Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Political cross-dressing

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 20 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Political cross-dressing

One of the oddest political developments is how certain concerns are seen as the exclusive property of one side or other of the Left/Right political divide, almost regardless of the nature of the issue or the reality of a party’s record.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 943
    first
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    2nd like HS2.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 42,624

    2nd like HS2.

    it's in the name. :D
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,907
    Is there a PBer with expertise of Irish politics who wants to write a guest slot? This will be held on Saturday, 8 February 2020.

    Please contact mike at politicalbetting.com
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273
    Cancelled, like lots of Trans-Pennine Express services.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273
    Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 17,864

    Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?

    It is more nuanced.
    Every so often the greedy, selfish bastards think there might be votes in it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 28,877

    Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?

    In government. This has been the greenest government ever, actually cutting our carbon consumption and not just offshoring it.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 86

    Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?

    In government. This has been the greenest government ever, actually cutting our carbon consumption and not just offshoring it.
    Wasn´t that one of the Lib Dem contributions in the Coalition years?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 652

    Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?

    I am not on the left of the political bell curve and I think, and have thought for 40 years, that it is self evident that “…..consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world.”
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,440
    edited January 20
    Brexit Bill at Report Stage in Lords - various amendments likely to go to a vote.

    Vote 1 - Govt Defeat by 270-229.

    Amendment passed to give physical documentation to EU citizens.
  • Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?

    Or every single solution proposed by XR and the Greens involves imposing the same economic and social theory that was junked three decades ago. I have first hand experience of these people. its note pretty.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 28,877
    ClippP said:

    Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?

    In government. This has been the greenest government ever, actually cutting our carbon consumption and not just offshoring it.
    Wasn´t that one of the Lib Dem contributions in the Coalition years?
    No. The Lib Dems don't want to have anything to do with the Coalition years and the decline in carbon consumption has if anything escalated since then. No government before this one had cut carbon consumption, they'd just offshored carbon production which does absolutely nothing to affect global climate levels.

    This is the only government ever with a green record on that agenda. Just as it was a Conservative PM and government who dealt with the ozone hole etc.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,546

    Cancelled, like lots of Trans-Pennine Express services.

    Saw two brand new Class 397s at Glasgow Central last night!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,055
    Things are not as exclusively right or left as we usually pretend. Its just easier.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    It will be interesting to see where Labour go on the environment after the change in leadership. Their Green New Deal did not get the hoped for traction during the GE. Was this because it got swallowed up by "Corbyn" and "Brexit" or was it because there are not as many votes in it as one would have thought? Is the environment a topic that people say they care about more than they actually do?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122

    Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?

    Roger Scruton: "Green Philosophy: How to Think Seriously About the Planet"
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,019
    edited January 20
    When are the U.S primary results announced?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,074
    kinabalu said:

    It will be interesting to see where Labour go on the environment after the change in leadership. Their Green New Deal did not get the hoped for traction during the GE. Was this because it got swallowed up by "Corbyn" and "Brexit" or was it because there are not as many votes in it as one would have thought? Is the environment a topic that people say they care about more than they actually do?

    It didn't get any traction for two related reasons. Firstly no-one had a clue what on earth it was supposed to mean. Secondly it clearly wasn't a priority since it was just one of zillions of impossible-sounding things which Labour claimed they wanted to do.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273

    Cancelled, like lots of Trans-Pennine Express services.

    Saw two brand new Class 397s at Glasgow Central last night!
    Bad luck! You should have been at Edinburgh for the 68s on the Fife Circle commuter turns...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 28,877

    kinabalu said:

    It will be interesting to see where Labour go on the environment after the change in leadership. Their Green New Deal did not get the hoped for traction during the GE. Was this because it got swallowed up by "Corbyn" and "Brexit" or was it because there are not as many votes in it as one would have thought? Is the environment a topic that people say they care about more than they actually do?

    It didn't get any traction for two related reasons. Firstly no-one had a clue what on earth it was supposed to mean. Secondly it clearly wasn't a priority since it was just one of zillions of impossible-sounding things which Labour claimed they wanted to do.
    "If you prioritise everything, you prioritise nothing"
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273
    kinabalu said:

    It will be interesting to see where Labour go on the environment after the change in leadership. Their Green New Deal did not get the hoped for traction during the GE. Was this because it got swallowed up by "Corbyn" and "Brexit" or was it because there are not as many votes in it as one would have thought? Is the environment a topic that people say they care about more than they actually do?

    My criticism of our Environment Policy was that it was a jobs policy with some green window dressing. I accept that this may not be the mainstream view.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,013
    Interesting article, thanks Cyclefree. Essentially I think the environment is politically neutral (because we all have an interest in living in satisfactory surroundings, though we may vary in non-political ways in how we define that), but because it impinges on corporate practices it tempts the left to regulate and the right to resist.

