Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bad night for LAB in latest local elections losing a seat to C

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited January 19 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bad night for LAB in latest local elections losing a seat to CON in one of its heartlands

Hulton on Bolton (Lab defence) Result: Con 1,455 (49% +16% on last time), Lab 1,179 (40% +3% on last time), UKIP 190 (6% -18% on last time), Lib Dem 67 (2% unchanged on last time), Green 52 (2% -1% on last time) Conservative GAIN from Labour with a majority of 276 (9%) on a swing of 6.5% from Lab to Con

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638
    First! Like Leave, May & NO.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638
    As ever thanks to Mr Hayfield for compiling the data - but before we get carried away, weren't there special circumstances in Bolton which may make it atypical?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,642
    Cheers for this, Mr. Hayfield.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,684
    edited January 19
    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,560
    Afternoon all :)

    While the strong Conservative performance in the North of England continues to attract attention, so should the improving Labour performance in parts of the south - a solid advance in Bournemouth. It's glib to see the collapsing UKIP vote is going CON in the north and LAB in the south so there are other factors at work.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,870

    As ever thanks to Mr Hayfield for compiling the data - but before we get carried away, weren't there special circumstances in Bolton which may make it atypical?

    It turns out the "special circumstances" took place three years ago. I was under the impression they were more recent from comments elsewhere.

    http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/12976218.Bolton_businessman_investigated_by_counter_terror_officers_alongside_leader_of_Pakistani_political_party/
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    If a new fixed link is needed, a second tunnel would be a better option.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097

    As ever thanks to Mr Hayfield for compiling the data - but before we get carried away, weren't there special circumstances in Bolton which may make it atypical?

    Someone posted a story earlier about a council tax scandal - a councillor didn’t pay his own council tax bill until they threatened to prosecute him, then he went to court to stop the local paper naming him - but I don’t think he was the councillor who resigned, so maybe another local scandal in Bolton.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    On topic, we should always take one week's figures with scepticism, particularly where the campaigning might be affected by external events such as the Christmas break. I'm not going to change that rule simply because of a good week for the Tories.

    I don't see a great deal in these figures to contradict the polls: it's tight nationally.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,701

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    If a new fixed link is needed, a second tunnel would be a better option.
    How about a hyperloop?
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 1,849

    On topic, we should always take one week's figures with scepticism, particularly where the campaigning might be affected by external events such as the Christmas break. I'm not going to change that rule simply because of a good week for the Tories.

    I don't see a great deal in these figures to contradict the polls: it's tight nationally.

    Agreed
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,155
    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097
    Hmm, interesting. So the by-election was caused by a death, and it looks like the UKIP vote all went blue. Bodes well for certain areas of the North, but like Mr Herdson says above let’s not count our chickens yet.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,095

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    If a new fixed link is needed, a second tunnel would be a better option.
    How about a hyperloop?
    Now you're talking!
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,975

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
    He also needed a distraction from what Macron said about any future trade deal. Of course the danger for Boris is that all these impractical suggestions make him look out of touch with reality when there are plenty of other more important issues that need resolving.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
    The politics are smart. Brexiteers want to cut Britain off from the rest of the world and our largest market don't they? Well, actually, no. We want a bridge to make us more connected than ever.

    Doesn't mean it will ever be built or that it makes any economic sense. Its just a clever political gesture. Bit like suggesting to north west Londoners that the planes that are a bane of their lives should be diverted to some fantasy island somewhere vaguely south.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,287

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
    Yep. Although you could add, "whole Theresa attempts to clean up the clusterf*** mess that Boris has delivered to Britain as best she can."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097
    DavidL said:

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
    The politics are smart. Brexiteers want to cut Britain off from the rest of the world and our largest market don't they? Well, actually, no. We want a bridge to make us more connected than ever.

    Doesn't mean it will ever be built or that it makes any economic sense. Its just a clever political gesture. Bit like suggesting to north west Londoners that the planes that are a bane of their lives should be diverted to some fantasy island somewhere vaguely south.
    The difference being that his fantasy airport proposal stopped the serious discussion on how best to expand LHR for another half a decade.

    And the politicians are still bloody talking about it rather than getting on with the construction.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 999
    Shouldnt be happening if Labour is heading for government.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 11,552
    edited January 19
    Sandpit said:

    Hmm, interesting. So the by-election was caused by a death, and it looks like the UKIP vote all went blue. Bodes well for certain areas of the North, but like Mr Herdson says above let’s not count our chickens yet.
    Last week the conservatives retained all four locals.

    However, I see little point in taking the odd local as a real indication of public opinion for a GE

    If I was a labour supporter who wants a labour government I would be very ill at ease at the real move to momentum and the hard left. Corbyn, McDonnell, momemtum and elements of the unions want to turn the UK into a hard left socialist state and the vast majority of labour MP's will not be able to support it at a GE. I believe this year will be a defining year for many in the labour party as they wrestle with their various positions
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,975
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
    The politics are smart. Brexiteers want to cut Britain off from the rest of the world and our largest market don't they? Well, actually, no. We want a bridge to make us more connected than ever.

    Doesn't mean it will ever be built or that it makes any economic sense. Its just a clever political gesture. Bit like suggesting to north west Londoners that the planes that are a bane of their lives should be diverted to some fantasy island somewhere vaguely south.
    The difference being that his fantasy airport proposal stopped the serious discussion on how best to expand LHR for another half a decade.

