I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective.
And it is provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
Many moons ago in a discussion with hyufd I highlighted some of the training you could do/give to boost your IQ score. There are some very simple techniques.
There are but you are very unlikely to be able to go from a 70 IQ to a 140 IQ, there are limits.
IQ can measure education level but can also measure genetic intelligence which is inherited
Sorry been away. I agree you can't go from 70 to 140. I also think it unlikely you could train someone with 70 at all (but I don't know that). @rcs1000 suggests 20 points and that doesn't seem unreasonable to me for someone around average intelligence.
I have no doubt there is inherited intelligence but it is complicated. None of my family have been tested (except me 50 odd years ago when I had to take a test for a job. I don't know the score now but I do know that I had to exceed 130). However it is pretty clear our family have very different IQs. My wife will say (because she has) that I am more intelligent than her, but then she clearly can do things I can't do. She is much better at language and I certainly don't think I could have done the learning required that she did in her medical career. However I do have a better memory for general stuff and I am more logical and challenge 'why stuff is/happens' all the time which she (like most people) just accept.
My children are extreme. My daughter is (in my opinion) of average intelligence. Less intelligent than both of us. My son on the other hand (and I won't bore people with the details) is on the far extreme of intelligence. Literally off the scale. Where the hell did that come from? There is nothing in our family histories to explain that
And then of course there is emotional intelligence and my daughter is better at that than my son.
There is EQ too of course
Well, it is far from clear that EQ or IQ really exist. You can measure a bunch of things, but the score is a construct of how you measured it. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there is an underlying, unidimensional trait.
There's a bit of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle involved as well. By measuring something, you can change it.
Get someone to take an IQ test for the first time, then get someone to take it again a second time three months later, and the scores are not likely to be the same.
If someone's never seen an IQ test before, or anything like it, they'll get a lower score than one who's sat many before and understands how they work.
Same reason students today study past papers before exams.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
I've now read the statistical model above, thanks for that. In general, since N=2 for changes of governing party since the 1980, I think it's very difficult to characterise changes of government from the macro/national data, except to say that they both happened after a decade in office for the losing party, a condition that has been met.
The issue for me is that, based on the leader popularity and the economic direction, I couldn't rule out a plague-on-both mood leading to some third force polling 20% during the next year. If that happens, it's hard to know who would suffer more, but time-for-change dynamics would suggest Labour.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Whilst he might very well be right about Truss's unsuitability, it's quite a weird argument in that it WAS the mini-budget that blew up - HIS mini-budget.
I've now read the statistical model above, thanks for that. In general, since N=2 for changes of governing party since the 1980, I think it's very difficult to characterise changes of government from the macro/national data, except to say that they both happened after a decade in office for the losing party, a condition that has been met.
The issue for me is that, based on the leader popularity and the economic direction, I couldn't rule out a plague-on-both mood leading to some third force polling 20% during the next year. If that happens, it's hard to know who would suffer more, but time-for-change dynamics would suggest Labour.
There's also the relative strength or weakness of the Liberal Democrats, external factors (Brexit), and the willingness of voters to go tactical.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
First, thanks for this header, which I will have to think about. (That's about as high a compliment, as I can give.)
Second, in recent decades I have become less satisfied with frequentist approaches, where there are not actually experiments -- but not enough to really dig into any Bayesian alternatives. Maybe this will inspire me to do so.
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Populism exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
Blaming the West, bankers, successful businessmen and industrialists for all the world's ills is populist. As is kneejerk banning of nuclear power and all forms of oil & gas immediately. Communism was essentially a direct appeal to populism.
It's characterised by playing to short-term base emotion against what are easily painted as elite or vested interests - which is why it is "popular" - rather than seeking to understand, channel and lead it into more reasoned, rational and longer-term policies that address the root causes.
I'm afraid I disagree completely. 'Populism' is a reaction to unpopular political decisions being taken. 'Populism' would have no cause to exist if our democracy was a true reflection of the 'popular' will. We're encouraged by media/films etc., to see large collections of people as baying, dangerous, panicking mobs, but actually where people have real control, you get peace and prosperity. In Switzerland, they have popular democracy. Their politicians have wanted to take them into the EU for the longest time, but the people refuse, and Switzerland's comparative economical position keeps improving. When there's an issue of substance, there's a referendum, the results of which politicians enact without demur. British people make similarly wise decisions when given the chance - perhaps every nation does.
Direct democracy has its benefits, but its flaws too.
If you want to see it done badly (and I'm curious if @rcs1000 would agree or disagree) look at California.
In California as I understand it, then they will vote under direct democracy to cut taxes, and to increase spending, and to run a balanced budget and all sorts of contradictory desires that are pretty much impossible to square.
Sometimes democracy is about making a choice, and each choice has a negative consequence, an "opportunity cost". Parliamentary democracy allows balancing those consequences, if you try to directly insist you get the positives but not the negatives then that's not making direct democracy better, its making it impossible.
To do it right is a real challenge and needs real safeguards.
I have no knowledge of the situation that you describe in California, but those contradictory referenda would seem to be the fault of those asking the questions, not those voting.
Brief comment on the OP. It's a nice and simple analysis, and very welcome. On the data, the number of seats in England went up from 516 in 1979 to 533 at the last election. Probably not enough to have a big effect, but seats expressed as a proportion of the total would have been better. On the regression scatter diagram the three rightmost observations are New Labour, and perhaps a little exceptional and probably influential for the estimated slope.
Thanks. You are right about using proportions, I wanted to keep things simple hence modelling absolute seat numbers but proportions are probably more accurate. Of course we are looking at England and Wales and some of the English gains will be offset by Welsh losses, but still. I actually disagree with you on the New Labour elections. The only one that looks odd there is 2005, when Labour seems to have held onto a lot of seats they should have lost (IIRC they had a lot of very narrow wins through luck or clever targeting of resources, and this set the stage for losing a lot of seats in 2010). Both 97 and 01 don't look like they're off the regression line and hence are unlikely to be influencing the results much. Why were the New Labour years special? Labour had a very popular leader in 97 and 01 and in 01 was coming from a strong starting point - both captured in the model. Hence, we are already allowing for the fact that Starmer is no Blair. If he were Blair (1997 Blair not 2023 Blair) the result would not be in question, I think. If you exclude these three elections then you would exclude all the elections that Labour won. Then you will rely on predicting a potential Labour victory from data that include no Labour victories. I think that would be harder to defend empirically - always dodgy to predict things outside the support of the previous data.
In 2005 Howard's Conservatives actually won the popular vote in England of course, 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour.
Yet New Labour won 286 seats in England to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Which is a feature of Liberal Democrat voters tending into live in the same places where Conservative voters live, and not so much in the places where Labour voters live. A high LD vote skews it towards Labour, a low LD vote skews it towards the Tories.
First, thanks for this header, which I will have to think about. (That's about as high a compliment, as I can give.)
