Election prediction time

[Voll Blau]

7 hours ago, Daggers said:

https://thecritic.co.uk/keir-more-than-just-a-lucky-general/
 

 

Very fair assessment of the situation.

[Daggers]

Is Fürage going to sue?

 

Mr.BNP says he was definitely a member of the National Front. 
 

 

[Daggers]

Hey Dave, where do the journos get their easy to digest election data so they can make confident predictions about likely winners and losers and seem all bright and stuff?
 

Here, this is where they go: https://inglesp.github.io/apogee/

[ozleicester]

Whatever happens, at least you aren't voting in America 🤣

[leicsmac]

55 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Whatever happens, at least you aren't voting in America 🤣

Autocracies around the world must be pointing and laughing at the choices offered in the UK and US right now. (And in some cases, sticking their oar in a bit to try to encourage candidates that would encourage that selfsame autocracy).

 

Still, look past the figureheads and the policy differences are clear. I wish more people did.

[Daggers]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Autocracies around the world must be pointing and laughing at the choices offered in the UK and US right now. (And in some cases, sticking their oar in a bit to try to encourage candidates that would encourage that selfsame autocracy).

 

Still, look past the figureheads and the policy differences are clear. I wish more people did.

Investors and commentators are pointing at the UK and commenting that it’s about to embark on five years of reliability, stability and confidence. The US and Europe are pegged as being the unstable places.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Investors and commentators are pointing at the UK and commenting that it’s about to embark on five years of reliability, stability and confidence. The US and Europe are pegged as being the unstable places.

Given what's going on in France and Germany, I can see the argument tbh.

 

Pardon the cynicism, I just hope that they're right about it.

[Grebfromgrebland]

13 hours ago, Daggers said:

Referring to the legal spending limit for a campaign in a single seat, Mr Gravett says: “A short campaign you’ve got, I don’t know, twenty grand or whatever it is, the figure”.

In response, Mr Bates is heard saying: “We’ve spent double that already, don’t worry”, before Mr Jones adds: “It’s twenty grand minus… It’s six for VAT. So actually it’s only f****** fifteen.”
 

…He later tells a man who says he’s a paramedic to deny oxygen to a patient in an ambulance if they are “any of that f****** lot”.

“And do us a favour. You’re a paramedic. Any of that f****** lot get in your ambulance, just don’t put oxygen on the bastard. Use something else. You know where I’m coming from”, he says.

 

….Later, outlining their vision for a future Reform government, Mr Gravett is heard saying: “When we form the government in 2029 then surely we can change lots of things”.

In response, Mr Jones is heard saying “our police officers will be paramilitaries, they won’t be police” and that Reform UK should “bring back the noose”.

If reform get in one day they will take us out of the echr and everything he says will be possible and legal. 

 

Beware anyone who suggested leaving the echr they are not on your side.

[Brizzle Fox]

I saw this yesterday, have now watched it several  times and am still trying to work out what is not to like from what the magnificent Ms Rayner is saying....

 

Has it really got to the stage where CCHQ are actively promoting Labour.

 

Very odd indeed.

 

[Grebfromgrebland]

7 minutes ago, Brizzle Fox said:

I saw this yesterday, have now watched it several  times and am still trying to work out what is not to like from what the magnificent Ms Rayner is saying....

 

Has it really got to the stage where CCHQ are actively promoting Labour.

 

Very odd indeed.

 

They're going in on a new line of anti french racism. If the French have good things then we shouldn't!

[Brizzle Fox]

14 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

They're going in on a new line of anti french racism. If the French have good things then we shouldn't!

Indeed. Designed to appeal to retired Reform leaning racists who probably won't see any online attack ads anyway.

 

A bold tactic.

[Zear0]

It is a really weird video, as I agree with most of it, apart from the zero hour bans which would basically f**k my business. Praying they see sense on that one. 

[Brizzle Fox]

27 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

It is a really weird video, as I agree with most of it, apart from the zero hour bans which would basically f**k my business. Praying they see sense on that one. 

Yeah I appreciate that there are both pros and cons to zero hour contracts from both an employee and employer perspective, so there needs to be a more nuanced, controlled approach to this subject, focusing on bad practices rather than an outright ban.

[Zear0]

1 minute ago, Brizzle Fox said:

Yeah I appreciate that there are both pros and cons to zero hour contracts from both an employee and employer perspective, so there needs to be a more nuanced, controlled approach to this subject, focusing on bad practices rather than an outright ban.

Quite, we're not all Mike Ashley. 

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, Brizzle Fox said:

I saw this yesterday, have now watched it several  times and am still trying to work out what is not to like from what the magnificent Ms Rayner is saying....

 

Has it really got to the stage where CCHQ are actively promoting Labour.

 

Very odd indeed.

 

Yeah not quite the 'gotcha' they think they're aiming for. 

[StanSP]

 

 

[Ian Nacho]

I thought we had a bad selection of prospective PMs before I saw the US presidential debate. 

