Howdy, Stranger!

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

Biden moves to 70% betting chance for the nomination – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited April 2023 in General
imageBiden moves to 70% betting chance for the nomination – politicalbetting.com

I have generally been very skeptical of Biden’s chances of being the WH2024 nominee once again but he clearly wants it and the big question is whether his health will hold.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    He's doing quite well. Its only a serious health scare that is going to stop him now.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    DavidL said:

    He's doing quite well. Its only a serious health scare that is going to stop him now.

    At least he doesn't have to rely on the NHS for his healthcare
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,679
    Yes he's looking good - but I still prefer backing the Dems for WH24 rather than Joe himself.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    DavidL said:

    He's doing quite well. Its only a serious health scare that is going to stop him now.

    At least he doesn't have to rely on the NHS for his healthcare
    And he must look at the ruined wasteland that was once the GOP and wonder, how hard can this be?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Biden is of course the only Democrat to beat Trump and still polls best against him of Democrats. No President had failed to win their party's nomination after entering the primaries since LBJ either
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    edited April 2023
    Re: OGH's observations, true.

    BUT perhaps worth noting, that in lead-up to 1948 election, Harry Truman had his own issues, most especially re: Public Opinion. With many politicos, pundits and active voters, including many Democrats and Progressives (of that era) skeptical regarding the possibility and/or desirability of Truman's re-nomination AND re-election.

    Just sayin'
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited April 2023
    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,870
    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,961
    edited April 2023
    carnforth said:

    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160

    This sort of thing has to stop.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    FPT for @algarkirk


    “If that's true (I think not) then consciousness is an emergent property of stuff and anything can be conscious.”

    ++++


    It’s a truly fascinating question. The best recent paper on GPT4 and LLMs in general is this one


    Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf

    They have this in their conclusion:


    “Our study of GPT-4 is entirely phenomenological: We have focused on the surprising things that GPT-4 can do, but we do not address the fundamental questions of why and how it achieves such remarkable intelligence. How does it reason, plan, and create? Why does it exhibit such general and flexible intelligence when it is at its core merely the combination of simple algorithmic components—gradient descent and large-scale transformers with extremely large amounts of data? These questions are part of the mystery and fascinatoon of LLMs, which challenge our understanding of learning and cognition, fuel our curiosity, and motivate deeper research.

    Key directions include ongoing research on the phenomenon of emergence in LLMs (see [WTB+22] for a recent survey). Yet, despite intense interest in questions about the capabilities of LLMs,
    progress to date has been quite limited with only toy models where some phenomenon of emergence is proved [BEG+22, ABC+22, JSL22]. One general hypothesis [OCS+20] is that the large amount of data (especially the diversity of the content) forces neural networks to learn generic and useful “neural circuits”, such as the ones discovered in [OEN+22, ZBB+22, LAG+22], while the large size of models provide enough redundancy and diversity for the neural circuits to specialize and fine-tune to specific tasks.”

    Basically, sentience and intelligence might be emergent properties, which arise ‘naturally’ given enough complexity, data and information. The machines are coming to life as they grow

    Which makes sense, as our own consciousness is an emergent property, which revealed itself as we got more complex, evolving from Protozoa to primitive fish to mammal and primate
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,813
    HYUFD said:

    Biden is of course the only Democrat to beat Trump and still polls best against him of Democrats. No President had failed to win their party's nomination after entering the primaries since LBJ either

    Think Jimmy Carter had the toughest fight - against Ted Kennedy. He prevailed, as I recall, by refusing to engage and staying ensconced in the White House dealing with the hostage crisis. Of course, said crisis, and the failed rescue mission did for him against Reagan.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,156
    "Sunil force-feeding @Casino_Royale numerous Gregg's vegan sausage rolls"
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,069

    HYUFD said:

    Biden is of course the only Democrat to beat Trump and still polls best against him of Democrats. No President had failed to win their party's nomination after entering the primaries since LBJ either

    Think Jimmy Carter had the toughest fight - against Ted Kennedy. He prevailed, as I recall, by refusing to engage and staying ensconced in the White House dealing with the hostage crisis. Of course, said crisis, and the failed rescue mission did for him against Reagan.
    Kennedy's response to a question asking why he wanted to be President was pretty fatal for his campaign too

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TedKennedy/story?id=8436488
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    carnforth said:

    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160

    What an absolute disgrace. And we’re meant to swallow the lie that there’s ‘no trans agenda’

    Grrr
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,679
    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160

    This sort of thing has to stop.
    Copying dodgy tweets onto PB?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,679
    CatMan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Biden is of course the only Democrat to beat Trump and still polls best against him of Democrats. No President had failed to win their party's nomination after entering the primaries since LBJ either

    Think Jimmy Carter had the toughest fight - against Ted Kennedy. He prevailed, as I recall, by refusing to engage and staying ensconced in the White House dealing with the hostage crisis. Of course, said crisis, and the failed rescue mission did for him against Reagan.
    Kennedy's response to a question asking why he wanted to be President was pretty fatal for his campaign too

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TedKennedy/story?id=8436488
    Yes that was one of those moments.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,870
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160

    This sort of thing has to stop.
    Copying dodgy tweets onto PB?
    Wait, this isn't my personal blog? Fuck.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160

    This sort of thing has to stop.
    Copying dodgy tweets onto PB?
    What is dodgy about it? Joan Smith is a well-known and respected journalist. And what she describes is extraordinary - I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered a serious newspaper overtly asking a writer to knowingly lie
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,961
    edited April 2023
    Another article about the state of American society. Tom McTague in Unherd.

    "Look around and the signs of dysfunction are everywhere. Just as the scale of the country’s wealth and power are hard to comprehend for those of us outside the imperial homeland, so too is the scale of its violent disorder and dysfunction. Take homelessness. In Los Angeles today, there are approximately 42,000 people sleeping rough at the moment — and some 113,000 in California overall. In the whole of England, by contrast, there are around 3,000."

    https://unherd.com/2023/04/the-paradox-of-american-chaos/
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,691
    edited April 2023

    "Sunil force-feeding @Casino_Royale numerous Gregg's vegan sausage rolls"

    'OUTRAGE as gammon porked with woke-meat.'
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    WillG said:

    Foxy said:

    WillG said:

    Stocky said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    That J Burn-Murdoch exploration of American mortality - one striking stat among many:

    Things have deteriorated so much that the average American now has the same healthy life expectancy (years lived in good health) as someone in Blackpool, the town with England’s lowest life expectancy (by far), synonymous with deep-rooted social decline ft.com/blackpool



    I think that bears repeating. *The average American* has the same chance of a long and healthy life as someone born in the most deprived part of England, a place with the highest rates of relationship breakdown and some of the highest rates of antidepressant prescribing.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1641799703636369408?m

    (Almost) Electing the Tories in 2010 appears to have been a big mistake, looking at that graph (except in Blackpool, where there has been a smidgin of catching up).

    Odd, since you’d think that making sure there were ever more older people would be their top priority.
    Yes, there was a noticeable stalling in increases of life expectancy during the Austerity period. This was not the case in other developed countries, but rather specific to UK and USA.

    More of concern is that in recent years is that the health quality of those years has worsened, even before Covid etc. Nothing wrong with being fit and retired, but who wants to drag out poor health?


    Look too at how the social divide in life expectancy changed over the Austerity period, by part of the country.



    From:

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1641799903398486020?t=08VKdWIrBN8rnfVPnbQDaQ&s=19

    That's a very sharp observation.

    There was that study in the ?BMJ on the health impact of austerity - much decried on here, I seem to recall.

    https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/uk-austerity-since-2010-linked-to-tens-of-thousands-more-deaths-than-expected/

    https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/10/e046417

    (and some output estimates that might interest @Pagan2 too).

    It's looking very likely from those graphs, I must say, and I see other researchers are coming up with similar conclusions: for instance

    https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/mortality-rates-among-men-and-women-impact-of-austerity/
    Not sure why I got a mention as I dont believe I have advocated austerity or mentioned life expectancies. What I have said is that we should prioritise what we can fully fund and will do the most good and drop things that are lower down priorities. That is not austerity its called being sensible.

