seats for the Tories are:

    Castle Point
    Isle of Wight
    Brent Central
    Hampstead and Kilburn
    Richmond Park
    Ealing Southall
    Aldridge-Brownhills
    Winchester
    Hartlepool

    Mostly the effect of third parties (UKIP and the LibDems)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
    NW Leics was +3.6 in 2005, +8.45 in 2010, +12.60 in 2015 and +15.80 in 2017 so yes, very much trending Tory.


    The only marginal of the 10 Leics seats is Loughborough, which still is a bellwether.
    Could Labour please make a special effort there next time? The gain to public life would be considerable if they could take it.
    Nicky Morgan is a good constituency MP, without her personal vote it is quite possible that May would have found it even harder to form a government.
    Is she? Well I'm glad to hear she's good at something.

    I will also say she wasn't the worst Sec of State for Education of the last 30 years. However, that isn't especially difficult.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:



    So as an LD, and past supporter of the last Coalition, would be most happy with Jezza as a minority government, kept on a short leash by a post Cable LD leader.

    I take the opposite view myself. As a Lib Dem I'd be utterly horrified if my party did anything at all to prop up a Corbyn government. The man is a monster, frankly.

    Support for a Tory government would be unwise, and a majority LD government seems some way off.

    I am not suggesting Coalition, or even Confidence and Supply, but could see a LD party supporting some minority Lab gov legislation.
    The Lib Dems would lose my vote if there was any chance of them propping up a Corbyn government.
    You won't really know until after the next GE though will you?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:



    So as an LD, and past supporter of the last Coalition, would be most happy with Jezza as a minority government, kept on a short leash by a post Cable LD leader.

    I take the opposite view myself. As a Lib Dem I'd be utterly horrified if my party did anything at all to prop up a Corbyn government. The man is a monster, frankly.

    Support for a Tory government would be unwise, and a majority LD government seems some way off.

    I am not suggesting Coalition, or even Confidence and Supply, but could see a LD party supporting some minority Lab gov legislation.
    The Lib Dems would lose my vote if there was any chance of them propping up a Corbyn government.
    You won't really know until after the next GE though will you?
    True. But I can see what their leader says. And if it is anything other than an unequivocal no, I won’t vote for them.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
    NW Leics was +3.6 in 2005, +8.45 in 2010, +12.60 in 2015 and +15.80 in 2017 so yes, very much trending Tory.


    The only marginal of the 10 Leics seats is Loughborough, which still is a bellwether.
    Could Labour please make a special effort there next time? The gain to public life would be considerable if they could take it.
    Nicky Morgan is a good constituency MP, without her personal vote it is quite possible that May would have found it even harder to form a government.
    Andy Reid was a good constituency MP for Loughborough, who sadly lost his seat to the waste of space who now represents the seat.

    Bed time.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    The top 29 seats to be trending away from Labour are ALL in Scotland (I'm excluding Buckingham for obvious reasons).

    The top ten are all very urban seats:

    Bethnal Green and Bow
    Birmingham Hall Green
    Leicester South
    Birmingham Hodge Hill
    Poplar and Limehouse
    Manchester Withington
    Walthamstow
    Liverpool Wavertree
    Birmingham Ladywood
    East Ham

    Indeed the first 58 seats most to trend Labour are all urban or suburban. Number 59 is Truro and Falmouth.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    nielh said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    It is all part of May's "Hostile Environment" for immigrants. Enoch would be proud, he specifically mentioned Commonwealth Doctors returning to their original nation.
    SNIP SNIP SNIP
    I know people who have been put back straight back on planes when landing in the US because they have played fast and loose with their visas.
    To look at it another way: why are the home office spending tens of thousand pounds going through the courts trying to deport this guy, when we have just spent money training him to do a job in the NHS (GP) where there is an enormous skill shortage?