    At present, Conservatives in Britain seem to me to be making a reasonably serious effort to get to grips with the issue, since they see a Blue/Green partnership as a useful extension to their core vote which won't lead them into unacceptable compromises. The German CDU certainly sees the Greens as acceptable partners. Among authoritarian regimes, China is showing a fair amount of awareness in the abrupt way that such regimes act (they're about to suddenly make plastics bags illegal), though Russia appears oblivious The main standout seems to be in the US, where as Cyclefree says there are lots of free marketeers who see it all as a commie plot. Having a lot of space makes the discussion harder - it's at least feasible to have a lot more landfill in Siberia, not so much in Bedfordshire.

    The main problem is that although in Europe almost everyone buys into this stuff in principle, if it comes to major decisions then people peel off rapidly. For instance, it appears from a whole series of UN and other reports that we need to reduce meat consumption significantly because of the climate change impact (not just methane etc. but also the forest clearances to produce more and more animal feed), but even Caroline Lucas is wary of doing more than suggesting that a meat tax might be discussed.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,023
    edited January 20

    kinabalu said:

    It will be interesting to see where Labour go on the environment after the change in leadership. Their Green New Deal did not get the hoped for traction during the GE. Was this because it got swallowed up by "Corbyn" and "Brexit" or was it because there are not as many votes in it as one would have thought? Is the environment a topic that people say they care about more than they actually do?

    My criticism of our Environment Policy was that it was a jobs policy with some green window dressing. I accept that this may not be the mainstream view.
    The green new deal is indeed wooly in the extreme at the moment, Until it's worked out what it means in terms of 'real world impact' it'll remain so.

    IE. How much more is it going to cost me to run my car or go on holiday?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273

    kinabalu said:

    It will be interesting to see where Labour go on the environment after the change in leadership. Their Green New Deal did not get the hoped for traction during the GE. Was this because it got swallowed up by "Corbyn" and "Brexit" or was it because there are not as many votes in it as one would have thought? Is the environment a topic that people say they care about more than they actually do?

    It didn't get any traction for two related reasons. Firstly no-one had a clue what on earth it was supposed to mean. Secondly it clearly wasn't a priority since it was just one of zillions of impossible-sounding things which Labour claimed they wanted to do.
    "If you prioritise everything, you prioritise nothing"
    A manifesto resembling a 4-year-old's Christmas list, as I like to put it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 652

    kinabalu said:

    It will be interesting to see where Labour go on the environment after the change in leadership. Their Green New Deal did not get the hoped for traction during the GE. Was this because it got swallowed up by "Corbyn" and "Brexit" or was it because there are not as many votes in it as one would have thought? Is the environment a topic that people say they care about more than they actually do?

    It didn't get any traction for two related reasons. Firstly no-one had a clue what on earth it was supposed to mean. Secondly it clearly wasn't a priority since it was just one of zillions of impossible-sounding things which Labour claimed they wanted to do.
    A google suggests it wasn't Labour's Green New Deal, they borrowed/endorsed it.

    What it means is, rebuilding all infrastructure everywhere so it's green as fck, and that will both save the planet and create gazillions of new jobs.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,074
    edited January 20
    I used to work very closely with the guy who's organising that rally (he wrote some software which was the basis of a lot of my company's early products, and for which we eventually bought out the rights). I haven't seen him for about thirty years, though.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.
    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    I had Virginia down as one of two possible Trump gains this Presidential election. Rallies like this probably make that less likely.

  • @rcs1000

    I think he's around 2-1 for Iowa.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/19/mayor-pete-buttigieg-birthday-100810
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,074
    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    The 15% bar applies at the precinct level, right? So on that basis all four will get at least some delegates.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 20
    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Sanders is actually up 5% on the last Iowa poll from this pollster with Warren down 5% and Biden down 1% on 24%. Buttigieg is up 4% and Klobuchar up 3%, so Sanders is the biggest gainer followed by Buttigieg

    https://www.focusonruralamerica.com/2020/01/20/january-poll-results/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Before everyone piles on Biden in Iowa (this is the third poll in a row to show him with a six point lead), it's worth remembering that his voters are less politically engaged, he is less a beneficiary of second choices than other moderates, and his organisation is weaker than Sanders.

    On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.

    Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Margin of error is 4%. So could be anyone just about :smiley:

    I still think Buttigieg will win Iowa. Only a couple of weeks now.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Sanders is actually up 5% on the last Iowa poll from this pollster with Warren down 6% and Biden unchanged on 25%

    https://www.focusonruralamerica.com/2020/01/20/january-poll-results/
    Without context on *when* the last poll was, that is a meaningless comment. Was it at a time Sanders was flying high? Or perhaps it was when he was doing really badly in the aftermath of his heart attack. Without that context, him being up is not relevant. It would be like me saying, hey, Buttigieg was at 1% a year ago, and now he's at 16% he's flying. If I said that, I would be rightly mocked.

    Sanders was clear second a week ago. I wrote yesterday that he was the favourite for Iowa. But there have now been two datapoints that throw severe doubt on that, and which have him in (respectively) fourth and fifth position in Iowa. Both of them show him failing to make the 15% cutoff. That's not good news for him.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Before everyone piles on Biden in Iowa (this is the third poll in a row to show him with a six point lead), it's worth remembering that his voters are less politically engaged, he is less a beneficiary of second choices than other moderates, and his organisation is weaker than Sanders.