    On the subject of life expectancy however I largely think people that celebrate increasing life expectancy just like people who celebrate increasing gdp are idiots who cheer a meaningless figure and ignore the important ones.

    In the case of GDP that can go up while gdp per capita is falling it is the latter plus how that increase in per capita gdp is spread through income percentiles that is important.

    In the case of life expectancy, why celebrate it when it often means extra years of sitting in your own shit. What we should celebrate is increasing quality years. I say this from the point of view of having an 83 year old father who no longer can dress himself, cook for himself, wets himself, forgets what he was saying half way through a sentence and rarely knows what day of the week it is...2 or 3 years ago the nhs fought like mad to cure him from something that would have taken him....why so he could spend a couple more years feeling humiliated and embarassed? Fuck your increasing life expectancy.

    Also don't forget the cost of people like my father is not only borne by him, it is also borne by the people around him who are desperately trying to keep him in his own home as to him that would be the final indignity. A cost in time and energy and sheer soul sapping worry because we can't be there for him 24/7
    "Fuck your increasing life expectancy." I'm completely with you Pagan.
    But healthy years of life are expanding at the same rate as actual life expectancy. Or at least they were, pre-COVID. There are also advancements in anti-aging and dementia prevention pretty well advanced.
    No they aren't according to the ONS figures and bar chart up this thread. Indeed the opposite.




    While neither is the be all, Life expectancy and Diisability Free Life Expectancy are pretty good proxies for many other aspects of Socio-Economic strain and distress.

    Those numbers are actually pretty astonishing. The average person becomes disabled after 60? My parents are going strong in their 70s. My grandparents didn't become decrepid until their 90s.
    A fair bit is luck - but activity helps a lot, I think.

    I think we are beginning to see an effect of what I can the Gym generations, feeding into the older population. That is, people who are accustomed to daily exercise.

    My father, recently stopped running a couple of times a week - in his 80s. He was brought up in New York, among a peer group where you did some kind of exercise every week. When he came to the UK this was seen as a bit odd.

    By contrast, my aunt gave up doing much when she retired and now has trouble walking a few steps.

    Exercise and poverty don't have to be linked - in the local council estates there seems to be a very strong bike culture among a section of the young. Building and improving their own bikes. My father grew up poor - he ran track barefoot because he didn't have the extra money for running shoes. My father in law similarly kept active and made it to 98 - and he was living in a country where the current state of the NHS is a dream of the gods.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,337
    edited April 2023
    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160

    What an absolute disgrace. And we’re meant to swallow the lie that there’s ‘no trans agenda’

    Grrr
    Jesus Christ you people are gullible.

    She’s up to her eyeballs in the GC world, as is obvious from her Twitter & she wonders why a sub-ed might not push back against some statement she makes about trans people in an article she writes for a newspaper? Isn’t that what sub eds are for?

    This is the article she’s talking about:

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d8aa57d-72bb-461a-8b91-c968a8ee015a

    in which it seems fairly clear that Smith has inserted her own trans obsessions into a review of a book by Harriet Johnson, in an entire paragraph dedicated to moaning about the book author using cis- prefixes. It’s hardly going out on a limb to suggest that the sub-ed thought that Joan Smith was the one inserting her own agenda into a book review & was pushing back on that.
  • The Scottish Conservatives will urge supporters to vote Labour in key constituencies at the general election under plans to “end nationalist dominance” in Scotland, The Sunday Times has learned.

    In an unprecedented system of tactical voting, the Scottish Tories are inviting rivals to co-operate in a “vote smart” strategy in a bid to shore up unionist votes in rural parts of Scotland while lending Labour support in the central belt, which stretches from Glasgow to Edinburgh.

    However, the offer is likely to anger members of the UK Conservative Party who trail Labour in the polls and face a gruelling battle to keep Rishi Sunak in Downing Street.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-tories-call-for-tactical-voting-to-end-snp-dominance-8vr30rl5r
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    I'm not sure if this is a point that they need broken to them, but hotshot lawyers were probably already associated with high flying bankers in the public consciousness.
  • Well


  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    edited April 2023
    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160

    What an absolute disgrace. And we’re meant to swallow the lie that there’s ‘no trans agenda’

    Grrr
    Jesus Christ you people are gullible.

    She’s up to her eyeballs in the GC world, as is obvious from her Twitter & she wonders why a sub-ed might not push back against some statement she makes about trans people in an article she writes for a newspaper? Isn’t that what sub eds are for?

    This is the article she’s talking about:

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d8aa57d-72bb-461a-8b91-c968a8ee015a

    in which it seems fairly clear that Smith has inserted her own trans obsessions into a review of a book by Harriet Johnson, in an entire paragraph dedicated to moaning about the book author using cis- prefixes. It’s hardly going out on a limb to suggest that the sub-ed thought that Joan Smith was the one inserting her own agenda into a book review & was pushing back on that.
    By ‘up to her eyeballs in the GC world’ you mean, of course, she’s a ‘traditional feminist who wants to defend single sex spaces for women’. My god, what a fiend and a bigot
  • Panelbase


  • Independence

    Yes 48%

    No 52%
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    The Scottish Conservatives will urge supporters to vote Labour in key constituencies at the general election under plans to “end nationalist dominance” in Scotland, The Sunday Times has learned.

    In an unprecedented system of tactical voting, the Scottish Tories are inviting rivals to co-operate in a “vote smart” strategy in a bid to shore up unionist votes in rural parts of Scotland while lending Labour support in the central belt, which stretches from Glasgow to Edinburgh.

    However, the offer is likely to anger members of the UK Conservative Party who trail Labour in the polls and face a gruelling battle to keep Rishi Sunak in Downing Street.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-tories-call-for-tactical-voting-to-end-snp-dominance-8vr30rl5r

    Not sure they need to be so explicit. Unionist tactical voting seems to have already occurred and the public seem to work it out themselves - despite what happened elsewhere in the UK in at least 1 constituency SCon win from third, behind Labour, as they were felt to be the more likely winner.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    edited April 2023
    The next Holyrood election is not due until 2026 but Panelbase’s findings will make for uncomfortable reading in Bute House and SNP headquarters.

    In constituencies, 37 per cent of people said they would vote for the SNP, a fall of 6 points. Labour received 33 per cent support, up six points; the Conservatives 17 per cent, up one point; the Lib Dems 8 per cent, up one point; the Greens 5 per cent, up one point; with 4 per cent voting for other parties.

    On the regional list, 31 per cent said they would vote SNP; Labour secured 27 per cent; the Tories 20 per cent; the Greens 10 per cent and the Lib Dems 6 per cent. Alba returned 5 per cent in a result that would see them return two MSPs, according to Curtice’s analysis

    The SNP group would drop by 16 to 48 MSPs while Labour would go up by 15 to 37, the Conservatives would fall by five to 26 and the Greens and Lib Dems would each add two members to return ten and six MSPs respectively.

    This would mean there would be a majority of unionist politicians in Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
  • On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,468

    Well


    Excellent answer, as long as the question is "how are things not going for the SNP since Sturgeon was toppled?"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    Panelbase


    I'd take that at this point.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,156

    Panelbase


    14 valuable seats!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    HYUFD said:

    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/

    Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,147
    kle4 said:

    The Scottish Conservatives will urge supporters to vote Labour in key constituencies at the general election under plans to “end nationalist dominance” in Scotland, The Sunday Times has learned.

    In an unprecedented system of tactical voting, the Scottish Tories are inviting rivals to co-operate in a “vote smart” strategy in a bid to shore up unionist votes in rural parts of Scotland while lending Labour support in the central belt, which stretches from Glasgow to Edinburgh.

    However, the offer is likely to anger members of the UK Conservative Party who trail Labour in the polls and face a gruelling battle to keep Rishi Sunak in Downing Street.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-tories-call-for-tactical-voting-to-end-snp-dominance-8vr30rl5r

    Not sure they need to be so explicit. Unionist tactical voting seems to have already occurred and the public seem to work it out themselves - despite what happened elsewhere in the UK in at least 1 constituency SCon win from third, behind Labour, as they were felt to be the more likely winner.
    Please note the date...
  • On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160

    What an absolute disgrace. And we’re meant to swallow the lie that there’s ‘no trans agenda’

    Grrr
    Jesus Christ you people are gullible.

