SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
I think a large number will abstain, on the basis that the cause is lost (this time).
Yes, a bit like the UKIP vote in 2017. About half went Tory, half either abstained or went Lab etc.
There was a noticeable uptick in REFUK when Rishi became PM. I think this the opposite of the Hindutva vote.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
The short stuff is just mean, but this is the key part - he needed to be able to show things had turned around by now.
It's absurd too.
The man is 5'6", a little below average but no pigmy, and who the hell cares anyway? What kind of a voter is preoccupied with height?
It reminds one of the remark attributed to Churchill that one's belief in Democracy is unlikely to withstand more than five minutes conversation with a constituent.
I make fun of his height on here because I'm only like half an inch taller so I feel fine doing so, but it is absurd.
I'd hope it is really just a consequence of seeing him as weak and therefore finding any outlet to criticise, but as Dr Palmer has revealed, some voters will openly say they will vote for the person who is taller! (In that case, him, so all was well).
I remember hearing someone say they couldn't vote for Kinnock as PM because he had red hair, which about says it all about some voters, but really we shouldn't be giving air time to that sort of nonsense.
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Perhaps that was nullified by the Jenrick fans who next week are hoping he goes further with his cruelty . If there was any justice the Tories would be reduced to sub 100 seats at the next GE . I suspect the election will be much closer . The current soft Tories I’m sure will find a way to justify returning to the fold .
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
I think a large number will abstain, on the basis that the cause is lost (this time).
Yes, a bit like the UKIP vote in 2017. About half went Tory, half either abstained or went Lab etc.
There was a noticeable uptick in REFUK when Rishi became PM. I think this the opposite of the Hindutva vote.
There is something to be said by voting for Sunak's Conservatives just to p*ss off Refuk and their supporters.
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
5 overs at the end of a day with a better forecast tomorrow and plenty of time. Most teams would have ducked and dived and focused on survival. England went seriously close to a run a ball. I just can't overstate how fantastic this is. We are living through a golden age of test match cricket. An English team with many flaws is taking on the best team in the world with home advantage and generally favourable weather and coming out all guns blazing. It's just magic.
A chunk of it is England leading the way with Bazball, but another part of it, I am sure, is T20. It is teaching ALL batsmen to hit big shots faster and better and with more variety and imagination, generally making them more aggressive. Look at Marsh's century
It makes the whole spectacle vastly more entertaining. The bowlers then have to respond, and so on
It will be a profound irony if T20 actually saves Test cricket by pumping it full of energy
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
@charleshymas Channel migrant crossings hit new daily record for 2023
UK more popular than ever!
Wait till they read about Brexit though. The beaches of France will be swamped with people trying to go the other way. Surely?
We would, but we'll be repatriated back to Blighty after 90 days, so it hardly seems worthy of the effort.
If you fancy a cost of living busting summer holiday, get the family on a ferry to Calais, post all your docs home, get a small boat to the UK and get flown to a hotel in Rwanda and spend two weeks by the pool whilst you wait for your docs to be forwarded on to you. It’s a no brainier.
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
In 2015, UKIP got 13%. It was 2% at the last two elections. 3% in 2010. 2% in the two elections before that. So, who knows and maybe there are betting opportunities, but at least 2% wouldn’t be a surprise. Call it 2% and that leaves 6% to play with… but not all of that will go to the Tories. Some will not vote, some will vote Labour, some will vote for some other none of the above-like option. I suggest at best there’s 4% who will come back to the Tories and it could be a lot lower.
The other question is will they traipse back regardless, or does Sunak have to work to get them back, as HYUFD argues? Because work to get them back might put off other voters.
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
They will? In 2019 we needed to vote Boris to Get Brexit Done. And yet enough kippers voted for the Brexit Party to deny the Tories a stack of wins in places like Stockton North
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
I think they could get a similar share to UKIP in 2015 which was 12.9%.