    Its just a total waste of money. He should just be given the opportunity of regularising his situation.
    Well that is what I said in the original post, but I was just pointing out again that people seem to think that uk visa rules are optional / don’t apply to them and then get a shock when having broken them they get a negative outcome and then guardian publishes a soft soap piece about it breezing over that they broke the rules.
    Isn't the real point though that this is an absurd and ridiculous area of public policy?

    You have the Government going around deporting vulnerable people who have been here for 40 years, and who probably have every moral right to be here, yet they don't have the paperwork. It's only the guardian that report on it. Thats one of the reasons why I am a guardian 'supporter'.

    Whenever it comes up on PB, the poor person involved is inevitably cast as a liar with something to hide, with the guardian only telling 'one side of the story', yet of course the PB commentariat show no actual inclination to look in to what is really going on or find out the truth.

    As for this guys case, people in the 20's are often late in sorting paperwork out. It happens to us all. It shouldn't be a big deal. Its a life lesson, not a ground to haul someone through the courts to deport them. The Home office bureaucracy has gone rogue and needs to be set straight.
    The issue is that the Home Office needs to treat everyone equally.

    If you have, say, a 15 day cure period for everyone then effectively you are just extending the original period and you would still get these cases.

    The just thing to do is to send him back to Singapore but to fast track him back in with a legal visa.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
    NW Leics was +3.6 in 2005, +8.45 in 2010, +12.60 in 2015 and +15.80 in 2017 so yes, very much trending Tory.


    What do the numbers mean ?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    edited April 2018

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
    NW Leics was +3.6 in 2005, +8.45 in 2010, +12.60 in 2015 and +15.80 in 2017 so yes, very much trending Tory.


    What do the numbers mean ?
    The Tory voteshare in the seat in 2005 was 3.6% higher than the national (inc. NI*) average whereas in 2017 it was 15.8% higher.

    (*Since we are talking trends, this doesn't make much difference.)

    The Tories improved their position nationally, but they improved it in NW Leics even more.
  • Regarding PVI, I thought it would also be interesting to look at a whole region. If we look at the former county of Avon the situation in 1992 was as follows:

    Northavon C+43 (Lab in 3rd)
    Woodspring C+32 (Lab in 3rd)
    Weston C+29 (Lab in 3rd)
    Wansdyke C+13
    Bristol W - C+10 (Lab in 3rd)
    Kingswood - L+4
    Bristol NW - L+8
    Bristol E - L+12
    Bristol S - L+26
    Bath LD maj 7%

    In 2017 it is as follows:

    Thornbury & Y C+41 (Lab in 3rd)
    N Somerset C+26
    Weston C+18
    NE Somerset C+17
    Kingswood C+13
    Filton & BS - C+6
    Bristol NW - L+7
    Bristol S - L+27
    Bristol E - L+28
    Bristol W - L+54
    Bath LD maj 12%

    Bristol W has massively swung Lab, and Lab have made some progress in Weston and N Somerset as the LDs have declined but Kingswood has swung the other way, while Con currently have the new seat that was created in Filton.

    The change in Bristol W reflects the fact that the large houses have been split up into flats or become shared/student houses. The change in Kingswood reflects the new housing that has been built in estates like Emersons Green
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following the conversation about a UK Partisan Voting Index - i.e. to what extent does a seat typically out- or under-perform a party's national share, the biggest changers for the Tories since 2005 have been:

    Moving towards the Tories:

    1. Wyre Forest (always a Con seat)
    2. Banff and Buchan (Con gain 2017)
    3. Mansfield (Con gain 2017)
    4. Stoke-on-Trent North (never won - just a lot closer now)
    5. Plymouth Moor View (Con gain 2015)
    6. Chesterfield (never won - just a lot closer now)
    7. Morley and Outwood (Con gain 2015)
    8. Moray (Con gain 2017)
    9. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Con gain 2017)
    10. Cannock Chase (Con gain 2010)

    Moving away from the Tories:

    10. Orkney and Shetland (never won - indeed only started on 13%)
    9. Hove (gain 2010, lost 2015)
    8. Dulwich and West Norwood (never won)
    7. Hammersmith (never won)
    6. Enfield North (lost 2015 - now out of sight)
    5. Ilford South (never won)
    4. Sheffield Hallam (never won)
    3. Leeds North West (never won)
    2. Wallasey (never won)
    1. Bradford West (never won)


    Cannock Chase has a lot of nice new executive housing for Birmingham going up. As people in good jobs in Birmingham realised they could get a very nice four bedroom house in Cannock or Rugeley for around £250,000, they started moving to it. That's a trend that's only going to strengthen with the upgrade of the Chase line giving us trains to Stafford, Liverpool, Birmingham and possibly London every 15 minutes.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a very solid Labour vote and indeed some serious pockets of deprivation. I believe Rugeley has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the whole country, for example. But it does suggest that this is a seat that will continue tending heavily blue over time, much faster than I had expected.
    NW Leics is much the same, with lots of new housing and industrial units on the old coalfield. Trending Tory.
    NW Leics was +3.6 in 2005, +8.45 in 2010, +12.60 in 2015 and +15.80 in 2017 so yes, very much trending Tory.


    What do the numbers mean ?
    The Tory voteshare in the seat in 2005 was 3.6% higher than the national (inc. NI*) average whereas in 2017 it was 15.8% higher.

    (*Since we are talking trends, this doesn't make much difference.)

    The Tories improved their position nationally, but they improved it in NW Leics even more.
    Thanks.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Regarding PVI, I thought it would also be interesting to look at a whole region. If we look at the former county of Avon the situation in 1992 was as follows:

    Northavon C+43 (Lab in 3rd)
    Woodspring C+32 (Lab in 3rd)
    Weston C+29 (Lab in 3rd)
    Wansdyke C+13
    Bristol W - C+10 (Lab in 3rd)
    Kingswood - L+4
    Bristol NW - L+8
    Bristol E - L+12
    Bristol S - L+26
    Bath LD maj 7%

    In 2017 it is as follows:

    Thornbury & Y C+41 (Lab in 3rd)
    N Somerset C+26
    Weston C+18
    NE Somerset C+17
    Kingswood C+13
    Filton & BS - C+6
    Bristol NW - L+7
    Bristol S - L+27
    Bristol E - L+28
    Bristol W - L+54
    Bath LD maj 12%

    Bristol W has massively swung Lab, and Lab have made some progress in Weston and N Somerset as the LDs have declined but Kingswood has swung the other way, while Con currently have the new seat that was created in Filton.

    The change in Bristol W reflects the fact that the large houses have been split up into flats or become shared/student houses. The change in Kingswood reflects the new housing that has been built in estates like Emersons Green

    Interesting points. (Not important but I don't understand your Northavon 1992 figure. The Tories were 17% ahead of the LDs at that election).
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Hmmm

    http://tass.com/defense/999641

    sorry, not sold on this
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Floater said:

    Hmmm

    http://tass.com/defense/999641

    sorry, not sold on this

    The UK seems to be the new Israel. They see the hand of the British state at work everywhere.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Floater said:

    Hmmm

    http://tass.com/defense/999641

    sorry, not sold on this

    The UK seems to be the new Israel. They see the hand of the British state at work everywhere.
    No wonder Corbyn gets on so well with Russia and Iran
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited April 2018
    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    I saw some similar stuff earlier

  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Floater said:

    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    I saw some similar stuff earlier

    Yeah I posted about it Wednesday & Thursday that something odd was going on, and it seems that the DoD was digging its heels in. There is a lot of dust and smoke being kicked up but what I do know is there are some air assets on the move. Positioning, monitoring or striking I do not know but its more volume than has been loping around sniffing the air in recent days.