    She’s up to her eyeballs in the GC world, as is obvious from her Twitter & she wonders why a sub-ed might not push back against some statement she makes about trans people in an article she writes for a newspaper? Isn’t that what sub eds are for?

    This is the article she’s talking about:

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d8aa57d-72bb-461a-8b91-c968a8ee015a

    in which it seems fairly clear that Smith has inserted her own trans obsessions into a review of a book by Harriet Johnson, in an entire paragraph dedicated to moaning about the book author using cis- prefixes. It’s hardly going out on a limb to suggest that the sub-ed thought that Joan Smith was the one inserting her own agenda into a book review & was pushing back on that.
    That might be so, but the question would still remain - did they ask for an insertion which was factually incorrect?

    An argument about motives and agendas will go back and forth, but there is a specific claim which should be simple to determine - if they deny asking for the inclusion as specified she's a liar. If they made the request, was it untrue as she claims?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    HYUFD said:

    Biden is of course the only Democrat to beat Trump and still polls best against him of Democrats. No President had failed to win their party's nomination after entering the primaries since LBJ either

    Think Jimmy Carter had the toughest fight - against Ted Kennedy. He prevailed, as I recall, by refusing to engage and staying ensconced in the White House dealing with the hostage crisis. Of course, said crisis, and the failed rescue mission did for him against Reagan.
    Wrong. Hardest nomination battle for sitting POTUS in that era, was Jerry Ford versus Ronald Reagan in 1976.

    As for Ted Kennedy, HIS major problem was a bridge to far . . . to Chappaquidick.

    AND with respect to incumbent US presidents, who ran in next election but failed to secure nomination, note that;

    > Franklin Pierce, nominated and elected by Democratic Party in 1852, was defeated for re-nomination by 1856 by fellow Democrat (and his own Secretary of State) James Buchanan, who defeated the (first) Republican Party nominee, John C. Fremont.

    > Andrew Johnson, a "War Democrat" nominated for Vice President in 1864 on the "Union" ticket (by Republicans) along with Abraham Lincoln, was persona non grata with GOP four years later; so instead he sought the 1868 Democratic Party nomination, but lost this to Horatio Seymour, who was himself defeated by Republican nominee Ulysses S. Grant.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited April 2023
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    The Scottish Conservatives will urge supporters to vote Labour in key constituencies at the general election under plans to “end nationalist dominance” in Scotland, The Sunday Times has learned.

    In an unprecedented system of tactical voting, the Scottish Tories are inviting rivals to co-operate in a “vote smart” strategy in a bid to shore up unionist votes in rural parts of Scotland while lending Labour support in the central belt, which stretches from Glasgow to Edinburgh.

    However, the offer is likely to anger members of the UK Conservative Party who trail Labour in the polls and face a gruelling battle to keep Rishi Sunak in Downing Street.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-tories-call-for-tactical-voting-to-end-snp-dominance-8vr30rl5r

    Not sure they need to be so explicit. Unionist tactical voting seems to have already occurred and the public seem to work it out themselves - despite what happened elsewhere in the UK in at least 1 constituency SCon win from third, behind Labour, as they were felt to be the more likely winner.
    Please note the date...
    Ah yes. It was of course a hilarious parody of myself fooling for an obvious phoney story and anyone suggesting otherwise just didn't get my joke.

    Also, I hate April 1st.
  • On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    Hyperbolic, non literal, language is perfectly acceptable in political discourse.

    Its if it is constant that it is not hyperbole and is concerning.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,147
    Leicester lose again to a relegation arrival, and are now in the relegation zone. We had 2 shots on goal all match vs CP 9 shots on target. Yet 3/1 for relegation. I watch my team play poorly every week, but what are others seeing that I cannot? I would say anything over evens on Leicester relegation is great value.

  • On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,168

    The Scottish Conservatives will urge supporters to vote Labour in key constituencies at the general election under plans to “end nationalist dominance” in Scotland, The Sunday Times has learned.

    In an unprecedented system of tactical voting, the Scottish Tories are inviting rivals to co-operate in a “vote smart” strategy in a bid to shore up unionist votes in rural parts of Scotland while lending Labour support in the central belt, which stretches from Glasgow to Edinburgh.

    However, the offer is likely to anger members of the UK Conservative Party who trail Labour in the polls and face a gruelling battle to keep Rishi Sunak in Downing Street.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-tories-call-for-tactical-voting-to-end-snp-dominance-8vr30rl5r

    Hasn’t Scotch tactical Unionist voting largely been the dog that hasn’t barked up to now?
    I know SLab are up to their nuts in guts with the SCons in various council ‘arrangements’, but their main refrain is ‘we’re the only party can get rid of the Tories’, not sure if they’ll want to dilute that.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Andy_JS said:

    Another article about the state of American society. Tom McTague in Unherd.

    "Look around and the signs of dysfunction are everywhere. Just as the scale of the country’s wealth and power are hard to comprehend for those of us outside the imperial homeland, so too is the scale of its violent disorder and dysfunction. Take homelessness. In Los Angeles today, there are approximately 42,000 people sleeping rough at the moment — and some 113,000 in California overall. In the whole of England, by contrast, there are around 3,000."

    https://unherd.com/2023/04/the-paradox-of-american-chaos/

    That article is actually too positive about the USA. It claims that American power is hardly waning, and in some ways is increasing, along with cultural and soft power etc


    This is not the case. For the first time the USA faces a rival that can match it economically, and outmatches it in trade, and so on. China is thus displacing the USA in political influence in much of the world

    As for soft power, that too is moving to Asia. See the rise of k-pop. Meanwhile America is intent on destroying its once peerless university system via equity and Wokeness

    The American crisis is WORSE than the portrayal there
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    kle4 said:

    Panelbase


    I'd take that at this point.
    I wonder if the Unionist parties would form an administration.
  • kle4 said:

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    Hyperbolic, non literal, language is perfectly acceptable in political discourse.

    Its if it is constant that it is not hyperbole and is concerning.
    That is merely an attempt to deflect what you know was a clear comment that one of the two political parties is now at least fascists and, by reference to Operation Overlord, akin to the Nazis.

    The comment that it's also concerning is consistent is also fairly weak given (1) it fails given it's a comment heard on here all the time that the GOP is fascistic / Nazi-like (2) if the GOP made a similar analogy to the Democrats, there would be a justifiable outcry and (3) extreme comments, even if one off, lead to extreme behaviour.

    I know you are trying to justify TSE's language but it really isn't defensible in a Democracy.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352

    HYUFD said:

    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/

    Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
    Those of us that live in genuinely rural areas are always nervous of Labour. I am a moderate and very much wanted to see the back of Johnson, and had Johnson still been PM I would have held my nose and voted Labour if necessary. If Labour is to have a chance in very rural areas it has a lot of work to do. But then again, Labour is essentially an urban party and I guess it doesn't care. Which is why we do not trust them.
  • Well


    The Head of Political & Social Research at Opinium observes

    Irrationally triggered by not only showing the scale out of order but also the word "unconfident"
  • The next Holyrood election is not due until 2026 but Panelbase’s findings will make for uncomfortable reading in Bute House and SNP headquarters.

    In constituencies, 37 per cent of people said they would vote for the SNP, a fall of 6 points. Labour received 33 per cent support, up six points; the Conservatives 17 per cent, up one point; the Lib Dems 8 per cent, up one point; the Greens 5 per cent, up one point; with 4 per cent voting for other parties.

    On the regional list, 31 per cent said they would vote SNP; Labour secured 27 per cent; the Tories 20 per cent; the Greens 10 per cent and the Lib Dems 6 per cent. Alba returned 5 per cent in a result that would see them return two MSPs, according to Curtice’s analysis

    The SNP group would drop by 16 to 48 MSPs while Labour would go up by 15 to 37, the Conservatives would fall by five to 26 and the Greens and Lib Dems would each add two members to return ten and six MSPs respectively.

    This would mean there would be a majority of unionist politicians in Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    Imagine the fun we could have with a Rainbow Alliance. Tory, Labour, LibDem all working together to shut out the SNP. It would be *chaos* but as long as they always pull back together to vote down the Nats it could be seriously entertaining...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    Leon said:



    Andy_JS said:

    Another article about the state of American society. Tom McTague in Unherd.

