Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
We're going to get global warming peaking in the 2.1-2.4C range.
Yes, that's going to be really really shit (bear in mind we're already at 1.1-1.2C warming and it's causing problems) but it won't make us extinct.
It will probably cause all sorts of human geopolitical problems that will pose far more serious challenges than the strict geodome/ecological ones.
Given there are 8 billion or more of us and many of us live in coastal areas and our huge dependence on electricity and there are plenty of reasons to expect some awful headlines in the next 20-30 years.
We may say how "nice" it is to have a warm October but that unbelievable 36 hours in late July when we topped 40c - well, imagine it for 5-10 days and you see where we might end up. That kind of weather kills the elderly, the vulnerable, the weak, the ill-prepared but these often pass under the radar.
In many ways, the Great Smog of December 1952 (doubt anyone will be commemorating that 70th anniversary) was a wake-up call for change - the Clean Air Act - and I fear it will take a similar disaster such as a heatwave with thousands of deaths before we take climate change seriously.
I have the clearest memories of the last of these London smogs, December 1962, and how it tasted and felt; and it preceded the extraordinary snow and cold in 1963 starting the following month (it was the subject of a recent book). My father spoke of how in the 1952 smog groups of strangers linked arms in the street to find their way together when visibility was virtually nil.
And since 1962 I have never known anything remotely like it.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
It is true. That film has a lot to answer for.
Imagine if Gibson's next one were about Cornwall ... or Yorkshire.
Gibson as a penchant for doing bullshit anti-English/British films: Gallipoli, Braveheart and the Patriot.
He should have been cancelled years ago for his antisemitism.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Loved like we used to be when in France? Did we ever get gratitude for doing what they couldn't - overthrowing Napoleon? The Nazis?
Be fair though. Imagine the stain on the English psyche if the Nazis had invaded here rather than France, and the French had played a leading role in liberating us. And imagine also the French had gone to Scapa Floe and sank our navy to stop the Nazis from acquiring them. And then imagine them going on about it for say, 78 years and counting.
That's not really being fair. The RN fleet was sent there to remove a threat of that element of the Marine Nationale falling into German hands, and options were offered including proceeding to the UK, or sailing to the French West Indies - as long as it was out of reach of takeover by Germany.
The French Admiral in Mers El Kebir was a popinjay who got into a strop because the envoy was a Captain not an admiral, and failed to communicate the options offered to the French Government.
By comparison the squadron of the MN in Alexandria negotiated and there were no casualties.
I've never understood why the French admiral didn't take one of the many perfectly reasonable options on the table.
It'd basically have given the future Free French a navy, which would have been a real help to the Allied war effort.
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
Its data analysis, its looking at output and trends. People can infer the likely outcome for themselves. My expectation is still between 280 and 350 for Labour and 170 to 240 Tory.
520 for Lab + Con sounds too low. Who's getting the other 130?
Well there will be over 50 SNP I suspect. Then there are 18 NI MPs. 3 or 4 for PC. 1 Green (Maybe more?)
So that is perhaps 72 or 73
That leaves 57 ish for the Lib Dems. I don't see that as being beyond the realms of possibility if a lot of the Tory heartlands have taken the hump after the last few years.
It sounds as if we need to return to the proposals for 600 MPs
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
Without being overly morbid, there is also a non-zero chance that Starmer might not be the leader of the Labour party in 2 years. This has to have at least a slight impact on the betting.
If you're talking death, Starmer is 60 and the actuarial risk of a 60 year old dying in the next two years is a little over 2%.
He's also clearly low on risk factors (decent shape and don't think he's a smoker), and I'm not aware of significant health scares. So in reality under 2% I think, which is fringe in betting terms.
The odds of death don't start getting scary until very late 70s, whereupon it starts getting worse and worse.
I'm afraid we had this debate around the Jubilee. I'm afraid I made the point that someone in her late 90s, even with the best healthcare in the world, faces bleak odds of making it all that far. But, at 60, you actually aren't in much worse a position than a 50 year old in the near term.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
It is true. That film has a lot to answer for.
Imagine if Gibson's next one were about Cornwall ... or Yorkshire.
Gibson as a penchant for doing bullshit anti-English/British films: Gallipoli, Braveheart and the Patriot.
He should have been cancelled years ago for his antisemitism.
He seems to have issues with race, antisemitism, women and drink.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
It is true. That film has a lot to answer for.
Imagine if Gibson's next one were about Cornwall ... or Yorkshire.
Am I imagining it that Flower of Scotland became much more dominant as the anthem used after that film, to the expense of Scotland the Brave, or was I just watching the wrong sports?
Actually the other way round would be correct if the film really did have the effect PB southerners seem to think it did. FoS is the song ruggerbuggers in Edinburgh - from a not very pro-indy demographic - have adopted on precisely that timescale.
I've heard it said James Callaghan was more popular than Margaret Thatcher in 1979 for all the good it did him. I recall John Major being personally liked and respected for all the good it did him.
Hanging all your "hopes" for a continuation of Conservative Government (really? Is Conservative rule ad infinitum in the national interest?) on part of a poll is just absurd.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
His problem is that he's currently associated with giving money away. He's now got to cut at a time when most polling suggests people are more open to public spending increases (however fanciful some may think that is).
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
It is true. That film has a lot to answer for.
Imagine if Gibson's next one were about Cornwall ... or Yorkshire.
In the year of Our Lord 2024, patriots of Labour, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Westminster. They fought like warrior-poets, they fought like Progressives - and they won their FREEDOM!
I have the clearest memories of the last of these London smogs, December 1962, and how it tasted and felt; and it preceded the extraordinary snow and cold in 1963 starting the following month (it was the subject of a recent book). My father spoke of how in the 1952 smog groups of strangers linked arms in the street to find their way together when visibility was virtually nil.
And since 1962 I have never known anything remotely like it.
Indeed, fog in general is much less common than it was 30 years ago. I suspect that's because the atmosphere is much more turbulent which you'd expect if it was getting warmer and the pressure systems are much more mobile.
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
I don't know what will happen in GE24 ... but it looks as though the tangible policy differences between Labour & Tories will not be huge, simply because of the financial constraints.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
I don't know what will happen in GE24 ... but it looks as though the tangible policy differences between Labour & Tories will not be huge, simply because of the financial constraints.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
I don't think so. An effective slogan might well be 'Time for a change...but not too much'.
I have the clearest memories of the last of these London smogs, December 1962, and how it tasted and felt; and it preceded the extraordinary snow and cold in 1963 starting the following month (it was the subject of a recent book). My father spoke of how in the 1952 smog groups of strangers linked arms in the street to find their way together when visibility was virtually nil.
And since 1962 I have never known anything remotely like it.
Indeed, fog in general is much less common than it was 30 years ago. I suspect that's because the atmosphere is much more turbulent which you'd expect if it was getting warmer and the pressure systems are much more mobile.
Also reduction in coal fires? Not so much smog as less to nucleate upon.
I've heard it said James Callaghan was more popular than Margaret Thatcher in 1979 for all the good it did him. I recall John Major being personally liked and respected for all the good it did him.
Hanging all your "hopes" for a continuation of Conservative Government (really? Is Conservative rule ad infinitum in the national interest?) on part of a poll is just absurd.
Such things may have betting implications and can form the basis of interesting theoretical chats of course. Its possible to be interested in where things are headed or may be headed without it being hopecasting.
I've heard it said James Callaghan was more popular than Margaret Thatcher in 1979 for all the good it did him. I recall John Major being personally liked and respected for all the good it did him.
Hanging all your "hopes" for a continuation of Conservative Government (really? Is Conservative rule ad infinitum in the national interest?) on part of a poll is just absurd.
True about Callaghan but Major is looking back with rose tinted specs. He's done well to rehabilitate his reputation post 1997, and he was seen as pathetic more than nasty, but he really polled appallingly on all measures against Blair.
His problem is that he's currently associated with giving money away. He's now got to cut at a time when most polling suggests people are more open to public spending increases (however fanciful some may think that is).