    And the politicians are still bloody talking about it rather than getting on with the construction.
    Quite, its always what's best for Boris, not the country.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
    The politics are smart. Brexiteers want to cut Britain off from the rest of the world and our largest market don't they? Well, actually, no. We want a bridge to make us more connected than ever.

    Doesn't mean it will ever be built or that it makes any economic sense. Its just a clever political gesture. Bit like suggesting to north west Londoners that the planes that are a bane of their lives should be diverted to some fantasy island somewhere vaguely south.
    The difference being that his fantasy airport proposal stopped the serious discussion on how best to expand LHR for another half a decade.

    And the politicians are still bloody talking about it rather than getting on with the construction.
    The failure to develop Heathrow further fell into the realm of a national scandal sometime before Blair was elected and should be a source of shame for every subsequent PM including this one. I sometimes wonder if we actually care about a growing economy or whether there are enough people in this country who think they are relatively comfortable and content with what we have.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,684
    edited January 19

    Sandpit said:

    Hmm, interesting. So the by-election was caused by a death, and it looks like the UKIP vote all went blue. Bodes well for certain areas of the North, but like Mr Herdson says above let’s not count our chickens yet.
    Last week the conservatives retained all four locals.

    However, I see little point in taking the odd local as a real indication of public opinion for a GE

    If I was a labour supporter who wants a labour government I would be very ill at ease at the real move to momentum and the hard left. Corbyn, McDonnell, momemtum and elements of the unions want to turn the UK into a hard left socialist state and the vast majority of labour MP's will not be able to support it at a GE. I believe this year will be a defining year for many in the labour party as they wrestle with their various positions
    I've got the vague thought that, because Corbyn remains poor at the bread and butter of politics, this sort of drift will continue.

    His reverse in fortune came from the campaign where he said, frankly, any old nonsense and reversed number of previously entrenched positions as and when it suited him.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 999

    Sandpit said:

    Hmm, interesting. So the by-election was caused by a death, and it looks like the UKIP vote all went blue. Bodes well for certain areas of the North, but like Mr Herdson says above let’s not count our chickens yet.
    Last week the conservatives retained all four locals.

    However, I see little point in taking the odd local as a real indication of public opinion for a GE

    If I was a labour supporter who wants a labour government I would be very ill at ease at the real move to momentum and the hard left. Corbyn, McDonnell, momemtum and elements of the unions want to turn the UK into a hard left socialist state and the vast majority of labour MP's will not be able to support it at a GE. I believe this year will be a defining year for many in the labour party as they wrestle with their various positions
    I've got the vague thought that, because Corbyn remains poor at the bread and butter of politics, this sort of drift will continue.

    His reverse in fortune came from the campaign where he said, frankly, any old nonsense and reversed number of previously entrenched positions as and when it suited him.
    This is exactly how I feel. I have no one to vote for as the party I voted for all my life is taken over by hard left Stalinists, and whose members increasingly resemble fascists of the left.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 247
    JonathanD said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
    The politics are smart. Brexiteers want to cut Britain off from the rest of the world and our largest market don't they? Well, actually, no. We want a bridge to make us more connected than ever.

    Doesn't mean it will ever be built or that it makes any economic sense. Its just a clever political gesture. Bit like suggesting to north west Londoners that the planes that are a bane of their lives should be diverted to some fantasy island somewhere vaguely south.
    The difference being that his fantasy airport proposal stopped the serious discussion on how best to expand LHR for another half a decade.

    And the politicians are still bloody talking about it rather than getting on with the construction.
    Quite, its always what's best for Boris, not the country.
    There is a fine line in public opinion between being a likeable rogue and being a wanker. Boris just crossed it.
  • TonyTony Posts: 119
    Quite funny watching the reaction to Boris's bridge idea.
    Imagine Macron had proposed the exact same thing , everything in UK politics now is filtered though the Brexit vote , it's extraordinary and so transparent.

    As a very regular user of the Shuttle people are missing the point with the capacity argument. The shuttle isn't full because it's expensive and tedious, 90 minute wait both ways over Xmas for example.

    A road bridge with say a £20 one way fee and massively reduced delays would dramatically increase the demand/traffic. The major beneficiaries would actually be northern France , it would become a London suburb :)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490
    Fenman said:

    JonathanD said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
    The politics are smart. Brexiteers want to cut Britain off from the rest of the world and our largest market don't they? Well, actually, no. We want a bridge to make us more connected than ever.

    Doesn't mean it will ever be built or that it makes any economic sense. Its just a clever political gesture. Bit like suggesting to north west Londoners that the planes that are a bane of their lives should be diverted to some fantasy island somewhere vaguely south.
    The difference being that his fantasy airport proposal stopped the serious discussion on how best to expand LHR for another half a decade.

    And the politicians are still bloody talking about it rather than getting on with the construction.
    Quite, its always what's best for Boris, not the country.
    There is a fine line in public opinion between being a likeable rogue and being a wanker. Boris just crossed it.
    Nonsense. Boris has been on both sides of that line for years. This is not going to push him one way or the other.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097
    edited January 19
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly for some reason.

    There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.

    Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.

    grr.
    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
    The politics are smart. Brexiteers want to cut Britain off from the rest of the world and our largest market don't they? Well, actually, no. We want a bridge to make us more connected than ever.