Second, in recent decades I have become less satisfied with frequentist approaches, where there are not actually experiments -- but not enough to really dig into any Bayesian alternatives. Maybe this will inspire me to do so.
Hmm .. I wonder what OLB's priors might be for that approach
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Populism exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
Blaming the West, bankers, successful businessmen and industrialists for all the world's ills is populist. As is kneejerk banning of nuclear power and all forms of oil & gas immediately. Communism was essentially a direct appeal to populism.
It's characterised by playing to short-term base emotion against what are easily painted as elite or vested interests - which is why it is "popular" - rather than seeking to understand, channel and lead it into more reasoned, rational and longer-term policies that address the root causes.
I'm afraid I disagree completely. 'Populism' is a reaction to unpopular political decisions being taken. 'Populism' would have no cause to exist if our democracy was a true reflection of the 'popular' will. We're encouraged by media/films etc., to see large collections of people as baying, dangerous, panicking mobs, but actually where people have real control, you get peace and prosperity. In Switzerland, they have popular democracy. Their politicians have wanted to take them into the EU for the longest time, but the people refuse, and Switzerland's comparative economical position keeps improving. When there's an issue of substance, there's a referendum, the results of which politicians enact without demur. British people make similarly wise decisions when given the chance - perhaps every nation does.
Direct democracy has its benefits, but its flaws too.
If you want to see it done badly (and I'm curious if @rcs1000 would agree or disagree) look at California.
In California as I understand it, then they will vote under direct democracy to cut taxes, and to increase spending, and to run a balanced budget and all sorts of contradictory desires that are pretty much impossible to square.
Sometimes democracy is about making a choice, and each choice has a negative consequence, an "opportunity cost". Parliamentary democracy allows balancing those consequences, if you try to directly insist you get the positives but not the negatives then that's not making direct democracy better, its making it impossible.
To do it right is a real challenge and needs real safeguards.
I have no knowledge of the situation that you describe in California, but those contradictory referenda would seem to be the fault of those asking the questions, not those voting.
All you need is a certain number of signatures to get something on the ballot in California.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective.
And it is provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
Many moons ago in a discussion with hyufd I highlighted some of the training you could do/give to boost your IQ score. There are some very simple techniques.
There are but you are very unlikely to be able to go from a 70 IQ to a 140 IQ, there are limits.
IQ can measure education level but can also measure genetic intelligence which is inherited
IQ *cannot* measure "genetic intelligence", whatver that means. It can only measure some sort of score to do with brain capacity, including experience, training, and general cultural upbringing (language, notably, used in the test).
It can measure all the latter but they are mostly related to educational qualifications achieved and the job you do, otherwise the rest is genetic IQ and intelligence inherited from your parents
Doesn't work that way. The interaction is too complex.
Edit: also: So IQ cannot measure the genetic component of intelligence (which itself is a statistical construct that can't be viewed on its own).
You've backtracked from claiming it can measure "genetic intelligence". Which is at least an improvement, it must be said.
Logically IQ can reflect either educational qualifications achieved or skills used in the job you do or intelligence inherited from your parents or a combination of all of those.
There is nothing else it can measure
Lots of other things. Spatial intelligence, for instance, has n othing inherently to do with qwualifications or job done.
And it still doesn't measure genetic intelligence, whatever that is. Any more than a measuring jug can measure the amount of alcohol in a pint of beer.
Of course it does, engineers for example would use spatial intelligence skills regularly
But that isn't true of all jobs. You said "skills used in the job you do". That excludes skills not used in the job one does. No job uses all skills. So skills used in the job is a useless criterion. Completely useless.
Delete 'job' and just say multiple skill types, and you might be getting some of the way there.
Yes, ie engineers use spatial awareness in their jobs.
I did not say ALL skills used in ALL jobs
But you didn't say "all" skills. That's because you want to claim that going to grammar school and getting a nice job is somehow innate in superior genes. But it isn't.
Originally it was measured from Queen Eleanor's Cross at Charing Cross. But that no longer exists because the extant one outside Charing Cross Station is a replica made in 1863. The statue is on the site of the original cross. So presently the distances are from the statue.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Truss cosplayed as Thatcher without it seems understanding who Thatcher was.
Was there ever anything substantive to Truss beyond her misreading of Thatcher ?
Everyone says of Thatcher that she would have 'balanced the budget' before cutting taxes, but we have no idea how Thatcher would have handled the situation that Truss came into. Thatcher was astute enough to be aware of the dynamic effects of taxation - I certainly don't think she'd have put CT up the way that Sunak did.
Brief comment on the OP. It's a nice and simple analysis, and very welcome. On the data, the number of seats in England went up from 516 in 1979 to 533 at the last election. Probably not enough to have a big effect, but seats expressed as a proportion of the total would have been better. On the regression scatter diagram the three rightmost observations are New Labour, and perhaps a little exceptional and probably influential for the estimated slope.
Thanks. You are right about using proportions, I wanted to keep things simple hence modelling absolute seat numbers but proportions are probably more accurate. Of course we are looking at England and Wales and some of the English gains will be offset by Welsh losses, but still. I actually disagree with you on the New Labour elections. The only one that looks odd there is 2005, when Labour seems to have held onto a lot of seats they should have lost (IIRC they had a lot of very narrow wins through luck or clever targeting of resources, and this set the stage for losing a lot of seats in 2010). Both 97 and 01 don't look like they're off the regression line and hence are unlikely to be influencing the results much. Why were the New Labour years special? Labour had a very popular leader in 97 and 01 and in 01 was coming from a strong starting point - both captured in the model. Hence, we are already allowing for the fact that Starmer is no Blair. If he were Blair (1997 Blair not 2023 Blair) the result would not be in question, I think. If you exclude these three elections then you would exclude all the elections that Labour won. Then you will rely on predicting a potential Labour victory from data that include no Labour victories. I think that would be harder to defend empirically - always dodgy to predict things outside the support of the previous data.
In 2005 Howard's Conservatives actually won the popular vote in England of course, 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour.
Yet New Labour won 286 seats in England to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Which is a feature of Liberal Democrat voters tending into live in the same places where Conservative voters live, and not so much in the places where Labour voters live. A high LD vote skews it towards Labour, a low LD vote skews it towards the Tories.
I think the relevant mechanism was tactical voting, where natural supporters of the Labour, LD and Green parties happily chose the non-Tory best placed to win in their constituency.
General elections in England, and to an extent Wales, look a lot like the Tories versus everyone else, even more so in the post-coalition era, when the LDs were gradually wiped out in constituencies where Labour could plausibly win.
Since you are discussing IQ, I'll add this important point: "Micronutrient deficiencies, including iodine deficiency, impair the development of intelligence. Lacking iodine during human development causes a fall, in average, of 12 intelligence quotient (IQ) points in China.[28] A study of U.S. military data collected during the First and Second World Wars found that the introduction of salt iodization in the U.S. in the 1920s resulted in an increase in IQ, by approximately one standard deviation, for the quarter of the U.S. population most deficient in iodine, explaining about "one decade's worth of the upward trend in IQ" in the U.S. (i.e., the Flynn effect)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Truss cosplayed as Thatcher without it seems understanding who Thatcher was.