Why are you so convinced they won't get anything like 8%?
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
Sock puppet whose party has gaping wound of polling in the low 20s squeezes tiny bit of Scotch subsample ointment to staunch the bleeding. The bleeding did not stop.
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
Opinium rarely shows sharp swings - outside of the Mini-Budget of course. The movement of 6% to Labour last time has now largely corrected itself and put Opinium where you would expect it to be - a few points favourable to the Cons compared to other pollsters. Of course they have already corrected for the Con Don't Knows drifting back.
You can expect Ref UK to poll at least 2-4% if they field a full slate - which they state they will do. Of the remaining 4% how many of them are backing Ref UK because the Con leader is Mr Sunak? Be that for 'Sunak the Snake' reasons or due to his ethnicity (or both). How many of those folk are squeezable? Aren't they much like the Corbynites within the Green vote? Another faction within the Ref UK bandwagon are the anti-vaxxer crowd. My experience is that a lot of them are very anti-Mr Sunak. He is 'Mr Globalist' to them.
I suspect the Cons can gain 1 or 2% of the current Ref UK vote. Very little more and to get that they need to be perceived to be close enough to bring the 'squeeze' into effect. Unless they get the fundamentals right they won't even get that.
Its really simple Cons - you need to govern better and you need a fierce purge of the more show-boating and less competent members of the Cabinet. it really isn't rocket science. Having duds in key departments is not a good look!
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
@charleshymas Channel migrant crossings hit new daily record for 2023
UK more popular than ever!
Wait till they read about Brexit though. The beaches of France will be swamped with people trying to go the other way. Surely?
We would, but we'll be repatriated back to Blighty after 90 days, so it hardly seems worthy of the effort.
If you fancy a cost of living busting summer holiday, get the family on a ferry to Calais, post all your docs home, get a small boat to the UK and get flown to a hotel in Rwanda and spend two weeks by the pool whilst you wait for your docs to be forwarded on to you. It’s a no brainier.
Rwanda? With my luck I'll more likely get a month in the Llanelli rain at the Stradey Park Hotel.
It's all a bit "man the lifeboats, every MP for themselves" now.
Nobody can "stop the boats" because the only practical means of doing so is to deploy lethal force, and however degenerate our Government becomes it seems highly improbable that it will resort to machine gunning the dinghies in the Channel as a means of persuading the boat people to give up.
The politicians simply don't want to admit their powerlessness, that's all.
The Tories deliberately chose to draw attention to their powerlessness… which begs the question why? Is it because they thought they could do something (and I suggest there is actually a lot a Government can do to influence the numbers), or is it because they thought that the fear arising from the perceived threat would work for them regardless?
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
Sock puppet whose party has gaping wound of polling in the low 20s squeezes tiny bit of Scotch subsample ointment to staunch the bleeding. The bleeding did not stop.
*brings to mind* styptic pencil, as sold alongside rubber johnnies in gents hairdressers, what, 60 years ago?
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
Sock puppet whose party has gaping wound of polling in the low 20s squeezes tiny bit of Scotch subsample ointment to staunch the bleeding. The bleeding did not stop.
*brings to mind* styptic pencil, as sold alongside rubber johnnies in gents hairdressers, what, 60 years ago?
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
Opinium rarely shows sharp swings - outside of the Mini-Budget of course. The movement of 6% to Labour last time has now largely corrected itself and put Opinium where you would expect it to be - a few points favourable to the Cons compared to other pollsters. Of course they have already corrected for the Con Don't Knows drifting back.
You can expect Ref UK to poll at least 2-4% if they field a full slate - which they state they will do. Of the remaining 4% how many of them are backing Ref UK because the Con leader is Mr Sunak? Be that for 'Sunak the Snake' reasons or due to his ethnicity (or both). How many of those folk are squeezable? Aren't they much like the Corbynites within the Green vote? Another faction within the Ref UK bandwagon are the anti-vaxxer crowd. My experience is that a lot of them are very anti-Mr Sunak. He is 'Mr Globalist' to them.