    "Look around and the signs of dysfunction are everywhere. Just as the scale of the country’s wealth and power are hard to comprehend for those of us outside the imperial homeland, so too is the scale of its violent disorder and dysfunction. Take homelessness. In Los Angeles today, there are approximately 42,000 people sleeping rough at the moment — and some 113,000 in California overall. In the whole of England, by contrast, there are around 3,000."

    https://unherd.com/2023/04/the-paradox-of-american-chaos/

    That article is actually too positive about the USA. It claims that American power is hardly waning, and in some ways is increasing, along with cultural and soft power etc


    This is not the case. For the first time the USA faces a rival that can match it economically, and outmatches it in trade, and so on. China is thus displacing the USA in political influence in much of the world

    As for soft power, that too is moving to Asia. See the rise of k-pop. Meanwhile America is intent on destroying its once peerless university system via equity and Wokeness

    The American crisis is WORSE than the portrayal there
    The future doesn’t look that great for China, though. Growth is now mediocre, and the population is falling.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,840
    kle4 said:

    Panelbase


    I'd take that at this point.
    Yes, I still think Labour will be doing very well to recover to a dozen. Any talk of a collapse in the SNP position because of the recent shenanigans is well overdone.
  • On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.

    As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352

    kle4 said:

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    Hyperbolic, non literal, language is perfectly acceptable in political discourse.

    Its if it is constant that it is not hyperbole and is concerning.
    That is merely an attempt to deflect what you know was a clear comment that one of the two political parties is now at least fascists and, by reference to Operation Overlord, akin to the Nazis.

    The comment that it's also concerning is consistent is also fairly weak given (1) it fails given it's a comment heard on here all the time that the GOP is fascistic / Nazi-like (2) if the GOP made a similar analogy to the Democrats, there would be a justifiable outcry and (3) extreme comments, even if one off, lead to extreme behaviour.

    I know you are trying to justify TSE's language but it really isn't defensible in a Democracy.
    Tragically there are very strong similarities between Trump followers and fascists. A refusal to accept that an election has been lost. The incitement to riot and utilize violence and intimidation and a refusal to accept the independence of the judicial process.

    The GOP has been heavily infiltrated by populists, and even those that are more moderate are terrified of standing up to Trump

    The extent that the Republicans have moved to the far right is also evidenced by the realisation taht George W Bush is now considered a moderate
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,558
    Leon said:



    Andy_JS said:

    Another article about the state of American society. Tom McTague in Unherd.

    "Look around and the signs of dysfunction are everywhere. Just as the scale of the country’s wealth and power are hard to comprehend for those of us outside the imperial homeland, so too is the scale of its violent disorder and dysfunction. Take homelessness. In Los Angeles today, there are approximately 42,000 people sleeping rough at the moment — and some 113,000 in California overall. In the whole of England, by contrast, there are around 3,000."

    https://unherd.com/2023/04/the-paradox-of-american-chaos/

    That article is actually too positive about the USA. It claims that American power is hardly waning, and in some ways is increasing, along with cultural and soft power etc


    This is not the case. For the first time the USA faces a rival that can match it economically, and outmatches it in trade, and so on. China is thus displacing the USA in political influence in much of the world

    As for soft power, that too is moving to Asia. See the rise of k-pop. Meanwhile America is intent on destroying its once peerless university system via equity and Wokeness

    The American crisis is WORSE than the portrayal there
    It’s possible though that “woke” in US universities and certain cultural areas will hit a kind of counter-reformation sooner or later.

    If you think about the cultural changes in the late 60’s and early 70’s when those kids grew up and their ideology crashed into the real world you ended up with Reagan and the 80’s - these things can be quite cyclical and things that seemed a good idea are less so when they want a job, mortgage and they don’t like what the next wave are teaching their own kids.

    K-pop is big but the US and UK are still providing a large portion of music the world consumes, as we’ve seen here the UK provides huge content for Netflix etc in Europe and around the world and US films etc whilst not having the hegemony they had are still massively popular.

    I’m guessing that similar letters were being written to the papers in the 70’s but never underestimate the American spirit that is very driven and innovative.

    Having said that I welcome our new Chinese and Korean overlords.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,337
    edited April 2023
    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160

    What an absolute disgrace. And we’re meant to swallow the lie that there’s ‘no trans agenda’

    Grrr
    Jesus Christ you people are gullible.

    She’s up to her eyeballs in the GC world, as is obvious from her Twitter & she wonders why a sub-ed might not push back against some statement she makes about trans people in an article she writes for a newspaper? Isn’t that what sub eds are for?

    This is the article she’s talking about:

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d8aa57d-72bb-461a-8b91-c968a8ee015a

    in which it seems fairly clear that Smith has inserted her own trans obsessions into a review of a book by Harriet Johnson, in an entire paragraph dedicated to moaning about the book author using cis- prefixes. It’s hardly going out on a limb to suggest that the sub-ed thought that Joan Smith was the one inserting her own agenda into a book review & was pushing back on that.
    By ‘up to her eyeballs in the GC world’ you mean, of course, she’s a ‘traditional feminist who wants to defend single sex spaces for women’. My god, what a fiend and a bigot
    Taking an entire paragraph out of a 500 word book review to rant about the author using a prefix you don’t like does kind of mark you out as being a bit weird about it. I’m not entirely surprised the FT hasn’t asked her to review anything else.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:



    Andy_JS said:

    Another article about the state of American society. Tom McTague in Unherd.

    "Look around and the signs of dysfunction are everywhere. Just as the scale of the country’s wealth and power are hard to comprehend for those of us outside the imperial homeland, so too is the scale of its violent disorder and dysfunction. Take homelessness. In Los Angeles today, there are approximately 42,000 people sleeping rough at the moment — and some 113,000 in California overall. In the whole of England, by contrast, there are around 3,000."

    https://unherd.com/2023/04/the-paradox-of-american-chaos/

    That article is actually too positive about the USA. It claims that American power is hardly waning, and in some ways is increasing, along with cultural and soft power etc


    This is not the case. For the first time the USA faces a rival that can match it economically, and outmatches it in trade, and so on. China is thus displacing the USA in political influence in much of the world

    As for soft power, that too is moving to Asia. See the rise of k-pop. Meanwhile America is intent on destroying its once peerless university system via equity and Wokeness

    The American crisis is WORSE than the portrayal there
    The future doesn’t look that great for China, though. Growth is now mediocre, and the population is falling.
    Indeed. But the Chinese polity looks less imperiled than America’s and it has confidence that America suddenly lacks

    Again tho, this could all be changed by AI. Whoever masters this first - as Xi Jinping has actually said - will be like the first nuclear power. And there America has a distinct if narrow advantage, for now
  • HYUFD said:

    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/

    Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
    Those of us that live in genuinely rural areas are always nervous of Labour. I am a moderate and very much wanted to see the back of Johnson, and had Johnson still been PM I would have held my nose and voted Labour if necessary. If Labour is to have a chance in very rural areas it has a lot of work to do. But then again, Labour is essentially an urban party and I guess it doesn't care. Which is why we do not trust them.
    The key word is trust. I think there are some groups amongst the floaters who may trust SKS but don't trust Labour. SKS' problem is (1) Sunak comes across as fairly decent to many of those people and (2) I suspect many RW voters in particular see Labour as dominated by graduate urban types who essentially despise what RW voters are about.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited April 2023

    kle4 said:

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    Hyperbolic, non literal, language is perfectly acceptable in political discourse.

    Its if it is constant that it is not hyperbole and is concerning.
    That is merely an attempt to deflect what you know was a clear comment that one of the two political parties is now at least fascists and, by reference to Operation Overlord, akin to the Nazis.

    The comment that it's also concerning is consistent is also fairly weak given (1) it fails given it's a comment heard on here all the time that the GOP is fascistic / Nazi-like (2) if the GOP made a similar analogy to the Democrats, there would be a justifiable outcry and (3) extreme comments, even if one off, lead to extreme behaviour.

    I know you are trying to justify TSE's language but it really isn't defensible in a Democracy.
    Tragically there are very strong similarities between Trump followers and fascists. A refusal to accept that an election has been lost. The incitement to riot and utilize violence and intimidation and a refusal to accept the independence of the judicial process.