    Doesn't mean it will ever be built or that it makes any economic sense. Its just a clever political gesture. Bit like suggesting to north west Londoners that the planes that are a bane of their lives should be diverted to some fantasy island somewhere vaguely south.
    The difference being that his fantasy airport proposal stopped the serious discussion on how best to expand LHR for another half a decade.

    And the politicians are still bloody talking about it rather than getting on with the construction.
    The failure to develop Heathrow further fell into the realm of a national scandal sometime before Blair was elected and should be a source of shame for every subsequent PM including this one. I sometimes wonder if we actually care about a growing economy or whether there are enough people in this country who think they are relatively comfortable and content with what we have.
    Well quite.

    For major national infrastructure Parliament should discuss the proposal, accept comments in a consultation and then pass a Hybrid Bill authorising the required land purchases and construction - bypassing the usual planning process completely. Parliament should agree compensation at 125% or 133% and then get building.

    We could have had runways 3 and 4 operational by now if we’d spent less time talking and more time building. The rest of the world doesn’t spend two or three decades talking about building a runway, they get on with building the damn thing.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,648

    Sandpit said:

    Hmm, interesting. So the by-election was caused by a death, and it looks like the UKIP vote all went blue. Bodes well for certain areas of the North, but like Mr Herdson says above let’s not count our chickens yet.
    Last week the conservatives retained all four locals.

    However, I see little point in taking the odd local as a real indication of public opinion for a GE

    If I was a labour supporter who wants a labour government I would be very ill at ease at the real move to momentum and the hard left. Corbyn, McDonnell, momemtum and elements of the unions want to turn the UK into a hard left socialist state and the vast majority of labour MP's will not be able to support it at a GE. I believe this year will be a defining year for many in the labour party as they wrestle with their various positions

    The Labour leadership is composed of people who throughout their long political lives have shown time and again that they do not want to regulate capitalism, but smash it; and who will tolerate any cause, stand in solidarity with any regime, as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK and/or anti-Israel. Many inside the Labour party - and many more who stand on the centre left and even the left - are currently trying to convince themselves that these people did not mean what they said or did for 40 years and that really they are little more than slightly to the left of Scandinavian social democrats. However, 40% of voters can see the reality and so are implacably opposed to Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and co getting anywhere near power. So far, so good ...

    The problem that leaves is that a tired, divided, utterly mediocre Conservative government is basically guaranteed power for as long as Corbyn leads the Labour party. That is extremely bad news for the country. I am in my 50s and pretty well set, so this is not gong to do me much harm. But I feel desperately sorry for those younger than me. The UK is currently in a very bad place and there does not seem to be any sign of a way out.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,355
    edited January 19
    How much have we now spent on 'not building' HeathrowR3 now as a nation ?

    Are we up past the billion mark yet ?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,480
    The previous high-point of UKIP support is still unwinding in local elections. Nationally, this happened last year, so there is nothing to read into Kippers turning into Tories in terms of the next GE.

    UKIP will lose all of the seats they defend in May. This should mitigate Tory net losses, but we ought to be focussing on the National Equivalent Vote Share, and how that has moved from last year's locals and the GE.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097
    edited January 19
    Pulpstar said:

    How much have we now spent on 'not building' HeathrowR3 now as a nation ?

    Are we up past the billion mark yet ?

    Several times over. Every year.

    Every foggy day costs millions as the short-haul schedule goes out of the window and many meetings across the UK and Europe get postponed.

    Maybe the delay is being sponsored by Airbus, to encourage BA to order as many A380s as Emirates.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,548
    Sandpit said:

    Well quite.

    For major national infrastructure Parliament should discuss the proposal, accept comments in a consultation and then pass a Hybrid Bill authorising the required land purchases and construction - bypassing the usual planning process completely. Parliament should agree compensation at 125% or 133% and then get building.

    We could have had runways 3 and 4 operational by now if we’d spent less time talking and more time building. The rest of the world doesn’t spend two or three decades talking about building a runway, they get on with building the damn thing.

    In the time that we've been talking about maybe oneday building an expansion to a pre-existing airport and maybe just maybe in a few decades have a new train line completed the Chinese have developed lots of new airports and expansions and trainlines.

    And we wonder why we're not efficient as a nation? Seriously!?

    JFDI - Just F***ing Do It.
  • I think locals can be a good indicator when results are aggregated over many months and contests, as Harry's analysis over the Christmas period showed. It is ridiculous however to extrapolate from one by-election. Last week, in Wyre in Lancashire there was a contest where there was a near 10% swing to Labour from Conservative. Does this mean Labour are sweeping all before them? No.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,642
    Mr. Glenn, UKIPalypse now?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097
    edited January 19

    Sandpit said:

    Well quite.

    For major national infrastructure Parliament should discuss the proposal, accept comments in a consultation and then pass a Hybrid Bill authorising the required land purchases and construction - bypassing the usual planning process completely. Parliament should agree compensation at 125% or 133% and then get building.

    We could have had runways 3 and 4 operational by now if we’d spent less time talking and more time building. The rest of the world doesn’t spend two or three decades talking about building a runway, they get on with building the damn thing.

    In the time that we've been talking about maybe oneday building an expansion to a pre-existing airport and maybe just maybe in a few decades have a new train line completed the Chinese have developed lots of new airports and expansions and trainlines.

    And we wonder why we're not efficient as a nation? Seriously!?

    JFDI - Just F***ing Do It.
    My usual reply to this is that Dubai’s T3 was built in the same time as LHR T5’s planning enquiry. Same scope of work, adding new terminal buildings to the existing field with only a couple of access roads outside. As you say China is the same - guess which way the trade is going.