I suspect the Cons can gain 1 or 2% of the current Ref UK vote. Very little more and to get that they need to be perceived to be close enough to bring the 'squeeze' into effect. Unless they get the fundamentals right they won't even get that.
Its really simple Cons - you need to govern better and you need a fierce purge of the more show-boating and less competent members of the Cabinet. it really isn't rocket science. Having duds in key departments is not a good look!
There’s some joke to be done about showboating and stop the boats, but I’m too lazy to work it out.
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
Sock puppet whose party has gaping wound of polling in the low 20s squeezes tiny bit of Scotch subsample ointment to staunch the bleeding. The bleeding did not stop.
*brings to mind* styptic pencil, as sold alongside rubber johnnies in gents hairdressers, what, 60 years ago?
Something for the weekend Sir?
Wasn't old enough for that. I used to be puzzled by the little clock with the reference to family planning.
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
'disaggregated', meaning, please?
Not being influenced by the same factors, not moving in the same direction, not correlated.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law.
Not that I would suggest Rishi has a Napoleon complex of course
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
Opinium rarely shows sharp swings - outside of the Mini-Budget of course. The movement of 6% to Labour last time has now largely corrected itself and put Opinium where you would expect it to be - a few points favourable to the Cons compared to other pollsters. Of course they have already corrected for the Con Don't Knows drifting back.
You can expect Ref UK to poll at least 2-4% if they field a full slate - which they state they will do. Of the remaining 4% how many of them are backing Ref UK because the Con leader is Mr Sunak? Be that for 'Sunak the Snake' reasons or due to his ethnicity (or both). How many of those folk are squeezable? Aren't they much like the Corbynites within the Green vote? Another faction within the Ref UK bandwagon are the anti-vaxxer crowd. My experience is that a lot of them are very anti-Mr Sunak. He is 'Mr Globalist' to them.
I suspect the Cons can gain 1 or 2% of the current Ref UK vote. Very little more and to get that they need to be perceived to be close enough to bring the 'squeeze' into effect. Unless they get the fundamentals right they won't even get that.
Its really simple Cons - you need to govern better and you need a fierce purge of the more show-boating and less competent members of the Cabinet. it really isn't rocket science. Having duds in key departments is not a good look!
There’s some joke to be done about showboating and stop the boats, but I’m too lazy to work it out.
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
'disaggregated', meaning, please?
Not being influenced by the same factors, not moving in the same direction, not correlated.
Thanks. Which, I suppose, is an indication of (a) devolution and (b) more generally a distinct polity.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
'disaggregated', meaning, please?
Not being influenced by the same factors, not moving in the same direction, not correlated.
Thanks. Which, I suppose, is an indication of (a) devolution and (b) more generally a distinct polity.
Yes, which is why as a Unionist I don't like it. We are having our own conversation up here and it is no longer a UK one. I hope that changes.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law
Bonaparte wasn't a shortarse, it was only inaccurate British media reporting that said he was.
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
'disaggregated', meaning, please?
Not being influenced by the same factors, not moving in the same direction, not correlated.
Thanks. Which, I suppose, is an indication of (a) devolution and (b) more generally a distinct polity.
Yes, which is why as a Unionist I don't like it. We are having our own conversation up here and it is no longer a UK one. I hope that changes.
On the other hand, any insistence that all conversations have to be the same across the UK - or the imposition of suich a doctrine - would be a priori unreasonable and inherently very damaging to the concept of a UK.
Edit: though I hasten to add you aren't saying that.
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
I think they could get a similar share to UKIP in 2015 which was 12.9%.
Why are you so convinced they won't get anything like 8%?
In the actual world no-one has heard of Reform party or whatever it's called.
Polling is pretty variable, and obviously the Tories are, justly, in some sort of terminal trouble.
