Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Political cross-dressing

13»

Comments

  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    So - just to be clear - building a railway line that will far more than double capacity in the Midlands and around Manchester and Leeds will not help create ‘a functioning rail system that actually connects different parts of the north?’
    Nope because it won't do that.
    But it will. That is, the real world version of it, not the twisted parody that you, Gillan and that dribbling imbecile Cummings have got in your heads. If you had any reading at all other than by the drunken virtue signallers of STOP HS2, you would understand that capacity is the be all and end all of it. And that building a new high speed line is much the cheapest and quickest way to do it. It could take fourteen years and cost maybe £200 billion to add two lines to the WCML.

    I think we will have to add HS2 to education as something you really, really don’t get.
    Are you as enthusiastic for HS2 at £100bn as you were when it was only £30bn ?

    And if so is there a cost at which you decide it is no longer worth while ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Fuckwits like you are not interested in facts only propaganda. Only 3% of commuters use rail to travel to work in Manchester compared with 38% in London. Building a shiny high speed intercity rail system will not help that. Build local services that actually have the capacity to carry large numbers of people over short distances at a reasonable price. HS2 will not do that.

    Richard, the irony of that post is delicious. You are accusing me of being interested in facts not propaganda, while spouting, er, propaganda not facts. As you do, of course, over education. Not to mention you are showing yourself, uncharacteristically I have to say, as an abusive and obsessive bully. A bit like Cummings except of course you are somewhat brighter than him (not that that’s hard).

    The idea is to get more trains so more people will use them, rather than their cars. For that, we need more capacity. How do you suggest we increase it? Teleports? Or building new lines? Obviously the second. And yet, when you try to build them, people scream and shout and stamp their feet and generally behave like the Chief Inspector of OFSTED after she’s been asked a question about education.

    Now go away, do some reading, and come back when you have (a) calmed down and (b) know what you’re talking about.
  • rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That isn't a problem, it's a blessing. The messiness of humans prevents a vast flood of pernicious rubbish that seems to the powerful like the right thing to do at the time from becoming a reality.

    Meat is among the best sources of absorbable nutrients for humans, second only to eggs. No vegetarian culture (and we do have them to study) has ever been renowned for longevity. A meat tax is a repulsive idea for that reason. It's a rejection of our own health and an apology for being human.


    Isn't love expectancy better in South India, which is vegetarian, than in North, which is not?
    I thought that was down to the Communist government. Along with the higher levels of literacy and lower levels of poverty.

    And I'm not sure that Goan fish curry is strictly vegetarian.
    Not sure why you and rcs think the South is more vegatarian the North of India!
    I don't! Hence my reference to fish curry.

    Plenty of daal and roti served up in the north.
    I was born in Kerala but I'm just about the only veggie in my entire extended family :)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That isn't a problem, it's a blessing. The messiness of humans prevents a vast flood of pernicious rubbish that seems to the powerful like the right thing to do at the time from becoming a reality.

    Meat is among the best sources of absorbable nutrients for humans, second only to eggs. No vegetarian culture (and we do have them to study) has ever been renowned for longevity. A meat tax is a repulsive idea for that reason. It's a rejection of our own health and an apology for being human.


    Isn't love expectancy better in South India, which is vegetarian, than in North, which is not?
    I thought that was down to the Communist government. Along with the higher levels of literacy and lower levels of poverty.

    And I'm not sure that Goan fish curry is strictly vegetarian.
    Karnataka is one of the biggest states in southern India and has a BJP government
    But it is Kerala that leads in literacy levels.

    Plus my point was less than serious.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    You make a good point. What about a scheme that takes the UK’s second city as it’s centre point rather than London as per usual? And has fast dedicated direct links to Manchester, the East Midlands and Leeds, with rolloff services to Liverpool, Sheffield, York, Newcastle and Scotland? And that has stations serving both Manchester and Birmingham Airports? And that has an operating schedule specifically designed to free up railway paths on existing northern freight and commuter lines?

    You are beyond parody.
    Except it doesn't. fanatics like you ignore the fact that it does not link in to the existing infrastructure - it will not link directly to local services in Birmingham, to the main airport in the East Midlands or to local services in most other cities. It is designed and sold first and foremost as a means to connect the North with London. Which is pointless. and all for a snip at £106 billion.

    There is no parody here, just rampant stupidity on the part of HS2 supporters.
    Leaving aside the minor detail that you are wrong, and it does link with existing infrastructure, has it occurred to you that the point is to free capacity up on existing lines? By reducing the mix of usage on the WCML, for example, it is anticipate that the number of trains per hour can increase from the current 16 to 27. That would be very beneficial for those who, like me, live on branches of it.
    We've got there at last. The primary purpose of HS2 is to benefit commuters in the south east. Not those in Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester. Because it will make bugger all difference to most of the bottlenecks affecting those cities.
    The omission in the HS2 process was in not proposing the Manchester to Leeds link as part of the strategic plan to begin with. Fortunately this has been corrected before it was too late.

    But you get nowhere from scrapping HS2, the infrastructure of which is essential to deliver the Manchester to Leeds scheme (and eventually Liverpool and Hull/Newcastle).
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    You make a good point. What about a scheme that takes the UK’s second city as it’s centre point rather than London as per usual? And has fast dedicated direct links to Manchester, the East Midlands and Leeds, with rolloff services to Liverpool, Sheffield, York, Newcastle and Scotland? And that has stations serving both Manchester and Birmingham Airports? And that has an operating schedule specifically designed to free up railway paths on existing northern freight and commuter lines?

    You are beyond parody.
    Except it doesn't. fanatics like you ignore the fact that it does not link in to the existing infrastructure - it will not link directly to local services in Birmingham, to the main airport in the East Midlands or to local services in most other cities. It is designed and sold first and foremost as a means to connect the North with London. Which is pointless. and all for a snip at £106 billion.

    There is no parody here, just rampant stupidity on the part of HS2 supporters.
    Leaving aside the minor detail that you are wrong, and it does link with existing infrastructure, has it occurred to you that the point is to free capacity up on existing lines? By reducing the mix of usage on the WCML, for example, it is anticipate that the number of trains per hour can increase from the current 16 to 27. That would be very beneficial for those who, like me, live on branches of it.
    We've got there at last. The primary purpose of HS2 is to benefit commuters in the south east. Not those in Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester. Because it will make bugger all difference to most of the bottlenecks affecting those cities.
    It will make a huge difference to Cannock and Lichfield. I never realised that your county and mine was in the south east...
    You reckon HS2 will provide local stoppers from Cannock to Birmingham?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Cyclefree said:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

    They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."