    This thing has been so convoluted that god knows what the comings and goings are.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Y0kel said:

    Floater said:

    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    I saw some similar stuff earlier

    Yeah I posted about it Wednesday & Thursday that something odd was going on, and it seems that the DoD was digging its heels in. There is a lot of dust and smoke being kicked up but what I do know is there are some air assets on the move. Positioning, monitoring or striking I do not know but its more volume than has been loping around sniffing the air in recent days.

    This thing has been so convoluted that god knows what the comings and goings are.
    You saw the continuous P8 flights and the RAF deployment?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2018
    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    Technical question: is there a way of destroying chemical stocks without causing widespread damage to the local area where they're stored?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    AndyJS said:

    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    Technical question: is there a way of destroying chemical stocks without causing widespread damage to the local area where they're stored?
    I will bow to Yokel on this but I think if the temperature is high enough they can be destroyed
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    AndyJS said:

    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    Technical question: is there a way of destroying chemical stocks without causing widespread damage to the local area where they're stored?
    Yep. blow them up and incinerate them.

  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited April 2018
    Floater said:

    Y0kel said:

    Floater said:

    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    I saw some similar stuff earlier

    Yeah I posted about it Wednesday & Thursday that something odd was going on, and it seems that the DoD was digging its heels in. There is a lot of dust and smoke being kicked up but what I do know is there are some air assets on the move. Positioning, monitoring or striking I do not know but its more volume than has been loping around sniffing the air in recent days.

    This thing has been so convoluted that god knows what the comings and goings are.
    You saw the continuous P8 flights and the RAF deployment?
    The US have been flying more than the P8 flights, there has been a large gathering effort for days now but the ostensibly maritime patrol flights have been like clockwork. Its more the appearance of other resources in the air that may have a different reason to be cruising through being there but would be worth taking note of. Like USAF tankers.

    Nothing, however is certain til you see a weapon launched. Trump is due to make a statement shortly. If usual protocol is practiced, actions are already underway. The only alternatives are a statement to say we will be doing it before you do it, which is stupid, or a volte face.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Y0kel said:

    Floater said:

    Y0kel said:

    Floater said:

    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    I saw some similar stuff earlier

    Yeah I posted about it Wednesday & Thursday that something odd was going on, and it seems that the DoD was digging its heels in. There is a lot of dust and smoke being kicked up but what I do know is there are some air assets on the move. Positioning, monitoring or striking I do not know but its more volume than has been loping around sniffing the air in recent days.

    This thing has been so convoluted that god knows what the comings and goings are.
    You saw the continuous P8 flights and the RAF deployment?
    The US have been flying more than the P8 flights, there has been a large gathering effort for days now but the ostensibly maritime patrol flights have been like clockwork. Its more the appearance of other resources in the air that may have a different reason to be cruising through being there but would be worth taking note of. Like USAF tankers.

    Nothing, however is certain til you see a weapon launched. Trump is due to make a statement shortly. If usual protocol is practiced, actions are already underway. The only alternatives are a statement to say we will be doing it before you do it, which is stupid, or a volte face.
    cheers for that
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    yokel - 2 things

    Did you see my link below re possible Russian actions if they decide to respond, and

    What time is Trump talking .. and is it a planned statement
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Floater said:

    What time is Trump talking .. and is it a planned statement

    9pm so in 10 minutes.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    will try to hold on in my poker tourney for 10 more minutes then
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Floater said:

    yokel - 2 things

    Did you see my link below re possible Russian actions if they decide to respond, and

    What time is Trump talking .. and is it a planned statement

    At this point the only thing standing between us and global nuclear armageddon is the pee tape
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Floater said:

    yokel - 2 things

    Did you see my link below re possible Russian actions if they decide to respond, and

    What time is Trump talking .. and is it a planned statement

    At this point the only thing standing between us and global nuclear armageddon is the pee tape
    Do try and have a sense of perspective - this is not the Cuban missile crisis
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    I think I can guess which way he went
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Floater said:

    yokel - 2 things

    Did you see my link below re possible Russian actions if they decide to respond, and

    What time is Trump talking .. and is it a planned statement

    In 2 minutes.