    More worryingly, there’s no flights from all these new Chinese airports to London, because LHR and LGW are completely full.

    JFDI, with bells on!
  • DavidL said:

    Fenman said:

    JonathanD said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Pong said:

    fpt;

    Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.

    Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.

    And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.

    Mad.

    Let's face it: Boris doesn't want a bridge and doesn't expect one to be built. The whole point of the exercise was to portray himself as an action man, striding the world stage amongst the great and the good, while Theresa just looks stale, forlorn and unloved. It's worked like a charm.
    The politics are smart. Brexiteers want to cut Britain off from the rest of the world and our largest market don't they? Well, actually, no. We want a bridge to make us more connected than ever.

    Doesn't mean it will ever be built or that it makes any economic sense. Its just a clever political gesture. Bit like suggesting to north west Londoners that the planes that are a bane of their lives should be diverted to some fantasy island somewhere vaguely south.
    The difference being that his fantasy airport proposal stopped the serious discussion on how best to expand LHR for another half a decade.

    And the politicians are still bloody talking about it rather than getting on with the construction.
    Quite, its always what's best for Boris, not the country.
    There is a fine line in public opinion between being a likeable rogue and being a wanker. Boris just crossed it.
    Nonsense. Boris has been on both sides of that line for years. This is not going to push him one way or the other.
    Got everyone talking about it and Sky just showed a smiling Boris - Macron selfie both with their thumbs up, followed by a Macron - May selfie.

    It goes without saying who looks totally at ease with their selfie (not including Macron )
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,642
    Mr. NorthWales, I don't get the selfie craze.

    But there we are.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,302

    I think locals can be a good indicator when results are aggregated over many months and contests, as Harry's analysis over the Christmas period showed. It is ridiculous however to extrapolate from one by-election. Last week, in Wyre in Lancashire there was a contest where there was a near 10% swing to Labour from Conservative. Does this mean Labour are sweeping all before them? No.

    With first past the post it is taking and holding seat that matters much more than vote shares. Last year the Greens made 6 times as many local election gains as Corbyn's LAB while the LDs made 20 times
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,302
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well quite.

    For major national infrastructure Parliament should discuss the proposal, accept comments in a consultation and then pass a Hybrid Bill authorising the required land purchases and construction - bypassing the usual planning process completely. Parliament should agree compensation at 125% or 133% and then get building.

    We could have had runways 3 and 4 operational by now if we’d spent less time talking and more time building. The rest of the world doesn’t spend two or three decades talking about building a runway, they get on with building the damn thing.

    In the time that we've been talking about maybe oneday building an expansion to a pre-existing airport and maybe just maybe in a few decades have a new train line completed the Chinese have developed lots of new airports and expansions and trainlines.

    And we wonder why we're not efficient as a nation? Seriously!?

    JFDI - Just F***ing Do It.
    My usual reply to this is that Dubai’s T3 was built in the same time as LHR T5’s planning enquiry. Same scope of work, adding new terminal buildings to the existing field with only a couple of access roads outside. As you say China is the same - guess which way the trade is going.

    More worryingly, there’s no flights from all these new Chinese airports to London, because LHR and LGW are completely full.

    JFDI, with bells on!
    And TMay is too scared to push forward with LHR3 because of Zac.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,701
    The Telegraph playing hunt the saboteur.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/19/theresa-may-hints-would-now-vote-stay-eu-tells-french-proud/

    New doubts have emerged about Theresa May’s commitment to Brexit after she suggested she would vote Remain if an EU referendum were held today and boasts of being a “European”.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    I think locals can be a good indicator when results are aggregated over many months and contests, as Harry's analysis over the Christmas period showed. It is ridiculous however to extrapolate from one by-election. Last week, in Wyre in Lancashire there was a contest where there was a near 10% swing to Labour from Conservative. Does this mean Labour are sweeping all before them? No.

    With first past the post it is taking and holding seat that matters much more than vote shares. Last year the Greens made 6 times as many local election gains as Corbyn's LAB while the LDs made 20 times
    Fat lot of good it did either party though at the real elections, in May and June.

    Concentrating resource to win seats is a useful tactic but a rotten strategy - at least, for any party that aspires to more than a few isolated dots.
  • Sandpit said:

    Hmm, interesting. So the by-election was caused by a death, and it looks like the UKIP vote all went blue. Bodes well for certain areas of the North, but like Mr Herdson says above let’s not count our chickens yet.
    Last week the conservatives retained all four locals.

    However, I see little point in taking the odd local as a real indication of public opinion for a GE

    If I was a labour supporter who wants a labour government I would be very ill at ease at the real move to momentum and the hard left. Corbyn, McDonnell, momemtum and elements of the unions want to turn the UK into a hard left socialist state and the vast majority of labour MP's will not be able to support it at a GE. I believe this year will be a defining year for many in the labour party as they wrestle with their various positions

    The Labour leadership is composed of people who throughout their long political lives have shown time and again that they do not want to regulate capitalism, but smash it; and who will tolerate any cause, stand in solidarity with any regime, as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK and/or anti-Israel. Many inside the Labour party - and many more who stand on the centre left and even the left - are currently trying to convince themselves that these people did not mean what they said or did for 40 years and that really they are little more than slightly to the left of Scandinavian social democrats. However, 40% of voters can see the reality and so are implacably opposed to Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and co getting anywhere near power. So far, so good ...