    On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.

    Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
    Is Biden less of a home for 2nd choices? That Rural America poll says not, unless I am misreading.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 20
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Sanders is actually up 5% on the last Iowa poll from this pollster with Warren down 6% and Biden unchanged on 25%

    https://www.focusonruralamerica.com/2020/01/20/january-poll-results/
    Without context on *when* the last poll was, that is a meaningless comment. Was it at a time Sanders was flying high? Or perhaps it was when he was doing really badly in the aftermath of his heart attack. Without that context, him being up is not relevant. It would be like me saying, hey, Buttigieg was at 1% a year ago, and now he's at 16% he's flying. If I said that, I would be rightly mocked.

    Sanders was clear second a week ago. I wrote yesterday that he was the favourite for Iowa. But there have now been two datapoints that throw severe doubt on that, and which have him in (respectively) fourth and fifth position in Iowa. Both of them show him failing to make the 15% cutoff. That's not good news for him.
    It is good news for Sanders that he is still going up, even in a pollster that was previously giving very bad single digit results for him. There is actually a swing from Warren to Sanders on this poll
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,689

    2nd like HS2.

    Definitely from here. That is, in a race from Wolverhampton to Euston using the WCML and HS2, you'll end up coming 2nd if you use HS2.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    edited January 20
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Sanders is actually up 5% on the last Iowa poll from this pollster with Warren down 6% and Biden unchanged on 25%

    https://www.focusonruralamerica.com/2020/01/20/january-poll-results/
    Without context on *when* the last poll was, that is a meaningless comment. Was it at a time Sanders was flying high? Or perhaps it was when he was doing really badly in the aftermath of his heart attack. Without that context, him being up is not relevant. It would be like me saying, hey, Buttigieg was at 1% a year ago, and now he's at 16% he's flying. If I said that, I would be rightly mocked.

    Sanders was clear second a week ago. I wrote yesterday that he was the favourite for Iowa. But there have now been two datapoints that throw severe doubt on that, and which have him in (respectively) fourth and fifth position in Iowa. Both of them show him failing to make the 15% cutoff. That's not good news for him.
    It is good news that Sanders is still going up, even in a pollster that was previously giving bad results for him
    It's not good news if you had my book.

    Or if you dont want four more years of Trump.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    The state polling at the moment looks pretty decent for most of the leading Dem candidates (vs Trumpton),

    I assume that the FL poll that has Trumpton 'feeling the Bern' is something of an outlier!!

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/
  • RobDRobD Posts: 42,624

    The state polling at the moment looks pretty decent for most of the leading Dem candidates (vs Trumpton),

    I assume that the FL poll that has Trumpton 'feeling the Bern' is something of an outlier!!

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

    I thought polls were meaningless at this stage? :D
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,454

    When are the U.S primary results announced?

    Usually overnight after each primary.
  • kinabalu said:

    It will be interesting to see where Labour go on the environment after the change in leadership. Their Green New Deal did not get the hoped for traction during the GE. Was this because it got swallowed up by "Corbyn" and "Brexit" or was it because there are not as many votes in it as one would have thought? Is the environment a topic that people say they care about more than they actually do?

    It didn't get any traction for two related reasons. Firstly no-one had a clue what on earth it was supposed to mean. Secondly it clearly wasn't a priority since it was just one of zillions of impossible-sounding things which Labour claimed they wanted to do.
    Green New Deal has been doing the rounds for a while yet remains simultaneous diaphanous and opaque.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    The 15% bar applies at the precinct level, right? So on that basis all four will get at least some delegates.
    Yeah but.

    Imagine there are four candidates statewide, with two on 35%, and two on 15%.

    They all make the 15% threshold and get proportionate delegates, right?

    Ah but...

    The person on 35% statewide will get (say) 25-45% of the vote in each precinct. By contrast the person on 15% will get 10-20%. In other words, at 15%, you'll probably only get delegates in half of precincts. So, being at 20% rather than 12% can make a massive difference in the number of delegates you get.
  • rpjs said:

    When are the U.S primary results announced?

    Usually overnight after each primary.
    Are they in middle February?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 20

    rpjs said:

    When are the U.S primary results announced?

    Usually overnight after each primary.
    Are they in middle February?
    They run from the Iowa caucuses on February 3rd and the New Hampshire primary on February 11th until June when states like New Jersey and Montana vote, get used to plenty of late nights if you are a US politics geek

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
  • HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    When are the U.S primary results announced?

    Usually overnight after each primary.
    Are they in middle February?
    They run from the Iowa caucuses on February 2nd until July, get used to plenty of late nights if you are a US politics geek
    Cheers.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,013

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Margin of error is 4%. So could be anyone just about :smiley:

    I still think Buttigieg will win Iowa. Only a couple of weeks now.
    There's not much evidence of switching as a result of the debate in the poll details, though there's a possible indication that both Warren and Sanders lost ground after their spat.