Indeed. How he navigates the coming squeeze will be 'interesting'
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
I don't know what will happen in GE24 ... but it looks as though the tangible policy differences between Labour & Tories will not be huge, simply because of the financial constraints.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
I don't think so. An effective slogan might well be 'Time for a change...but not too much'.
I've heard it said James Callaghan was more popular than Margaret Thatcher in 1979 for all the good it did him. I recall John Major being personally liked and respected for all the good it did him.
Hanging all your "hopes" for a continuation of Conservative Government (really? Is Conservative rule ad infinitum in the national interest?) on part of a poll is just absurd.
True about Callaghan but Major is looking back with rose tinted specs. He's done well to rehabilitate his reputation post 1997, and he was seen as pathetic more than nasty, but he really polled appallingly on all measures against Blair.
'Bastards', 'i lead my party, he follows his' and 'back to basics' did for him
His problem is that he's currently associated with giving money away. He's now got to cut at a time when most polling suggests people are more open to public spending increases (however fanciful some may think that is).
I think there's now a realisation that whoever is in charge is going to be putting up taxes and cutting spending over the next 3-7 years. If the Tories go into the next election suggesting this Labour will look like they are proposing fantasy economics and even though it was a Tory who just did it, that experience under Truss will ring true to loads of people who will want to be sure Labour will be responsible with the economy.
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
I don't know what will happen in GE24 ... but it looks as though the tangible policy differences between Labour & Tories will not be huge, simply because of the financial constraints.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
I don't think so. An effective slogan might well be 'Time for a change...but not too much'.
I am not sure how potent that will be, actually
It sounds like Sir Humphrey Appleby.
I'm more of a Bernard man.
The slogan itself can be more inspiring, just make people think it is not that big a deal.
You can be really radical, if people don't worry about how radical you will be.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Loved like we used to be when in France? Did we ever get gratitude for doing what they couldn't - overthrowing Napoleon? The Nazis?
Be fair though. Imagine the stain on the English psyche if the Nazis had invaded here rather than France, and the French had played a leading role in liberating us. And imagine also the French had gone to Scapa Floe and sank our navy to stop the Nazis from acquiring them. And then imagine them going on about it for say, 78 years and counting.
That's not really being fair. The RN fleet was sent there to remove a threat of that element of the Marine Nationale falling into German hands, and options were offered including proceeding to the UK, or sailing to the French West Indies - as long as it was out of reach of takeover by Germany.
The French Admiral in Mers El Kebir was a popinjay who got into a strop because the envoy was a Captain not an admiral, and failed to communicate the options offered to the French Government.
By comparison the squadron of the MN in Alexandria negotiated and there were no casualties.
I've never understood why the French admiral didn't take one of the many perfectly reasonable options on the table.
It'd basically have given the future Free French a navy, which would have been a real help to the Allied war effort.
AIUI there is an argument that it was counter to the terms of the French German Armistice.
But the French Government had taken a series of different positions week by week, and we were reading their codes. And the UK Govt would not take anything except an irrevocable outcome, and sinking the fleet was the final option, which the RN personnel hated but would obey orders.
Regardless it is deep in the psyche of some French (I heard it mentioned during Brexit agreement debates by some French, alongside 'perfidious Albion').
IMO the people who can probably best make that particular point about manipulative Brits in WW2 are probably the USA, as we did quite arguably substantially manipulate them into WW2, with the help of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Hmm. Neither the French nor the Irish have ever been renowned for their love of the English.
Indeed, the only people the French hate more than the English are the Parisians (who, according to numerous personal acquaintances down the years, 'are not French').
In my profession the English used to be respected like no other nationality. Going into meetings was a joy. Whatever you needed they'd get for you because you were English and therefore were assumed to know what you were doing and you were valued as imaginative and innovative in a way that people of their own country weren't. Which was generally true.
And that was pretty well everywhere in Europe including France. Being English was the best equipment you could have. The Americans by contrast were among the least liked certainly among the crews
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
I don't know what will happen in GE24 ... but it looks as though the tangible policy differences between Labour & Tories will not be huge, simply because of the financial constraints.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
The policy differences in 1997 weren't huge. If you look at Labour's famous pledge card, what is striking is how modest it was. It nodded to areas where a different approach may be taken, rather than making a bold bid for clear blue water. Wanting change isn't wanting revolution.
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
I don't know what will happen in GE24 ... but it looks as though the tangible policy differences between Labour & Tories will not be huge, simply because of the financial constraints.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
The policy differences in 1997 weren't huge. If you look at Labour's famous pledge card, what is striking is how modest it was. It nodded to areas where a different approach may be taken, rather than making a bold bid for clear blue water. Wanting change isn't wanting revolution.
They also said they'd follow the Conservatives' spending plans for two years.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Loved like we used to be when in France? Did we ever get gratitude for doing what they couldn't - overthrowing Napoleon? The Nazis?
Be fair though. Imagine the stain on the English psyche if the Nazis had invaded here rather than France, and the French had played a leading role in liberating us. And imagine also the French had gone to Scapa Floe and sank our navy to stop the Nazis from acquiring them. And then imagine them going on about it for say, 78 years and counting.
That's not really being fair. The RN fleet was sent there to remove a threat of that element of the Marine Nationale falling into German hands, and options were offered including proceeding to the UK, or sailing to the French West Indies - as long as it was out of reach of takeover by Germany.
The French Admiral in Mers El Kebir was a popinjay who got into a strop because the envoy was a Captain not an admiral, and failed to communicate the options offered to the French Government.
By comparison the squadron of the MN in Alexandria negotiated and there were no casualties.
I've never understood why the French admiral didn't take one of the many perfectly reasonable options on the table.
It'd basically have given the future Free French a navy, which would have been a real help to the Allied war effort.
AIUI there is an argument that it was counter to the terms of the French German Armistice.
But the French Government had taken a series of different positions week by week, and we were reading their codes. And the UK Govt would not take anything except an irrevocable outcome, and sinking the fleet was the final option, which the RN personnel hated but would obey orders.
Regardless it is deep in the psyche of some French (I heard it mentioned during Brexit agreement debates by some French, alongside 'perfidious Albion').
IMO the people who can probably best make that particular point about manipulative Brits in WW2 are probably the USA, as we did quite arguably substantially manipulate them into WW2, with the help of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour.
Well, they can hardly talk given the crimes they committed against us.
Starting with a highly illegal ban on our beef to cover up their own appalling BSE epidemic.
Edit - I'm impressed though that the British masterminded the attack on Pearl Harbour and Hitler's simultaneous decision to declare war on America.
We're going to get global warming peaking in the 2.1-2.4C range.
Yes, that's going to be really really shit (bear in mind we're already at 1.1-1.2C warming and it's causing problems) but it won't make us extinct.
It will probably cause all sorts of human geopolitical problems that will pose far more serious challenges than the strict geodome/ecological ones.
Given there are 8 billion or more of us and many of us live in coastal areas and our huge dependence on electricity and there are plenty of reasons to expect some awful headlines in the next 20-30 years.
We may say how "nice" it is to have a warm October but that unbelievable 36 hours in late July when we topped 40c - well, imagine it for 5-10 days and you see where we might end up. That kind of weather kills the elderly, the vulnerable, the weak, the ill-prepared but these often pass under the radar.
In many ways, the Great Smog of December 1952 (doubt anyone will be commemorating that 70th anniversary) was a wake-up call for change - the Clean Air Act - and I fear it will take a similar disaster such as a heatwave with thousands of deaths before we take climate change seriously.
I have the clearest memories of the last of these London smogs, December 1962, and how it tasted and felt; and it preceded the extraordinary snow and cold in 1963 starting the following month (it was the subject of a recent book). My father spoke of how in the 1952 smog groups of strangers linked arms in the street to find their way together when visibility was virtually nil.
And since 1962 I have never known anything remotely like it.
Annoyingly that smell and taste is what I live with all the time. A year after covid I still have parosmia - where everything tastes of ashes or rancid butter. I have to say it is fucking tiresome.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Loved like we used to be when in France? Did we ever get gratitude for doing what they couldn't - overthrowing Napoleon? The Nazis?