    CS Lewis

    Let's conduct the culture war in this sort of language from now on. Instead of Piers Morgan, CS Lewis. And on the other side, goodbye Aaron Bastani, hello Margaret Atwood.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD ready to send our boys in to quell the quislings?

    https://twitter.com/naebD/status/1219365231572529157?s=20

    Gibraltar is not proposing independence unlike Scotland's government and borders another country unlike Scotland, so no problem with it getting a semi Northern Ireland type deal (Northern Ireland bordering Ireland as Gibraltar borders Spain). Gibraltar voted 98% to stay British in 2002, Scotland only voted 55% to stay British in 2014
    Sighs of relief all round in Gib as the HYUFD Novios de la Muerte legion stands down.
    British visitors already need a passport to visit Gibraltar anyway, it has never been in the CTA
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    So - just to be clear - building a railway line that will far more than double capacity in the Midlands and around Manchester and Leeds will not help create ‘a functioning rail system that actually connects different parts of the north?’
    Nope because it won't do that.
    But it will. That is, the real world version of it, not the twisted parody that you, Gillan and that dribbling imbecile Cummings have got in your heads. If you had any reading at all other than by the drunken virtue signallers of STOP HS2, you would understand that capacity is the be all and end all of it. And that building a new high speed line is much the cheapest and quickest way to do it. It could take fourteen years and cost maybe £200 billion to add two lines to the WCML.

    I think we will have to add HS2 to education as something you really, really don’t get.
    Are you as enthusiastic for HS2 at £100bn as you were when it was only £30bn ?

    And if so is there a cost at which you decide it is no longer worth while ?
    Actually, more so. Because when the cost was £30 billion he need was both less obvious and less urgent.

    Ultimately, the point is it’s urgently needed, and if we delay it will only become more expensive and more disruptive to build it. One of the reasons costs are soaring is because of the delays in building it. Better to spend £106 billion now than £340 billion in 2050.

    It’s worth remembering almost no railway line has ever been built to budget. Brunel’s Great Western Main Line cost thrice his estimate and double his capital.
  • HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    ydoethur said:

    It will make a huge difference to Cannock and Lichfield. I never realised that your county and mine was in the south east...

    You reckon HS2 will provide local stoppers from Cannock to Birmingham?
    It will provide the extra capacity to make additional services possible. But actually it’s stoppers from Cannock to Stafford and Crewe I’m more immediately interested in than ones to Brum.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    I am not as convinced as you that Nandy will get on the ballot without some assistance. Starmer getting on early will help her though, because the (non far left) members I have spoken to are fairly agnostic between the two. Personally I will probably put Starmer 1st on the ballot but will put Nandy 1st for the CLP nomination if there is a clear move by others to get her on.

    I agree with you on Phillips, she is no more capable of bringing the party back together than is Long-Bailey. Thornberry is defined by that flag incident and her persona and ultra-Remain outlook seems to me to reinforce the image it conjured up.

    Interesting, we seem to have arrived at much the same place from very different starting positions.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. ns. .
    You make a good point. What about a scheme that takes the UK’s second city as it’s centre point rather than London as per usual? And has fast dedicated direct links to Manchester, the East Midlands and Leeds, with rolloff services to Liverpool, Sheffield, York, Newcastle and Scotland? And that has stations serving both Manchester and Birmingham Airports? And that has an operating schedule specifically designed to free up railway paths on existing northern freight and commuter lines?

    You are beyond parody.
    Except it doesn't. fanatics like you ignore the fact that it does not link in to the existing infrastructure - it will not link directly to local services in Birmingham, to the main airport in the East Midlands or to local services in most other cities. It is designed and sold first and foremost as a means to connect the North with London. Which is pointless. and all for a snip at £106 billion.

    There is no parody here, just rampant stupidity on the part of HS2 supporters.
    Leaving aside the minor detail that you are wrong, and it does link with existing infrastructure, has it occurred to you that the point is to free capacity up on existing lines? By reducing the mix of usage on the WCML, for example, it is anticipate that the number of trains per hour can increase from the current 16 to 27. That would be very beneficial for those who, like me, live on branches of it.
    We've got there at last. The primary purpose of HS2 is to benefit commuters in the south east. Not those in Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester. Because it will make bugger all difference to most of the bottlenecks affecting those cities.
    The omission in the HS2 process was in not proposing the Manchester to Leeds link as part of the strategic plan to begin with. Fortunately this has been corrected before it was too late.

    But you get nowhere from scrapping HS2, the infrastructure of which is essential to deliver the Manchester to Leeds scheme (and eventually Liverpool and Hull/Newcastle).
    We just need a line to normal intercity standards across the Pennines to cut the Leeds to Manchester journey to half an hour. Not a bloody bullet train. This can be achieved as a stand-alone project, along with other improvements in the north (such as sorting out the 'Castlefield Corridor' in Manchester), using the money saved by cancelling HS2.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
    The south east is partly a function of the growth of London, which now has a string of exurbs populated by young professionals fleeing the London property market but taking their values with them. Canterbury and Bedford show that some seats here could be easier to win than some former safe seats in the north.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
    Merseyside was strong Remain so an exception to the Leave voting North shift blue.

    Areas like Hove, Brighton, Bedford, Canterbury and Reading all have Labour MPs unlike 1987
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    kle4 said:

    It's very interesting to me that HS2 is one of the few policy issues which seems to cause as much rage, pro and against, as Brexit or socialism.

    Yes - we are fortunate that this will not be going to Referendum. Families would be torn asunder.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    So - just to be clear - building a railway line that will far more than double capacity in the Midlands and around Manchester and Leeds will not help create ‘a functioning rail system that actually connects different parts of the north?’
    Nope because it won't do that.
    But it will. That is, the real world version of it, not the twisted parody that you, Gillan and that dribbling imbecile Cummings have got in your heads. If you had any reading at all other than by the drunken virtue signallers of STOP HS2, you would understand that capacity is the be all and end all of it. And that building a new high speed line is much the cheapest and quickest way to do it. It could take fourteen years and cost maybe £200 billion to add two lines to the WCML.