    "We asked Iowans if they had a chance to watch Tuesday’s final debate before the caucus. 51% said they watched all or some of it. 40% said they saw none of it. This is a lower number of debate-watchers compared to those who took our survey following the June debate. But, 73% said they saw quite a bit or some of the news coverage of the debate.

    We asked if there are candidates that you are now considering after watching the debate. 16% said Biden, 11% said Klobuchar, 10% said Warren, 9% said Buttigieg and 7% said Sanders.

    We asked if there are candidates that you have definitely decided NOT to support based on their debate performance? 12% said Warren, 11% said Sanders, 4% said Steyer, 3% said Biden and Buttigieg and2% said Klobuchar."

    But I agree that the poll suggests that Sanders is not transfer-friendly among those planning to support minor candidates as their first preference.
  • Interesting looking back at last time that the Dems only had 3 candidates (and one was a no hoper), while the Reps had 12.

    Clinton won for the Dems with 50% and Cruz for the Reps with 28%, so 24% for the leading candidate in the poll is not that great.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819

    The state polling at the moment looks pretty decent for most of the leading Dem candidates (vs Trumpton),

    I assume that the FL poll that has Trumpton 'feeling the Bern' is something of an outlier!!

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

    That poll has Trump tieing Buttigieg in Florida but Sanders beating him, though most Florida polls have Trump ahead
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616

    My criticism of our Environment Policy was that it was a jobs policy with some green window dressing. I accept that this may not be the mainstream view.

    Well I sense that you are genuinely eco. But it didn't get much quality coverage as I recall. Perhaps, as people are saying, because there was so much else of interest in the manifesto.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Before everyone piles on Biden in Iowa (this is the third poll in a row to show him with a six point lead), it's worth remembering that his voters are less politically engaged, he is less a beneficiary of second choices than other moderates, and his organisation is weaker than Sanders.

    On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.

    Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
    Is Biden less of a home for 2nd choices? That Rural America poll says not, unless I am misreading.
    So... Monmouth did an Iowa poll with all the candidates first, and then just the top four. Here's the second poll, with the changes from the first:
    Biden      28% (+4%)
    Buttigieg 25% (+8%)
    Sanders 24% (+6%)
    Warren 16% (+1%)
    Now there are a couple of really interesting things here. Firstly, the "left track" gains seven points, while the moderate track gains twelve. This tells you that the majority of former Steyer, Booker, etc. voters are moderate. Secondly, it tells you that Buttigieg is twice as popular as a second choice among moderates as Biden. Thirdly, it tells you that Warren desperately needs to beat Sanders, as she isn't the second choice of people on the left of the party.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    HYUFD said:

    The state polling at the moment looks pretty decent for most of the leading Dem candidates (vs Trumpton),

    I assume that the FL poll that has Trumpton 'feeling the Bern' is something of an outlier!!

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

    That poll has Trump tieing Buttigieg in Florida but Sanders beating him, though most Florida polls have Trump ahead
    I think Trump will win Florida comfortably; it's a state that has moved meaningfully rightwards since 2008/2012.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Before everyone piles on Biden in Iowa (this is the third poll in a row to show him with a six point lead), it's worth remembering that his voters are less politically engaged, he is less a beneficiary of second choices than other moderates, and his organisation is weaker than Sanders.

    On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.

    Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
    Is Biden less of a home for 2nd choices? That Rural America poll says not, unless I am misreading.
    So... Monmouth did an Iowa poll with all the candidates first, and then just the top four. Here's the second poll, with the changes from the first:
    Biden      28% (+4%)
    Buttigieg 25% (+8%)
    Sanders 24% (+6%)
    Warren 16% (+1%)
    Now there are a couple of really interesting things here. Firstly, the "left track" gains seven points, while the moderate track gains twelve. This tells you that the majority of former Steyer, Booker, etc. voters are moderate. Secondly, it tells you that Buttigieg is twice as popular as a second choice among moderates as Biden. Thirdly, it tells you that Warren desperately needs to beat Sanders, as she isn't the second choice of people on the left of the party.
    Cruz beat Trump on second choices in 2016 amongst Republicans, look how that turned out
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Before everyone piles on Biden in Iowa (this is the third poll in a row to show him with a six point lead), it's worth remembering that his voters are less politically engaged, he is less a beneficiary of second choices than other moderates, and his organisation is weaker than Sanders.

    On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.

    Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
    Is Biden less of a home for 2nd choices? That Rural America poll says not, unless I am misreading.
    So... Monmouth did an Iowa poll with all the candidates first, and then just the top four. Here's the second poll, with the changes from the first:
    Biden      28% (+4%)
    Buttigieg 25% (+8%)
    Sanders 24% (+6%)
    Warren 16% (+1%)
    Now there are a couple of really interesting things here. Firstly, the "left track" gains seven points, while the moderate track gains twelve. This tells you that the majority of former Steyer, Booker, etc. voters are moderate. Secondly, it tells you that Buttigieg is twice as popular as a second choice among moderates as Biden. Thirdly, it tells you that Warren desperately needs to beat Sanders, as she isn't the second choice of people on the left of the party.
    Thanks.