Be fair though. Imagine the stain on the English psyche if the Nazis had invaded here rather than France, and the French had played a leading role in liberating us. And imagine also the French had gone to Scapa Floe and sank our navy to stop the Nazis from acquiring them. And then imagine them going on about it for say, 78 years and counting.
That's not really being fair. The RN fleet was sent there to remove a threat of that element of the Marine Nationale falling into German hands, and options were offered including proceeding to the UK, or sailing to the French West Indies - as long as it was out of reach of takeover by Germany.
The French Admiral in Mers El Kebir was a popinjay who got into a strop because the envoy was a Captain not an admiral, and failed to communicate the options offered to the French Government.
By comparison the squadron of the MN in Alexandria negotiated and there were no casualties.
I've never understood why the French admiral didn't take one of the many perfectly reasonable options on the table.
It'd basically have given the future Free French a navy, which would have been a real help to the Allied war effort.
AIUI there is an argument that it was counter to the terms of the French German Armistice.
But the French Government had taken a series of different positions week by week, and we were reading their codes. And the UK Govt would not take anything except an irrevocable outcome, and sinking the fleet was the final option, which the RN personnel hated but would obey orders.
Regardless it is deep in the psyche of some French (I heard it mentioned during Brexit agreement debates by some French, alongside 'perfidious Albion').
IMO the people who can probably best make that particular point about manipulative Brits in WW2 are probably the USA, as we did quite arguably substantially manipulate them into WW2, with the help of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour.
Well, they can hardly talk given the crimes they committed against us.
Starting with a highly illegal ban on our beef to cover up their own appalling BSE epidemic.
Edit - I'm impressed though that the British masterminded the attack on Pearl Harbour and Hitler's simultaneous decision to declare war on Germany.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
It is true. That film has a lot to answer for.
Imagine if Gibson's next one were about Cornwall ... or Yorkshire.
Gibson as a penchant for doing bullshit anti-English/British films: Gallipoli, Braveheart and the Patriot.
He should have been cancelled years ago for his antisemitism.
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
I don't know what will happen in GE24 ... but it looks as though the tangible policy differences between Labour & Tories will not be huge, simply because of the financial constraints.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
The policy differences in 1997 weren't huge. If you look at Labour's famous pledge card, what is striking is how modest it was. It nodded to areas where a different approach may be taken, rather than making a bold bid for clear blue water. Wanting change isn't wanting revolution.
But, (& you have made this point) SKS is not Blair, or Obama.
Obama's changes were quite modest in the end (not entirely his fault, of course).
But, both Blair & Obama managed to embody the zeitgeist. Whether SKS can do that, I dunno.
I would not rule out a 1992-type election -- the desire for change, muted by the deficiencies in the LOTO & the wish to stay close to nurse.
His problem is that he's currently associated with giving money away. He's now got to cut at a time when most polling suggests people are more open to public spending increases (however fanciful some may think that is).
The other curiousity is those Conservatives who were so scathing about Liz Truss a fortnight ago are now praising to the skies a Government which has the same Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary as Truss did when she departed but a different Prime Minister.
You'd be entitled to ask what has changed - the economics of Truss/Kwarteng have been consigned to the dustbin but large parts of the Truss agenda remain in other areas of Government.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
When did we used to be loved?
I think we used to be envied and respected (I am going back many decades) and certainly imitated and emulated. Don't think the English have ever been loved as a breed though. I think that probably just means we've never been perceived as anyone's put upon victim. You have to be zero threat to be loved.
I also think in the run up to the 2024 election Rishi will clean house late in 2023, let a new Cabinet bed in. Get rid of the last vestiges of the Truss era Cabinet and bring in fresh faces and a few more centrists and pragmatists. The next year will be about getting the Rishi brand out there the following year will be about the rising tide lifting the Tory boat.
If Rishi manages to tame the inflation dragon within a year, keeps wages rising and gets the economy growing by 2024 he will have a very decent personal rating because he comes across as reasonable to people. His vindication against Truss and the fantasy economics will be played back time and again and when he's up against Labour proposing huge spending rises he'll say he was the PM that reversed tax cuts which Tory voters benefited from because he is a responsible PM and Labour must do the same for their spending rises and not play with the economy like Truss.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Hmm. Neither the French nor the Irish have ever been renowned for their love of the English.
Indeed, the only people the French hate more than the English are the Parisians (who, according to numerous personal acquaintances down the years, 'are not French').
In my profession the English used to be respected like no other nationality. Going into meetings was a joy. Whatever you needed they'd get for you because you were English and therefore were assumed to know what you were doing and you were valued as imaginative and innovative in a way that people of their own country weren't. Which was generally true.
And that was pretty well everywhere in Europe including France. Being English was the best equipment you could have. The Americans by contrast were among the least liked certainly among the crews
That may be but, if you will excuse me saying so, yours is not exactly a normal profession. I speak French and worked for a French company for 18 years, regularly teaching in Paris and Pau. Listening to conversations in bars and the way locals spoke about the English whilst thinking I was just one of a crowd of French drinkers gave a real insight into what the French actually think of us when we are not around.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Loved like we used to be when in France? Did we ever get gratitude for doing what they couldn't - overthrowing Napoleon? The Nazis?
Be fair though. Imagine the stain on the English psyche if the Nazis had invaded here rather than France, and the French had played a leading role in liberating us. And imagine also the French had gone to Scapa Floe and sank our navy to stop the Nazis from acquiring them. And then imagine them going on about it for say, 78 years and counting.
That's not really being fair. The RN fleet was sent there to remove a threat of that element of the Marine Nationale falling into German hands, and options were offered including proceeding to the UK, or sailing to the French West Indies - as long as it was out of reach of takeover by Germany.
The French Admiral in Mers El Kebir was a popinjay who got into a strop because the envoy was a Captain not an admiral, and failed to communicate the options offered to the French Government.
By comparison the squadron of the MN in Alexandria negotiated and there were no casualties.
I've never understood why the French admiral didn't take one of the many perfectly reasonable options on the table.
It'd basically have given the future Free French a navy, which would have been a real help to the Allied war effort.
Contrary to popular belief, the French Navy wasn't "sunk" at Mers El Kebir. They only lost outright one battleship and a tug-boat.
The French *really* lost their navy in November 1942, when the Germans invaded Vichy France and the French scuttled their fleet at Toulon on 27th November. Finally preventing the Germans from capturing their ships. Losses that day were:
I've heard it said James Callaghan was more popular than Margaret Thatcher in 1979 for all the good it did him. I recall John Major being personally liked and respected for all the good it did him.
Hanging all your "hopes" for a continuation of Conservative Government (really? Is Conservative rule ad infinitum in the national interest?) on part of a poll is just absurd.
True about Callaghan but Major is looking back with rose tinted specs. He's done well to rehabilitate his reputation post 1997, and he was seen as pathetic more than nasty, but he really polled appallingly on all measures against Blair.
'Bastards', 'i lead my party, he follows his' and 'back to basics' did for him
I think that perhaps, looking back, one remembers those more theatrical elements.
But, canvassing at the time, stuff like VAT on fuel bills absolutely drove people mad. The economy was also doing okay towards the end... but that actually aggravated those on waiting lists or with kids in large classes being taught in a prefab even more.
Now we just look back and see a weak but decent PM. At the time, the weakness was seen to have consequences, and the anger was very real.
You are in detention and writing out a hundred times:
Owain Glyndŵr
Shouldn't that be Owain ap Gruffudd, Arglwydd Glyndyfrdwy?
For sins against the Welsh language, I don't see why @turbotubbs should not write out the whole of my book, Gweledigaethau y Bardd Cwsc in his detention period.
His problem is that he's currently associated with giving money away. He's now got to cut at a time when most polling suggests people are more open to public spending increases (however fanciful some may think that is).
The other curiousity is those Conservatives who were so scathing about Liz Truss a fortnight ago are now praising to the skies a Government which has the same Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary as Truss did when she departed but a different Prime Minister.
You'd be entitled to ask what has changed - the economics of Truss/Kwarteng have been consigned to the dustbin but large parts of the Truss agenda remain in other areas of Government.
The problem with Truss was the Trussteng stuff, she didnt have time to become unpopular on the rest. Except fracking, which has gone
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Loved like we used to be when in France? Did we ever get gratitude for doing what they couldn't - overthrowing Napoleon? The Nazis?