    I think we will have to add HS2 to education as something you really, really don’t get.
    Fuckwits like you are not interested in facts only propaganda. Only 3% of commuters use rail to travel to work in Manchester compared with 38% in London. Building a shiny high speed intercity rail system will not help that. Build local services that actually have the capacity to carry large numbers of people over short distances at a reasonable price. HS2 will not do that.
    It's very interesting to me that HS2 is one of the few policy issues which seems to cause as much rage, pro and against, as Brexit or socialism.
    Yes. I really don't get it.

    I'm rather pro HS2 but I can't work up that much visceral emotion about it either way.
  • The different results between cities and towns in 2019 compared with 1987 can be shown by looking at Yorkshire.

    Conservative gains in 2019 compared with 1987 were Dewsbury, Morley, Wakefield, Don Valley, Rother Valley, Penistone, Grimsby and Scunthorpe.

    Whereas Labour gained Leeds NE, Leeds NW, Sheffield Hallam and York Central from the 1987 Conservative list.

    After her victory in 1987 Thatcher referred to having a 'big job' to do in the inner cities as she 'wanted them next time as well'.

    In retrospect the multiple city constituency losses that the Conservatives suffered outside London in 1987 were the beginning of a long term trend.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2020

    HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
    The south east is partly a function of the growth of London, which now has a string of exurbs populated by young professionals fleeing the London property market but taking their values with them. Canterbury and Bedford show that some seats here could be easier to win than some former safe seats in the north.
    Yes, Chingford and Woodford Green, Reading West, Watford, Southampton Itchen, Hastings and Rye and Wycombe are now all in the top 50 Labour target seats.

    Scunthorpe, Bishop Auckland and Great Grimsby, Blackpool North and Clevelys and Scarborough and Whitby are not even in the top 100 Labour target seats. All were Labour under Blair.
    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That isn't a problem, it's a blessing. The messiness of humans prevents a vast flood of pernicious rubbish that seems to the powerful like the right thing to do at the time from becoming a reality.

    Meat is among the best sources of absorbable nutrients for humans, second only to eggs. No vegetarian culture (and we do have them to study) has ever been renowned for longevity. A meat tax is a repulsive idea for that reason. It's a rejection of our own health and an apology for being human.


    Isn't love expectancy better in South India, which is vegetarian, than in North, which is not?
    I thought that was down to the Communist government. Along with the higher levels of literacy and lower levels of poverty.

    And I'm not sure that Goan fish curry is strictly vegetarian.
    Not sure why you and rcs think the South is more vegatarian the North of India!
    I don't! Hence my reference to fish curry.

    Plenty of daal and roti served up in the north.
    I was born in Kerala but I'm just about the only veggie in my entire extended family :)
    Keralan Tandori kingfish is the second best thing I’ve ever eaten in India. Second only to a Karnakatan mango curry.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
    The south east is partly a function of the growth of London, which now has a string of exurbs populated by young professionals fleeing the London property market but taking their values with them. Canterbury and Bedford show that some seats here could be easier to win than some former safe seats in the north.
    This is very true.

    London is an incubator for left-wing values.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    So - just to be clear - building a railway line that will far more than double capacity in the Midlands and around Manchester and Leeds will not help create ‘a functioning rail system that actually connects different parts of the north?’
    Nope because it won't do that.
    But it will. That is, the real world version of it, not the twisted parody that you, Gillan and that dribbling imbecile Cummings have got in your heads. If you had any reading at all other than by the drunken virtue signallers of STOP HS2, you would understand that capacity is the be all and end all of it. And that building a new high speed line is much the cheapest and quickest way to do it. It could take fourteen years and cost maybe £200 billion to add two lines to the WCML.

    I think we will have to add HS2 to education as something you really, really don’t get.
    Are you as enthusiastic for HS2 at £100bn as you were when it was only £30bn ?

    And if so is there a cost at which you decide it is no longer worth while ?
    Actually, more so. Because when the cost was £30 billion he need was both less obvious and less urgent.

    Ultimately, the point is it’s urgently needed, and if we delay it will only become more expensive and more disruptive to build it. One of the reasons costs are soaring is because of the delays in building it. Better to spend £106 billion now than £340 billion in 2050.

    It’s worth remembering almost no railway line has ever been built to budget. Brunel’s Great Western Main Line cost thrice his estimate and double his capital.
    Given the way that HS2 costs and schedule are increasing £340bn by 2050 is certainly a possibility.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    My understanding is that the existing WCML is full, and that HS2 both adds capacity, and decreases travel times.

    Now, it may will get that infrastructure money can be spent in a better way. Or that the benefits do not exceed the costs. But "bring no benefit" just seems way too strong.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Be honest Sunil. The only reason you liked that post about Transpennine trains is because you dream of travelling on a restored Woodhead line, don’t you?
  • kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    So - just to be clear - building a railway line that will far more than double capacity in the Midlands and around Manchester and Leeds will not help create ‘a functioning rail system that actually connects different parts of the north?’
    Nope because it won't do that.
    But it will. That is, the real world version of it, not the twisted parody that you, Gillan and that dribbling imbecile Cummings have got in your heads. If you had any reading at all other than by the drunken virtue signallers of STOP HS2, you would understand that capacity is the be all and end all of it. And that building a new high speed line is much the cheapest and quickest way to do it. It could take fourteen years and cost maybe £200 billion to add two lines to the WCML.

    I think we will have to add HS2 to education as something you really, really don’t get.
    Fuckwits like you are not interested in facts only propaganda. Only 3% of commuters use rail to travel to work in Manchester compared with 38% in London. Building a shiny high speed intercity rail system will not help that. Build local services that actually have the capacity to carry large numbers of people over short distances at a reasonable price. HS2 will not do that.
    It's very interesting to me that HS2 is one of the few policy issues which seems to cause as much rage, pro and against, as Brexit or socialism.
    Yes. I really don't get it.

    I'm rather pro HS2 but I can't work up that much visceral emotion about it either way.
    Still waiting for my Crossrail!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That isn't a problem, it's a blessing. The messiness of humans prevents a vast flood of pernicious rubbish that seems to the powerful like the right thing to do at the time from becoming a reality.

    Meat is among the best sources of absorbable nutrients for humans, second only to eggs. No vegetarian culture (and we do have them to study) has ever been renowned for longevity. A meat tax is a repulsive idea for that reason. It's a rejection of our own health and an apology for being human.


    Isn't love expectancy better in South India, which is vegetarian, than in North, which is not?
    I thought that was down to the Communist government. Along with the higher levels of literacy and lower levels of poverty.