    The problem that leaves is that a tired, divided, utterly mediocre Conservative government is basically guaranteed power for as long as Corbyn leads the Labour party. That is extremely bad news for the country. I am in my 50s and pretty well set, so this is not gong to do me much harm. But I feel desperately sorry for those younger than me. The UK is currently in a very bad place and there does not seem to be any sign of a way out.

    A fair summary but I live in hope of one of two things happening.

    Theresa May concludes Brexit by mid 2019 and a new leader takes over with new ideas and recognises the younger vote deserves equal if not more attention than us old ones
    Or
    Corbyn goes and labour produces a leader who can put forward a manifesto that does not need it's COE to make preparations for the collapse of the markets
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097
    edited January 19

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well quite.

    For major national infrastructure Parliament should discuss the proposal, accept comments in a consultation and then pass a Hybrid Bill authorising the required land purchases and construction - bypassing the usual planning process completely. Parliament should agree compensation at 125% or 133% and then get building.

    We could have had runways 3 and 4 operational by now if we’d spent less time talking and more time building. The rest of the world doesn’t spend two or three decades talking about building a runway, they get on with building the damn thing.

    In the time that we've been talking about maybe oneday building an expansion to a pre-existing airport and maybe just maybe in a few decades have a new train line completed the Chinese have developed lots of new airports and expansions and trainlines.

    And we wonder why we're not efficient as a nation? Seriously!?

    JFDI - Just F***ing Do It.
    My usual reply to this is that Dubai’s T3 was built in the same time as LHR T5’s planning enquiry. Same scope of work, adding new terminal buildings to the existing field with only a couple of access roads outside. As you say China is the same - guess which way the trade is going.

    More worryingly, there’s no flights from all these new Chinese airports to London, because LHR and LGW are completely full.

    JFDI, with bells on!
    And TMay is too scared to push forward with LHR3 because of Zac.
    It’s been talked about for so long, and is having a huge impact on the economy not to build the new runways. Plural. Let’s not go through all this again a few years down the line.

    I’d put it in front of Parliament sponsored by the department of trade and dare MPs to vote it down. There’s massive planning reform required for major projects (HS2 is the same) - how did we ever build the motorways and railways over the last two centuries?

    What I find particularly galling about Zac is that his constituency will see FEWER planes once the new runway opens, as it’s South of the airfield and the new runway is proposed to be to the North of it. Surely he’s not stupid enough to resign twice?
  • Mr. NorthWales, I don't get the selfie craze.

    But there we are.

    Neither do I nor I suspect does our Prime Minister
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,292

    The Telegraph playing hunt the saboteur.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/19/theresa-may-hints-would-now-vote-stay-eu-tells-french-proud/

    New doubts have emerged about Theresa May’s commitment to Brexit after she suggested she would vote Remain if an EU referendum were held today and boasts of being a “European”.

    Where did she say she'd vote remain? All she said is she would "sit down and look carefully at the issues".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097

    Mr. NorthWales, I don't get the selfie craze.

    But there we are.

    Neither do I nor I suspect does our Prime Minister
    I’m sure she’s happy that an official photographer and a few of the media are there to capture the event.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,895

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well quite.

    For major national infrastructure Parliament should discuss the proposal, accept comments in a consultation and then pass a Hybrid Bill authorising the required land purchases and construction - bypassing the usual planning process completely. Parliament should agree compensation at 125% or 133% and then get building.

    We could have had runways 3 and 4 operational by now if we’d spent less time talking and more time building. The rest of the world doesn’t spend two or three decades talking about building a runway, they get on with building the damn thing.

    In the time that we've been talking about maybe oneday building an expansion to a pre-existing airport and maybe just maybe in a few decades have a new train line completed the Chinese have developed lots of new airports and expansions and trainlines.

    And we wonder why we're not efficient as a nation? Seriously!?

    JFDI - Just F***ing Do It.
    My usual reply to this is that Dubai’s T3 was built in the same time as LHR T5’s planning enquiry. Same scope of work, adding new terminal buildings to the existing field with only a couple of access roads outside. As you say China is the same - guess which way the trade is going.

    More worryingly, there’s no flights from all these new Chinese airports to London, because LHR and LGW are completely full.

    JFDI, with bells on!
    And TMay is too scared to push forward with LHR3 because of Zac.
    Is he going to resign again?

    Cock.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,701
    RobD said:

    The Telegraph playing hunt the saboteur.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/19/theresa-may-hints-would-now-vote-stay-eu-tells-french-proud/

    New doubts have emerged about Theresa May’s commitment to Brexit after she suggested she would vote Remain if an EU referendum were held today and boasts of being a “European”.

    Where did she say she'd vote remain? All she said is she would "sit down and look carefully at the issues".
    She said she’d do the same as last time. Has the national interest changed since then?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,155

    The Telegraph playing hunt the saboteur.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/19/theresa-may-hints-would-now-vote-stay-eu-tells-french-proud/

    New doubts have emerged about Theresa May’s commitment to Brexit after she suggested she would vote Remain if an EU referendum were held today and boasts of being a “European”.

    Boris! This must have been initiated by him. He's softening her up. How long before he strikes?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,895

    I think locals can be a good indicator when results are aggregated over many months and contests, as Harry's analysis over the Christmas period showed. It is ridiculous however to extrapolate from one by-election. Last week, in Wyre in Lancashire there was a contest where there was a near 10% swing to Labour from Conservative. Does this mean Labour are sweeping all before them? No.