Was there ever anything substantive to Truss beyond her misreading of Thatcher ?
Yes there has. She'd been consistently in the Cabinet for about a decade, under three very different Prime Ministers, prior to becoming Prime Minister. You don't do that by cosplay alone.
I met Truss in either 2014 or 2015 as part of a discussion at a Conservative Conference fringe event discussing the UK's problems with productivity. She was very clued up and very impressive, I could see why Cameron had promoted her.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Whilst he might very well be right about Truss's unsuitability, it's quite a weird argument in that it WAS the mini-budget that blew up - HIS mini-budget.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
Please don't watch such a video. It is of a man being killed. This is not entertainment. It is not necessary to see this to understand why dogs which can kill a grown man are not suitable as pets. It is distasteful and disturbing to think of man's agony being shared in this way. Honestly, I understand why @Leon feels strongly about the issue and I share his concern but some common decency is also needed.
Respectfully I disagree. I know where you’re coming from, and often I would concur - not this time
The internet is full of dog lovers in denial. “It’s the owner, my one is a softy” blah blah. The only possible way you can shake them out of this determined blindness is by showing them something as shocking as that appalling video. Because it is so horrific the danger cannot be denied
And then that poor man will not have died for nothing. At least these brutal dogs will be banned ASAP before more people die. And they will die. And they will be children
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Populism exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
Blaming the West, bankers, successful businessmen and industrialists for all the world's ills is populist. As is kneejerk banning of nuclear power and all forms of oil & gas immediately. Communism was essentially a direct appeal to populism.
It's characterised by playing to short-term base emotion against what are easily painted as elite or vested interests - which is why it is "popular" - rather than seeking to understand, channel and lead it into more reasoned, rational and longer-term policies that address the root causes.
I'm afraid I disagree completely. 'Populism' is a reaction to unpopular political decisions being taken. 'Populism' would have no cause to exist if our democracy was a true reflection of the 'popular' will. We're encouraged by media/films etc., to see large collections of people as baying, dangerous, panicking mobs, but actually where people have real control, you get peace and prosperity. In Switzerland, they have popular democracy. Their politicians have wanted to take them into the EU for the longest time, but the people refuse, and Switzerland's comparative economical position keeps improving. When there's an issue of substance, there's a referendum, the results of which politicians enact without demur. British people make similarly wise decisions when given the chance - perhaps every nation does.
Direct democracy has its benefits, but its flaws too.
If you want to see it done badly (and I'm curious if @rcs1000 would agree or disagree) look at California.
In California as I understand it, then they will vote under direct democracy to cut taxes, and to increase spending, and to run a balanced budget and all sorts of contradictory desires that are pretty much impossible to square.
Sometimes democracy is about making a choice, and each choice has a negative consequence, an "opportunity cost". Parliamentary democracy allows balancing those consequences, if you try to directly insist you get the positives but not the negatives then that's not making direct democracy better, its making it impossible.
To do it right is a real challenge and needs real safeguards.
I have no knowledge of the situation that you describe in California, but those contradictory referenda would seem to be the fault of those asking the questions, not those voting.
That's the attitude of people who think Cameron was stupid to put Brexit before the people.
In a Direct Democracy who decides who gets to ask the questions? I think in California the voters do, if a proposition gets enough signatures I believe it gets added to the ballot.
If you're going to have direct democracy it's hard to avoid this. In part I think it only works in Switzerland so well as it's such a small country and the voters take their responsibilities seriously. I don't think Swiss style would work in this country.
I'd long believed it was from the monument outside Charing Cross to Eleanor of Castile, the first wife of Edward I - essentially, several of these were erected on the route of her funeral cortege from Lincoln so cross to cross was an obvious early marker of distance.
But I learned a year or two ago that the Charing Cross Eleanor Cross is a Victorian version (which I should have realised as it is far too well preserved) and not quite in the same place - the original stood where Charles I now is as you say.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Whilst he might very well be right about Truss's unsuitability, it's quite a weird argument in that it WAS the mini-budget that blew up - HIS mini-budget.
Quite. Stupid tosspot.
Indeed - he can’t have it both ways, if it was all Liz Truss’s fault it means that he was simply a puppet and so was a front rather than the Chancellor or if he wants to put Chancellor of the Exchequer on his CV then it was his budget and he needs to own it.
The original version of that was the original marker... but the current version isn't in quite the same location (although it's very close by) and its original location is indeed now occupied by Charles I.
Brief comment on the OP. It's a nice and simple analysis, and very welcome. On the data, the number of seats in England went up from 516 in 1979 to 533 at the last election. Probably not enough to have a big effect, but seats expressed as a proportion of the total would have been better. On the regression scatter diagram the three rightmost observations are New Labour, and perhaps a little exceptional and probably influential for the estimated slope.
Thanks. You are right about using proportions, I wanted to keep things simple hence modelling absolute seat numbers but proportions are probably more accurate. Of course we are looking at England and Wales and some of the English gains will be offset by Welsh losses, but still. I actually disagree with you on the New Labour elections. The only one that looks odd there is 2005, when Labour seems to have held onto a lot of seats they should have lost (IIRC they had a lot of very narrow wins through luck or clever targeting of resources, and this set the stage for losing a lot of seats in 2010). Both 97 and 01 don't look like they're off the regression line and hence are unlikely to be influencing the results much. Why were the New Labour years special? Labour had a very popular leader in 97 and 01 and in 01 was coming from a strong starting point - both captured in the model. Hence, we are already allowing for the fact that Starmer is no Blair. If he were Blair (1997 Blair not 2023 Blair) the result would not be in question, I think. If you exclude these three elections then you would exclude all the elections that Labour won. Then you will rely on predicting a potential Labour victory from data that include no Labour victories. I think that would be harder to defend empirically - always dodgy to predict things outside the support of the previous data.
In 2005 Howard's Conservatives actually won the popular vote in England of course, 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour.
Yet New Labour won 286 seats in England to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Which is a feature of Liberal Democrat voters tending into live in the same places where Conservative voters live, and not so much in the places where Labour voters live. A high LD vote skews it towards Labour, a low LD vote skews it towards the Tories.
I think the relevant mechanism was tactical voting, where natural supporters of the Labour, LD and Green parties happily chose the non-Tory best placed to win in their constituency.
General elections in England, and to an extent Wales, look a lot like the Tories versus everyone else, even more so in the post-coalition era, when the LDs were gradually wiped out in constituencies where Labour could plausibly win.
Of the top 200 LAB target seats none are LD held. Of the top 30 LD targets only 2 are LAB held. There won't be zero targeting of each other, but there isn't going to be much.