    Pleasant reading for me as I am very green on Buttigieg
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 20
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The state polling at the moment looks pretty decent for most of the leading Dem candidates (vs Trumpton),

    I assume that the FL poll that has Trumpton 'feeling the Bern' is something of an outlier!!

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

    That poll has Trump tieing Buttigieg in Florida but Sanders beating him, though most Florida polls have Trump ahead
    I think Trump will win Florida comfortably; it's a state that has moved meaningfully rightwards since 2008/2012.
    Certainly outside Miami Dade, Palm Beach and Broward counties
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    edited January 20

    Interesting looking back at last time that the Dems only had 3 candidates (and one was a no hoper), while the Reps had 12.

    Clinton won for the Dems with 50% and Cruz for the Reps with 28%, so 24% for the leading candidate in the poll is not that great.

    Yes but...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    edited January 20
    Starmer definitely on the ballot, Guardian reporting.

    Usdaw have nominated him.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    rcs1000 said:

    Interesting looking back at last time that the Dems only had 3 candidates (and one was a no hoper), while the Reps had 12.

    Clinton won for the Dems with 50% and Cruz for the Reps with 28%, so 24% for the leading candidate in the poll is not that great.

    Yes but...
    Because low scoring candidates get eliminated, you'd expect that the vote share will end up concentrating. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like 40-30-20-10 in terms of delegate percentages.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The state polling at the moment looks pretty decent for most of the leading Dem candidates (vs Trumpton),

    I assume that the FL poll that has Trumpton 'feeling the Bern' is something of an outlier!!

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

    That poll has Trump tieing Buttigieg in Florida but Sanders beating him, though most Florida polls have Trump ahead
    I think Trump will win Florida comfortably; it's a state that has moved meaningfully rightwards since 2008/2012.
    Certainly outside Miami Dade, Palm Beach and Broward counties
    Will no one think of the hanging chads?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Before everyone piles on Biden in Iowa (this is the third poll in a row to show him with a six point lead), it's worth remembering that his voters are less politically engaged, he is less a beneficiary of second choices than other moderates, and his organisation is weaker than Sanders.

    On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.

    Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
    Is Biden less of a home for 2nd choices? That Rural America poll says not, unless I am misreading.
    So... Monmouth did an Iowa poll with all the candidates first, and then just the top four. Here's the second poll, with the changes from the first:
    Biden      28% (+4%)
    Buttigieg 25% (+8%)
    Sanders 24% (+6%)
    Warren 16% (+1%)
    Now there are a couple of really interesting things here. Firstly, the "left track" gains seven points, while the moderate track gains twelve. This tells you that the majority of former Steyer, Booker, etc. voters are moderate. Secondly, it tells you that Buttigieg is twice as popular as a second choice among moderates as Biden. Thirdly, it tells you that Warren desperately needs to beat Sanders, as she isn't the second choice of people on the left of the party.
    Cruz beat Trump on second choices in 2016 amongst Republicans, look how that turned out
    And Le Pen won the French Presidential election, we know.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,074
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    The 15% bar applies at the precinct level, right? So on that basis all four will get at least some delegates.
    Yeah but.

    Imagine there are four candidates statewide, with two on 35%, and two on 15%.

    They all make the 15% threshold and get proportionate delegates, right?

    Ah but...

    The person on 35% statewide will get (say) 25-45% of the vote in each precinct. By contrast the person on 15% will get 10-20%. In other words, at 15%, you'll probably only get delegates in half of precincts. So, being at 20% rather than 12% can make a massive difference in the number of delegates you get.
    Yes, true.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,074

    Starmer definitely on the ballot, Guardian reporting.

    Usdaw have nominated him.

    I wonder whether this means that some CLPs may be more willing to vote for one of the others.
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 619
    The headline does not match the detail. This seems like a recurring theme these days. The report basically says the IMF has not a clue where the economy is going but doesn't want to be seen as unduly negative.

    The city took a big bet that the Tory election would lead to a sterling rise and increasing investment. Neither of these have happened yet. The question is what happens next. Business starts believing in Brexit and invests, the Tories change the plan or the markets start to panic. This feels like a game of chicken between the government and business.


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    ClippP said:

    Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?

    In government. This has been the greenest government ever, actually cutting our carbon consumption and not just offshoring it.
    Wasn´t that one of the Lib Dem contributions in the Coalition years?
    No. The Lib Dems don't want to have anything to do with the Coalition years and the decline in carbon consumption has if anything escalated since then. No government before this one had cut carbon consumption, they'd just offshored carbon production which does absolutely nothing to affect global climate levels.

    This is the only government ever with a green record on that agenda. Just as it was a Conservative PM and government who dealt with the ozone hole etc.
    There’s a large degree of truth in that, but of course quite a lot of that is down to the cumulative effect of policies over some time, and even more significantly, the improvement in renewable technologies,
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,074
    edited January 20
    Nigelb said:

    ClippP said:

    Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?

    In government. This has been the greenest government ever, actually cutting our carbon consumption and not just offshoring it.
    Wasn´t that one of the Lib Dem contributions in the Coalition years?
    No. The Lib Dems don't want to have anything to do with the Coalition years and the decline in carbon consumption has if anything escalated since then. No government before this one had cut carbon consumption, they'd just offshored carbon production which does absolutely nothing to affect global climate levels.