    The GOP has been heavily infiltrated by populists, and even those that are more moderate are terrified of standing up to Trump

    The extent that the Republicans have moved to the far right is also evidenced by the realisation taht George W Bush is now considered a moderate
    George W Bush was actually a relative moderate in 2000 when he first ran on 'compassionate conservatism.'

    He was followed as nominee by moderates McCain and Romney. Trump in 2016 was the first rightwing populist candidate to win the GOP nomination since Reagan
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,840
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Panelbase


    I'd take that at this point.
    I wonder if the Unionist parties would form an administration.
    A Labour minority or possibly a Lib-Lab pact. No-one will engage in a formal pact with the Tories, they're toxic waste - but they'd vote to keep Labour in regardless. Scottish politics is so deeply polarised around the constitution that, unlike back in the 2007-11 Parliament where Salmond's minority administration was formed on the strength of his having one more seat than Labour, any Unionist majority in the chamber would vote to lock the Nationalist minority out of power.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Panelbase


    I'd take that at this point.
    I wonder if the Unionist parties would form an administration.
    I think if Lab-LD beat SNP in seat count, they would - the Conservatives would be issue by issue.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352

    HYUFD said:

    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/

    Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
    Those of us that live in genuinely rural areas are always nervous of Labour. I am a moderate and very much wanted to see the back of Johnson, and had Johnson still been PM I would have held my nose and voted Labour if necessary. If Labour is to have a chance in very rural areas it has a lot of work to do. But then again, Labour is essentially an urban party and I guess it doesn't care. Which is why we do not trust them.
    The key word is trust. I think there are some groups amongst the floaters who may trust SKS but don't trust Labour. SKS' problem is (1) Sunak comes across as fairly decent to many of those people and (2) I suspect many RW voters in particular see Labour as dominated by graduate urban types who essentially despise what RW voters are about.
    I actually quite like Starmer. I much prefer him to any previous Labour leader, but you are right about the problem of trust with the rest of them. I think a lot of Labour MPs genuinely despise rural people.
  • On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.

    As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
    One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.

    The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
    However, violence is not the only benchmark, as "A Very British Coup" makes clear. Trying to delegitimise an elected leader by claiming they are a 'Nazi' or a 'Fascist' or, indeed, a Russian
    spy can be as effective, if not more so, than raw violence.

    In any event, you haven't really answered the point. You said the GOP is fascist and 2024 is the most important
    date for democracy since Overlord. So, are they truly fascist / Nazi - and therefore should be banned - or not?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    HYUFD said:

    Biden is of course the only Democrat to beat Trump and still polls best against him of Democrats. No President had failed to win their party's nomination after entering the primaries since LBJ either

    Think Jimmy Carter had the toughest fight - against Ted Kennedy. He prevailed, as I recall, by refusing to engage and staying ensconced in the White House dealing with the hostage crisis. Of course, said crisis, and the failed rescue mission did for him against Reagan.
    Yes though President Ford also had a close run primary battle with Reagan in 1976
  • On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.

    As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
    One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.

    The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
    However, violence is not the only benchmark, as "A Very British Coup" makes clear. Trying to delegitimise an elected leader by claiming they are a 'Nazi' or a 'Fascist' or, indeed, a Russian
    spy can be as effective, if not more so, than raw violence.

    In any event, you haven't really answered the point. You said the GOP is fascist and 2024 is the most important
    date for democracy since Overlord. So, are they truly fascist / Nazi - and therefore should be banned - or not?
    Clearly you cannot read/comprehend.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    Hyperbolic, non literal, language is perfectly acceptable in political discourse.

    Its if it is constant that it is not hyperbole and is concerning.
    That is merely an attempt to deflect what you know was a clear comment that one of the two political parties is now at least fascists and, by reference to Operation Overlord, akin to the Nazis.

    The comment that it's also concerning is consistent is also fairly weak given (1) it fails given it's a comment heard on here all the time that the GOP is fascistic / Nazi-like (2) if the GOP made a similar analogy to the Democrats, there would be a justifiable outcry and (3) extreme comments, even if one off, lead to extreme behaviour.

    I know you are trying to justify TSE's language but it really isn't defensible in a Democracy.
    Tragically there are very strong similarities between Trump followers and fascists. A refusal to accept that an election has been lost. The incitement to riot and utilize violence and intimidation and a refusal to accept the independence of the judicial process.

    The GOP has been heavily infiltrated by populists, and even those that are more moderate are terrified of standing up to Trump

    The extent that the Republicans have moved to the far right is also evidenced by the realisation taht George W Bush is now considered a moderate
    George W Bush was actually a relative moderate in 2000 when he first ran on 'compassionate conservatism.'

    He was followed as nominee by moderates McCain and Romney. Trump in 2016 was the first rightwing populist candidate to win the GOP nomination since Reagan
    I don't think you could describe Reagan as a populist. He was economically conservative, but definitely nothing like Trump
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    On topic, Biden would be trading at 1.20-1.25 were it not for his age.

    People here simply can't believe someone that old would want it, or will survive to get it.
  • kle4 said:

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    Hyperbolic, non literal, language is perfectly acceptable in political discourse.

    Its if it is constant that it is not hyperbole and is concerning.
    That is merely an attempt to deflect what you know was a clear comment that one of the two political parties is now at least fascists and, by reference to Operation Overlord, akin to the Nazis.

    The comment that it's also concerning is consistent is also fairly weak given (1) it fails given it's a comment heard on here all the time that the GOP is fascistic / Nazi-like (2) if the GOP made a similar analogy to the Democrats, there would be a justifiable outcry and (3) extreme comments, even if one off, lead to extreme behaviour.

    I know you are trying to justify TSE's language but it really isn't defensible in a Democracy.
    Tragically there are very strong similarities between Trump followers and fascists. A refusal to accept that an election has been lost. The incitement to riot and utilize violence and intimidation and a refusal to accept the independence of the judicial process.

    The GOP has been heavily infiltrated by populists, and even those that are more moderate are terrified of standing up to Trump

    The extent that the Republicans have moved to the far right is also evidenced by the realisation taht George W Bush is now considered a moderate
    I think that's true the GOP has been infiltrated by fascists but similarly I think the Democrats have been similarly infiltrated by Antifa-style element who also believe that violence is acceptable in the cause. The deselection process in both parties is clear evidence of polarisation.

    My concern is that branding one party as fascist clearly leads to the next logical step that they should be banned and (potentially) that it is legitimate to ignore their votes. If the GOP does win in 2024, will we hear calls that, because they clearly can't win, any win by its very nature has to be illegitimate and therefore banned?

    Re Bush, he was but he was demonised at the time. So was Romney. There is a question whether (and I'm not saying you) the claims by the Democrats that the two are moderate, true Republicans is heartfelt believed or is merely a political tactic to
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    The 2nd vote Remoaners tried to overturn a democratic vote. Brexit

    Much as I dislike them, I wouldn’t call them ‘fascist’. Foolish idiots playing with fire is more like it

    I don’t think Trump is your classical fascist either. ‘A dangerous, unhinged demagogue who menaces America and who will hopefully disappear’, yes, he’s definitely that.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888
    Leon said:

    FPT for @algarkirk


    “If that's true (I think not) then consciousness is an emergent property of stuff and anything can be conscious.”

    ++++


    It’s a truly fascinating question. The best recent paper on GPT4 and LLMs in general is this one


    Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf

    They have this in their conclusion:


    “Our study of GPT-4 is entirely phenomenological: We have focused on the surprising things that GPT-4 can do, but we do not address the fundamental questions of why and how it achieves such remarkable intelligence. How does it reason, plan, and create? Why does it exhibit such general and flexible intelligence when it is at its core merely the combination of simple algorithmic components—gradient descent and large-scale transformers with extremely large amounts of data? These questions are part of the mystery and fascinatoon of LLMs, which challenge our understanding of learning and cognition, fuel our curiosity, and motivate deeper research.

