Loz

When I worked in a pub many years ago, the staff birthday drink of choice was a snakebite made up of Gold Label (11%) and Diamond White (7.5%). Oh, and a dash of blackcurrant.

I stuck the heating back on for an hour yesterday just to take the chill away. A good southerly next week is promising to bring in some heat. On the optimistic side, whenever we have a nice, warm May it seems the rest of the summer is a washout. Hopefully the reverse works.

Foxy, Because it was part of the renegotiations package he did last year as part of the referendum run-up.

Or, in other words, people's voting and party manifestos will always change to ensure that the government changes regularly. We won't be subject to perpetual Tory rule if Scotland depart unless something very weird happens and every other party suddenly decides to become extremist.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My original point Loz is that it is parties that change to win the centre ground vote, not voters > per se. That's where I disagree with you. And what has happened since 2008 is very different to what > went before, because of the collapse of the neoliberal dream and the rise of extremems > following the crash. Really? No one ever accused Maggie of being centrist. Or Bevan. So, yes, if you ignore all the history that doesn't match your argument, then history definitely proves you right.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And someone remind me of the anticipated > percentage that will actually mark their ballot > > 35% (that's my wild guesstimate) or about that? Probably. Scary, isn't it? This will have have far more effect on the UK than most general elections and yet people just won't bother.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'People are voting in increasing numbers for > smaller parties.' > > But prior to 2010, that wasn't significantly the case, with the Libdems being the sole > beneficiaries of swings away from Labour and the Tories. Doesn't matter where the votes went - it was a change in voting patterns. > You are trying to argue that the shifts of the last six years somehow are part of a trend > from the 1950's onwards. That just isn't the case. Look at the stats. I say again - there has been a change in voting patterns from the 50's to today. I'm not saying there is a consistent change. There have been all sorts of changes. Which leads to... > And under FPTP, the votes of smaller parties don't count for anything. Of course they do - they count as not being votes for the two big parties, which they, in years gone by, would have been. If anything, FPTP makes these vote losses more critical, not less. Under AV, most of these votes would have ended up back with Labour. Under FPTP they are pure losses. How can the SLDP breaking away from Labour not had an effect on Labour's chances? How can the SNP sweeping Scotland not effect Labour's chances? How can the Greens getting their vote share up not effect Labour's chances? How can UKIP's vote share going up not effect Labour in the north and Tories in the south? UKIP's rise is a good case in point - a large movement of previously left-wing Labour votes going to a right-wing party. > It would also be naive to not link the shifts of the last six years to the > crash of 2008. The rise of extremes on both the right and left always follow > economic collapse - that is nothing new. Maybe, maybe not. But it is still a change in voting patterns. History shows that voting patterns change - I think you've tacitly (and grudgingly) admitted that. And these changes will have an effect on who wins elections. How can they not? People react to the situation. They always will.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you look at the corresponding fugiures for turnout for those years Loz you will also see a > high point of turnout in 1950 that drops steadily and plummets in 2015. So all that's really > happened is a drop in people voting (except for a spike at the high point of Blair). I fully agree that there has ALSO been a drop in turnout, but that has been in conjunction with the change in voting habits I noted. You aren't really trying to say that the massive move away from the big two in those stats is due to a drop in turnout, are you? Because the maths for that sort of claim just doesn't work. People are voting less AND, of those that are, are voting in increasing numbers for smaller parties. You've rather helped to prove my point.

I used Bob's Books many years ago to put together a book of our wedding. The software was easy to use and the books (now 7 years old) are still looking good.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't call bouncing between two parties a major shift in anything. Historically the > electorate hasn't really shifted at all. Stats just don't back that: - In 1951 Conservatives and Labour between them gained 96.8% of the vote. - In 1979 it was 80.8% - In 1997 it was 73.9%. - In 2015 it had dropped to 67.3%. > The party that holds the centre ground (whether they also stand on the right or left)usually wins. So then a Tory party still wouldn't rule in perpetuity. Unless every other party (both in existence and any that might emerge) is monumentally stupid and stays further from the centre than the Tories.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And I disagree on people's voting patterns. History does not support that view. Of course people's voting patterns change - that's why we have a government change every few elections. People will always tire of a government and want change. Considering also that we're in the middle of the biggest shift towards smaller parties in post-industrial history and the Labour party being virtually wiped out in Scotland by a newly-rampant SNP. I'd say history does indeed support that idea.

I've been around long enough to remember BR. It was awful. If a company can run the railway better and make a profit, then that's fine by me. Anyway, 'profit' doesn't all go to the train operating company. For this sort of stuff, fullfact.org are a good, independent examiner of the underlying facts. https://fullfact.org/news/do-train-operating-companies-earn-massive-profits/

I have a north facing 15m garden with a terraced house with a loft conversion. The garden still gets a reasonable amount of sun, though the far end of the garden gets the most. In winter when the sun doesn't get so high, the 4/5m closest to the house doesn't get much, But in summer it's not too bad at all, which isn't a surprise when you consider that the sun rises in the east, swings overhead and sets in the west.

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I highly recommend the All You Can Veet offer. > Just take it easy on the old water chestnuts, if > you know what I mean. Ah, the famous Amazon review...

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My nan moved down to Devon from Peckham. I don't > think anyone's actually born in Devon. I have a mate that was born in Devon - somewhere near Honiton, IIRC. Moved to London as soon as he could.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are 207 days 'till Christmas ... or roughly 57 days until shops start putting Christmas decorations up.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm off to Devon today, the sun is out and it's 21 > degrees in Exeter! Good luck with the miserable > polluted rain fellow ED folk. It's forecast for rain tomorrow in Exeter.

Oh, that is awesome. What is it?? Not sure it would be that alluring to the opposite sex, though. Which is kind of important to the average 17 year-old boy.

Not sure if we have a Banham front door (as it was fitted when we bought it), but Banham locks are great. Apart from anything else, they can't be 'bumped'.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dumping Scotland means we face a future of > perpetual Tory rule. I think that should frighten > people more than being in or out of the EU. Doubtful. People's voting and party manifestos will always change to ensure that the government changes regularly. Besides, the biggest threat now is a minority SNP pulling the strings gleefully of a Labour coalition government.

Well, the bookies will be happy to take your money, AD. You can get 4/1 at the moment. Us Remainers can only get a measly 1/6. As many have said, don't look to the polls, look at the bookies.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Getting rid of the whinging Scott's should be > enough to sway anyone's vote imho As so very tempting as that may be, even that wouldn't be enough to vote Brexit! Interestingly, the block grant to Scotland last year was ?26.985bn. So we could keep the EU, dump Scotland and be quids in! (Yes, yes, I know that's not a net figure...)

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had one of these when I was 13. It was lethal. > If you turned too sharply, it fell over on to its side. That reminds me of this...

1968 Toyota Corolla. Of course, it was over 15 years old when I got it. And it was red... or at least it was after I painted it.

binkylilyput Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > root Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If you want to see hoards of the generally female, > > mostly white, reasonably educated but not the > > sharpest tools in the box rabid trolls have a look > > at the Food Babe Army along with the rest of the > > David Wolfe groupies, antivaxxers, homeopathy, etc > > crowds. Quite a lot of them would be Guardian readers too. > > Just scroll through the EDF for that I'd say! > Or is this a mysogynistic post in itself? Discuss Simple answer: No. More complex answer: No.