    And I'm not sure that Goan fish curry is strictly vegetarian.
    Not sure why you and rcs think the South is more vegatarian the North of India!
    South Indian cuisine - with dosas and bhel poori - is largely meat free.
  • HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
    The south east is partly a function of the growth of London, which now has a string of exurbs populated by young professionals fleeing the London property market but taking their values with them. Canterbury and Bedford show that some seats here could be easier to win than some former safe seats in the north.
    Very different constituencies though.

    Canterbury is filled with students and so with financial reasons to vote Labour.

    Whereas Bedford is increasingly a constituency with values rather different on issues such as homosexuality and female rights.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
    The south east is partly a function of the growth of London, which now has a string of exurbs populated by young professionals fleeing the London property market but taking their values with them. Canterbury and Bedford show that some seats here could be easier to win than some former safe seats in the north.
    This is very true.

    London is an incubator for left-wing values.
    As @another_richard notes, London has swung sharply away from the Conservatives since 1987. It wasn't always left wing.

    The Conservatives have lost the ability to talk to young professionals. They will no doubt be happy enough to have scooped the pool among pensioners and to have made inroads into the uneducated, but the shift was far from inevitable.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited January 2020
    CLPs nominations tonight so far

    Kensington: Long-Bailey/Burgon
    Clackmannanshire and Dunblane : Starmer/Murray
    Newbury: Thornberry/Allin-Khan

    Tally

    Starmer 12
    Long Bailey 4
    Thornberry 1
    Nandy 0
    Phillips 0

    Rayner 11
    Burgon 2
    Murray 2
    Butler 1
    Allin-Khan 1
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    You make a good point. What about a scheme that takes the UK’s second city as it’s centre point rather than London as per usual? And has fast dedicated direct links to Manchester, the East Midlands and Leeds, with rolloff services to Liverpool, Sheffield, York, Newcastle and Scotland? And that has stations serving both Manchester and Birmingham Airports? And that has an operating schedule specifically designed to free up railway paths on existing northern freight and commuter lines?

    You are beyond parody.
    Except it doesn't. fanatics like you ignore the fact that it does not link in to the existing infrastructure - it will not link directly to local services in Birmingham, to the main airport in the East Midlands or to local services in most other cities. It is designed and sold first and foremost as a means to connect the North with London. Which is pointless. and all for a snip at £106 billion.

    There is no parody here, just rampant stupidity on the part of HS2 supporters.
    Leaving aside the minor detail that you are wrong, and it does link with existing infrastructure, has it occurred to you that the point is to free capacity up on existing lines? By reducing the mix of usage on the WCML, for example, it is anticipate that the number of trains per hour can increase from the current 16 to 27. That would be very beneficial for those who, like me, live on branches of it.
    Indeed. It’s several years since I read the detailed docs but I seem to recall commuter seats from Milton Keynes to London would increase by c. 3x as a result of the paths freed by HS2.
    Is it morally right to encourage people to live in Milton Keynes?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
    Merseyside was strong Remain so an exception to the Leave voting North shift blue.

    Areas like Hove, Brighton, Bedford, Canterbury and Reading all have Labour MPs unlike 1987
    Merseyside is Labour to a far greater extent than Remain voting, social deprivation, housing tenure or BAME population would suggest.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2020

    HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
    The south east is partly a function of the growth of London, which now has a string of exurbs populated by young professionals fleeing the London property market but taking their values with them. Canterbury and Bedford show that some seats here could be easier to win than some former safe seats in the north.
    This is very true.

    London is an incubator for left-wing values.
    As @another_richard notes, London has swung sharply away from the Conservatives since 1987. It wasn't always left wing.

    The Conservatives have lost the ability to talk to young professionals. They will no doubt be happy enough to have scooped the pool among pensioners and to have made inroads into the uneducated, but the shift was far from inevitable.
    It is a global trend, New York city and L.A. vote Democrat even when the US as a whole elect a a Republican president, Sydney and Melbourne voted Labor while the Liberal National coalition won Australia and Macron won Paris by more than he won France in 2017 as Trudeau won Toronto and Montreal by more than he won Canada last year
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    So - just to be clear - building a railway line that will far more than double capacity in the Midlands and around Manchester and Leeds will not help create ‘a functioning rail system that actually connects different parts of the north?’
    Nope because it won't do that.
    But it will. That is, the real world version of it, not the twisted parody that you, Gillan and that dribbling imbecile Cummings have got in your heads. If you had any reading at all other than by the drunken virtue signallers of STOP HS2, you would understand that capacity is the be all and end all of it. And that building a new high speed line is much the cheapest and quickest way to do it. It could take fourteen years and cost maybe £200 billion to add two lines to the WCML.

    I think we will have to add HS2 to education as something you really, really don’t get.
    Fuckwits like you are not interested in facts only propaganda. Only 3% of commuters use rail to travel to work in Manchester compared with 38% in London. Building a shiny high speed intercity rail system will not help that. Build local services that actually have the capacity to carry large numbers of people over short distances at a reasonable price. HS2 will not do that.
    It's very interesting to me that HS2 is one of the few policy issues which seems to cause as much rage, pro and against, as Brexit or socialism.
    Yes. I really don't get it.

    I'm rather pro HS2 but I can't work up that much visceral emotion about it either way.
    Still waiting for my Crossrail!
    A Certain Poster has got very cross about rail tonight. That surprised me somewhat, I never realised he had such strong views on anything other than education.

    However, I imagine that’s not quite what you meant...

    Good night.
  • kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    So - just to be clear - building a railway line that will far more than double capacity in the Midlands and around Manchester and Leeds will not help create ‘a functioning rail system that actually connects different parts of the north?’
    Nope because it won't do that.
    But it will. That is, the real world version of it, not the twisted parody that you, Gillan and that dribbling imbecile Cummings have got in your heads. If you had any reading at all other than by the drunken virtue signallers of STOP HS2, you would understand that capacity is the be all and end all of it. And that building a new high speed line is much the cheapest and quickest way to do it. It could take fourteen years and cost maybe £200 billion to add two lines to the WCML.

    I think we will have to add HS2 to education as something you really, really don’t get.
    Fuckwits like you are not interested in facts only propaganda. Only 3% of commuters use rail to travel to work in Manchester compared with 38% in London. Building a shiny high speed intercity rail system will not help that. Build local services that actually have the capacity to carry large numbers of people over short distances at a reasonable price. HS2 will not do that.
    It's very interesting to me that HS2 is one of the few policy issues which seems to cause as much rage, pro and against, as Brexit or socialism.
    You can add house renting to the list.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
    Merseyside was strong Remain so an exception to the Leave voting North shift blue.