    Key directions include ongoing research on the phenomenon of emergence in LLMs (see [WTB+22] for a recent survey). Yet, despite intense interest in questions about the capabilities of LLMs,
    progress to date has been quite limited with only toy models where some phenomenon of emergence is proved [BEG+22, ABC+22, JSL22]. One general hypothesis [OCS+20] is that the large amount of data (especially the diversity of the content) forces neural networks to learn generic and useful “neural circuits”, such as the ones discovered in [OEN+22, ZBB+22, LAG+22], while the large size of models provide enough redundancy and diversity for the neural circuits to specialize and fine-tune to specific tasks.”

    Basically, sentience and intelligence might be emergent properties, which arise ‘naturally’ given enough complexity, data and information. The machines are coming to life as they grow

    Which makes sense, as our own consciousness is an emergent property, which revealed itself as we got more complex, evolving from Protozoa to primitive fish to mammal and primate


    Interesting stuff. I am open minded; but there are problems. In the empirical world things have causes (hence science) which can be uncovered, hypothesised and tested, verified (or falsified), on the basis of which laws and regularities can be formulated and predictions made. This I would describe as the world of 'how it works'.

    With mental events (consciousness, sentience) there isn't a 'How It Works' available, nor, crucially, is it possible to formulate an empirically based possibility(s) - hypothesis - of "How It Works" within any physics known to us.

    So either it is not an emergent property at all (BTW mental events are not properties, they are things, as we all know in our heads) or else they emerge by laws/physics of which we are 100% ignorant. And likely to remain so.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569



    However, violence is not the only benchmark, as "A Very British Coup" makes clear. Trying to delegitimise an elected leader by claiming they are a 'Nazi' or a 'Fascist' or, indeed, a Russian
    spy can be as effective, if not more so, than raw violence.

    In any event, you haven't really answered the point. You said the GOP is fascist and 2024 is the most important
    date for democracy since Overlord. So, are they truly fascist / Nazi - and therefore should be banned - or not?

    On the whole I'm against banning anyone, though I'm in favour of constraints on what can legally be said (to deter inflammatory speech). Elements of Trumpism do have a Mussolini-like flavour (though I wouldn't call them Nazis) but it's important to defeat them by democratic means, since otherwise we can't complain if they use undemocratic means to try to gain power.
  • On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.

    As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
    One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.

    The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
    However, violence is not the only benchmark, as "A Very British Coup" makes clear. Trying to delegitimise an elected leader by claiming they are a 'Nazi' or a 'Fascist' or, indeed, a Russian
    spy can be as effective, if not more so, than raw violence.

    In any event, you haven't really answered the point. You said the GOP is fascist and 2024 is the most important
    date for democracy since Overlord. So, are they truly fascist / Nazi - and therefore should be banned - or not?
    Clearly you cannot read/comprehend.
    I very clearly can and you very clearly can't debate. You remind me a bit of Socrates' quote at his trial "the most stupid people are those who believe they know everything when in fact they know nothing"
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,916
    kinabalu said:

    Yes he's looking good - but I still prefer backing the Dems for WH24 rather than Joe himself.

    That doesn't make sense to me. If Biden is forced not to run then it's clear this will be reluctantly, and so is more likely to come at a late stage.

    If it happens in 2024 then it becomes a lot harder for contenders who aren't Kamala Harris to put a strong run together. This means that if Biden isn't the nominee then Harris will be.

    I tend to think that Harris is a weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton, and so I'd rate the chances of her losing the general quite highly.

    So I think it's quite a narrow window for a non-Biden Democrat winner.


  • However, violence is not the only benchmark, as "A Very British Coup" makes clear. Trying to delegitimise an elected leader by claiming they are a 'Nazi' or a 'Fascist' or, indeed, a Russian
    spy can be as effective, if not more so, than raw violence.

    In any event, you haven't really answered the point. You said the GOP is fascist and 2024 is the most important
    date for democracy since Overlord. So, are they truly fascist / Nazi - and therefore should be banned - or not?

    On the whole I'm against banning anyone, though I'm in favour of constraints on what can legally be said (to deter inflammatory speech). Elements of Trumpism do have a Mussolini-like flavour (though I wouldn't call them Nazis) but it's important to defeat them by democratic means, since otherwise we can't complain if they use undemocratic means to try to gain power.
    I would agree with all of that Nick and it is good to see someone who clearly doesn't share the GOP's / Trump's views. I think it's dangerous when the terms fascists / Nazis get bandied around. As you say; it's far better to debate.
  • On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.

    As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
    One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.

    The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
    However, violence is not the only benchmark, as "A Very British Coup" makes clear. Trying to delegitimise an elected leader by claiming they are a 'Nazi' or a 'Fascist' or, indeed, a Russian
    spy can be as effective, if not more so, than raw violence.

    In any event, you haven't really answered the point. You said the GOP is fascist and 2024 is the most important
    date for democracy since Overlord. So, are they truly fascist / Nazi - and therefore should be banned - or not?
    Clearly you cannot read/comprehend.
    I very clearly can and you very clearly can't debate. You remind me a bit of Socrates' quote at his trial "the most stupid people are those who believe they know everything when in fact they know nothing"
    Here's what I wrote at 6.35pm

    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Leon said:

    The 2nd vote Remoaners tried to overturn a democratic vote. Brexit

    Much as I dislike them, I wouldn’t call them ‘fascist’. Foolish idiots playing with fire is more like it

    I don’t think Trump is your classical fascist either. ‘A dangerous, unhinged demagogue who menaces America and who will hopefully disappear’, yes, he’s definitely that.

    The Italian PM's party is though largely made up of former members of the post Fascist National Alliance
  • kinabalu said:

    Yes he's looking good - but I still prefer backing the Dems for WH24 rather than Joe himself.

    That doesn't make sense to me. If Biden is forced not to run then it's clear this will be reluctantly, and so is more likely to come at a late stage.

    If it happens in 2024 then it becomes a lot harder for contenders who aren't Kamala Harris to put a strong run together. This means that if Biden isn't the nominee then Harris will be.

    I tend to think that Harris is a weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton, and so I'd rate the chances of her losing the general quite highly.

    So I think it's quite a narrow window for a non-Biden Democrat winner.
    Agreed. Joe is the best chance to get the Democrats across the line All the polling points to Harris being trounced (as does what we have seen so far).
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569

    HYUFD said:

    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/

    Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
    Those of us that live in genuinely rural areas are always nervous of Labour. I am a moderate and very much wanted to see the back of Johnson, and had Johnson still been PM I would have held my nose and voted Labour if necessary. If Labour is to have a chance in very rural areas it has a lot of work to do. But then again, Labour is essentially an urban party and I guess it doesn't care. Which is why we do not trust them.
    The key word is trust. I think there are some groups amongst the floaters who may trust SKS but don't trust Labour. SKS' problem is (1) Sunak comes across as fairly decent to many of those people and (2) I suspect many RW voters in particular see Labour as dominated by graduate urban types who essentially despise what RW voters are about.
    Yes, as a Blue Wall constituency chair I'm familiar with something like that view, though it's not in my experience so much lack of trust as lack of salience - voting Labour just isn't something that many rural voters think of as a natural option. A problem is that "rural" doesn't mean agricultural. Labour is doing rather well with farmers at the moment, because the current Defra team aren't seen as effective - Starmer went down very well at the NFU conference. But do we have much to offer a retired couple living in a hard-earned large house in Surrey? I'd like to think that they'd be up for voting Labour simply on the basis of wanting a decent society around them, but only a minority feel that way.
  • HYUFD said:

    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/

    Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
    Those of us that live in genuinely rural areas are always nervous of Labour. I am a moderate and very much wanted to see the back of Johnson, and had Johnson still been PM I would have held my nose and voted Labour if necessary. If Labour is to have a chance in very rural areas it has a lot of work to do. But then again, Labour is essentially an urban party and I guess it doesn't care. Which is why we do not trust them.
    The key word is trust. I think there are some groups amongst the floaters who may trust SKS but don't trust Labour. SKS' problem is (1) Sunak comes across as fairly decent to many of those people and (2) I suspect many RW voters in particular see Labour as dominated by graduate urban types who essentially despise what RW voters are about.
    I actually quite like Starmer. I much prefer him to any previous Labour leader, but you are right about the problem of trust with the rest of them. I think a lot of Labour MPs genuinely despise rural people.
    I think that will be the dilemma for a lot of people in swing seats as well. Starmer seems nice but so does Sunak.