    With first past the post it is taking and holding seat that matters much more than vote shares. Last year the Greens made 6 times as many local election gains as Corbyn's LAB while the LDs made 20 times
    Fat lot of good it did either party though at the real elections, in May and June.

    Concentrating resource to win seats is a useful tactic but a rotten strategy - at least, for any party that aspires to more than a few isolated dots.
    Would it really have been a better result for the LibDems if they'd ended up, like UKIP in 2015, with a double digit vote share and just a single seat?

  • Fundamentally, the problem is NIMBYism. What should happen is there is a planning decision and that is final. What tends to happen if NIMBYs lose is that they use the legal process to delay for years by using judicial review, lack of consultation, spurious village green applications, claims of rare species etc
  • Sandpit said:

    Mr. NorthWales, I don't get the selfie craze.

    But there we are.

    Neither do I nor I suspect does our Prime Minister
    I’m sure she’s happy that an official photographer and a few of the media are there to capture the event.
    But this was a selfie with Macron biut otherwise I would agree
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097

    Fundamentally, the problem is NIMBYism. What should happen is there is a planning decision and that is final. What tends to happen if NIMBYs lose is that they use the legal process to delay for years by using judicial review, lack of consultation, spurious village green applications, claims of rare species etc

    Which is why for major projects of national importance, Primary Legislation should authorise the project, completely replacing the usual planning process.

    The rest of the world is building runways and railways while we just keep talking about them.

    Greater planning reform is also needed, there needs to be much more bias in favour of housing where there’s a clear shortage.
  • Sky going loopy over the channel bridge - devoting most of their bulletins to it and just interviewed a professor of engineering from Warwick UNI

    Boris certainly taking todays headlines
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,155

    Sky going loopy over the channel bridge - devoting most of their bulletins to it and just interviewed a professor of engineering from Warwick UNI

    Boris certainly taking todays headlines

    Brilliant politics by Boris - he's looking like PM in all but name. How long before Theresa is forced to issue a statement confirming that she is loyally and wholeheartedly behind his plan?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,480

    Sky going loopy over the channel bridge - devoting most of their bulletins to it and just interviewed a professor of engineering from Warwick UNI

    Boris certainly taking todays headlines

    Boris bikes, Boris buses, Boris Island, Boris Bridge - bit of a pattern.

    When do we get Boris Foreign Policy? That is supposed to be his job, after all.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 62,039
    edited January 19

    Sky going loopy over the channel bridge - devoting most of their bulletins to it and just interviewed a professor of engineering from Warwick UNI

    Boris certainly taking todays headlines

    Boris bikes, Boris buses, Boris Island, Boris Bridge - bit of a pattern.

    When do we get Boris Foreign Policy? That is supposed to be his job, after all.
    Boris bikes?

    The political correct term is BoJo’s mistresses.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490
    Pulpstar said:

    How much have we now spent on 'not building' HeathrowR3 now as a nation ?

    Are we up past the billion mark yet ?

    Well if you include the lost growth, jobs, investment etc that we could have generated over the last 20 years then I would suggest we are nearer 100 times that.
  • I think locals can be a good indicator when results are aggregated over many months and contests, as Harry's analysis over the Christmas period showed. It is ridiculous however to extrapolate from one by-election. Last week, in Wyre in Lancashire there was a contest where there was a near 10% swing to Labour from Conservative. Does this mean Labour are sweeping all before them? No.

    With first past the post it is taking and holding seat that matters much more than vote shares. Last year the Greens made 6 times as many local election gains as Corbyn's LAB while the LDs made 20 times
    Thanks Mike, but that's an argument about success in local elections which is unarguable. The point I was making was that if local council by-elections are to be any indicator of trends nationally then week by week differences are meaningless but the aggregated data presented by Harry over Christmas painted a broadly accurate picture.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 996

    Sandpit said:

    [deleted]

    deleted
    [deleted]
    The Labour leadership is composed of people who throughout their long political lives have shown time and again that they do not want to regulate capitalism, but smash it; and who will tolerate any cause, stand in solidarity with any regime, as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK and/or anti-Israel. Many inside the Labour party - and many more who stand on the centre left and even the left - are currently trying to convince themselves that these people did not mean what they said or did for 40 years and that really they are little more than slightly to the left of Scandinavian social democrats. However, 40% of voters can see the reality and so are implacably opposed to Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and co getting anywhere near power. So far, so good ...

    The problem that leaves is that a tired, divided, utterly mediocre Conservative government is basically guaranteed power for as long as Corbyn leads the Labour party. That is extremely bad news for the country. I am in my 50s and pretty well set, so this is not gong to do me much harm. But I feel desperately sorry for those younger than me. The UK is currently in a very bad place and there does not seem to be any sign of a way out.

    A fair summary but I live in hope of one of two things happening.

    Theresa May concludes Brexit by mid 2019 and a new leader takes over with new ideas and recognises the younger vote deserves equal if not more attention than us old ones
    Or
    Corbyn goes and labour produces a leader who can put forward a manifesto that does not need it's COE to make preparations for the collapse of the markets
    Why did people who dislike the thought of JMcD = CoE not take the opportunity of the *37 years* since McD was deputy leader of the GLC to bring in PR? Anyone around in 1981 could see that McD made Livingstone look a moderate.