    This is the only government ever with a green record on that agenda. Just as it was a Conservative PM and government who dealt with the ozone hole etc.
    There’s a large degree of truth in that, but of course quite a lot of that is down to the cumulative effect of policies over some time, and even more significantly, the improvement in renewable technologies,
    I take the somewhat unfashionable view that the big step forward was the government effectively banning on-shore wind. That meant that instead of being bogged down in interminable planning disputes about the undeniable blight of on-shore wind turbines, the industry has concentrated all its efforts on off-shore wind, and has therefore made much faster progress.
  • Starmer definitely on the ballot, Guardian reporting.

    Usdaw have nominated him.

    Game over.
  • Starmer definitely on the ballot, Guardian reporting.

    Usdaw have nominated him.

    I wonder whether this means that some CLPs may be more willing to vote for one of the others.
    Unlikely but time will tell.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,689

    Starmer definitely on the ballot, Guardian reporting.

    Usdaw have nominated him.

    I wonder whether this means that some CLPs may be more willing to vote for one of the others.
    Quite possibly. However, by the time my CLP meets next month no doubt RLB will be on the ballot as well. The far left, which basically controls meetings according to whatever their Momentum group has decided beforehand, will want us to nominate RLB. However, the comrades will have to make the argument that in effect (a) it is really important to limit the number of women on the ballot paper to one and (b) that our CLP meeting of 5%-10% of the total membership should dictate to the rest what choices they have.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    London house prices fastest monthly increase ever (?) month to 11 Jan according to Evening Standard splash.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004

    Starmer definitely on the ballot, Guardian reporting.

    Usdaw have nominated him.

    I wonder whether this means that some CLPs may be more willing to vote for one of the others.

    I think that’s unlikely given the way the votes are done. It looks to me like we’re heading to a three way contest and that it’s Starmer’s to lose.

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    RobD said:

    The state polling at the moment looks pretty decent for most of the leading Dem candidates (vs Trumpton),

    I assume that the FL poll that has Trumpton 'feeling the Bern' is something of an outlier!!

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

    I thought polls were meaningless at this stage? :D
    Isn’t that what my post implies? Sanders beating Trumpton by six points in FL. If you believe that, pile on.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,689

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The state polling at the moment looks pretty decent for most of the leading Dem candidates (vs Trumpton),

    I assume that the FL poll that has Trumpton 'feeling the Bern' is something of an outlier!!

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

    That poll has Trump tieing Buttigieg in Florida but Sanders beating him, though most Florida polls have Trump ahead
    I think Trump will win Florida comfortably; it's a state that has moved meaningfully rightwards since 2008/2012.
    Certainly outside Miami Dade, Palm Beach and Broward counties
    Will no one think of the hanging chads?
    Biden has been ahead of Trump in every Florida poll published from October onwards.

    In addition, although Florida has failed to deliver for the Democrats by the finest of margins in past elections, since January 2019 some 23% of black residents are no longer disenfranchised on account of having a spent conviction.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819

    London house prices fastest monthly increase ever (?) month to 11 Jan according to Evening Standard splash.

    Average London asking price now up to £600 145 according to Rightmove

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/finance/other/housing-market-back-with-a-bang-as-buyers-flood-back-after-election/ar-BBZ8Vq8
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    Very good article.

    One (recent) facet of this is the crusade against meat. In fact, it’s where the meat is from and how it’s reared that’s the issue (meat isn’t intrinsically bad, or good for the environment) but it’s become a target due to assiduous campaigning by pressure groups and because reducing meat consumption is an action most people can choose to take who feel impotent to do anything else.

    Ruminates are actually remarkably efficient converters of cellulose (which we can’t eat) into protein (which we can). In the UK they usually graze on grass uplands that’d be pretty useless for anything else, such as crop growing. If we replace meat with soy or palm oil based ‘vegan’ derivatives that require importing from areas around the world that have suffered forest or land clearance to produce them then we are going precisely nowhere. In fact, we’re making it worse. So policy here should be focused on origin and how the meat is reared and produced. As always, nothing is black or white, and the embryonic social phenomena of ‘meat shaming’ needs to stop. It’s part of a healthy balanced diet.

    An even bigger contribution the Government could make to reducing CO2 emissions (like, right now) would be to encourage domestic switching from gas central heating to air/ground heat pumps ASAP with huge grants and subsidies but they seem remarkably timid about this.

    So instead we’re left with declaring emergencies, talking about how much we’re cutting back on flying (we’re not and we can’t, most people do it anyway and just “offset”) and pretending to change our diets to the latest fad; a fabulously British obsession.

    It’s all rather silly really but the tragedy is it’s almost entirely cosmetic.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Before everyone piles on Biden in Iowa (this is the third poll in a row to show him with a six point lead), it's worth remembering that his voters are less politically engaged, he is less a beneficiary of second choices than other moderates, and his organisation is weaker than Sanders.