For trying to predict the actual result in 2024 at the moment I would factor in these things as things stand:
1) There aren't going to be huge votes that make much difference for parties other than C, LD, Lab and SNP. 2) Sir K is not Blair; balanced by the fact that Rishi is not Major. 3) In 1997 the actual GE vote was, in round figures: Lab 43. Con 31 4) I think the 2024 GE vote will be not far from the 1997 figures, within about 3 percent points (Lab 40-46, Con 28-34) though geographically differently distributed, and turnout low 5) Tactical voting won't help the Tories
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law.
Not that I would suggest Rishi has a Napoleon complex of course
Napoleon wasn’t short for a European man of his time.
Edit as much as I hate him I think it was the Punch cartoonists who made this a 19th century meme.
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
'disaggregated', meaning, please?
Not being influenced by the same factors, not moving in the same direction, not correlated.
Thanks. Which, I suppose, is an indication of (a) devolution and (b) more generally a distinct polity.
Yes, which is why as a Unionist I don't like it. We are having our own conversation up here and it is no longer a UK one. I hope that changes.
On the other hand, any insistence that all conversations have to be the same across the UK - or the imposition of suich a doctrine - would be a priori unreasonable and inherently very damaging to the concept of a UK.
If the polls are to be believed labour are heading for a majority in Scotland Wales and England and a very large one overall at that
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
'disaggregated', meaning, please?
Not being influenced by the same factors, not moving in the same direction, not correlated.
Thanks. Which, I suppose, is an indication of (a) devolution and (b) more generally a distinct polity.
Yes, which is why as a Unionist I don't like it. We are having our own conversation up here and it is no longer a UK one. I hope that changes.
On the other hand, any insistence that all conversations have to be the same across the UK - or the imposition of suich a doctrine - would be a priori unreasonable and inherently very damaging to the concept of a UK.
If the polls are to be believed labour are heading for a majority in Scotland Wales and England and a very large one overall at that
Different doctrines, though. Brexit for one thing.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law
Bonaparte wasn't a shortarse, it was only inaccurate British media reporting that said he was.
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
Isn't it also due to Bonaparte's relatively average background in Corsica, which gave him the average height for the time - whereas all his generals were dukes and viscounts and, like all well fed aristocracy of the time, about six inches taller than average. So they towered over him, making him APPEAR relatively short
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
'disaggregated', meaning, please?
Not being influenced by the same factors, not moving in the same direction, not correlated.
Thanks. Which, I suppose, is an indication of (a) devolution and (b) more generally a distinct polity.
Yes, which is why as a Unionist I don't like it. We are having our own conversation up here and it is no longer a UK one. I hope that changes.
On the other hand, any insistence that all conversations have to be the same across the UK - or the imposition of suich a doctrine - would be a priori unreasonable and inherently very damaging to the concept of a UK.
If the polls are to be believed labour are heading for a majority in Scotland Wales and England and a very large one overall at that
Far too early to say. Sunak still has the media onside to big him up and scythe down the hopeless Starmer. I reckon I am still on for my 20 seat Con majority.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law
Bonaparte wasn't a shortarse, it was only inaccurate British media reporting that said he was.
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
Isn't it also due to Bonaparte's relatively average background in Corsica, which gave him the average height for the time - whereas all his generals were dukes and viscounts and, like all well fed aristocracy of the time, about six inches taller than average. So they towered over him, making him APPEAR relatively short
Also headdress, no? Simple athwartships bicorn hat vs assorted shakos and helmets and so on.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law
Bonaparte wasn't a shortarse, it was only inaccurate British media reporting that said he was.