Mid Beds is an interesting test in a formerly very safe Tory seat, and it is possible that the Tories could win on 30% or so, but even so both LAB and LD should go for it and test what they can achieve.
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Populism exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
Blaming the West, bankers, successful businessmen and industrialists for all the world's ills is populist. As is kneejerk banning of nuclear power and all forms of oil & gas immediately. Communism was essentially a direct appeal to populism.
It's characterised by playing to short-term base emotion against what are easily painted as elite or vested interests - which is why it is "popular" - rather than seeking to understand, channel and lead it into more reasoned, rational and longer-term policies that address the root causes.
I'm afraid I disagree completely. 'Populism' is a reaction to unpopular political decisions being taken. 'Populism' would have no cause to exist if our democracy was a true reflection of the 'popular' will. We're encouraged by media/films etc., to see large collections of people as baying, dangerous, panicking mobs, but actually where people have real control, you get peace and prosperity. In Switzerland, they have popular democracy. Their politicians have wanted to take them into the EU for the longest time, but the people refuse, and Switzerland's comparative economical position keeps improving. When there's an issue of substance, there's a referendum, the results of which politicians enact without demur. British people make similarly wise decisions when given the chance - perhaps every nation does.
Direct democracy has its benefits, but its flaws too.
If you want to see it done badly (and I'm curious if @rcs1000 would agree or disagree) look at California.
In California as I understand it, then they will vote under direct democracy to cut taxes, and to increase spending, and to run a balanced budget and all sorts of contradictory desires that are pretty much impossible to square.
Sometimes democracy is about making a choice, and each choice has a negative consequence, an "opportunity cost". Parliamentary democracy allows balancing those consequences, if you try to directly insist you get the positives but not the negatives then that's not making direct democracy better, its making it impossible.
To do it right is a real challenge and needs real safeguards.
I have no knowledge of the situation that you describe in California, but those contradictory referenda would seem to be the fault of those asking the questions, not those voting.
I would say that it is the fault of a system which boils a complicated issue and set of tradeoffs down to a handful of yes or no questions. That's almost always going to produce results that are bad, contradictory or in aggregate result in a net outcome that is unlikely to be the preference of a majority of the population. It's not unique to referenda either -- the series of "indicative votes" in the Commons over Brexit demonstrated similar flaws. Trying to select a course of action that most people can get behind in a realm of multiple moving parts and complex tradeoffs by doing a series of up-or-down votes on individual components or single ideas is just asking for trouble.
Firstly, thanks to @OnlyLivingBoy for his analysis, which is very good and shows the correlation on the net satisfaction score, highlighting (again) that this seems to be a better indicator than pure party vote intentions.
One thing that could help Labour win a tsunami of seats in the next election is that there are many Conservative seats with small majorities so it does not much of a swing for these seats to fall.
However, I will make one observation and one opinion on the analysis.
1. The observation is that Starmer seems to be doing around the same as Kinnock and Miliband is at a similar stage, although better than Corbyn. So not great.
2. I'm going to disagree with the view Starmer's ratings will improve as we get into the election for two reasons.
The first is that, so far, when Starmer has had to explain policy in more detail when quizzed, his performance when responding is mixed to say the least. It is obviously not inexperience but more seems to be personality-based and / or the need to keep the left wing of his party happy. In the scrutiny of a GE campaign, if he continues on as he has done so far, he is going to get himself into trouble very quickly.
The second goes back to the charts. Starmer's rating quickly dropped off and has never recovered since then, a similar pattern to every other leader bar Blair. Moreover, again ex-Blair, none of those leaders saw a noticeable uptick when they got closer to the election, with the possible part exception of Major. I think most people have already made up their minds as to what they think of Starmer and I think it can be summed up as "meh". I also don't think that will. change. That might get him across the line but, if I am right about 1, then it will not.
Hard to disagree with much of this.
I do think we've lived (and are living arguably) through unprecedented times. We've had the pandemic, a significant social, economic, cultural, psychological and political event and now we have the war in the Ukraine. It's hard to think of a Parliament since 1945 that has had the upheaval.
One could argue Boris Johnson was just plain unlucky his shiny new Premiership was derailed within three months by a virus although given his 20 years of machinations and manoeuvring to get to the top of the political greasy pole one might see a sense of irony.
I'm simply wary of ascribing the virtues and practices of past elections to this unique experience. I think you're right in that a lot of minds are made up - OGH clings to the "Don't Knows" like a comfort blanket but in lieu of solid polling evidence they will rush back to the Conservatives, I'm of the view they are a chimera.
Starmer is, pace Blair, determined to reassure the wavering ex-Tory voters right up to and even beyond the last minute they can vote for his Labour Party safe in the view nothing too much will change - the Mail is clearly going to turn every Labour policy announcement into a desperate scare tactic to frighten its elderly demographic into staying with the blues.
Ultimately, Starmer's greatest ally may well be the Conservatives themselves - why vote Tory again? might be a good slogan with which to go into a campaign.
“ One could argue Boris Johnson was just plain unlucky his shiny new Premiership was derailed within three months by a virus although given his 20 years of machinations and manoeuvring to get to the top of the political greasy pole one might see a sense of irony.”
Everyone always knew that if an unprecedented worldwide pandemic came along he’d get found out
Harry Brook has replaced Jason Roy in England's final 15-man World Cup squad.
Opener Roy was in the provisional squad announced last month but missed the recent one-day internationals against New Zealand because of back spasms.
Brook scored only 37 runs across three matches against the Black Caps but has starred in international cricket over the past year and can bat in both the top and middle order.
Holders England start their campaign by facing New Zealand on 5 October.
The 2023 ICC Men's Cricket World Cup in India features 10 teams and runs until 19 November.
Brief comment on the OP. It's a nice and simple analysis, and very welcome. On the data, the number of seats in England went up from 516 in 1979 to 533 at the last election. Probably not enough to have a big effect, but seats expressed as a proportion of the total would have been better. On the regression scatter diagram the three rightmost observations are New Labour, and perhaps a little exceptional and probably influential for the estimated slope.
Thanks. You are right about using proportions, I wanted to keep things simple hence modelling absolute seat numbers but proportions are probably more accurate. Of course we are looking at England and Wales and some of the English gains will be offset by Welsh losses, but still. I actually disagree with you on the New Labour elections. The only one that looks odd there is 2005, when Labour seems to have held onto a lot of seats they should have lost (IIRC they had a lot of very narrow wins through luck or clever targeting of resources, and this set the stage for losing a lot of seats in 2010). Both 97 and 01 don't look like they're off the regression line and hence are unlikely to be influencing the results much. Why were the New Labour years special? Labour had a very popular leader in 97 and 01 and in 01 was coming from a strong starting point - both captured in the model. Hence, we are already allowing for the fact that Starmer is no Blair. If he were Blair (1997 Blair not 2023 Blair) the result would not be in question, I think. If you exclude these three elections then you would exclude all the elections that Labour won. Then you will rely on predicting a potential Labour victory from data that include no Labour victories. I think that would be harder to defend empirically - always dodgy to predict things outside the support of the previous data.