[Footballwipe]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

 

This has Survation predicting Reform to win Mid Leicestershire. Holy moly*

 

EDIT: That's the only one of the many polling companies referenced, the holy moly is for dramatic effect.

Edited 28 June by Footballwipe

[urban.spaceman]

Glastonbury

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Ian Nacho said:

I thought we had a bad selection of prospective PMs before I saw the US presidential debate. 

It is monumentally depressing, which is why I wish more people would look further than the figurehead and to policy (or policy that isn't directly linked to short term self interest such as the economy, anyway).

[The Doctor]

23 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Do we? Who do you presume to speak on behalf of, other than yourself? 

I mean he is right though. there's an odd, and frankly almost cultish belief, that labour are lying to gain power and will be much more progressive in power but that will not happen. look at what labour are up to on the campaign trail and what they're saying. they could do so much to improve things: lift millions of children out of poverty instantly, reverse decades of privatisation and underfunding of the NHS, shore up workers rights. they've already ruled out all of those and have started to sabotage their own candidates for being too popular (Jovan Owusu-Nepaul in Clacton https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/26/labour-not-putting-up-a-fight-against-farage-in-clacton) because they're ultimately a party run for people like John Caudwell, billionaire former Tory donor who supported Liz Truss:

 

note that he is insistent that Starmer and Liz Truss' platforms were not wildly inconsistent with each other and that he viewed Truss as the lesser of two evils. so, what was so objectionable about Sunak to him, you might ask:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw00rgq24xvo

 

furlough. paying people during COVID. the one thing Sunak did that wasn't hugely harmful to working class people, that's what was unacceptable to this bloke. labour under starmer are managed opposition to ensure nothing meaningfully changes to upset the billionaires. given that most if not all problems people face ultimately stem from over 40 years of wages being suppressed and not growing in line with productivity and the rest of the economy, that means nothing will improve for people 

 

 

[FoxyPV]

3 hours ago, Zear0 said:

It is a really weird video, as I agree with most of it, apart from the zero hour bans which would basically f**k my business. Praying they see sense on that one. 

There used to be dedicated hour contracts e.g. 16hrs etc for staff. I used to have one in a shop. Could work more if I wanted but was always guaranteed 16hrs

[Zear0]

5 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

There used to be dedicated hour contracts e.g. 16hrs etc for staff. I used to have one in a shop. Could work more if I wanted but was always guaranteed 16hrs

I won't bore you with my entire organisational operations, but my company undertakes regulatory mandated independent peer review for high integrity power systems.  As I don't know if I'm getting a piece of work to review an analysis on chemistry, metallurgy, physics, design, statistics (I could go on), I have a group of folk with different specialisms on zero hour contracts who I farm the specific work items to if and when they arrive.  Everyone does this in addition to their primary jobs (mainly academics) so it's outside the dark side of retail/hospitality where people want full-time work but are given zero hour contracts.

 

Problem is, when I bid for work, it's a requirement from my customers that I can demonstrate I have the staff to actually do the work, as if they're not contracted, any bids I submit would be fanciful.  I can't have these guys on permanent contracts as there are some disciplines where there are years between them doing work, what am I meant to do, employ them fulltime to do nothing?

 

If it does get banned, I'm sure I won't be the only one having to change my ways of working and there will no doubt be work arounds.  But this way is so much more convenient for literally everyone.  Devil's in the detail so won't flap until I see what the actual legislation says.

[HighPeakFox]

26 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I mean he is right though. there's an odd, and frankly almost cultish belief, that labour are lying to gain power and will be much more progressive in power but that will not happen. look at what labour are up to on the campaign trail and what they're saying. they could do so much to improve things: lift millions of children out of poverty instantly, reverse decades of privatisation and underfunding of the NHS, shore up workers rights. they've already ruled out all of those and have started to sabotage their own candidates for being too popular (Jovan Owusu-Nepaul in Clacton https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/26/labour-not-putting-up-a-fight-against-farage-in-clacton) because they're ultimately a party run for people like John Caudwell, billionaire former Tory donor who supported Liz Truss:

 

note that he is insistent that Starmer and Liz Truss' platforms were not wildly inconsistent with each other and that he viewed Truss as the lesser of two evils. so, what was so objectionable about Sunak to him, you might ask:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw00rgq24xvo

 

furlough. paying people during COVID. the one thing Sunak did that wasn't hugely harmful to working class people, that's what was unacceptable to this bloke. labour under starmer are managed opposition to ensure nothing meaningfully changes to upset the billionaires. given that most if not all problems people face ultimately stem from over 40 years of wages being suppressed and not growing in line with productivity and the rest of the economy, that means nothing will improve for people 

 

 

You've made the same mistake as David did - he might be right, it's not about that. It's the appropriation of consent/assent I object to. 'We all know' how unhealthy it is to allow it.

Edited 28 June by HighPeakFox

[David Hankey]

On 27/06/2024 at 13:21, HighPeakFox said:

Do we? Who do you presume to speak on behalf of, other than yourself? 

And how do you think things will improve? Perhaps you can elucidate.