    PR makes govts led by either extreme very unlikely. JRM could aim at becoming speaker instead as he'd have a virtually zero chance of becoming PM. As it is, he has a 10-20% chance of being next Tory leader, aarrgghh.

    IMO the most likely outcome of PR & current voter sentiment is a Lib-Lab pact or similar also involving PC or SNP. The 1976-79 pact was fairly successful, except for Callaghan terminating Castle's work to tame the unions which sealed his fate.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,701

    Sky going loopy over the channel bridge - devoting most of their bulletins to it and just interviewed a professor of engineering from Warwick UNI

    Boris certainly taking todays headlines

    Boris bikes, Boris buses, Boris Island, Boris Bridge - bit of a pattern.

    When do we get Boris Foreign Policy? That is supposed to be his job, after all.
    His foreign policy is to put Boris Buildings in Sirte and turn it into a new Dubai.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,292

    RobD said:

    The Telegraph playing hunt the saboteur.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/19/theresa-may-hints-would-now-vote-stay-eu-tells-french-proud/

    New doubts have emerged about Theresa May’s commitment to Brexit after she suggested she would vote Remain if an EU referendum were held today and boasts of being a “European”.

    Where did she say she'd vote remain? All she said is she would "sit down and look carefully at the issues".
    She said she’d do the same as last time. Has the national interest changed since then?
    She said what she'd do the same as last time, an important difference.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,511
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/01/memes-are-not-way-look-it-inside-tory-membership-crisis

    I think it is easy to miss the significant stories if we spend too much time looking at polls and headlines. Labour and Tories seem to be pretty evenly matched at the moment. Both have around 40% support, have serious divisions and some troublesome characters in prominent positions. But the underlying picture is one of Labour strength and Tory weakness.

  • Greetings all - first time poster here. On topic, there is definitely a local element to the Bolton result. There was a major scandal last year regarding the allocation of £300k to an ambulance-chasing solicitors' firm whose practices had been investigated on numerous occasions and whose owner had a collection of Lamborghinis.

    The Labour Council reportedly acted unilaterally using emergency procedures to make this grant, and was roundly criticised for doing so by political opponents and the general population alike. The leader of the Labour council is due to step down and there is a widespread belief that this particular council is corrupt and not fit for purpose. The recent stories on councillors not paying their tax have merely added to this.

    The below link gives reasonable context to the above:

    https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/audit-finds-no-rationale-for-emergency-300k-asons-grant/5062758.article
  • Sky going loopy over the channel bridge - devoting most of their bulletins to it and just interviewed a professor of engineering from Warwick UNI

    Boris certainly taking todays headlines

    Boris bikes, Boris buses, Boris Island, Boris Bridge - bit of a pattern.

    When do we get Boris Foreign Policy? That is supposed to be his job, after all.
    Boris bikes?

    The political correct term is BoJo’s mistresses.
    Or even Prime Minister Johnson ( dont tell Hyufd I said that)
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,234
    Welcome @GreenHeron, and thanks for the context.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,701
    YouGov has right to leave in the lead for the first time since last August. The really interesting thing is that it's completely driven by a swing among women. Men remain completely split down the middle. Rogue poll?

    Jan 7-8 (Female):

    Right: 40%
    Wrong: 47%

    Jan 16-17 (Female):

    Right: 44%
    Wrong: 42%
  • https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/01/memes-are-not-way-look-it-inside-tory-membership-crisis

    I think it is easy to miss the significant stories if we spend too much time looking at polls and headlines. Labour and Tories seem to be pretty evenly matched at the moment. Both have around 40% support, have serious divisions and some troublesome characters in prominent positions. But the underlying picture is one of Labour strength and Tory weakness.

    I think the true position is labour looking to seriously damage it's unity and the conservatives, post Brexit getting a new leader - but at present it is a country divided down the middle
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    Given Ed Miliband won the 2014 local elections by 2% and it is those wards which are up again in May, Corbyn may find the local elections less positive for Labour than he hoped if last night's by election results are anything to go by
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234

    Sky going loopy over the channel bridge - devoting most of their bulletins to it and just interviewed a professor of engineering from Warwick UNI

    Boris certainly taking todays headlines

    Boris bikes, Boris buses, Boris Island, Boris Bridge - bit of a pattern.

    When do we get Boris Foreign Policy? That is supposed to be his job, after all.
    Boris bikes?

    The political correct term is BoJo’s mistresses.
    Or even Prime Minister Johnson ( dont tell Hyufd I said that)
    Sadly caught
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097

    Greetings all - first time poster here. On topic, there is definitely a local element to the Bolton result. There was a major scandal last year regarding the allocation of £300k to an ambulance-chasing solicitors' firm whose practices had been investigated on numerous occasions and whose owner had a collection of Lamborghinis.

    The Labour Council reportedly acted unilaterally using emergency procedures to make this grant, and was roundly criticised for doing so by political opponents and the general population alike. The leader of the Labour council is due to step down and there is a widespread belief that this particular council is corrupt and not fit for purpose. The recent stories on councillors not paying their tax have merely added to this.

    The below link gives reasonable context to the above:

    https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/audit-finds-no-rationale-for-emergency-300k-asons-grant/5062758.article

    An excellent first post, and very useful context. Welcome to PB :+1:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well quite.

    For major national infrastructure Parliament should discuss the proposal, accept comments in a consultation and then pass a Hybrid Bill authorising the required land purchases and construction - bypassing the usual planning process completely. Parliament should agree compensation at 125% or 133% and then get building.