Be fair though. Imagine the stain on the English psyche if the Nazis had invaded here rather than France, and the French had played a leading role in liberating us. And imagine also the French had gone to Scapa Floe and sank our navy to stop the Nazis from acquiring them. And then imagine them going on about it for say, 78 years and counting.
That's not really being fair. The RN fleet was sent there to remove a threat of that element of the Marine Nationale falling into German hands, and options were offered including proceeding to the UK, or sailing to the French West Indies - as long as it was out of reach of takeover by Germany.
The French Admiral in Mers El Kebir was a popinjay who got into a strop because the envoy was a Captain not an admiral, and failed to communicate the options offered to the French Government.
By comparison the squadron of the MN in Alexandria negotiated and there were no casualties.
I've never understood why the French admiral didn't take one of the many perfectly reasonable options on the table.
It'd basically have given the future Free French a navy, which would have been a real help to the Allied war effort.
AIUI there is an argument that it was counter to the terms of the French German Armistice.
But the French Government had taken a series of different positions week by week, and we were reading their codes. And the UK Govt would not take anything except an irrevocable outcome, and sinking the fleet was the final option, which the RN personnel hated but would obey orders.
Regardless it is deep in the psyche of some French (I heard it mentioned during Brexit agreement debates by some French, alongside 'perfidious Albion').
IMO the people who can probably best make that particular point about manipulative Brits in WW2 are probably the USA, as we did quite arguably substantially manipulate them into WW2, with the help of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour.
Well, they can hardly talk given the crimes they committed against us.
Starting with a highly illegal ban on our beef to cover up their own appalling BSE epidemic.
Edit - I'm impressed though that the British masterminded the attack on Pearl Harbour and Hitler's simultaneous decision to declare war on Germany.
"Rishi Sunak 'doesn't think Britain is a racist country': Downing Street wades into Trevor Noah row after US TV host was condemned for inventing 'racist backlash' against PM's appointment"
His problem is that he's currently associated with giving money away. He's now got to cut at a time when most polling suggests people are more open to public spending increases (however fanciful some may think that is).
The other curiousity is those Conservatives who were so scathing about Liz Truss a fortnight ago are now praising to the skies a Government which has the same Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary as Truss did when she departed but a different Prime Minister.
You'd be entitled to ask what has changed - the economics of Truss/Kwarteng have been consigned to the dustbin but large parts of the Truss agenda remain in other areas of Government.
His problem is that he's currently associated with giving money away. He's now got to cut at a time when most polling suggests people are more open to public spending increases (however fanciful some may think that is).
The other curiousity is those Conservatives who were so scathing about Liz Truss a fortnight ago are now praising to the skies a Government which has the same Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary as Truss did when she departed but a different Prime Minister.
You'd be entitled to ask what has changed - the economics of Truss/Kwarteng have been consigned to the dustbin but large parts of the Truss agenda remain in other areas of Government.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Loved like we used to be when in France? Did we ever get gratitude for doing what they couldn't - overthrowing Napoleon? The Nazis?
We and the French share the blessing of being widely hated around the world in a way that is not considered xenophobic or problematic. It’s OK for people, especially in former colonies, to hate the English or the French. We can probably add the Russians to the list too since February this year.
Different with hating America. If you hate America you’re just jealous. Or Israel for obvious reasons. Then various bad regimes it’s ok to hate (eg Syria) but not the people themselves.
I know Americans who say they're Canadian when abroad. There's a fair bit of disapprobation.
His problem is that he's currently associated with giving money away. He's now got to cut at a time when most polling suggests people are more open to public spending increases (however fanciful some may think that is).
The other curiousity is those Conservatives who were so scathing about Liz Truss a fortnight ago are now praising to the skies a Government which has the same Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary as Truss did when she departed but a different Prime Minister.
You'd be entitled to ask what has changed - the economics of Truss/Kwarteng have been consigned to the dustbin but large parts of the Truss agenda remain in other areas of Government.
You are in detention and writing out a hundred times:
Owain Glyndŵr
Shouldn't that be Owain ap Gruffudd, Arglwydd Glyndyfrdwy?
For sins against the Welsh language, I don't see why @turbotubbs should not write out the whole of my book, Gweledigaethau y Bardd Cwsc in his detention period.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Loved like we used to be when in France? Did we ever get gratitude for doing what they couldn't - overthrowing Napoleon? The Nazis?
Be fair though. Imagine the stain on the English psyche if the Nazis had invaded here rather than France, and the French had played a leading role in liberating us. And imagine also the French had gone to Scapa Floe and sank our navy to stop the Nazis from acquiring them. And then imagine them going on about it for say, 78 years and counting.
"Rishi Sunak 'doesn't think Britain is a racist country': Downing Street wades into Trevor Noah row after US TV host was condemned for inventing 'racist backlash' against PM's appointment"
We're going to get global warming peaking in the 2.1-2.4C range.
Yes, that's going to be really really shit (bear in mind we're already at 1.1-1.2C warming and it's causing problems) but it won't make us extinct.
It will probably cause all sorts of human geopolitical problems that will pose far more serious challenges than the strict geodome/ecological ones.
Given there are 8 billion or more of us and many of us live in coastal areas and our huge dependence on electricity and there are plenty of reasons to expect some awful headlines in the next 20-30 years.
We may say how "nice" it is to have a warm October but that unbelievable 36 hours in late July when we topped 40c - well, imagine it for 5-10 days and you see where we might end up. That kind of weather kills the elderly, the vulnerable, the weak, the ill-prepared but these often pass under the radar.
In many ways, the Great Smog of December 1952 (doubt anyone will be commemorating that 70th anniversary) was a wake-up call for change - the Clean Air Act - and I fear it will take a similar disaster such as a heatwave with thousands of deaths before we take climate change seriously.
I have the clearest memories of the last of these London smogs, December 1962, and how it tasted and felt; and it preceded the extraordinary snow and cold in 1963 starting the following month (it was the subject of a recent book). My father spoke of how in the 1952 smog groups of strangers linked arms in the street to find their way together when visibility was virtually nil.
And since 1962 I have never known anything remotely like it.
It was circa 1962 when, as I well remember, my mom used to talk about the"black sugar" that collected on daily basis on windowsills of our small house, on a hill overlooking a gritty industrial city not far from Pittsburgh, site of (what was at that time) one of the largest steel mills in the world.
The "black sugar" being soot and God knows what else, pouring out of the smokestacks and falling to earth on top of the entire area.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Hmm. Neither the French nor the Irish have ever been renowned for their love of the English.
Indeed, the only people the French hate more than the English are the Parisians (who, according to numerous personal acquaintances down the years, 'are not French').
In my profession the English used to be respected like no other nationality. Going into meetings was a joy. Whatever you needed they'd get for you because you were English and therefore were assumed to know what you were doing and you were valued as imaginative and innovative in a way that people of their own country weren't. Which was generally true.
And that was pretty well everywhere in Europe including France. Being English was the best equipment you could have. The Americans by contrast were among the least liked certainly among the crews
That may be but, if you will excuse me saying so, yours is not exactly a normal profession. I speak French and worked for a French company for 18 years, regularly teaching in Paris and Pau. Listening to conversations in bars and the way locals spoke about the English whilst thinking I was just one of a crowd of French drinkers gave a real insight into what the French actually think of us when we are not around.
I would never have assumed that the French like us.
But then, the French are hardly popular with surrounding nations either.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
The answer to that is to bring in a degree of PR under a semi-proportionate "majority bonus" system as practiced in Greece currently and in Italy from 2006 to 2013. That effectively forces parties with aspirations to govern to form coalitions and meet a requirement to agree a joint basic programme for government, all before people vote. This is because seats are only initially allocated proportionately after which parties in the coalition with most votes get a "majority bonus" of extra top up seats. The top up seats effectively guarantee a working majority or near working majority depending on the number of bonus seats.