    Areas like Hove, Brighton, Bedford, Canterbury and Reading all have Labour MPs unlike 1987
    Merseyside is Labour to a far greater extent than Remain voting, social deprivation, housing tenure or BAME population would suggest.
    Well that is true too it was one of the few areas Labour won in the European Parliament elections
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited January 2020
    Interesting that some parts of the North East did not revert to the Tories last month despite having had Tory MPs well into the post-World War 2 period. Sunderland South had a Tory MP 1953 - 1964 - as did Hartlepool 1959 - 1964. Tynemouth was represented by Irene Ward and Neville Trotter and did not fall to Labour until 1997 - though was held in 2019. Newcastle also had Tory MPs until 1987.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited January 2020

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    Basically the Tories have weakened in greater London & Merseyside, whilst strengthening everywhere else ?
    Scotland has had a wholesale left of centre party shift.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:



    By your logic we could improve the productivity of the north by shutting the M1 and West Coast Mainline.

    Nope. Stupid logic by you. It is not a question of reducing the existing links but of not wasting money on new links that will bring no benefit. And the money we don't waste on the vast white elephant could be used on schemes that do actually improve productivity in the North, like having a functioning rail system that actually connects the different parts of the north, or expanding the airports in the North so they don't have to rely on the South East for their international connections. .
    You make a good point. What about a scheme that takes the UK’s second city as it’s centre point rather than London as per usual? And has fast dedicated direct links to Manchester, the East Midlands and Leeds, with rolloff services to Liverpool, Sheffield, York, Newcastle and Scotland? And that has stations serving both Manchester and Birmingham Airports? And that has an operating schedule specifically designed to free up railway paths on existing northern freight and commuter lines?

    You are beyond parody.
    Except it doesn't. fanatics like you ignore the fact that it does not link in to the existing infrastructure - it will not link directly to local services in Birmingham, to the main airport in the East Midlands or to local services in most other cities. It is designed and sold first and foremost as a means to connect the North with London. Which is pointless. and all for a snip at £106 billion.

    There is no parody here, just rampant stupidity on the part of HS2 supporters.
    Leaving aside the minor detail that you are wrong, and it does link with existing infrastructure, has it occurred to you that the point is to free capacity up on existing lines? By reducing the mix of usage on the WCML, for example, it is anticipate that the number of trains per hour can increase from the current 16 to 27. That would be very beneficial for those who, like me, live on branches of it.
    Indeed. It’s several years since I read the detailed docs but I seem to recall commuter seats from Milton Keynes to London would increase by c. 3x as a result of the paths freed by HS2.
    Is it morally right to encourage people to live in Milton Keynes?
    I once came off the M1 by accident at Milton Keynes. Had a not unpleasant hour going round all the roundabouts before finally finding my way out again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2020
    justin124 said:

    Interesting that some parts of the North East did not revert to the Tories last month despite having had Tory MPs well into the post-World War 2 period. Sunderland South had a Tory MP 1953 - 1964 - as did Hartlepool 1959 - 1964. Tynemouth was represented by Irene Ward and Neville Trotter and did not fall to Labour until 1997 - though was held in 2019. Newcastle also had Tory MPs until 1987.

    All big cities, it was the Leave voting market and industrial towns like Blyth Valley and Bishop Auckland and Darlington which shifted (Newcastle also voted Remain)
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Interesting that some parts of the North East did not revert to the Tories last month despite having had Tory MPs well into the post-World War 2 period. Sunderland South had a Tory MP 1953 - 1964 - as did Hartlepool 1959 - 1964. Tynemouth was represented by Irene Ward and Neville Trotter and did not fall to Labour until 1997 - though was held in 2019. Newcastle also had Tory MPs until 1987.

    All big cities, it was the Leave voting market and industrial towns like Blyth Valley and Bishop Auckland and Darlington which shifted (Newcastle also voted Remain)
    Darlington has swung in the past , having been Tory-held 1951 - 1964 and again 1983 - 1992. I am not sure that Hartlepool and Tynemouth count as big cities though!
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,415
    edited January 2020
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    The main changes there seem to be the Tories doing better in the Midlands and North and Wales and Labour doing far worse but in London and to a lesser extent the South East the reverse is true with Labour doing far better and the Tories doing worse.

    Confirmation the Tories vote is more working class and the Labour vote more middle class thsn was the case 30 years ago
    The much better support for Labour in the south-east is rarely commented upon.

    There are also significant differences within regions.

    For example the Conservatives are at -8 in 'Greater Scouseland' - Chester, Ellesmere Port, Sefton Central, Wallasey, Weaver Vale, West Lancashire, Wirral S and Wirral W.
    Merseyside was strong Remain so an exception to the Leave voting North shift blue.

    Areas like Hove, Brighton, Bedford, Canterbury and Reading all have Labour MPs unlike 1987
    Merseyside is Labour to a far greater extent than Remain voting, social deprivation, housing tenure or BAME population would suggest.
    Well that is true too it was one of the few areas Labour won in the European Parliament elections
    I always find Liverpool an odd place when I go . Its a friendly place in one way until you talk deeper to people and you find that unless you conform to their idea of scouser charm and wit (they are definitely big headed about being funny) they go a little cold and aloof and judgemental. Certainly a sense of community that is stronger than elsewhere but again, a little too proud of it and can get defensive about it if it is explored a little too deep . Manchester is however just not friendly at all imo - all trying to be hard men . The real friendly city in that wider region has to be Birmingham !
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Interesting that some parts of the North East did not revert to the Tories last month despite having had Tory MPs well into the post-World War 2 period. Sunderland South had a Tory MP 1953 - 1964 - as did Hartlepool 1959 - 1964. Tynemouth was represented by Irene Ward and Neville Trotter and did not fall to Labour until 1997 - though was held in 2019. Newcastle also had Tory MPs until 1987.

    All big cities, it was the Leave voting market and industrial towns like Blyth Valley and Bishop Auckland and Darlington which shifted (Newcastle also voted Remain)
    I doubt that Bish (the town) voted majority Tory. Bish (the constituency) includes Barnard Castle and Tees dale, which have always been Tory. Of course I do accept that a proportion of my former townsfolk did move from Labour to Tory, Brexit and abstention.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    It's very interesting to me that HS2 is one of the few policy issues which seems to cause as much rage, pro and against, as Brexit or socialism.