    I'd not bet on any particular Russian response other than attempt to shoot down some incoming missiles. In fact if the DoD have done their work, the Russians will sit still.

    Anything beyond is real guesswork.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Yep - they have attacked
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    France and UK both involved
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    doesn't sound like a token response
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Action in and around Damascus. At least two of the DoD minimal target list are in the main city.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    So they were tankers in the air.

    It looks like a graded US process: Hit, pause, get something from Assad & Russia or hit again.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Y0kel said:

    So they were tankers in the air.

    It looks like a graded US process: Hit, pause, get something from Assad & Russia or hit again.

    Yes - he certainly is looking at more than a token attack
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    There is no clarity on whether the Damascus explosions are air launched or surface launched weapons but at this point it would be a surprise if everything was not stand off in nature.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Mr Trump said U.S., allies were prepared for a "sustained" response until Syrian government stops use of chemical weapons.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Floater said:

    Y0kel said:

    So they were tankers in the air.

    It looks like a graded US process: Hit, pause, get something from Assad & Russia or hit again.

    Yes - he certainly is looking at more than a token attack
    Depends, five of these things landing is like an apocalypse. Plus it appears air defences are going in volume to try to bring the missiles down. Also very loud.

    But then all we are aware of is Damascus. No other reports.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited April 2018
    Eyes on Akiotiri, they are reportedly off. Short hop.

    It looks like bases of one his most Assad's steadfast units, the 4th Division may also be on the list as well as an airfield but reports so far are distant from both facilities.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Y0kel said:

    Eyes on Akiotiri, they are reportedly off. Short hop.

    It looks like bases of one his most Assad's steadfast units, the 4th Division may also be on the list as well as an airfield.

    Most importantly - Russians at any of these locations?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Pentagon briefing in 40 mins
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Floater said:

    Y0kel said:

    Eyes on Akiotiri, they are reportedly off. Short hop.

    It looks like bases of one his most Assad's steadfast units, the 4th Division may also be on the list as well as an airfield.

    Most importantly - Russians at any of these locations?
    They should have bugged out if they were. Badged personnel have consolidated.

    It should be that some of the delivery is coming from where everyone is not looking, not just over the Med. Anything coming that way is much more in sight of air defences and of course it may well be that an air launched RAF mission will come in exactly that way.....
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Y0kel said:

    Floater said:

    Y0kel said:

    Eyes on Akiotiri, they are reportedly off. Short hop.

    It looks like bases of one his most Assad's steadfast units, the 4th Division may also be on the list as well as an airfield.

    Most importantly - Russians at any of these locations?
    They should have bugged out if they were. Badged personnel have consolidated.

    It should be that some of the delivery is coming from where everyone is not looking, not just over the Med. Anything coming that way is much more in sight of air defences and of course it may well be that an air launched RAF mission will come in exactly that way.....
    God - I still shudder to remember our Tornado attacks in Gulf war one - stay safe people
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    New party contesting the local elections in some places. Don't much like the sound of them myself:

    https://dvparty.uk/
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Y0kel said:

    AndyJS said:

    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    Technical question: is there a way of destroying chemical stocks without causing widespread damage to the local area where they're stored?
    Yep. blow them up and incinerate them.

    Silly question I suppose, but I don't know anything about the subject.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    AndyJS said:

    New party contesting the local elections in some places. Don't much like the sound of them myself:

    https://dvparty.uk/

    Never heard of them
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    AndyJS said:

    Y0kel said:

    AndyJS said:

    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    Technical question: is there a way of destroying chemical stocks without causing widespread damage to the local area where they're stored?
    Yep. blow them up and incinerate them.