In 2005 Howard's Conservatives actually won the popular vote in England of course, 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour.
Yet New Labour won 286 seats in England to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Which is a feature of Liberal Democrat voters tending into live in the same places where Conservative voters live, and not so much in the places where Labour voters live. A high LD vote skews it towards Labour, a low LD vote skews it towards the Tories.
I think the relevant mechanism was tactical voting, where natural supporters of the Labour, LD and Green parties happily chose the non-Tory best placed to win in their constituency.
General elections in England, and to an extent Wales, look a lot like the Tories versus everyone else, even more so in the post-coalition era, when the LDs were gradually wiped out in constituencies where Labour could plausibly win.
Of the top 200 LAB target seats none are LD held. Of the top 30 LD targets only 2 are LAB held. There won't be zero targeting of each other, but there isn't going to be much.
Mid Beds is an interesting test in a formerly very safe Tory seat, and it is possible that the Tories could win on 30% or so, but even so both LAB and LD should go for it and test what they can achieve.
I totally agree with this. A lot is being made and will be made of the Lib Dem/Labour tussle in Mid Beds. But the electoral map of the next General Election is such that it isn't really all that relevant to the bigger picture.
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Populism exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
Blaming the West, bankers, successful businessmen and industrialists for all the world's ills is populist. As is kneejerk banning of nuclear power and all forms of oil & gas immediately. Communism was essentially a direct appeal to populism.
It's characterised by playing to short-term base emotion against what are easily painted as elite or vested interests - which is why it is "popular" - rather than seeking to understand, channel and lead it into more reasoned, rational and longer-term policies that address the root causes.
I'm afraid I disagree completely. 'Populism' is a reaction to unpopular political decisions being taken. 'Populism' would have no cause to exist if our democracy was a true reflection of the 'popular' will. We're encouraged by media/films etc., to see large collections of people as baying, dangerous, panicking mobs, but actually where people have real control, you get peace and prosperity. In Switzerland, they have popular democracy. Their politicians have wanted to take them into the EU for the longest time, but the people refuse, and Switzerland's comparative economical position keeps improving. When there's an issue of substance, there's a referendum, the results of which politicians enact without demur. British people make similarly wise decisions when given the chance - perhaps every nation does.
Direct democracy has its benefits, but its flaws too.
If you want to see it done badly (and I'm curious if @rcs1000 would agree or disagree) look at California.
In California as I understand it, then they will vote under direct democracy to cut taxes, and to increase spending, and to run a balanced budget and all sorts of contradictory desires that are pretty much impossible to square.
Sometimes democracy is about making a choice, and each choice has a negative consequence, an "opportunity cost". Parliamentary democracy allows balancing those consequences, if you try to directly insist you get the positives but not the negatives then that's not making direct democracy better, its making it impossible.
To do it right is a real challenge and needs real safeguards.
I have no knowledge of the situation that you describe in California, but those contradictory referenda would seem to be the fault of those asking the questions, not those voting.
That's the attitude of people who think Cameron was stupid to put Brexit before the people.
In a Direct Democracy who decides who gets to ask the questions? I think in California the voters do, if a proposition gets enough signatures I believe it gets added to the ballot.
If you're going to have direct democracy it's hard to avoid this. In part I think it only works in Switzerland so well as it's such a small country and the voters take their responsibilities seriously. I don't think Swiss style would work in this country.
Chicken and egg situation. The Swiss voters take their responsibilities seriously because they've been trusted the way they have for centuries.
Finally read David Ignatius’ “Biden shouldn’t run” column. Nothing-burger. And his line on Harris—“she has failed to gain traction in the country”—is just dumb. Compared to which thrilling beloved VP: Pence, Biden, Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush 1, Mondale, Rockefeller, Ford, Agnew? https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1703110905821602277
Yep, as LBJ or John Nance Garner said, the VP job isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
Harry Brook has replaced Jason Roy in England's final 15-man World Cup squad.
Opener Roy was in the provisional squad announced last month but missed the recent one-day internationals against New Zealand because of back spasms.
Brook scored only 37 runs across three matches against the Black Caps but has starred in international cricket over the past year and can bat in both the top and middle order.
Holders England start their campaign by facing New Zealand on 5 October.
The 2023 ICC Men's Cricket World Cup in India features 10 teams and runs until 19 November.
A very interesting tournament lies ahead. England have a real chance of winning although they have to travel around a lot in the qualifying stage, having to move to a different venue for each game.
England should finish top 4 and then anything can happen.
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Populism exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
Blaming the West, bankers, successful businessmen and industrialists for all the world's ills is populist. As is kneejerk banning of nuclear power and all forms of oil & gas immediately. Communism was essentially a direct appeal to populism.
It's characterised by playing to short-term base emotion against what are easily painted as elite or vested interests - which is why it is "popular" - rather than seeking to understand, channel and lead it into more reasoned, rational and longer-term policies that address the root causes.
I'm afraid I disagree completely. 'Populism' is a reaction to unpopular political decisions being taken. 'Populism' would have no cause to exist if our democracy was a true reflection of the 'popular' will. We're encouraged by media/films etc., to see large collections of people as baying, dangerous, panicking mobs, but actually where people have real control, you get peace and prosperity. In Switzerland, they have popular democracy. Their politicians have wanted to take them into the EU for the longest time, but the people refuse, and Switzerland's comparative economical position keeps improving. When there's an issue of substance, there's a referendum, the results of which politicians enact without demur. British people make similarly wise decisions when given the chance - perhaps every nation does.
Direct democracy has its benefits, but its flaws too.
If you want to see it done badly (and I'm curious if @rcs1000 would agree or disagree) look at California.
In California as I understand it, then they will vote under direct democracy to cut taxes, and to increase spending, and to run a balanced budget and all sorts of contradictory desires that are pretty much impossible to square.
Sometimes democracy is about making a choice, and each choice has a negative consequence, an "opportunity cost". Parliamentary democracy allows balancing those consequences, if you try to directly insist you get the positives but not the negatives then that's not making direct democracy better, its making it impossible.
To do it right is a real challenge and needs real safeguards.
I have no knowledge of the situation that you describe in California, but those contradictory referenda would seem to be the fault of those asking the questions, not those voting.
That's the attitude of people who think Cameron was stupid to put Brexit before the people.
In a Direct Democracy who decides who gets to ask the questions? I think in California the voters do, if a proposition gets enough signatures I believe it gets added to the ballot.
If you're going to have direct democracy it's hard to avoid this. In part I think it only works in Switzerland so well as it's such a small country and the voters take their responsibilities seriously. I don't think Swiss style would work in this country.
Chicken and egg situation. The Swiss voters take their responsibilities seriously because they've been trusted the way they have for centuries.