    Yes - we are fortunate that this will not be going to Referendum. Families would be torn asunder.
    I would be interested in the Venn diagram of HS2 opponents and Brexit supporters.

    I strongly suspect that the HS2 opponents are very happy to reopen the decision, revisit the parliamentary vote and cancel something that has already started, but not if someone mentions the decision to leave the EU. Suddenly the 2016 public vote and the A50 MPs vote is the very end of it and nothing can change and the public should not be asked again and anyone who thinks so is a traitor.

    Odd.

  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That isn't a problem, it's a blessing. The messiness of humans prevents a vast flood of pernicious rubbish that seems to the powerful like the right thing to do at the time from becoming a reality.

    Meat is among the best sources of absorbable nutrients for humans, second only to eggs. No vegetarian culture (and we do have them to study) has ever been renowned for longevity. A meat tax is a repulsive idea for that reason. It's a rejection of our own health and an apology for being human.


    Isn't love expectancy better in South India, which is vegetarian, than in North, which is not?
    I thought that was down to the Communist government. Along with the higher levels of literacy and lower levels of poverty.

    And I'm not sure that Goan fish curry is strictly vegetarian.
    Not sure why you and rcs think the South is more vegatarian the North of India!
    South Indian cuisine - with dosas and bhel poori - is largely meat free.
    Not really. It isn't!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Interesting that some parts of the North East did not revert to the Tories last month despite having had Tory MPs well into the post-World War 2 period. Sunderland South had a Tory MP 1953 - 1964 - as did Hartlepool 1959 - 1964. Tynemouth was represented by Irene Ward and Neville Trotter and did not fall to Labour until 1997 - though was held in 2019. Newcastle also had Tory MPs until 1987.

    All big cities, it was the Leave voting market and industrial towns like Blyth Valley and Bishop Auckland and Darlington which shifted (Newcastle also voted Remain)
    Newcastle as a whole voted remain but Newcastle upon Tyne North did not. The Remain vote was focused in Central and East.

    North Tyneside certainly did not vote Remain and it’s basically Newcastle suburbs.
  • Pulpstar said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    Basically the Tories have weakened in greater London & Merseyside, whilst strengthening everywhere else ?
    Scotland has had a wholesale left of centre party shift.
    Labour have shifted from having a Scottish core to having a London core.

    And the Conservative decline in cities is significant - 17 MPs in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield in 1987 to only Birmingham Northfield in 2019.
  • Pulpstar said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    Basically the Tories have weakened in greater London & Merseyside, whilst strengthening everywhere else ?
    Scotland has had a wholesale left of centre party shift.
    Labour have shifted from having a Scottish core to having a London core.

    And the Conservative decline in cities is significant - 17 MPs in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield in 1987 to only Birmingham Northfield in 2019.
    Nottingham suburbs though now very Tory - Rushcliffe (always is) but Gedling and Broxtowe also now
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    edited January 2020

    Government loses first parliamentary votes since election

    The government has lost three votes in the Lords over its Brexit legislation - its first defeats since the election.

    Peers supported calls for EU nationals to be given a physical document as proof they have the right to live in the UK after it leaves the bloc.

    They also voted to remove ministers' power to decide which EU Court of Justice rulings can be disregarded or set aside by UK courts and tribunals.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51184051

    Interesting. Has the EP voted on the revised WDA yet? 11 days left to get the WDA through the UK and European Parliaments or we're back to crashing out or Boris having to ask for another extension!

    Worth investing in scrap copper and nickel futures I wonder? Could be a bunch of melted-down 50ps coming onto the market again!
  • kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    It's very interesting to me that HS2 is one of the few policy issues which seems to cause as much rage, pro and against, as Brexit or socialism.

    Yes - we are fortunate that this will not be going to Referendum. Families would be torn asunder.
    I would be interested in the Venn diagram of HS2 opponents and Brexit supporters.

    I strongly suspect that the HS2 opponents are very happy to reopen the decision, revisit the parliamentary vote and cancel something that has already started, but not if someone mentions the decision to leave the EU. Suddenly the 2016 public vote and the A50 MPs vote is the very end of it and nothing can change and the public should not be asked again and anyone who thinks so is a traitor.

    Odd.

    I'm quite happy for HS2 to be built.

    At the originally promised £30bn cost.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,151

    CLPs nominations tonight so far

    Kensington: Long-Bailey/Burgon
    Clackmannanshire and Dunblane : Starmer/Murray
    Newbury: Thornberry/Allin-Khan

    Tally

    Starmer 12
    Long Bailey 4
    Thornberry 1
    Nandy 0
    Phillips 0

    Rayner 11
    Burgon 2
    Murray 2
    Butler 1
    Allin-Khan 1

    Not exactly a great day for Jess Phillips. Considering her main hopes of getting on the ballot were either...
    1) Get the most Corbynsceptic of the big unions, USDAW, to nominate you
    2) Convince Scottish CLPs to nominate you by bashing the SNP and indyref2
    Then things aren't really going to according to plan. I honestly can't see where she gets 10 CLPs from, let alone 35.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited January 2020



    And the Conservative decline in cities is significant - 17 MPs in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield in 1987 to only Birmingham Northfield in 2019.

    Nottingham suburbs though now very Tory - Rushcliffe (always is) but Gedling and Broxtowe also now
    Gedling and Broxtowe were also Tory in 1987 and not marginals either. They stayed Tory in 1992 too
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That isn't a problem, it's a blessing. The messiness of humans prevents a vast flood of pernicious rubbish that seems to the powerful like the right thing to do at the time from becoming a reality.

    Meat is among the best sources of absorbable nutrients for humans, second only to eggs. No vegetarian culture (and we do have them to study) has ever been renowned for longevity. A meat tax is a repulsive idea for that reason. It's a rejection of our own health and an apology for being human.


    Isn't love expectancy better in South India, which is vegetarian, than in North, which is not?
    I thought that was down to the Communist government. Along with the higher levels of literacy and lower levels of poverty.

    And I'm not sure that Goan fish curry is strictly vegetarian.
    Not sure why you and rcs think the South is more vegatarian the North of India!
    South Indian cuisine - with dosas and bhel poori - is largely meat free.
    Bhel poori is notth Indian!
  • HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Interesting that some parts of the North East did not revert to the Tories last month despite having had Tory MPs well into the post-World War 2 period. Sunderland South had a Tory MP 1953 - 1964 - as did Hartlepool 1959 - 1964. Tynemouth was represented by Irene Ward and Neville Trotter and did not fall to Labour until 1997 - though was held in 2019. Newcastle also had Tory MPs until 1987.