What would almost certainly emerge in the UK is a broad coalition of the right, and a broad coalition of the left. The LDs would be forced to choose sides before the election, if they chose the left a minority of LD voters might defect to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have to decide whether going into a coalition with Reform and UKIP delivered more bonus seats than it lost through putting off more centrist Conservative electors. The Corbynite far left would split from Labour regardless, but would take few voters with them and Starmer's Labour might regard that as a bonus as helpful as it it tried to put together a broad moderate coalition of the left with the LDs and Greens. Constitutional wreckers would no doubt not be allowed anywhere near the left or right coalitions, so the SNP would be reduced from their currently utterly disproportionate 8% of UK seats under FPTP to something closer to 3%. I suspect that Plaid would want to join the left coalition and would be allowed in. I suspect that the NI parties would stay out of any coalition.
It seems to me more proportionate than what we have got now, more transparent in offering a clear pre-election choice which puts the voters in control, and very capable of delivering stable government. Basically it ticks all the boxes.
The problem with bonus allotments is that it's a bunch of extra politicians that don't have any constituency link and are very difficult to kick out.
Hardly a show stopper. A degree of geography can be added in by allocating bonus seats via regions. And the same issue applies to any standard PR system with a list system added onto a constituency system, so extra regional seats are hardly unique to the majority bonus system eg. Germany.
Party list PR is a horrific elitist system so that isn't a good excuse.
To be effective in forcing pre-election coalitions, in the UK a majority bonus system could need as few as 50 list seats added under the electoral bonus to around 600 seats elected by PR within defined multi-member constituencies which could still be reasonably small. So yes, it is a good excuse. Just 1 in 13 seats allocated by the list system you don't like, in order to deliver a system which overall is reasonably proportional, transparently delivers a clear pre-election coalition choice, and offers stable government.
Nah. Multi-member STV. No safe seats, local representation, everyone's vote counts, no party lists, better chance of proportionality, locals and independents welcome.
Anyway, coalition government is much better than majority government. Government by persuasion and free thinking, not patronage. Also avoids capture of majoritarian power by an unrepresentative minority (see ERG, Corbynites, etc.). Also gets people used to working with other parties in the national interest, which might come in hand for actually fixing the big stuff. Also gives politicians greater freedom to state their own views, rather than toe the party line.
Make 'em work every bloody day, for every bloody vote.
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
I don't know what will happen in GE24 ... but it looks as though the tangible policy differences between Labour & Tories will not be huge, simply because of the financial constraints.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
The policy differences in 1997 weren't huge. If you look at Labour's famous pledge card, what is striking is how modest it was. It nodded to areas where a different approach may be taken, rather than making a bold bid for clear blue water. Wanting change isn't wanting revolution.
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
It is true. That film has a lot to answer for.
Imagine if Gibson's next one were about Cornwall ... or Yorkshire.
Gibson as a penchant for doing bullshit anti-English/British films: Gallipoli, Braveheart and the Patriot.
He should have been cancelled years ago for his antisemitism.
He seems to have issues with race, antisemitism, women and drink.
Lovely man.
Gibson is a shit of the first order, and yet, I do think he's interesting.
Braveheart was ridiculous nonsense, but still an enjoyable film. Apocalypto was first class.
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
Politics is volatile these days.
I don't think the Conservatives will win next time, if only because, fourteen years in office is a long time.
But, if the US Republicans can survive Trump, who knows how any party will fare these days?
He cut a Caribbean holiday short. He namechecked Cincinnatus in his farewell speech. He signed off in the Commons with "Hasta la vista, baby!" So why would a man like Boris Johnson – seemingly hell-bent on returning to high office – pull out of the leadership race if he genuinely did have the numbers he needed?
His choice to do so late on Sunday was telling. One of the major reasons we hear for his withdrawal was that he learned the Sun was planning a front page for Monday's edition urging him not to run.
A front page that his pulling out nixed.
So it was the Sun wot saved us. That'd be a first if remotely true.
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
I don't know what will happen in GE24 ... but it looks as though the tangible policy differences between Labour & Tories will not be huge, simply because of the financial constraints.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
The policy differences in 1997 weren't huge. If you look at Labour's famous pledge card, what is striking is how modest it was. It nodded to areas where a different approach may be taken, rather than making a bold bid for clear blue water. Wanting change isn't wanting revolution.
But, (& you have made this point) SKS is not Blair, or Obama.
Obama's changes were quite modest in the end (not entirely his fault, of course).
But, both Blair & Obama managed to embody the zeitgeist. Whether SKS can do that, I dunno.
I would not rule out a 1992-type election -- the desire for change, muted by the deficiencies in the LOTO & the wish to stay close to nurse.
Reading all the PB Conservative faithful's posts tonight I'm going for an '87 Tory landslide.
He cut a Caribbean holiday short. He namechecked Cincinnatus in his farewell speech. He signed off in the Commons with "Hasta la vista, baby!" So why would a man like Boris Johnson – seemingly hell-bent on returning to high office – pull out of the leadership race if he genuinely did have the numbers he needed?
His choice to do so late on Sunday was telling. One of the major reasons we hear for his withdrawal was that he learned the Sun was planning a front page for Monday's edition urging him not to run.
A front page that his pulling out nixed.
So it was the Sun wot saved us. That'd be a first if remotely true.
It has the ring of truth to me. Sunak is the Murdoch candidate.
It's 26th October and it's 19° in London. Shouldn't we all be a bit more concerned?
Winter is coming?
Today, this afternoon, at Hannah's restaurant/café in Cannock (which is the nearest thing we have to gourmet eating) there were people sitting outside to eat afternoon tea.
Which is unheard of for October. Never mind late October. It would be notable even in September.
And there's no sign of colder weather in the immediate future.
I have never, since I started living on my own 20 years ago, not had the heating on by the start of November. This year I may not need it until the middle of the month.
Not good news for the planet. We should look forward(!) to new record lows in Arctic ice, I think.
It is a slight consolation to think that it's much worse news for Vladimir Putin.
It is bizarre. I went for a walk earlier - 5.30pm ish- and it was warm.
I couldn’t remember what it was like last year, but it does feel odd
My former comrades expecting an easy Lab. Gain in Long Eaton
Should be interesting. Are we getting the result tonight?
Long Eaton does look very Lab Gainish, about a 7% swing from 2021 required and they held it in 2013 before narrowly losing in 2017 The other one tonight, Wednesbury South (West Brom West seat) on paper is Lab hold but its in that West Mids recent sweet spot for the blues. Outside chance it goes against the head imo
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
Politics is volatile these days.
I don't think the Conservatives will win next time, if only because, fourteen years in office is a long time.
But, if the US Republicans can survive Trump, who knows how any party will fare these days?
That's sadly true in the US - least for now - but I think it has much to do with the deeply partisan binary over there. Sunak Con v Starmer Lab won't be like that unless things change a lot in the next year or so.
My former comrades expecting an easy Lab. Gain in Long Eaton
Should be interesting. Are we getting the result tonight?
Long Eaton does look very Lab Gainish, about a 7% swing from 2021 required and they held it in 2013 before narrowly losing in 2017 The other one tonight, Wednesbury South (West Brom West seat) on paper is Lab hold but its in that West Mids recent sweet spot for the blues. Outside chance it goes against the head imo
If Starmer is getting anywhere with middle england working class Midlands then Long Eaton is the type of must win council seat imho.
My former comrades expecting an easy Lab. Gain in Long Eaton
Should be interesting. Are we getting the result tonight?
Long Eaton does look very Lab Gainish, about a 7% swing from 2021 required and they held it in 2013 before narrowly losing in 2017 The other one tonight, Wednesbury South (West Brom West seat) on paper is Lab hold but its in that West Mids recent sweet spot for the blues. Outside chance it goes against the head imo
If Starmer is getting anywhere with middle england working class Midlands then Long Eaton is the type of must win council seat imho.
Yep, Erewash is the sort of seat they'll want back from the heady Blair days
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
You misunderstood him.
“You poor bastard” was a reference to the exchange rate
My former comrades expecting an easy Lab. Gain in Long Eaton
Should be interesting. Are we getting the result tonight?