    On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.

    Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
    Is Biden less of a home for 2nd choices? That Rural America poll says not, unless I am misreading.
    So... Monmouth did an Iowa poll with all the candidates first, and then just the top four. Here's the second poll, with the changes from the first:
    Biden      28% (+4%)
    Buttigieg 25% (+8%)
    Sanders 24% (+6%)
    Warren 16% (+1%)
    Now there are a couple of really interesting things here. Firstly, the "left track" gains seven points, while the moderate track gains twelve. This tells you that the majority of former Steyer, Booker, etc. voters are moderate. Secondly, it tells you that Buttigieg is twice as popular as a second choice among moderates as Biden. Thirdly, it tells you that Warren desperately needs to beat Sanders, as she isn't the second choice of people on the left of the party.
    Cruz beat Trump on second choices in 2016 amongst Republicans, look how that turned out
    And Le Pen won the French Presidential election, we know.
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-trump-leads-when-it-comes-second-choice-cruz-top
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    @Tissue_Price Maiden speech up next..
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,661
    Tissue Price delivering his maiden speech (without notes).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 1,808
    edited January 20

    Nigelb said:

    ClippP said:

    Other than Lord Zac, where are the Eco-Conservatives?

    Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?

    In government. This has been the greenest government ever, actually cutting our carbon consumption and not just offshoring it.
    Wasn´t that one of the Lib Dem contributions in the Coalition years?
    No. The Lib Dems don't want to have anything to do with the Coalition years and the decline in carbon consumption has if anything escalated since then. No government before this one had cut carbon consumption, they'd just offshored carbon production which does absolutely nothing to affect global climate levels.

    This is the only government ever with a green record on that agenda. Just as it was a Conservative PM and government who dealt with the ozone hole etc.
    There’s a large degree of truth in that, but of course quite a lot of that is down to the cumulative effect of policies over some time, and even more significantly, the improvement in renewable technologies,
    I take the somewhat unfashionable view that the big step forward was the government effectively banning on-shore wind. That meant that instead of being bogged down in interminable planning disputes about the undeniable blight of on-shore wind turbines, the industry has concentrated all its efforts on off-shore wind, and has therefore made much faster progress.
    I would very much agree - the clever move was using the dash for gas to cut emissions, while allowing renewable technology to mature. Once offshore wind reached competitiveness, allowing onshore would have just been lazy. I've even encountered those who are upset that offshore schemes have sailed through so rapidly - there are a number of individuals who seem to live to object to anything.

    One of the most farcical aspects of Green politics is the nearly absolute ignorance among greens as to the advances that have occurred in the last decade. We are on course to:

    - Have no coal sourced electricity generation by the end of this parliament (its practically dead already). Gas is much more efficient in terms of carbon emissions than coal.
    - Replace 12% of existing grid capacity with more offshore wind by the end of the parliament.
    - End sales of non-ICE cars by 2030.
    - Go carbon neutral before 2050.
  • HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Before everyone piles on Biden in Iowa (this is the third poll in a row to show him with a six point lead), it's worth remembering that his voters are less politically engaged, he is less a beneficiary of second choices than other moderates, and his organisation is weaker than Sanders.

    On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.

    Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
    Is Biden less of a home for 2nd choices? That Rural America poll says not, unless I am misreading.
    So... Monmouth did an Iowa poll with all the candidates first, and then just the top four. Here's the second poll, with the changes from the first:
    Biden      28% (+4%)
    Buttigieg 25% (+8%)
    Sanders 24% (+6%)
    Warren 16% (+1%)
    Now there are a couple of really interesting things here. Firstly, the "left track" gains seven points, while the moderate track gains twelve. This tells you that the majority of former Steyer, Booker, etc. voters are moderate. Secondly, it tells you that Buttigieg is twice as popular as a second choice among moderates as Biden. Thirdly, it tells you that Warren desperately needs to beat Sanders, as she isn't the second choice of people on the left of the party.
    Cruz beat Trump on second choices in 2016 amongst Republicans, look how that turned out
    And Le Pen won the French Presidential election, we know.
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-trump-leads-when-it-comes-second-choice-cruz-top
    Is that your tip?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,013

    Starmer definitely on the ballot, Guardian reporting.

    Usdaw have nominated him.

    I wonder whether this means that some CLPs may be more willing to vote for one of the others.
    Marginally, yes. It looks as though Starmer and RLB are safe and will probably be joined by Nandy. So members could well feel "let's give someone else a chance too". But Phillips is really unpopular with a lot of members because of her perceived negativity. Thornberry isn't unpopular, but I'm not sure she springs to mind for most members. Probably the wish to express an opinion on Starmer/RLB will take precedence.

    Do a thought experiment - suppose you lived in a safe seat for your preferred party. Would you vote for a different party so as to give them some encouragement? For most of us, probably not?

    It's a lot more open in the ballot paper for deputy, where I think the left will try hard to get Burgon on the ballot with a decent number of nominations, and Butler may have a shot too. Rayner is streets ahead for the actual result, though, and seems not to be experiencing serious challenge as the generally acceptable candidate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Before everyone piles on Biden in Iowa (this is the third poll in a row to show him with a six point lead), it's worth remembering that his voters are less politically engaged, he is less a beneficiary of second choices than other moderates, and his organisation is weaker than Sanders.