    All big cities, it was the Leave voting market and industrial towns like Blyth Valley and Bishop Auckland and Darlington which shifted (Newcastle also voted Remain)
    Newcastle as a whole voted remain but Newcastle upon Tyne North did not. The Remain vote was focused in Central and East.

    North Tyneside certainly did not vote Remain and it’s basically Newcastle suburbs.
    It is odd though how poor Conservative performances in Tynemouth have been from 2010 onwards.

    Whereas the Conservatives were very successful in local elections there up to the 2010 GE.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    CLPs nominations tonight so far

    Kensington: Long-Bailey/Burgon
    Clackmannanshire and Dunblane : Starmer/Murray
    Newbury: Thornberry/Allin-Khan

    Tally

    Starmer 12
    Long Bailey 4
    Thornberry 1
    Nandy 0
    Phillips 0

    Rayner 11
    Burgon 2
    Murray 2
    Butler 1
    Allin-Khan 1

    Looks like Newbury has a "widen the choice" selectorate. I did like Allin-Khan's election video (the Tories thought it so good that they nicked the idea later), but her Ministry of Mervellousness or whatever it was put me off.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    That isn't a problem, it's a blessing. The messiness of humans prevents a vast flood of pernicious rubbish that seems to the powerful like the right thing to do at the time from becoming a reality.

    Meat is among the best sources of absorbable nutrients for humans, second only to eggs. No vegetarian culture (and we do have them to study) has ever been renowned for longevity. A meat tax is a repulsive idea for that reason. It's a rejection of our own health and an apology for being human.


    Isn't love expectancy better in South India, which is vegetarian, than in North, which is not?
    I thought that was down to the Communist government. Along with the higher levels of literacy and lower levels of poverty.

    And I'm not sure that Goan fish curry is strictly vegetarian.
    Not sure why you and rcs think the South is more vegatarian the North of India!
    And doesn't the level of vegetarianism depend on the day of the week?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    edited January 2020

    Pulpstar said:

    The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -5
    Lab +2
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -4

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    Basically the Tories have weakened in greater London & Merseyside, whilst strengthening everywhere else ?
    Scotland has had a wholesale left of centre party shift.
    Labour have shifted from having a Scottish core to having a London core.

    And the Conservative decline in cities is significant - 17 MPs in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield in 1987 to only Birmingham Northfield in 2019.
    Nottingham suburbs though now very Tory - Rushcliffe (always is) but Gedling and Broxtowe also now
    Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe have all had strong swings to Labour since 1987:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broxtowe_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedling_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushcliffe_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    The combined Conservative majority in those three constituencies is only 13,653 whereas it is 14,013 in Bassetlaw and 16,306 in Mansfield.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    And the Conservative decline in cities is significant - 17 MPs in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield in 1987 to only Birmingham Northfield in 2019.

    Nottingham suburbs though now very Tory - Rushcliffe (always is) but Gedling and Broxtowe also now
    Gedling and Broxtowe were also Tory in 1987 and not marginals either. They stayed Tory in 1992 too
    They should both be won back by Labour in a good year.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959

    CLPs nominations tonight so far

    Kensington: Long-Bailey/Burgon
    Clackmannanshire and Dunblane : Starmer/Murray
    Newbury: Thornberry/Allin-Khan

    Tally

    Starmer 12
    Long Bailey 4
    Thornberry 1
    Nandy 0
    Phillips 0

    Rayner 11
    Burgon 2
    Murray 2
    Butler 1
    Allin-Khan 1

    Looks like Newbury has a "widen the choice" selectorate. I did like Allin-Khan's election video (the Tories thought it so good that they nicked the idea later), but her Ministry of Mervellousness or whatever it was put me off.
    Because Allin-Khan's election video was so original!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Back from my CLP nomination meeting.

    Thornberry/Butler

    An eclectic choice.


  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043



    And the Conservative decline in cities is significant - 17 MPs in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield in 1987 to only Birmingham Northfield in 2019.

    Nottingham suburbs though now very Tory - Rushcliffe (always is) but Gedling and Broxtowe also now
    Gedling and Broxtowe were also Tory in 1987 and not marginals either. They stayed Tory in 1992 too
    They should both be won back by Labour in a good year.
    Until they are, Labour are going nowhere near No. 10.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    In which case it is working. The war to persuade it is not worth it seems all but won.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Who is this Labour Sultana MP causing such a stir on Twitter with her Corbyn on Smirnoff leftie rants ?

    Could be a future leadership contender - with her firebrand rhetoric of full communism with a dash of Anti Semitism ?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited January 2020
    RLB green new deal is her strongest suit.
    Starmer can win the left and the right, but is temporarily discounted because he’s already on the ballot.

    Thornberry had a strong hustings that gave her the chance to come through the middle.

    Some warmth for Nandy, but not enough.
    Phillips has her crowd, but it’s a niche taste.

  • Jonathan said:

    Back from my CLP nomination meeting.

    Thornberry/Butler

    An eclectic choice.


    It won't come to much though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712



    And the Conservative decline in cities is significant - 17 MPs in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield in 1987 to only Birmingham Northfield in 2019.

    Nottingham suburbs though now very Tory - Rushcliffe (always is) but Gedling and Broxtowe also now
    Gedling and Broxtowe were also Tory in 1987 and not marginals either. They stayed Tory in 1992 too
    They should both be won back by Labour in a good year.
    Broxtowe is Labour's 53rd target seat, Gedling its 6th target seat.

    Labour could win both and still not even be largest party, let alone have a majority.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949

    CLPs nominations tonight so far

    Kensington: Long-Bailey/Burgon
    Clackmannanshire and Dunblane : Starmer/Murray
    Newbury: Thornberry/Allin-Khan

    Tally

    Starmer 12
    Long Bailey 4
    Thornberry 1
    Nandy 0
    Phillips 0

    Rayner 11
    Burgon 2
    Murray 2
    Butler 1
    Allin-Khan 1

    Looks like Newbury has a "widen the choice" selectorate. I did like Allin-Khan's election video (the Tories thought it so good that they nicked the idea later), but her Ministry of Mervellousness or whatever it was put me off.
    The Ministry of Fabulous, if memory serves, really was a weird moment even for an election campaign.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Interesting that some parts of the North East did not revert to the Tories last month despite having had Tory MPs well into the post-World War 2 period. Sunderland South had a Tory MP 1953 - 1964 - as did Hartlepool 1959 - 1964. Tynemouth was represented by Irene Ward and Neville Trotter and did not fall to Labour until 1997 - though was held in 2019. Newcastle also had Tory MPs until 1987.