    I do think what you say about a lot of Labour MPs and rural people could equally be applied to the RW seats - which is why I am very sceptical of a Labour majority.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited April 2023

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    Hyperbolic, non literal, language is perfectly acceptable in political discourse.

    Its if it is constant that it is not hyperbole and is concerning.
    That is merely an attempt to deflect what you know was a clear comment that one of the two political parties is now at least fascists and, by reference to Operation Overlord, akin to the Nazis.

    The comment that it's also concerning is consistent is also fairly weak given (1) it fails given it's a comment heard on here all the time that the GOP is fascistic / Nazi-like (2) if the GOP made a similar analogy to the Democrats, there would be a justifiable outcry and (3) extreme comments, even if one off, lead to extreme behaviour.

    I know you are trying to justify TSE's language but it really isn't defensible in a Democracy.
    Tragically there are very strong similarities between Trump followers and fascists. A refusal to accept that an election has been lost. The incitement to riot and utilize violence and intimidation and a refusal to accept the independence of the judicial process.

    The GOP has been heavily infiltrated by populists, and even those that are more moderate are terrified of standing up to Trump

    The extent that the Republicans have moved to the far right is also evidenced by the realisation taht George W Bush is now considered a moderate
    George W Bush was actually a relative moderate in 2000 when he first ran on 'compassionate conservatism.'

    He was followed as nominee by moderates McCain and Romney. Trump in 2016 was the first rightwing populist candidate to win the GOP nomination since Reagan
    I don't think you could describe Reagan as a populist. He was economically conservative, but definitely nothing like Trump
    He was from the GOP right flank though, only Goldwater, Reagan and Trump have been nominated by that wing of the GOP since WW2. The rest have all been moderates.

    Indeed historically from FDR to Mcgovern, Mondale to Dukakis and Kerry to Obama the Democrats have been more likely to elect the non centrist candidate for the nomination and pick a left liberal than the GOP have picked a hardline Conservative
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,246
    ..
    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    FT asks a freelance writer to lie in a book review so as not to offend:

    https://twitter.com/polblonde/status/1642148168547676160

    What an absolute disgrace. And we’re meant to swallow the lie that there’s ‘no trans agenda’

    Grrr
    Jesus Christ you people are gullible.

    She’s up to her eyeballs in the GC world, as is obvious from her Twitter & she wonders why a sub-ed might not push back against some statement she makes about trans people in an article she writes for a newspaper? Isn’t that what sub eds are for?

    This is the article she’s talking about:

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d8aa57d-72bb-461a-8b91-c968a8ee015a

    in which it seems fairly clear that Smith has inserted her own trans obsessions into a review of a book by Harriet Johnson, in an entire paragraph dedicated to moaning about the book author using cis- prefixes. It’s hardly going out on a limb to suggest that the sub-ed thought that Joan Smith was the one inserting her own agenda into a book review & was pushing back on that.
    In that case it looks like the original statement that murders of trans women "are rare" was pulled from the article. Which was the correct thing to do as it is both misleading without a context that doesn't seem to have been supplied, and is irrelevant to the book reviewed. Nevertheless it was wrong to ask her to qualify the statement, if that's what initially happened.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    edited April 2023
    Wait until Dan finds out what the first American President(s) did to King George III.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806
    edited April 2023

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    Hyperbolic, non literal, language is perfectly acceptable in political discourse.

    Its if it is constant that it is not hyperbole and is concerning.
    That is merely an attempt to deflect what you know was a clear comment that one of the two political parties is now at least fascists and, by reference to Operation Overlord, akin to the Nazis.

    The comment that it's also concerning is consistent is also fairly weak given (1) it fails given it's a comment heard on here all the time that the GOP is fascistic / Nazi-like (2) if the GOP made a similar analogy to the Democrats, there would be a justifiable outcry and (3) extreme comments, even if one off, lead to extreme behaviour.

    I know you are trying to justify TSE's language but it really isn't defensible in a Democracy.
    Tragically there are very strong similarities between Trump followers and fascists. A refusal to accept that an election has been lost. The incitement to riot and utilize violence and intimidation and a refusal to accept the independence of the judicial process.

    The GOP has been heavily infiltrated by populists, and even those that are more moderate are terrified of standing up to Trump

    The extent that the Republicans have moved to the far right is also evidenced by the realisation taht George W Bush is now considered a moderate
    George W Bush was actually a relative moderate in 2000 when he first ran on 'compassionate conservatism.'

    He was followed as nominee by moderates McCain and Romney. Trump in 2016 was the first rightwing populist candidate to win the GOP nomination since Reagan
    I don't think you could describe Reagan as a populist. He was economically conservative, but definitely nothing like Trump
    "He was economically conservative, and definitely nothing like Trump"

    Trump was only interested in conserving his own wealth.
  • HYUFD said:

    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/

    Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
    Those of us that live in genuinely rural areas are always nervous of Labour. I am a moderate and very much wanted to see the back of Johnson, and had Johnson still been PM I would have held my nose and voted Labour if necessary. If Labour is to have a chance in very rural areas it has a lot of work to do. But then again, Labour is essentially an urban party and I guess it doesn't care. Which is why we do not trust them.
    The key word is trust. I think there are some groups amongst the floaters who may trust SKS but don't trust Labour. SKS' problem is (1) Sunak comes across as fairly decent to many of those people and (2) I suspect many RW voters in particular see Labour as dominated by graduate urban types who essentially despise what RW voters are about.
    Yes, as a Blue Wall constituency chair I'm familiar with something like that view, though it's not in my experience so much lack of trust as lack of salience - voting Labour just isn't something that many rural voters think of as a natural option. A problem is that "rural" doesn't mean agricultural. Labour is doing rather well with farmers at the moment, because the current Defra team aren't seen as effective - Starmer went down very well at the NFU conference. But do we have much to offer a retired couple living in a hard-earned large house in Surrey? I'd like to think that they'd be up for voting Labour simply on the basis of wanting a decent society around them, but only a minority feel that way.
    That's a very good point re the Surrey couple and you would have to say "not much". It is not so much though that Labour doesn't have much to offer more that Labour - to many - represent a threat to what they have. That's the issue.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,147
    edited April 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/

    Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
    Those of us that live in genuinely rural areas are always nervous of Labour. I am a moderate and very much wanted to see the back of Johnson, and had Johnson still been PM I would have held my nose and voted Labour if necessary. If Labour is to have a chance in very rural areas it has a lot of work to do. But then again, Labour is essentially an urban party and I guess it doesn't care. Which is why we do not trust them.
    The key word is trust. I think there are some groups amongst the floaters who may trust SKS but don't trust Labour. SKS' problem is (1) Sunak comes across as fairly decent to many of those people and (2) I suspect many RW voters in particular see Labour as dominated by graduate urban types who essentially despise what RW voters are about.
    Except the swing in RW seats is much the same as everywhere else.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,011

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.

    As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
    One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.

    The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
    Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @algarkirk


    “If that's true (I think not) then consciousness is an emergent property of stuff and anything can be conscious.”

    ++++


    It’s a truly fascinating question. The best recent paper on GPT4 and LLMs in general is this one


    Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf

    They have this in their conclusion:


    “Our study of GPT-4 is entirely phenomenological: We have focused on the surprising things that GPT-4 can do, but we do not address the fundamental questions of why and how it achieves such remarkable intelligence. How does it reason, plan, and create? Why does it exhibit such general and flexible intelligence when it is at its core merely the combination of simple algorithmic components—gradient descent and large-scale transformers with extremely large amounts of data? These questions are part of the mystery and fascinatoon of LLMs, which challenge our understanding of learning and cognition, fuel our curiosity, and motivate deeper research.

    Key directions include ongoing research on the phenomenon of emergence in LLMs (see [WTB+22] for a recent survey). Yet, despite intense interest in questions about the capabilities of LLMs,
    progress to date has been quite limited with only toy models where some phenomenon of emergence is proved [BEG+22, ABC+22, JSL22]. One general hypothesis [OCS+20] is that the large amount of data (especially the diversity of the content) forces neural networks to learn generic and useful “neural circuits”, such as the ones discovered in [OEN+22, ZBB+22, LAG+22], while the large size of models provide enough redundancy and diversity for the neural circuits to specialize and fine-tune to specific tasks.”