    On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.

    Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
    Is Biden less of a home for 2nd choices? That Rural America poll says not, unless I am misreading.
    So... Monmouth did an Iowa poll with all the candidates first, and then just the top four. Here's the second poll, with the changes from the first:
    Biden      28% (+4%)
    Buttigieg 25% (+8%)
    Sanders 24% (+6%)
    Warren 16% (+1%)
    Now there are a couple of really interesting things here. Firstly, the "left track" gains seven points, while the moderate track gains twelve. This tells you that the majority of former on the left of the party.
    Cruz beat Trump on second choices in 2016 amongst Republicans, look how that turned out
    And Le Pen won the French Presidential election, we know.
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-trump-leads-when-it-comes-second-choice-cruz-top
    Is that your tip?
    No, just pointing out that Cruz was the second choice for Rubio, Carson, Bush and Christie voters in January 2016 but Trump still beat him as he gained momentum and won more primaries
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    HYUFD said:
    You could make the same argument about the US, of course.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    HYUFD said:

    London house prices fastest monthly increase ever (?) month to 11 Jan according to Evening Standard splash.

    Average London asking price now up to £600 145 according to Rightmove

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/finance/other/housing-market-back-with-a-bang-as-buyers-flood-back-after-election/ar-BBZ8Vq8
    This will of course come as a surprise to the PB who keep assuring us that the London housing market is overdue a ‘correction’ *




    * this has been forecast on PB every year for the past 12 years
  • @HYUFD

    He must be well liked.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    Starmer definitely on the ballot, Guardian reporting.

    Usdaw have nominated him.

    I wonder whether this means that some CLPs may be more willing to vote for one of the others.
    Marginally, yes. It looks as though Starmer and RLB are safe and will probably be joined by Nandy. So members could well feel "let's give someone else a chance too". But Phillips is really unpopular with a lot of members because of her perceived negativity. Thornberry isn't unpopular, but I'm not sure she springs to mind for most members. Probably the wish to express an opinion on Starmer/RLB will take precedence.

    Do a thought experiment - suppose you lived in a safe seat for your preferred party. Would you vote for a different party so as to give them some encouragement? For most of us, probably not?

    It's a lot more open in the ballot paper for deputy, where I think the left will try hard to get Burgon on the ballot with a decent number of nominations, and Butler may have a shot too. Rayner is streets ahead for the actual result, though, and seems not to be experiencing serious challenge as the generally acceptable candidate.
    Burgon is a complete clown who should be nowhere near the ballot Nick. Do you agree?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    JohnO said:

    Tissue Price delivering his maiden speech (without notes).

    Presumably he will wax lyrical about PB and the joy and art of having multiple screen names?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 1,808

    HYUFD said:

    London house prices fastest monthly increase ever (?) month to 11 Jan according to Evening Standard splash.

    Average London asking price now up to £600 145 according to Rightmove

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/finance/other/housing-market-back-with-a-bang-as-buyers-flood-back-after-election/ar-BBZ8Vq8
    This will of course come as a surprise to the PB who keep assuring us that the London housing market is overdue a ‘correction’ *




    * this has been forecast on PB every year for the past 12 years
    The housing market is overdue a correction - and has been since 2000 or so. In the long run, betting that a small three bedroom terrace is worth more than £1m does not seem historically wise.

    There are plenty of ways the party could end.

    A friend was recently offered by his bank the following*: London money in Manchester....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anyone commented on the latest Iowa poll?

    It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

    Biden      24%
    Warren 18%
    Buttigieg 16%
    Sanders 14%
    Klobuchar 11%
    This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.

    It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
    Before everyone piles on Biden in Iowa (this is the third poll in a row to show him with a six point lead), it's worth remembering that his voters are less politically engaged, he is less a beneficiary of second choices than other moderates, and his organisation is weaker than Sanders.

    On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.

    Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
    Is Biden less of a home for 2nd choices? That Rural America poll says not, unless I am misreading.
    So... Monmouth did an Iowa poll with all the candidates first, and then just the top four. Here's the second poll, with the changes from the first:
    Biden      28% (+4%)
    Buttigieg 25% (+8%)
    Sanders 24% (+6%)
    Warren 16% (+1%)
    Now there are a couple of really interesting things here. Firstly, the "left track" gains seven points, while the moderate track gains twelve. This tells you that the majority of former Steyer, Booker, etc. voters are moderate. Secondly, it tells you that Buttigieg is twice as popular as a second choice among moderates as Biden. Thirdly, it tells you that Warren desperately needs to beat Sanders, as she isn't the second choice of people on the left of the party.
    Cruz beat Trump on second choices in 2016 amongst Republicans, look how that turned out
    And Le Pen won the French Presidential election, we know.
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-trump-leads-when-it-comes-second-choice-cruz-top
    You do understand why that's not particularly meaningful, right?
This discussion has been closed.