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
Isn't it also due to Bonaparte's relatively average background in Corsica, which gave him the average height for the time - whereas all his generals were dukes and viscounts and, like all well fed aristocracy of the time, about six inches taller than average. So they towered over him, making him APPEAR relatively short
Honestly, that Just Stop Oil stunt at Osborne's wedding. It is beyond cringe. And the smirking lady of about 60 who did it. Jesus
Also, for a second the just-married couple must have been terrified they were being attacked, with acid or whatever
The radical Green lobby needs to rid itself of these effete middle class twats who come up with these stunts. A friend of mine joined XR and she said the meetings were mortifying. They were all clueless, trust fund bourgeois fuckwits with too much time, or old rich lefties with no brains. She quit in despair
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
Zelensky is also a shortarse, but it's not troubled him.
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
'disaggregated', meaning, please?
Not being influenced by the same factors, not moving in the same direction, not correlated.
Thanks. Which, I suppose, is an indication of (a) devolution and (b) more generally a distinct polity.
Yes, which is why as a Unionist I don't like it. We are having our own conversation up here and it is no longer a UK one. I hope that changes.
On the other hand, any insistence that all conversations have to be the same across the UK - or the imposition of suich a doctrine - would be a priori unreasonable and inherently very damaging to the concept of a UK.
If the polls are to be believed labour are heading for a majority in Scotland Wales and England and a very large one overall at that
Far too early to say. Sunak still has the media onside to big him up and scythe down the hopeless Starmer. I reckon I am still on for my 20 seat Con majority.
It is reported that here in North Wales objectors to the blanket 20mph rule are tampering with the signs with one side 30 and the other side 20 and saying take your choice !!!
20mph sign vandals face police action for creating 'take-your-pick' speed limits
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law
Bonaparte wasn't a shortarse, it was only inaccurate British media reporting that said he was.
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
Isn't it also due to Bonaparte's relatively average background in Corsica, which gave him the average height for the time - whereas all his generals were dukes and viscounts and, like all well fed aristocracy of the time, about six inches taller than average. So they towered over him, making him APPEAR relatively short
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law
Bonaparte wasn't a shortarse, it was only inaccurate British media reporting that said he was.
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
Isn't it also due to Bonaparte's relatively average background in Corsica, which gave him the average height for the time - whereas all his generals were dukes and viscounts and, like all well fed aristocracy of the time, about six inches taller than average. So they towered over him, making him APPEAR relatively short
Oui.
I second that, oui oui. I might be taking the piss though.
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
'disaggregated', meaning, please?
To disaggregate is to remove the particulate matter comprising small rock or stone, such as gravel. This is a major problem within Unionism nationwide. Sir K will pledge that a Labour government will ensure that Scotland never runs out of stone matter. This is one he can fulfill at no cost, though on current performance I wouldn't trust the SNP with that pledge.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
Zelensky is also a shortarse, but it's not troubled him.
Starmer is also diminutive at 5ft.8 and two thirds. Compare this to the statuesque Boris Johnson at a whopping 5ft 8 and three quarters.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law
Bonaparte wasn't a shortarse, it was only inaccurate British media reporting that said he was.
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
People must have been terrified by Edward IV, who was 6ft 4 in the 15th century.
It also reminds me of one of my favourite silly sci-fi stories, which involved transplanted romans from Pompeii, not being told they had been moved into the 20th century. Modern humans dressed as romans and spoke latin, but almost all were notably taller than average, and one thing that made the locals twig something was up was the carrots were weird and the chickens were really really big compared to what they were used to.
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
I think they could get a similar share to UKIP in 2015 which was 12.9%.
Why are you so convinced they won't get anything like 8%?
In the actual world no-one has heard of Reform party or whatever it's called.
Polling is pretty variable, and obviously the Tories are, justly, in some sort of terminal trouble.
For trying to predict the actual result in 2024 at the moment I would factor in these things as things stand:
1) There aren't going to be huge votes that make much difference for parties other than C, LD, Lab and SNP. 2) Sir K is not Blair; balanced by the fact that Rishi is not Major. 3) In 1997 the actual GE vote was, in round figures: Lab 43. Con 31 4) I think the 2024 GE vote will be not far from the 1997 figures, within about 3 percent points (Lab 40-46, Con 28-34) though geographically differently distributed, and turnout low 5) Tactical voting won't help the Tories
This is spot on. Turn-out will be low because a lot of natural Tories will stay away, too pissed-off with the state of the government to vote for them but too loyal to vote for someone else.