And if that's the case, then we can't copy them as we have our own history of Parliamentary democracy, we don't have their history.
Though it's worth noting that California have had direct democracy for a long time too and still haven't figured it out.
I despise Russell Brand and always have. When I was hoping to be a UKIP MP, I daydreamed of being on the same panel on QT so I could rip into him.
So I watched last night hoping for a slam dunk, but it didn’t appear to me that there was one really. Most of it was just people calling him out for the obnoxious, unfunny, ungentlemanly behaviour that they looked the other way at, or encouraged, when he was making them money.
A girl I know is his make up artist/PA, it will be interesting to see what she makes of all this.
Good to see you back @isam but I really don't care about Brand at all.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Finally read David Ignatius’ “Biden shouldn’t run” column. Nothing-burger. And his line on Harris—“she has failed to gain traction in the country”—is just dumb. Compared to which thrilling beloved VP: Pence, Biden, Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush 1, Mondale, Rockefeller, Ford, Agnew? https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1703110905821602277
Yep, as LBJ or John Nance Garner said, the VP job isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Truss cosplayed as Thatcher without it seems understanding who Thatcher was.
Was there ever anything substantive to Truss beyond her misreading of Thatcher ?
Everyone says of Thatcher that she would have 'balanced the budget' before cutting taxes, but we have no idea how Thatcher would have handled the situation that Truss came into. Thatcher was astute enough to be aware of the dynamic effects of taxation - I certainly don't think she'd have put CT up the way that Sunak did.
Maybe. Remember Mrs Thatcher was no economist but had been captured by monetarism from Milton Friedman via Sir Keith Joseph. Remember too that she tanked the economy and would likely have been ousted before the end of her first term were it not for the Falklands. Is that so different from Liz Truss similarly accepting fringe, right wing economic ideas from think tanks?
Harry Brook has replaced Jason Roy in England's final 15-man World Cup squad.
Opener Roy was in the provisional squad announced last month but missed the recent one-day internationals against New Zealand because of back spasms.
Brook scored only 37 runs across three matches against the Black Caps but has starred in international cricket over the past year and can bat in both the top and middle order.
Holders England start their campaign by facing New Zealand on 5 October.
The 2023 ICC Men's Cricket World Cup in India features 10 teams and runs until 19 November.
I've now read the statistical model above, thanks for that. In general, since N=2 for changes of governing party since the 1980, I think it's very difficult to characterise changes of government from the macro/national data, except to say that they both happened after a decade in office for the losing party, a condition that has been met.
The issue for me is that, based on the leader popularity and the economic direction, I couldn't rule out a plague-on-both mood leading to some third force polling 20% during the next year. If that happens, it's hard to know who would suffer more, but time-for-change dynamics would suggest Labour.
There's also the relative strength or weakness of the Liberal Democrats, external factors (Brexit), and the willingness of voters to go tactical.
As well as the basic flaw in trying to use correlations fitted to post-hoc data as predictors for the future. Which usually turns out to be a mugs’ game.
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Populism exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
Blaming the West, bankers, successful businessmen and industrialists for all the world's ills is populist. As is kneejerk banning of nuclear power and all forms of oil & gas immediately. Communism was essentially a direct appeal to populism.
It's characterised by playing to short-term base emotion against what are easily painted as elite or vested interests - which is why it is "popular" - rather than seeking to understand, channel and lead it into more reasoned, rational and longer-term policies that address the root causes.
I'm afraid I disagree completely. 'Populism' is a reaction to unpopular political decisions being taken. 'Populism' would have no cause to exist if our democracy was a true reflection of the 'popular' will. We're encouraged by media/films etc., to see large collections of people as baying, dangerous, panicking mobs, but actually where people have real control, you get peace and prosperity. In Switzerland, they have popular democracy. Their politicians have wanted to take them into the EU for the longest time, but the people refuse, and Switzerland's comparative economical position keeps improving. When there's an issue of substance, there's a referendum, the results of which politicians enact without demur. British people make similarly wise decisions when given the chance - perhaps every nation does.
Direct democracy has its benefits, but its flaws too.
If you want to see it done badly (and I'm curious if @rcs1000 would agree or disagree) look at California.
In California as I understand it, then they will vote under direct democracy to cut taxes, and to increase spending, and to run a balanced budget and all sorts of contradictory desires that are pretty much impossible to square.
Sometimes democracy is about making a choice, and each choice has a negative consequence, an "opportunity cost". Parliamentary democracy allows balancing those consequences, if you try to directly insist you get the positives but not the negatives then that's not making direct democracy better, its making it impossible.
To do it right is a real challenge and needs real safeguards.
I have no knowledge of the situation that you describe in California, but those contradictory referenda would seem to be the fault of those asking the questions, not those voting.
That's the attitude of people who think Cameron was stupid to put Brexit before the people.
In a Direct Democracy who decides who gets to ask the questions? I think in California the voters do, if a proposition gets enough signatures I believe it gets added to the ballot.
If you're going to have direct democracy it's hard to avoid this. In part I think it only works in Switzerland so well as it's such a small country and the voters take their responsibilities seriously. I don't think Swiss style would work in this country.
It’s not quite as represented in California.
About 30 years ago there was a vote to cap property tax as a percentage of the value of the home. Democrats hate it, but a clear majority of the population support it (the radical left claims this is an attempt to entrench racial privilege as it is whites who own property and ethnic minorities who benefit from state spending)
The intention was it would force the politicians to live within their means by cutting off access to a goldmine. Politicians carried on spending. The spending side of the equation is just the typical “spend more” pressure that you see in every democracy
Firstly, thanks to @OnlyLivingBoy for his analysis, which is very good and shows the correlation on the net satisfaction score, highlighting (again) that this seems to be a better indicator than pure party vote intentions.
One thing that could help Labour win a tsunami of seats in the next election is that there are many Conservative seats with small majorities so it does not much of a swing for these seats to fall.
However, I will make one observation and one opinion on the analysis.
1. The observation is that Starmer seems to be doing around the same as Kinnock and Miliband is at a similar stage, although better than Corbyn. So not great.
2. I'm going to disagree with the view Starmer's ratings will improve as we get into the election for two reasons.
The first is that, so far, when Starmer has had to explain policy in more detail when quizzed, his performance when responding is mixed to say the least. It is obviously not inexperience but more seems to be personality-based and / or the need to keep the left wing of his party happy. In the scrutiny of a GE campaign, if he continues on as he has done so far, he is going to get himself into trouble very quickly.
The second goes back to the charts. Starmer's rating quickly dropped off and has never recovered since then, a similar pattern to every other leader bar Blair. Moreover, again ex-Blair, none of those leaders saw a noticeable uptick when they got closer to the election, with the possible part exception of Major. I think most people have already made up their minds as to what they think of Starmer and I think it can be summed up as "meh". I also don't think that will. change. That might get him across the line but, if I am right about 1, then it will not.