    Silly question I suppose, but I don't know anything about the subject.
    Nothing wrong in asking if unsure
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Floater said:

    AndyJS said:

    Y0kel said:

    AndyJS said:

    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    Technical question: is there a way of destroying chemical stocks without causing widespread damage to the local area where they're stored?
    Yep. blow them up and incinerate them.

    Silly question I suppose, but I don't know anything about the subject.
    Nothing wrong in asking if unsure
    I thought that if you just blow them up you might release a cloud of toxic fumes or something like that, and that there might be a special type of missile to stop that happening.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    AndyJS said:
    Man it's obvious when he's reading from an autocue.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Allegedly B1B's have been involved
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    More seriously, guys.

    Has anyone been to the Galapagos Islands? If so, any recommendations.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    AndyJS said:

    Floater said:

    AndyJS said:

    Y0kel said:

    AndyJS said:

    Y0kel said:

    It looks like something significant re: Syria is coming out this evening.

    Stories from Washington suggest Mattis fought an action for minimal strikes but may well have been overruled. This would tally with the last 24-36 hours of leaks and public pronouncements from the DoD who were setting out their stall in public forums.

    Soon see.

    Technical question: is there a way of destroying chemical stocks without causing widespread damage to the local area where they're stored?
    Yep. blow them up and incinerate them.

    Silly question I suppose, but I don't know anything about the subject.
    Nothing wrong in asking if unsure
    I thought that if you just blow them up you might release a cloud of toxic fumes or something like that, and that there might be a special type of missile to stop that happening.
    Not a chemist, but I think burning is the usual way to dispose of chemical weapons. Probably very high risk to do it with a missile though!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Putin's response will be interesting.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    AndyJS said:

    New party contesting the local elections in some places. Don't much like the sound of them myself:

    https://dvparty.uk/

    I think it's unlikely they will 'break the mold'.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    rcs1000 said:

    More seriously, guys.

    Has anyone been to the Galapagos Islands? If so, any recommendations.

    I'm going to shamelessly piggy back that - any recommendations for Iceland - will be late October at earliest to end of year
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Floater said:

    rcs1000 said:

    More seriously, guys.

    Has anyone been to the Galapagos Islands? If so, any recommendations.

    I'm going to shamelessly piggy back that - any recommendations for Iceland - will be late October at earliest to end of year
    Not been myself, but I know SeanT has.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Definitely right about the tankers, B-1 bombers with stand off gear are according to US reports part of the operation.

    It appears that notes and a complete set of instructions of the Israeli strike a number of days back has made its way to US planners. Theres a bit of a weak spot that a lot of this stuff is coming through. And thats just one weak spot.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited April 2018
    And all being well, the Tornados are on their way back.

    And possibly not to Akrotiri either.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Allegedly presidential palace and Mezzah Airport hit
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Y0kel said:

    And all being well, the Tornados are on their way back.

    Yep -allegedly they used stormshadow
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2018
    Floater said:

    Allegedly presidential palace and Mezzah Airport hit

    I find it difficult to believe they would potentially target Assad himself.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Reports Hezbollah positions hit - not sure that sounds correct in view of other targetting
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    AndyJS said:

    Floater said:

    Allegedly presidential palace and Mezzah Airport hit

    I find it difficult to believe they would potentially target Assad himself.
    He isnt there.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Washington mène des frappes en Syrie, en coordination avec Paris et Londres"

    http://www.lemonde.fr/
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Damascus airport also apparently has been serviced
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    And the Typhoons are back in Cyprus.

    You just hope they have plenty of combat air patrols working. .
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Y0kel said:

    And the Typhoons are back in Cyprus.

    You just hope they have plenty of combat air patrols working. .

    Would they really retaliate against the RAF base in Cyprus?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    We've got another nutter as PM.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    RobD said:

    Y0kel said:

    And the Typhoons are back in Cyprus.

    You just hope they have plenty of combat air patrols working. .

    Would they really retaliate against the RAF base in Cyprus?
    They said they would - but they say lots of things
This discussion has been closed.