I've got no time for the bloke, and broadly agree with JSO's aims, but that is bang out of order. It's petty and mean spirited.
They need to pick their moments. It's irritating, but I get doing it at high profile sporting events for example. Some ex-politico's wedding? It's just smug preening, and whilst getting some coverage won't be as effective either.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
Zelensky is also a shortarse, but it's not troubled him.
Starmer is also diminutive at 5ft.8 and two thirds. Compare this to the statuesque Boris Johnson at a whopping 5ft 8 and three quarters.
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law
Bonaparte wasn't a shortarse, it was only inaccurate British media reporting that said he was.
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
People must have been terrified by Edward IV, who was 6ft 4 in the 15th century.
It also reminds me of one of my favourite silly sci-fi stories, which involved transplanted romans from Pompeii, not being told they had been moved into the 20th century. Modern humans dressed as romans and spoke latin, but almost all were notably taller than average, and one thing that made the locals twig something was up was the carrots were weird and the chickens were really really big compared to what they were used to.
Peter the Great must have been especially intimidating: an enormous six foot eight giant, and also the all-powerful Tsar of all the Russias, who, if he was in the mood, would force you to drink a litre of neat vodka in one go for his own amusement, to see if you passed out, or died
I've seen the famous cup he used for this stunt. It is kept at the summer palace in St Petersburg. Diplomats lived in terror of it
Which reminds me: a new series of The Great is coming soon. HUZZAH
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law
Bonaparte wasn't a shortarse, it was only inaccurate British media reporting that said he was.
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
Isn't it also due to Bonaparte's relatively average background in Corsica, which gave him the average height for the time - whereas all his generals were dukes and viscounts and, like all well fed aristocracy of the time, about six inches taller than average. So they towered over him, making him APPEAR relatively short
This really isn't my period, but didn't Bonaparte create a "new nobility"? Very much designed to put a stake through the heart of the old nobility? So, less likely they had aristocratic genes for generations? Or maybe I'm wrong in my thinking?
Coreta, 47, a manager from Somerton, called the prime minister “a weak dog”. Ann, 72, from Selby, focused on his small physical stature. “He is a little mouse to look at,” she said. “I hate seeing him alongside other statesmen because he looks so tiny.” Craig, 39, a software tester from Selby, was blunter still: “I’d probably say a dodo for Rishi, because he’s pretty much dead to me like a dodo.”
Tryl, who acted as the moderator, said: “These were by far the worst set of groups we’ve done on impressions of Rishi Sunak. Whereas previously people have been willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, and usually fell back on the fact that even if he’s out of touch he’s competent and the best person to clear up the mess from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, things have shifted. The cost of living crisis being compounded with the mortgage crisis has exacerbated Sunak’s personal weaknesses.”
I know people don't like bringing up his height but it is an issue for the voters.
Why? Am genuinely curious.
It's a gravitas issue.
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
On that basis I suppose the very shortarse Napoleon Bonaparte had no gravitas, despite conquering half of Europe and creating the basis for modern French law
Bonaparte wasn't a shortarse, it was only inaccurate British media reporting that said he was.
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
Isn't it also due to Bonaparte's relatively average background in Corsica, which gave him the average height for the time - whereas all his generals were dukes and viscounts and, like all well fed aristocracy of the time, about six inches taller than average. So they towered over him, making him APPEAR relatively short
Also headdress, no? Simple athwartships bicorn hat vs assorted shakos and helmets and so on.
I think i'd read like 6 Sharpe novels before I figurued out what a shako was supposed to be. Not my proudest moment.