Long Eaton does look very Lab Gainish, about a 7% swing from 2021 required and they held it in 2013 before narrowly losing in 2017 The other one tonight, Wednesbury South (West Brom West seat) on paper is Lab hold but its in that West Mids recent sweet spot for the blues. Outside chance it goes against the head imo
If Starmer is getting anywhere with middle england working class Midlands then Long Eaton is the type of must win council seat imho.
Yep, Erewash is the sort of seat they'll want back from the heady Blair days
Bizarrely, this is actually probably true. Upon its release Alex Salmond hailed it as causing a "sea change" in views of independence. Obviously it's probably not at the top of the list but there's almost certainly some truth to the idea its historical inaccuracies and dramatic licence helped promote a folk history where Scotland was the endlessly oppressed neighbour, like Ireland, rather than a willing and full partner in the UK and Empire (whatever Scots want to do next), and Wallace as a noble freedom fighter rather than someone who fought for both sides, rather like the 100 years war and its dynastic disputes rather than being wars of national liberation or imperialism. And it maybe shouldn't be that surprising. Poetry, novels and songs have always been credited with changing or firming up political attitudes for centuries, and promoting a certain narrative. It would be more surprising if an Oscar-winning (if terrible) box office smash that specifically casts the English as irredeemable, effete villains against proud and noble Scots, had no effect on attitudes whatsoever.
Mel Gibson is reported to dislike the English (as well as his various other dislikes), and certainly that is reflected in his oeuvre.
The English aren't generally loved that much. I was in a cafe in France and this guy asked me something with a strange accent and I said you're not French are you? And he said he was from Dublin but he'd been working here for ten years.
"Where are you from ?" He asked
"England" I said.
"You poor bastard" he said.
I wasn't surprised. I sense we're not loved like we used to be.
Hmm. Neither the French nor the Irish have ever been renowned for their love of the English.
Indeed, the only people the French hate more than the English are the Parisians (who, according to numerous personal acquaintances down the years, 'are not French').
Many years ago while house hunting in France I was told by the French guy helping me to never hire a car with a Parisian number plate while looking for a 2nd home. A British number plate was preferred to a Parisian number plate if you were going to move in.
So thus far we have leads of Redfield 32 down 3 People Polling 31 down 8 YouGov 28 down 9 Red Wall 28 down 12 BMG 23 not polled since late Sept (up 6 since then)
And Rishi from -4 to +1 vs Keir
The latest leads of the others are Techne 31 Deltapoll 25 Savanta 26 MORI 21 Omnisis 34 Opinium 27 J&L 25 Kantar 4
I don’t wish to be very rude about your efforts Wooly. But polling showing lead shrinks moving from all Tory life on earth wiped out to, er, all Tory life on earth wiped out is meaningless to us. Especially if it contains (not yet though) LLG unwinding from Labour back to pre Starmergasm levels, and especially as we know political honeymoon is going on.
However I think Tory share chart would be useful, to measure movement on that, particularly polls from same firms.
Don’t look at the lead gap, particularly if LLG is unwinding away from labour at same time. Just look at the Tory share. By end of November Tories need some honeymoon 30+ polls, at least from Kantor, yougov and Opinium - or else as anticipating austerity, credit crisis, recession, infighting, cockupping, reality to drag polling back from honeymoon peaks down in a month or so, not enough recovery in Tory share in coming weeks will be very frightening.
We shouldn't overstate the case though.
Theresa May went from humongous leads in early 2017 to a hung parliament - in weeks. Then, Corbyn led for most of the rest of the year. Yes, that Jeremy Corbyn.
Theresa May totally collapsed the Tory poll lead in early summer 2019, to its lowest national poll rating ever, with the Brexit Party sticking the boot in, and then Boris took over and it recovered. Less than 6 months later he won near a landslide majority.
Boris had clear leads in 2020-2021, Keir Starmer was way behind and his leadership was being called into question. Then, he started to get leads, Boris went, Truss shat the bed, and now we've got Rishi - and he's just pulled ahead of Starmer as best PM in one poll.
All of that has happened in the last 5 years.
How confident can we be of the next 2 years let alone the next 20?
Sunak could win, but he's going to need Starmer to make either a disastrous policy error (like May's dementia task error) or have a Sheffield Rally moment (pretty unlikely given his personality). It's Labour's election to lose at the moment.
I broadly agree, although there are several risks for Labour.
Firstly, Starmer is a poor campaigner and the Labour operation is a long way from the Rolls Royce team of the late 90s. They are plodders. Huge mistakes are unlikely, but they do go around stirring up apathy.
Secondly, Sunak might prove competent (not sure about that - he didn't give me huge confidence as Chancellor - but could happen) and over a period that erodes Labour's lead causing nervousness.
Thirdly, Starmer has some tricky colleagues post-Corbyn. The far left is significantly weakened since 2019 but are more than capable of causing embarrassment.
Finally, it's still a mountain to climb. Labour lost really badly in 2019. I don't know how incumbency will play for the rather different type of Tory who won in 2019, but suspect they are street fighters. They will probably be swept away, but won't go quietly and Labour need to up their game in areas where they've been complacent for many years.
I don't know what will happen in GE24 ... but it looks as though the tangible policy differences between Labour & Tories will not be huge, simply because of the financial constraints.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
The policy differences in 1997 weren't huge. If you look at Labour's famous pledge card, what is striking is how modest it was. It nodded to areas where a different approach may be taken, rather than making a bold bid for clear blue water. Wanting change isn't wanting revolution.
But, (& you have made this point) SKS is not Blair, or Obama.
Obama's changes were quite modest in the end (not entirely his fault, of course).
But, both Blair & Obama managed to embody the zeitgeist. Whether SKS can do that, I dunno.
I would not rule out a 1992-type election -- the desire for change, muted by the deficiencies in the LOTO & the wish to stay close to nurse.
Reading all the PB Conservative faithful's posts tonight I'm going for an '87 Tory landslide.
Pity there is no evidence at all, though nobody dare detract from the good vibes arising from the first proper non-oik PM since TMay.
My former comrades expecting an easy Lab. Gain in Long Eaton
Should be interesting. Are we getting the result tonight?
Long Eaton does look very Lab Gainish, about a 7% swing from 2021 required and they held it in 2013 before narrowly losing in 2017 The other one tonight, Wednesbury South (West Brom West seat) on paper is Lab hold but its in that West Mids recent sweet spot for the blues. Outside chance it goes against the head imo
If Starmer is getting anywhere with middle england working class Midlands then Long Eaton is the type of must win council seat imho.
Yep, Erewash is the sort of seat they'll want back from the heady Blair days
They won this seat in 2017 lost it in 2022
Long Eaton? Lab won in 2013 lost it in 2017 and fell a little further back in 2021
We're going to get global warming peaking in the 2.1-2.4C range.
Yes, that's going to be really really shit (bear in mind we're already at 1.1-1.2C warming and it's causing problems) but it won't make us extinct.
It will probably cause all sorts of human geopolitical problems that will pose far more serious challenges than the strict geodome/ecological ones.
Given there are 8 billion or more of us and many of us live in coastal areas and our huge dependence on electricity and there are plenty of reasons to expect some awful headlines in the next 20-30 years.
We may say how "nice" it is to have a warm October but that unbelievable 36 hours in late July when we topped 40c - well, imagine it for 5-10 days and you see where we might end up. That kind of weather kills the elderly, the vulnerable, the weak, the ill-prepared but these often pass under the radar.
In many ways, the Great Smog of December 1952 (doubt anyone will be commemorating that 70th anniversary) was a wake-up call for change - the Clean Air Act - and I fear it will take a similar disaster such as a heatwave with thousands of deaths before we take climate change seriously.
I have the clearest memories of the last of these London smogs, December 1962, and how it tasted and felt; and it preceded the extraordinary snow and cold in 1963 starting the following month (it was the subject of a recent book). My father spoke of how in the 1952 smog groups of strangers linked arms in the street to find their way together when visibility was virtually nil.
And since 1962 I have never known anything remotely like it.
I recall dense, acrid tasting fogs in the late 60s, which made me over half an hour late being driven about four miles to school. (Yorkshire mill town)
My former comrades expecting an easy Lab. Gain in Long Eaton
Should be interesting. Are we getting the result tonight?