Hard to disagree with much of this.
I do think we've lived (and are living arguably) through unprecedented times. We've had the pandemic, a significant social, economic, cultural, psychological and political event and now we have the war in the Ukraine. It's hard to think of a Parliament since 1945 that has had the upheaval.
One could argue Boris Johnson was just plain unlucky his shiny new Premiership was derailed within three months by a virus although given his 20 years of machinations and manoeuvring to get to the top of the political greasy pole one might see a sense of irony.
I'm simply wary of ascribing the virtues and practices of past elections to this unique experience. I think you're right in that a lot of minds are made up - OGH clings to the "Don't Knows" like a comfort blanket but in lieu of solid polling evidence they will rush back to the Conservatives, I'm of the view they are a chimera.
Starmer is, pace Blair, determined to reassure the wavering ex-Tory voters right up to and even beyond the last minute they can vote for his Labour Party safe in the view nothing too much will change - the Mail is clearly going to turn every Labour policy announcement into a desperate scare tactic to frighten its elderly demographic into staying with the blues.
Ultimately, Starmer's greatest ally may well be the Conservatives themselves - why vote Tory again? might be a good slogan with which to go into a campaign.
“ One could argue Boris Johnson was just plain unlucky his shiny new Premiership was derailed within three months by a virus although given his 20 years of machinations and manoeuvring to get to the top of the political greasy pole one might see a sense of irony.”
Everyone always knew that if an unprecedented worldwide pandemic came along he’d get found out
It wasn't really the pandemic that derailed Johnson, though. It was his fundamental character flaws, and in particular his congenital dishonesty and tendency to be driven purely by what is convenient to him personally at any given moment.
Okay, so it revealed itself partly through Partygate, which was linked to COVID restrictions. But it would simply have manifested itself in some other way had the pandemic not happened. Indeed his downfall was materially contributed to by the response to Paterson, and the coup de grace was delived by his response to Pincher, neither of which had anything to do with COVID.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Whilst he might very well be right about Truss's unsuitability, it's quite a weird argument in that it WAS the mini-budget that blew up - HIS mini-budget.
Quite. Stupid tosspot.
Indeed - he can’t have it both ways, if it was all Liz Truss’s fault it means that he was simply a puppet and so was a front rather than the Chancellor or if he wants to put Chancellor of the Exchequer on his CV then it was his budget and he needs to own it.
I think he can get away with including the position on his CV while blaming Truss for the budget…
Firstly, thanks to @OnlyLivingBoy for his analysis, which is very good and shows the correlation on the net satisfaction score, highlighting (again) that this seems to be a better indicator than pure party vote intentions.
One thing that could help Labour win a tsunami of seats in the next election is that there are many Conservative seats with small majorities so it does not much of a swing for these seats to fall.
However, I will make one observation and one opinion on the analysis.
1. The observation is that Starmer seems to be doing around the same as Kinnock and Miliband is at a similar stage, although better than Corbyn. So not great.
2. I'm going to disagree with the view Starmer's ratings will improve as we get into the election for two reasons.
The first is that, so far, when Starmer has had to explain policy in more detail when quizzed, his performance when responding is mixed to say the least. It is obviously not inexperience but more seems to be personality-based and / or the need to keep the left wing of his party happy. In the scrutiny of a GE campaign, if he continues on as he has done so far, he is going to get himself into trouble very quickly.
The second goes back to the charts. Starmer's rating quickly dropped off and has never recovered since then, a similar pattern to every other leader bar Blair. Moreover, again ex-Blair, none of those leaders saw a noticeable uptick when they got closer to the election, with the possible part exception of Major. I think most people have already made up their minds as to what they think of Starmer and I think it can be summed up as "meh". I also don't think that will. change. That might get him across the line but, if I am right about 1, then it will not.
Hard to disagree with much of this.
I do think we've lived (and are living arguably) through unprecedented times. We've had the pandemic, a significant social, economic, cultural, psychological and political event and now we have the war in the Ukraine. It's hard to think of a Parliament since 1945 that has had the upheaval.
One could argue Boris Johnson was just plain unlucky his shiny new Premiership was derailed within three months by a virus although given his 20 years of machinations and manoeuvring to get to the top of the political greasy pole one might see a sense of irony.
I'm simply wary of ascribing the virtues and practices of past elections to this unique experience. I think you're right in that a lot of minds are made up - OGH clings to the "Don't Knows" like a comfort blanket but in lieu of solid polling evidence they will rush back to the Conservatives, I'm of the view they are a chimera.
Starmer is, pace Blair, determined to reassure the wavering ex-Tory voters right up to and even beyond the last minute they can vote for his Labour Party safe in the view nothing too much will change - the Mail is clearly going to turn every Labour policy announcement into a desperate scare tactic to frighten its elderly demographic into staying with the blues.
Ultimately, Starmer's greatest ally may well be the Conservatives themselves - why vote Tory again? might be a good slogan with which to go into a campaign.
“ One could argue Boris Johnson was just plain unlucky his shiny new Premiership was derailed within three months by a virus although given his 20 years of machinations and manoeuvring to get to the top of the political greasy pole one might see a sense of irony.”
Everyone always knew that if an unprecedented worldwide pandemic came along he’d get found out
The irony being that it wasn't the policy decisions which brought Boris down but his personal lack of self-discipline.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Truss cosplayed as Thatcher without it seems understanding who Thatcher was.
Was there ever anything substantive to Truss beyond her misreading of Thatcher ?
Everyone says of Thatcher that she would have 'balanced the budget' before cutting taxes, but we have no idea how Thatcher would have handled the situation that Truss came into. Thatcher was astute enough to be aware of the dynamic effects of taxation - I certainly don't think she'd have put CT up the way that Sunak did.
Maybe. Remember Mrs Thatcher was no economist but had been captured by monetarism from Milton Friedman via Sir Keith Joseph. Remember too that she tanked the economy and would likely have been ousted before the end of her first term were it not for the Falklands. Is that so different from Liz Truss similarly accepting fringe, right wing economic ideas from think tanks?
We're not going to agree on the economic foundations of Thatcherism I fear.
Finally read David Ignatius’ “Biden shouldn’t run” column. Nothing-burger. And his line on Harris—“she has failed to gain traction in the country”—is just dumb. Compared to which thrilling beloved VP: Pence, Biden, Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush 1, Mondale, Rockefeller, Ford, Agnew? https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1703110905821602277
Yep, as LBJ or John Nance Garner said, the VP job isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
It certainly was for LBJ.
Yep, and Gerald Ford and Harry S Truman. And all those VPs that became the party's candidate after the President has done his 8 years. But it is not easy to have a strong profile in the job outside Washington.
ALSO - if we’re “not allowed to look at videos of people being attacked by dogs” - then that means no one should have indecently watched the video from Birmingham. With the little girl
But it was the existence of that video and its shocking virality which spurred the government into belated action. Or was that video different because no one died? What if the girl had lost an arm or half her face but survived? Who draws these ridiculous lines?