Honestly, that Just Stop Oil stunt at Osborne's wedding. It is beyond cringe. And the smirking lady of about 60 who did it. Jesus
Also, for a second the just-married couple must have been terrified they were being attacked, with acid or whatever
The radical Green lobby needs to rid itself of these effete middle class twats who come up with these stunts. A friend of mine joined XR and she said the meetings were mortifying. They were all clueless, trust fund bourgeois fuckwits with too much time, or old rich lefties with no brains. She quit in despair
A better poll for the Conservatives, but it comes to something when 28% is better:
🚨 Latest poll for @ObserverUK Labour lead at 15 points. Labour: 43% (-1) Conservatives: 28% (+3) Lib Dems: 9% (n/c) SNP: 3% (n/c) Green: 6% (-1) Reform UK: 8% (+1) (Changes are from a poll released in the Observer last week)
Quite. There's no way on God's Earth that RefUK are going to poll 8% in a General Election, or anywhere remotely close. Most of that lot are pissed off Tory supporters who have a tantrum when talking to pollsters, but will traipse back home again when the Government of the country is at stake.
I think they could get a similar share to UKIP in 2015 which was 12.9%.
Why are you so convinced they won't get anything like 8%?
In the actual world no-one has heard of Reform party or whatever it's called.
Polling is pretty variable, and obviously the Tories are, justly, in some sort of terminal trouble.
For trying to predict the actual result in 2024 at the moment I would factor in these things as things stand:
1) There aren't going to be huge votes that make much difference for parties other than C, LD, Lab and SNP. 2) Sir K is not Blair; balanced by the fact that Rishi is not Major. 3) In 1997 the actual GE vote was, in round figures: Lab 43. Con 31 4) I think the 2024 GE vote will be not far from the 1997 figures, within about 3 percent points (Lab 40-46, Con 28-34) though geographically differently distributed, and turnout low 5) Tactical voting won't help the Tories
This is spot on. Turn-out will be low because a lot of natural Tories will stay away, too pissed-off with the state of the government to vote for them but too loyal to vote for someone else.
Agreed. Swathes of the south will not be going anywhere, but can still have an impact.
Comments
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
A mid to high twenties lead for Labour is for the birds.
There was a noticeable uptick in REFUK when Rishi became PM. I think this the opposite of the Hindutva vote.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&tvcontrol=Y&CON=28&LAB=43&LIB=9&Reform=8&Green=6&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=18.5&SCOTLAB=31.5&SCOTLIB=7.8&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=1.3&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=36.4&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
https://twitter.com/i/status/1677745464903454722
It makes the whole spectacle vastly more entertaining. The bowlers then have to respond, and so on
It will be a profound irony if T20 actually saves Test cricket by pumping it full of energy
Am genuinely curious.
She's elected.
The other question is will they traipse back regardless, or does Sunak have to work to get them back, as HYUFD argues? Because work to get them back might put off other voters.
Labour a shoe-in, then?
Why are you so convinced they won't get anything like 8%?
You can expect Ref UK to poll at least 2-4% if they field a full slate - which they state they will do. Of the remaining 4% how many of them are backing Ref UK because the Con leader is Mr Sunak? Be that for 'Sunak the Snake' reasons or due to his ethnicity (or both). How many of those folk are squeezable? Aren't they much like the Corbynites within the Green vote? Another faction within the Ref UK bandwagon are the anti-vaxxer crowd. My experience is that a lot of them are very anti-Mr Sunak. He is 'Mr Globalist' to them.
I suspect the Cons can gain 1 or 2% of the current Ref UK vote. Very little more and to get that they need to be perceived to be close enough to bring the 'squeeze' into effect. Unless they get the fundamentals right they won't even get that.
Its really simple Cons - you need to govern better and you need a fierce purge of the more show-boating and less competent members of the Cabinet. it really isn't rocket science. Having duds in key departments is not a good look!