Long Eaton does look very Lab Gainish, about a 7% swing from 2021 required and they held it in 2013 before narrowly losing in 2017 The other one tonight, Wednesbury South (West Brom West seat) on paper is Lab hold but its in that West Mids recent sweet spot for the blues. Outside chance it goes against the head imo
If Starmer is getting anywhere with middle england working class Midlands then Long Eaton is the type of must win council seat imho.
Yep, Erewash is the sort of seat they'll want back from the heady Blair days
They won this seat in 2017 lost it in 2022
Long Eaton? Lab won in 2013 lost it in 2017 and fell a little further back in 2021
Oh right sorry I thought it was one of the many Tory Gains on DCC in 2021.
I remember Chesterfield seats being the only area where they werent getting wiped out and even there one of those was lost
We're going to get global warming peaking in the 2.1-2.4C range.
Yes, that's going to be really really shit (bear in mind we're already at 1.1-1.2C warming and it's causing problems) but it won't make us extinct.
It will probably cause all sorts of human geopolitical problems that will pose far more serious challenges than the strict geodome/ecological ones.
Given there are 8 billion or more of us and many of us live in coastal areas and our huge dependence on electricity and there are plenty of reasons to expect some awful headlines in the next 20-30 years.
We may say how "nice" it is to have a warm October but that unbelievable 36 hours in late July when we topped 40c - well, imagine it for 5-10 days and you see where we might end up. That kind of weather kills the elderly, the vulnerable, the weak, the ill-prepared but these often pass under the radar.
In many ways, the Great Smog of December 1952 (doubt anyone will be commemorating that 70th anniversary) was a wake-up call for change - the Clean Air Act - and I fear it will take a similar disaster such as a heatwave with thousands of deaths before we take climate change seriously.
I have the clearest memories of the last of these London smogs, December 1962, and how it tasted and felt; and it preceded the extraordinary snow and cold in 1963 starting the following month (it was the subject of a recent book). My father spoke of how in the 1952 smog groups of strangers linked arms in the street to find their way together when visibility was virtually nil.
And since 1962 I have never known anything remotely like it.
I recall dense, acrid tasting fogs in the late 60s, which made me over half an hour late being driven about four miles to school. (Yorkshire mill town)
https://twitter.com/drg1985/status/1585524746799796224 60 years ago today on the 27th October 1962, human life on Earth came the closest it has ever come to a terrible ending. Everyone alive today owes their life to this handsome devil, and most of us don't even know his name. Let's change that - a thread
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
The answer to that is to bring in a degree of PR under a semi-proportionate "majority bonus" system as practiced in Greece currently and in Italy from 2006 to 2013. That effectively forces parties with aspirations to govern to form coalitions and meet a requirement to agree a joint basic programme for government, all before people vote. This is because seats are only initially allocated proportionately after which parties in the coalition with most votes get a "majority bonus" of extra top up seats. The top up seats effectively guarantee a working majority or near working majority depending on the number of bonus seats.
What would almost certainly emerge in the UK is a broad coalition of the right, and a broad coalition of the left. The LDs would be forced to choose sides before the election, if they chose the left a minority of LD voters might defect to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have to decide whether going into a coalition with Reform and UKIP delivered more bonus seats than it lost through putting off more centrist Conservative electors. The Corbynite far left would split from Labour regardless, but would take few voters with them and Starmer's Labour might regard that as a bonus as helpful as it it tried to put together a broad moderate coalition of the left with the LDs and Greens. Constitutional wreckers would no doubt not be allowed anywhere near the left or right coalitions, so the SNP would be reduced from their currently utterly disproportionate 8% of UK seats under FPTP to something closer to 3%. I suspect that Plaid would want to join the left coalition and would be allowed in. I suspect that the NI parties would stay out of any coalition.
It seems to me more proportionate than what we have got now, more transparent in offering a clear pre-election choice which puts the voters in control, and very capable of delivering stable government. Basically it ticks all the boxes.
The problem with bonus allotments is that it's a bunch of extra politicians that don't have any constituency link and are very difficult to kick out.
Hardly a show stopper. A degree of geography can be added in by allocating bonus seats via regions. And the same issue applies to any standard PR system with a list system added onto a constituency system, so extra regional seats are hardly unique to the majority bonus system eg. Germany.
Party list PR is a horrific elitist system so that isn't a good excuse.
To be effective in forcing pre-election coalitions, in the UK a majority bonus system could need as few as 50 list seats added under the electoral bonus to around 600 seats elected by PR within defined multi-member constituencies which could still be reasonably small. So yes, it is a good excuse. Just 1 in 13 seats allocated by the list system you don't like, in order to deliver a system which overall is reasonably proportional, transparently delivers a clear pre-election coalition choice, and offers stable government.
Nah. Multi-member STV. No safe seats, local representation, everyone's vote counts, no party lists, better chance of proportionality, locals and independents welcome.
Anyway, coalition government is much better than majority government. Government by persuasion and free thinking, not patronage. Also avoids capture of majoritarian power by an unrepresentative minority (see ERG, Corbynites, etc.). Also gets people used to working with other parties in the national interest, which might come in hand for actually fixing the big stuff. Also gives politicians greater freedom to state their own views, rather than toe the party line.
Make 'em work every bloody day, for every bloody vote.
My former comrades expecting an easy Lab. Gain in Long Eaton
Should be interesting. Are we getting the result tonight?
Long Eaton does look very Lab Gainish, about a 7% swing from 2021 required and they held it in 2013 before narrowly losing in 2017 The other one tonight, Wednesbury South (West Brom West seat) on paper is Lab hold but its in that West Mids recent sweet spot for the blues. Outside chance it goes against the head imo
If Starmer is getting anywhere with middle england working class Midlands then Long Eaton is the type of must win council seat imho.
Yep, Erewash is the sort of seat they'll want back from the heady Blair days
They won this seat in 2017 lost it in 2022
Long Eaton? Lab won in 2013 lost it in 2017 and fell a little further back in 2021
Oh right sorry I thought it was one of the many Tory Gains on DCC in 2021.
I remember Chesterfield seats being the only area where they werent getting wiped out and even there one of those was lost
Chesterfield looks a lot more favourable/strong for Labour now
My former comrades expecting an easy Lab. Gain in Long Eaton
Should be interesting. Are we getting the result tonight?
Long Eaton does look very Lab Gainish, about a 7% swing from 2021 required and they held it in 2013 before narrowly losing in 2017 The other one tonight, Wednesbury South (West Brom West seat) on paper is Lab hold but its in that West Mids recent sweet spot for the blues. Outside chance it goes against the head imo
If Starmer is getting anywhere with middle england working class Midlands then Long Eaton is the type of must win council seat imho.
Yep, Erewash is the sort of seat they'll want back from the heady Blair days
They won this seat in 2017 lost it in 2022
Long Eaton? Lab won in 2013 lost it in 2017 and fell a little further back in 2021
Oh right sorry I thought it was one of the many Tory Gains on DCC in 2021.
I remember Chesterfield seats being the only area where they werent getting wiped out and even there one of those was lost
My former comrades expecting an easy Lab. Gain in Long Eaton
Should be interesting. Are we getting the result tonight?
Long Eaton does look very Lab Gainish, about a 7% swing from 2021 required and they held it in 2013 before narrowly losing in 2017 The other one tonight, Wednesbury South (West Brom West seat) on paper is Lab hold but its in that West Mids recent sweet spot for the blues. Outside chance it goes against the head imo
If Starmer is getting anywhere with middle england working class Midlands then Long Eaton is the type of must win council seat imho.
Yep, Erewash is the sort of seat they'll want back from the heady Blair days
They won this seat in 2017 lost it in 2022
Long Eaton? Lab won in 2013 lost it in 2017 and fell a little further back in 2021
Oh right sorry I thought it was one of the many Tory Gains on DCC in 2021.
I remember Chesterfield seats being the only area where they werent getting wiped out and even there one of those was lost
Chesterfield looks a lot more favourable/strong for Labour now
A 2021 GE would have seen it lost.