    We could have had runways 3 and 4 operational by now if we’d spent less time talking and more time building. The rest of the world doesn’t spend two or three decades talking about building a runway, they get on with building the damn thing.

    In the time that we've been talking about maybe oneday building an expansion to a pre-existing airport and maybe just maybe in a few decades have a new train line completed the Chinese have developed lots of new airports and expansions and trainlines.

    And we wonder why we're not efficient as a nation? Seriously!?

    JFDI - Just F***ing Do It.
    My usual reply to this is that Dubai’s T3 was built in the same time as LHR T5’s planning enquiry. Same scope of work, adding new terminal buildings to the existing field with only a couple of access roads outside. As you say China is the same - guess which way the trade is going.

    More worryingly, there’s no flights from all these new Chinese airports to London, because LHR and LGW are completely full.

    JFDI, with bells on!
    And TMay is too scared to push forward with LHR3 because of Zac.
    Is he going to resign again?

    Cock.
    The tories have just not been that lucky of late.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    edited January 19
    Tories and Labour both 1% up in new Times Yougov which should be enough to see the Tories as largest party despite a 1% Labour lead

    https://mobile.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/954394817622085634
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,642
    Welcome to PB, Mr. Heron.
  • HYUFD said:

    Sky going loopy over the channel bridge - devoting most of their bulletins to it and just interviewed a professor of engineering from Warwick UNI

    Boris certainly taking todays headlines

    Boris bikes, Boris buses, Boris Island, Boris Bridge - bit of a pattern.

    When do we get Boris Foreign Policy? That is supposed to be his job, after all.
    Boris bikes?

    The political correct term is BoJo’s mistresses.
    Or even Prime Minister Johnson ( dont tell Hyufd I said that)
    Sadly caught
    No problem - he has hit the headlines today
  • Welcome to PB, Mr. Heron.

    +1
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,506
    Con win's a local be-election?????

    Maybe Theresa should can another election to get that majority! :D
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,984

    Sky going loopy over the channel bridge - devoting most of their bulletins to it and just interviewed a professor of engineering from Warwick UNI

    Boris certainly taking todays headlines

    Brilliant politics by Boris - he's looking like PM in all but name. How long before Theresa is forced to issue a statement confirming that she is loyally and wholeheartedly behind his plan?
    Boris has the big visions - not the banality of May's policies or the silly PC micromanagement of Corbyn : "Judith from Stevenage has had to wait for her shopmobility badge for 3 weeks.."

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097
    TGOHF said:
    Sounds like UKIP are about to implode.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,648
    PP continues to lose support in Spain. Now in third place, according to the latest poll.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,642
    Cheers for that, Mr. Observer.

    Anyway, got to be off.
  • Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:
    Sounds like UKIP are about to implode.
    They are a joke and in terminal decline
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,701
    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:
    Sounds like UKIP are about to implode.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5289463/Hes-killed-party-Henry-Boltons-aide-quits-Ukip.html

    Henry Bolton is a Walter Mitty character who is killing off Ukip, says one of his key aides who quit the party today over his affair with a blonde glamour model half his age, Mail Online can reveal.

    Susie Govett, 46, was Mr Bolton's press aide for his successful Ukip leadership bid last year.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,287
    So, the race is on. Will we rejoin the EU thanks to the demographics before or after the Boris Bridge is built?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,287

    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:
    Sounds like UKIP are about to implode.
    They are a joke and in terminal decline
    Will Farage resist?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253
    Throop and Muscliff? Glorious.
    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:
    Sounds like UKIP are about to implode.
    It's seemed like it would before, but wouldn't have predicted it after the unknown, normal seeming one became leader.
  • Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:
    Sounds like UKIP are about to implode.
    They are a joke and in terminal decline
    Will Farage resist?
    Who is Farage !!!!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097

    PP continues to lose support in Spain. Now in third place, according to the latest poll.

    Wow, down to 3rd place.
    It’s funny to see decimal point percentages with a 3% MoE on the poll.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,287
    TGOHF said:

    Sky going loopy over the channel bridge - devoting most of their bulletins to it and just interviewed a professor of engineering from Warwick UNI

    Boris certainly taking todays headlines

    Brilliant politics by Boris - he's looking like PM in all but name. How long before Theresa is forced to issue a statement confirming that she is loyally and wholeheartedly behind his plan?
    Boris has the big visions - not the banality of May's policies or the silly PC micromanagement of Corbyn : "Judith from Stevenage has had to wait for her shopmobility badge for 3 weeks.."

    Hold on. Weren't we all writing Boris off as having blown at after the Iran affair?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253

    PP continues to lose support in Spain. Now in third place, according to the latest poll.

    How's Catalonia going thesedays?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,097
    edited January 19

    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:
    Sounds like UKIP are about to implode.
    They are a joke and in terminal decline
    Unless there’s a massive Brexit betrayal by the government that leads to Farage coming back, I think we’ve probably seen the last of UKIP.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 996
    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:
    Sounds like UKIP are about to implode.
    They could keep trying everyone out as leader until they find a good one! What's wrong with Suzanne Evans?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Evans

    Actually, if other parties adopted a 'try before you buy' approach to leaders, they might end up with more satisfactory outcomes, e.g. I think Lamb could be a better Lib.Dem leader than Cable.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,492
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,188

    U kip, and when you wake there's another leader gone.

This discussion has been closed.