    All big cities, it was the Leave voting market and industrial towns like Blyth Valley and Bishop Auckland and Darlington which shifted (Newcastle also voted Remain)
    Darlington has swung in the past , having been Tory-held 1951 - 1964 and again 1983 - 1992. I am not sure that Hartlepool and Tynemouth count as big cities though!
    Hartlepool stayed Labour due to the high profile Brexit campaign splitting the "right" vote there. The Tories benefitted from the same phenomenon in Wimbledon.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Jonathan said:

    RLB green new deal is her strongest suit.
    Starmer can win the left and the right, but is temporarily discounted because he’s already on the ballot.

    Thornberry had a strong hustings that gave her the chance to come through the middle.

    Some warmth for Nandy, but not enough.
    Phillips has her crowd, but it’s a niche taste.

    What is a “green deal” ? Nationalising power generation ? Plymouth Argyle in the Premiership ?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    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.

    That isn't a problem, it's a blessing. The messiness of humans prevents a vast flood of pernicious rubbish that seems to the powerful like the right thing to do at the time from becoming a reality.

    Meat is among the best sources of absorbable nutrients for humans, second only to eggs. No vegetarian culture (and we do have them to study) has ever been renowned for longevity. A meat tax is a repulsive idea for that reason. It's a rejection of our own health and an apology for being human.


    Yep, Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism have all been a bit of a flash in the pan.
    I'm talking about human lifespan.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Sinn Féin have a big lead among under 35s.

    https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1219391139775729665?s=21
  • TGOHF666 said:

    Who is this Labour Sultana MP causing such a stir on Twitter with her Corbyn on Smirnoff leftie rants ?

    Could be a future leadership contender - with her firebrand rhetoric of full communism with a dash of Anti Semitism ?

    She can be the next Laura Pidcock
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,151
    edited January 2020
    I have to wonder, what are the odds that Rayner wins the deputy leadership by default, by being the only candidate to get the required affiliates and/or CLP nominations?
    -Murray will probably get enough Scottish CLPs to get on, but given that Rayner won one of the 3 CLP nominations there so far, I wouldn't bet my house on it.
    -Burgon is clearly the choice of the hardcore Corbynistas who distrust Rayner. But are there enough them in the Corbyn leaning CLPs, such that 35 of those CLPs - ignoring Momentum's recommendation - go for him over her. Again, not 100%. UNITE might nominate him though, but they could well go for Rayner instead.
    -I honestly don't think either Allin-Khan or Butler will make the ballot.
    It's unlikely, but it's not completely impossible we get a Rayner coronation.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    TGOHF666 said:

    Who is this Labour Sultana MP causing such a stir on Twitter with her Corbyn on Smirnoff leftie rants ?

    Could be a future leadership contender - with her firebrand rhetoric of full communism with a dash of Anti Semitism ?

    She can be the next Laura Pidcock
    She was the future once.

  • The 2019 GE has often been mentioned as being the largest Conservative majority since 1987.

    While the overall majority might be only 22 fewer there is a larger variation in seats per region:

    North-East
    Con +5
    Lab -5
    LibD -1

    North-West
    Con -4
    Lab +1
    LibD -2

    Yorkshire
    Con +5
    Lab -5

    East Midlands
    Con +7
    Lab -3

    West Midlands
    Con +8
    Lab -7

    East
    Con +2
    Lab +4
    LibD +1

    South-East
    Con -3
    Lab +7
    LibD +1
    Green +1

    South-West
    Con +4
    Lab +5
    LibD -2

    London
    Con -37
    Lab +26

    Wales
    Con +6
    Lab -1
    LibD -3
    Plaid +1

    Scotland
    Con -4
    Lab -49
    LibD -5
    SNP +45

    Small corrections to the East Midlands and North-West numbers.
  • Sinn Féin have a big lead among under 35s.

    https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1219391139775729665?s=21

    I wonder how high they will go after the next recession.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    @rottenborough I think Owen Jones is defending Jess Phillips there...
  • There are too many negatives in that tweet.
  • TGOHF666 said:

    Jonathan said:

    RLB green new deal is her strongest suit.
    Starmer can win the left and the right, but is temporarily discounted because he’s already on the ballot.

    Thornberry had a strong hustings that gave her the chance to come through the middle.

    Some warmth for Nandy, but not enough.
    Phillips has her crowd, but it’s a niche taste.

    What is a “green deal” ? Nationalising power generation ? Plymouth Argyle in the Premiership ?
    Its borrowing endless billions to spend on things you want.

    Its what everyone now supports but call different names.
  • https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/20/question-time-jump-the-shark-laurence-fox

    A decent enough assessment on the state of QT here.

    Awful program compared to the Robin Day years. Haven't heard 'Any Questions' for a while but I hope it hasn't gone down the same path.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    TGOHF666 said:

    Who is this Labour Sultana MP causing such a stir on Twitter with her Corbyn on Smirnoff leftie rants ?

    Could be a future leadership contender - with her firebrand rhetoric of full communism with a dash of Anti Semitism ?

    If you want to understand the disarray of Labour's general election campaign in the West Midlands, bear in mind that based on her politics alone she was gifted a community organiser post within the Regional Office to supposedly develop campaigning in certain Black Country key marginals including mine. By all accounts she did diddly squat and was regarded as an utter waste of time. When the GE was called she was then controversially selected as the Coventry South candidate from a rigged shortlist of two chosen by the NEC such that the only other candidate was someone unknown from London. (The Bassetlaw model.) She managed a 12% decrease in the Labour vote which was pretty exceptional for a seat containing two universities.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Sinn Féin have a big lead among under 35s.

    https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1219391139775729665?s=21

    They are the largest left of centre party, so no surprise there, Labour also lead strongly with under 35s here.

    Both Fianna Fail and Fine Gail are right of centre, their main difference still being the former was anti Treaty in the Irish civil war and led by Eamon De Valera the latter pro Treaty and led by Michael Collins
This discussion has been closed.