Currently a win but remember Chesterfield was only regained by Brown Lab in 2010 after being lost twice by Blair Lab post Iraq and there is no love for Tory lite here
Two earlier polls from Datafolha (13-14 and 17-19 Oct) had Lula 49 Bolsonaro 45, so Lula on 52%, slight rounding errors possible. But anyway, no shift to Bolsonaro in Datafolha polls in the last eight days and the vote is three days away.
Lula is at 1.45 at Betfair.
Six polls will be published on Saturday (!): Datafolha, Ipec, Genial/Quaest, Paraná Pesquisas, AtlasIntel, and CNT/MDA.
(Why is so much money being wagered at BF on this?)
FWIW, my analysis predicts Lula winning by a 9-10% majority.
Comments
And since 1962 I have never known anything remotely like it.
It'd basically have given the future Free French a navy, which would have been a real help to the Allied war effort.
He's also clearly low on risk factors (decent shape and don't think he's a smoker), and I'm not aware of significant health scares. So in reality under 2% I think, which is fringe in betting terms.
The odds of death don't start getting scary until very late 70s, whereupon it starts getting worse and worse.
I'm afraid we had this debate around the Jubilee. I'm afraid I made the point that someone in her late 90s, even with the best healthcare in the world, faces bleak odds of making it all that far. But, at 60, you actually aren't in much worse a position than a 50 year old in the near term.
Lovely man.
Figures above, Sunak leads on the economy, businesses and tax and is only a point behind on CoL and public services but the party lag badly
Hanging all your "hopes" for a continuation of Conservative Government (really? Is Conservative rule ad infinitum in the national interest?) on part of a poll is just absurd.
That may mean there is no great desire for either candidate.
"Time for a Change' is a powerful slogan ... but you have to look as though you are going to change things for it to work.
Therese Coffey told an all staff call at DEFRA this afternoon that she has "learned to live with the Oxford comma."
Another u-turn!
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1585636362849382402?cxt=HHwWhMCj6d73p4EsAAAA
It sounds like Sir Humphrey Appleby.
The slogan itself can be more inspiring, just make people think it is not that big a deal.
You can be really radical, if people don't worry about how radical you will be.
But the French Government had taken a series of different positions week by week, and we were reading their codes. And the UK Govt would not take anything except an irrevocable outcome, and sinking the fleet was the final option, which the RN personnel hated but would obey orders.
Regardless it is deep in the psyche of some French (I heard it mentioned during Brexit agreement debates by some French, alongside 'perfidious Albion').
IMO the people who can probably best make that particular point about manipulative Brits in WW2 are probably the USA, as we did quite arguably substantially manipulate them into WW2, with the help of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour.
In my profession the English used to be respected like no other nationality. Going into meetings was a joy. Whatever you needed they'd get for you because you were English and therefore were assumed to know what you were doing and you were valued as imaginative and innovative in a way that people of their own country weren't. Which was generally true.
And that was pretty well everywhere in Europe including France. Being English was the best equipment you could have. The Americans by contrast were among the least liked certainly among the crews
Owain Glyndŵr
Starting with a highly illegal ban on our beef to cover up their own appalling BSE epidemic.
Edit - I'm impressed though that the British masterminded the attack on Pearl Harbour and Hitler's simultaneous decision to declare war on America.
Obama's changes were quite modest in the end (not entirely his fault, of course).
But, both Blair & Obama managed to embody the zeitgeist. Whether SKS can do that, I dunno.
I would not rule out a 1992-type election -- the desire for change, muted by the deficiencies in the LOTO & the wish to stay close to nurse.
You'd be entitled to ask what has changed - the economics of Truss/Kwarteng have been consigned to the dustbin but large parts of the Truss agenda remain in other areas of Government.
I think we used to be envied and respected (I am going back many decades) and certainly imitated and emulated. Don't think the English have ever been loved as a breed though. I think that probably just means we've never been perceived as anyone's put upon victim. You have to be zero threat to be loved.
If Rishi manages to tame the inflation dragon within a year, keeps wages rising and gets the economy growing by 2024 he will have a very decent personal rating because he comes across as reasonable to people. His vindication against Truss and the fantasy economics will be played back time and again and when he's up against Labour proposing huge spending rises he'll say he was the PM that reversed tax cuts which Tory voters benefited from because he is a responsible PM and Labour must do the same for their spending rises and not play with the economy like Truss.
The French *really* lost their navy in November 1942, when the Germans invaded Vichy France and the French scuttled their fleet at Toulon on 27th November. Finally preventing the Germans from capturing their ships. Losses that day were:
3 battleships
7 cruisers
15 destroyers
13 torpedo boats
6 sloops
12 submarines
9 patrol boats
19 auxiliary ships
1 school ship
28 tugs
But, canvassing at the time, stuff like VAT on fuel bills absolutely drove people mad. The economy was also doing okay towards the end... but that actually aggravated those on waiting lists or with kids in large classes being taught in a prefab even more.
Now we just look back and see a weak but decent PM. At the time, the weakness was seen to have consequences, and the anger was very real.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11361611/Sajid-Javid-joins-condemnation-Trevor-Noah-comments-Rishi-Sunak.html
He is not funny.
The "black sugar" being soot and God knows what else, pouring out of the smokestacks and falling to earth on top of the entire area.
But then, the French are hardly popular with surrounding nations either.
My former comrades expecting an easy Lab. Gain in Long Eaton
Anyway, coalition government is much better than majority government. Government by persuasion and free thinking, not patronage. Also avoids capture of majoritarian power by an unrepresentative minority (see ERG, Corbynites, etc.). Also gets people used to working with other parties in the national interest, which might come in hand for actually fixing the big stuff. Also gives politicians greater freedom to state their own views, rather than toe the party line.
Make 'em work every bloody day, for every bloody vote.
Braveheart was ridiculous nonsense, but still an enjoyable film. Apocalypto was first class.
Damn - thought it might be that, and chose wrong.
I don't think the Conservatives will win next time, if only because, fourteen years in office is a long time.
But, if the US Republicans can survive Trump, who knows how any party will fare these days?
Difficult to have a market without a date.
The other one tonight, Wednesbury South (West Brom West seat) on paper is Lab hold but its in that West Mids recent sweet spot for the blues. Outside chance it goes against the head imo
Must have missed it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/date-set-city-chester-election-25362399.amp
I have no idea why there's no market in that case.
“You poor bastard” was a reference to the exchange rate
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/
The second Clean Air Act in ‘68 ended that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956#Further_legislation
Everyone moaned incessantly about not being allowed to burn coal anymore, rather than the ‘smokeless’ coke.
I remember Chesterfield seats being the only area where they werent getting wiped out and even there one of those was lost
He got dog's abuse.
However. Buildings stopped being black.
https://twitter.com/drg1985/status/1585524746799796224
60 years ago today on the 27th October 1962, human life on Earth came the closest it has ever come to a terrible ending. Everyone alive today owes their life to this handsome devil, and most of us don't even know his name. Let's change that - a thread
Were you still up for Portillo?
No, I can't manage 4 days without sleep.
By 470 in 2021
And Penn is crucial which is unfortunate for Dems after the debate the other day.
Republicans are living decades in the past
BY PETER BEINART"
https://unherd.com/2022/10/americas-conservatives-would-never-elect-a-hindu/
Currently a win but remember Chesterfield was only regained by Brown Lab in 2010 after being lost twice by Blair Lab post Iraq and there is no love for Tory lite here
Sounds like they are deep in a massive cavern.
Lula 53%
Bolsonaro 47%
data collected 25-27 October
https://exame.com/brasil/pesquisa-presidente-datafolha-27-outubro/
This hasn't been reported at Wikipedia yet.
Two earlier polls from Datafolha (13-14 and 17-19 Oct) had Lula 49 Bolsonaro 45, so Lula on 52%, slight rounding errors possible. But anyway, no shift to Bolsonaro in Datafolha polls in the last eight days and the vote is three days away.
Lula is at 1.45 at Betfair.
Six polls will be published on Saturday (!): Datafolha, Ipec, Genial/Quaest, Paraná Pesquisas, AtlasIntel, and CNT/MDA.
(Why is so much money being wagered at BF on this?)
FWIW, my analysis predicts Lula winning by a 9-10% majority.