    Basically, sentience and intelligence might be emergent properties, which arise ‘naturally’ given enough complexity, data and information. The machines are coming to life as they grow

    Which makes sense, as our own consciousness is an emergent property, which revealed itself as we got more complex, evolving from Protozoa to primitive fish to mammal and primate


    Interesting stuff. I am open minded; but there are problems. In the empirical world things have causes (hence science) which can be uncovered, hypothesised and tested, verified (or falsified), on the basis of which laws and regularities can be formulated and predictions made. This I would describe as the world of 'how it works'.

    With mental events (consciousness, sentience) there isn't a 'How It Works' available, nor, crucially, is it possible to formulate an empirically based possibility(s) - hypothesis - of "How It Works" within any physics known to us.

    So either it is not an emergent property at all (BTW mental events are not properties, they are things, as we all know in our heads) or else they emerge by laws/physics of which we are 100% ignorant. And likely to remain so.
    I see no problem at all. Consciousness obviously emerges somehow - it emerged in us, and in other higher animals, who in turn evolved from lower animals, who evolved from blobs of slime and acid, and rocks and water and sunlight

    All living creatures process information so as to live. As the creatures evolve to become more complex they need to process MORE information, so their brains grow, and at some point on this road the brain gets big enough and is processing enough information it somehow becomes self aware. Conscious. Sentient

    Why should computers, which are made of atoms and molecules just like us, not follow the same pattern? As they get bigger and process more information, there will be a moment when consciousness will evolve just as it evolved in animals. It’s not a unique miracle

    The mystery of how and when consciousness arises at a particular moment abides. I agree with that. Is a chimp conscious? Of course. A dog? Yes. A gecko? Hmm. A bumblebee? Probably not. An amoeba? Almost certainly not. A virus?

    Somewhere on that evolutionary progression consciousness emerged. So then the question is: what stage are computers at? Bumblebee? Gecko? Dog?

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.

    As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
    One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.

    The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
    However, violence is not the only benchmark, as "A Very British Coup" makes clear. Trying to delegitimise an elected leader by claiming they are a 'Nazi' or a 'Fascist' or, indeed, a Russian
    spy can be as effective, if not more so, than raw violence.

    In any event, you haven't really answered the point. You said the GOP is fascist and 2024 is the most important
    date for democracy since Overlord. So, are they truly fascist / Nazi - and therefore should be banned - or not?
    Clearly you cannot read/comprehend.
    I very clearly can and you very clearly can't debate. You remind me a bit of Socrates' quote at his trial "the most stupid people are those who believe they know everything when in fact they know nothing"
    Here's what I wrote at 6.35pm

    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    This is a weird conversation. Its not like we ban the BNP or National Front in the UK, so the assumption that every poster here would want fascists banned from standing is out of left field. Perfectly reasonable to want fascists to both be able to stand and to lose heavily.
  • On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.

    As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
    One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.

    The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
    However, violence is not the only benchmark, as "A Very British Coup" makes clear. Trying to delegitimise an elected leader by claiming they are a 'Nazi' or a 'Fascist' or, indeed, a Russian
    spy can be as effective, if not more so, than raw violence.

    In any event, you haven't really answered the point. You said the GOP is fascist and 2024 is the most important
    date for democracy since Overlord. So, are they truly fascist / Nazi - and therefore should be banned - or not?
    Clearly you cannot read/comprehend.
    I very clearly can and you very clearly can't debate. You remind me a bit of Socrates' quote at his trial "the most stupid people are those who believe they know everything when in fact they know nothing"
    Here's what I wrote at 6.35pm

    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    As we say up here "what's that got to do with the price of fish?"

    My original point - as anyone can see and several posters can reference - is that, if you refer to the GOP as fascists and make a comparison to the D Day invasion to defeat the Nazis, then you clearly see the GOP as fascists / Nazis and therefore why don't you want them banned?

    It's not a difficult question and I really don't see what referencing whether I got angry at Trump (and I have told you I did) really impacts your ability to answer.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    Wait until Dan finds out what the first American President(s) did to King George III.

    It is also a ludicrous point.

    No US President has ever been to a British Monarch's coronation and no British monarch has ever been to a US President's inauguration
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932

    HYUFD said:

    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/

    Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
    Those of us that live in genuinely rural areas are always nervous of Labour. I am a moderate and very much wanted to see the back of Johnson, and had Johnson still been PM I would have held my nose and voted Labour if necessary. If Labour is to have a chance in very rural areas it has a lot of work to do. But then again, Labour is essentially an urban party and I guess it doesn't care. Which is why we do not trust them.
    The key word is trust. I think there are some groups amongst the floaters who may trust SKS but don't trust Labour. SKS' problem is (1) Sunak comes across as fairly decent to many of those people and (2) I suspect many RW voters in particular see Labour as dominated by graduate urban types who essentially despise what RW voters are about.
    Yes, as a Blue Wall constituency chair I'm familiar with something like that view, though it's not in my experience so much lack of trust as lack of salience - voting Labour just isn't something that many rural voters think of as a natural option. A problem is that "rural" doesn't mean agricultural. Labour is doing rather well with farmers at the moment, because the current Defra team aren't seen as effective - Starmer went down very well at the NFU conference. But do we have much to offer a retired couple living in a hard-earned large house in Surrey? I'd like to think that they'd be up for voting Labour simply on the basis of wanting a decent society around them, but only a minority feel that way.
    That's a very good point re the Surrey couple and you would have to say "not much". It is not so much though that Labour doesn't have much to offer more that Labour - to many - represent a threat to what they have. That's the issue.
    In many of those constituencies Labour may not even be in second place either at Westminster or locally. Those that are may well be far behind, so they just won't be credible challengers. That would change under PR, but it is the case with FPTP.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,147
    Pagan2 said:

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.

    As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
    One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.

    The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
    Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
    I must have dozed off in Dec 2019 when disgruntled Corbynites stormed the Palace.
  • Horse_BHorse_B Posts: 106
    As a long time lurker, it was sad to see @CorrectHorseBattery3 banned. He made a good point regarding the appeal of Sunak in GE24
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,011
    edited April 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.

    The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.

    The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/reform-tory-countryside-vote-conservatives-rural-right/

    Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
    Those of us that live in genuinely rural areas are always nervous of Labour. I am a moderate and very much wanted to see the back of Johnson, and had Johnson still been PM I would have held my nose and voted Labour if necessary. If Labour is to have a chance in very rural areas it has a lot of work to do. But then again, Labour is essentially an urban party and I guess it doesn't care. Which is why we do not trust them.
    The key word is trust. I think there are some groups amongst the floaters who may trust SKS but don't trust Labour. SKS' problem is (1) Sunak comes across as fairly decent to many of those people and (2) I suspect many RW voters in particular see Labour as dominated by graduate urban types who essentially despise what RW voters are about.
    Yes, as a Blue Wall constituency chair I'm familiar with something like that view, though it's not in my experience so much lack of trust as lack of salience - voting Labour just isn't something that many rural voters think of as a natural option. A problem is that "rural" doesn't mean agricultural. Labour is doing rather well with farmers at the moment, because the current Defra team aren't seen as effective - Starmer went down very well at the NFU conference. But do we have much to offer a retired couple living in a hard-earned large house in Surrey? I'd like to think that they'd be up for voting Labour simply on the basis of wanting a decent society around them, but only a minority feel that way.
    That's a very good point re the Surrey couple and you would have to say "not much". It is not so much though that Labour doesn't have much to offer more that Labour - to many - represent a threat to what they have. That's the issue.
    Please don't spout bollocks nick you are better than that...not voting labour does not mean people don't want a decent society around them it merely means they don't agree with a socialist inspired idea of what a decent society is.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156
    Pagan2 said:

    On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.

    The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.

    On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.

    And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?

    If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.

    Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.

    You absolute roaster.

    'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.

    We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.

    I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
    For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.

    You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?

    You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.

    Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
    I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.

    If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
    I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.

    As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
    One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.

    The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
    Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
    Yeah who can forget that time Harperson led an armed militia to take over the Lords after Cameron won?
This discussion has been closed.