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/VI-2023-06-21-Observer-Data-Tables.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
Gravitas is a bit like pornography, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.
Being a shortarse is seen as having a lack of gravitas.
The voters are weird.
It's a declining trend but in focus you'll occasionally hear a comment against a female politician saying she shouldn't be leader/PM because what if she has to make an important decision at that time of the month.
Like no male politician has ever made decisions based on their reproductive organs.
Not that I would suggest Rishi has a Napoleon complex of course
58% think net mitigation is too high to 28% who think it is about right or too low
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1677758571470106827?s=20
Also
When we asked about whether the UK needs more or less of specific occupations though, most were net "more":
Service workers (such as hotel and bar staff): 34% "more" vs. 24% "fewer"
Healthcare workers: 63% "more" vs. 13% "fewer"
Teachers and lecturers: 35% "more" vs. 19% "fewer"
it actually trivialises their cause, by being so infantile
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1677758575328780288?s=20
Though it’s hard to say if and why the British invented the short Napoleon trope, there is some truth in Cruikshank’s representation: Napoleon was probably significantly shorter than his troops.
Several sources note that his elite guards were taller than most Frenchmen, and thus Napoleon had the appearance of being shorter than he really was. Yet interpretations of Napoleon’s death certificate estimate that his height when he died was between 5’2” and 5’7” (1.58 and 1.7 meters).
The discrepancy is often explained by the disparity between the 19th-century French inch, which was 2.71 cm, and the current inch measurement, which is 2.54 cm. Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”.
Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller, no matter the interpretation.
https://www.britannica.com/story/was-napoleon-short
Edit: though I hasten to add you aren't saying that.
Polling is pretty variable, and obviously the Tories are, justly, in some sort of terminal trouble.
For trying to predict the actual result in 2024 at the moment I would factor in these things as things stand:
1) There aren't going to be huge votes that make much difference for parties other than C, LD, Lab and SNP.
2) Sir K is not Blair; balanced by the fact that Rishi is not Major.
3) In 1997 the actual GE vote was, in round figures: Lab 43. Con 31
4) I think the 2024 GE vote will be not far from the 1997 figures, within about 3 percent points (Lab 40-46, Con 28-34) though geographically differently distributed, and turnout low
5) Tactical voting won't help the Tories
Edit as much as I hate him I think it was the Punch cartoonists who made this a 19th century meme.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/08/in-the-morning-they-are-comatose-on-the-sand-the-cornish-village-fighting-back-against-private-school-parties
Though it's not as if the state school pupils had been let out yet, admittedly.
Also, for a second the just-married couple must have been terrified they were being attacked, with acid or whatever
The radical Green lobby needs to rid itself of these effete middle class twats who come up with these stunts. A friend of mine joined XR and she said the meetings were mortifying. They were all clueless, trust fund bourgeois fuckwits with too much time, or old rich lefties with no brains. She quit in despair
Oh, we already do.
20mph sign vandals face police action for creating 'take-your-pick' speed limits
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/20mph-sign-vandals-face-police-27281518#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
Incidentally, Mad Vlad is a shortarse too, and goes to great lengths to disguise this.
Yet somehow Churchill projected gravitas and stature and charisma, Sunak does, er, not
It also reminds me of one of my favourite silly sci-fi stories, which involved transplanted romans from Pompeii, not being told they had been moved into the 20th century. Modern humans dressed as romans and spoke latin, but almost all were notably taller than average, and one thing that made the locals twig something was up was the carrots were weird and the chickens were really really big compared to what they were used to.
Rishi is famous for inaction, every day...
I've seen the famous cup he used for this stunt. It is kept at the summer palace in St Petersburg. Diplomats lived in terror of it
Which reminds me: a new series of The Great is coming soon. HUZZAH
Very much designed to put a stake through the heart of the old nobility?
So, less likely they had aristocratic genes for generations?
Or maybe I'm wrong in my thinking?