Sometimes awful things have to be seen so we understand. I put the terrible video of Ian Price in that category. It is very different to watching an ISIS video where you are arguably oxygenating the terrrorists
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Amazing how long it takes these politicians to arrive at the obvious. It’s almost as if they have to try everything else first. Cf Rory.
Wonder how long it'll take you to realise that using the objective measure by which Truss 'failed' - the increased costs of borrowing, Sunak has 'failed' more. And indeed failed more before Truss as well as after her.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Whilst he might very well be right about Truss's unsuitability, it's quite a weird argument in that it WAS the mini-budget that blew up - HIS mini-budget.
Quite. Stupid tosspot.
Indeed - he can’t have it both ways, if it was all Liz Truss’s fault it means that he was simply a puppet and so was a front rather than the Chancellor or if he wants to put Chancellor of the Exchequer on his CV then it was his budget and he needs to own it.
I think he can get away with including the position on his CV while blaming Truss for the budget…
The mini-budget was literally the only thing he did as Chancellor, unless you count sniggering his way through the Queen's funeral, almost like a man fuelled by Columbian marching powder might.
So if he disowns the mini-budget, he was Chancellor in name only.
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Populism exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
Blaming the West, bankers, successful businessmen and industrialists for all the world's ills is populist. As is kneejerk banning of nuclear power and all forms of oil & gas immediately. Communism was essentially a direct appeal to populism.
It's characterised by playing to short-term base emotion against what are easily painted as elite or vested interests - which is why it is "popular" - rather than seeking to understand, channel and lead it into more reasoned, rational and longer-term policies that address the root causes.
I'm afraid I disagree completely. 'Populism' is a reaction to unpopular political decisions being taken. 'Populism' would have no cause to exist if our democracy was a true reflection of the 'popular' will. We're encouraged by media/films etc., to see large collections of people as baying, dangerous, panicking mobs, but actually where people have real control, you get peace and prosperity. In Switzerland, they have popular democracy. Their politicians have wanted to take them into the EU for the longest time, but the people refuse, and Switzerland's comparative economical position keeps improving. When there's an issue of substance, there's a referendum, the results of which politicians enact without demur. British people make similarly wise decisions when given the chance - perhaps every nation does.
Direct democracy has its benefits, but its flaws too.
If you want to see it done badly (and I'm curious if @rcs1000 would agree or disagree) look at California.
In California as I understand it, then they will vote under direct democracy to cut taxes, and to increase spending, and to run a balanced budget and all sorts of contradictory desires that are pretty much impossible to square.
Sometimes democracy is about making a choice, and each choice has a negative consequence, an "opportunity cost". Parliamentary democracy allows balancing those consequences, if you try to directly insist you get the positives but not the negatives then that's not making direct democracy better, its making it impossible.
To do it right is a real challenge and needs real safeguards.
I have no knowledge of the situation that you describe in California, but those contradictory referenda would seem to be the fault of those asking the questions, not those voting.
That's the attitude of people who think Cameron was stupid to put Brexit before the people.
In a Direct Democracy who decides who gets to ask the questions? I think in California the voters do, if a proposition gets enough signatures I believe it gets added to the ballot.
If you're going to have direct democracy it's hard to avoid this. In part I think it only works in Switzerland so well as it's such a small country and the voters take their responsibilities seriously. I don't think Swiss style would work in this country.
It’s not quite as represented in California.
About 30 years ago there was a vote to cap property tax as a percentage of the value of the home. Democrats hate it, but a clear majority of the population support it (the radical left claims this is an attempt to entrench racial privilege as it is whites who own property and ethnic minorities who benefit from state spending)
The intention was it would force the politicians to live within their means by cutting off access to a goldmine. Politicians carried on spending. The spending side of the equation is just the typical “spend more” pressure that you see in every democracy
Firstly, thanks to @OnlyLivingBoy for his analysis, which is very good and shows the correlation on the net satisfaction score, highlighting (again) that this seems to be a better indicator than pure party vote intentions.
One thing that could help Labour win a tsunami of seats in the next election is that there are many Conservative seats with small majorities so it does not much of a swing for these seats to fall.
However, I will make one observation and one opinion on the analysis.
1. The observation is that Starmer seems to be doing around the same as Kinnock and Miliband is at a similar stage, although better than Corbyn. So not great.
2. I'm going to disagree with the view Starmer's ratings will improve as we get into the election for two reasons.
The first is that, so far, when Starmer has had to explain policy in more detail when quizzed, his performance when responding is mixed to say the least. It is obviously not inexperience but more seems to be personality-based and / or the need to keep the left wing of his party happy. In the scrutiny of a GE campaign, if he continues on as he has done so far, he is going to get himself into trouble very quickly.
The second goes back to the charts. Starmer's rating quickly dropped off and has never recovered since then, a similar pattern to every other leader bar Blair. Moreover, again ex-Blair, none of those leaders saw a noticeable uptick when they got closer to the election, with the possible part exception of Major. I think most people have already made up their minds as to what they think of Starmer and I think it can be summed up as "meh". I also don't think that will. change. That might get him across the line but, if I am right about 1, then it will not.
Hard to disagree with much of this.
I do think we've lived (and are living arguably) through unprecedented times. We've had the pandemic, a significant social, economic, cultural, psychological and political event and now we have the war in the Ukraine. It's hard to think of a Parliament since 1945 that has had the upheaval.
One could argue Boris Johnson was just plain unlucky his shiny new Premiership was derailed within three months by a virus although given his 20 years of machinations and manoeuvring to get to the top of the political greasy pole one might see a sense of irony.
I'm simply wary of ascribing the virtues and practices of past elections to this unique experience. I think you're right in that a lot of minds are made up - OGH clings to the "Don't Knows" like a comfort blanket but in lieu of solid polling evidence they will rush back to the Conservatives, I'm of the view they are a chimera.
Starmer is, pace Blair, determined to reassure the wavering ex-Tory voters right up to and even beyond the last minute they can vote for his Labour Party safe in the view nothing too much will change - the Mail is clearly going to turn every Labour policy announcement into a desperate scare tactic to frighten its elderly demographic into staying with the blues.
Ultimately, Starmer's greatest ally may well be the Conservatives themselves - why vote Tory again? might be a good slogan with which to go into a campaign.
“ One could argue Boris Johnson was just plain unlucky his shiny new Premiership was derailed within three months by a virus although given his 20 years of machinations and manoeuvring to get to the top of the political greasy pole one might see a sense of irony.”
Everyone always knew that if an unprecedented worldwide pandemic came along he’d get found out
The irony being that it wasn't the policy decisions which brought Boris down but his personal lack of self-discipline.
I think it's always policy. I think most would (and did) tolerate a bonker in No. 10 if he was getting the job done.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Truss cosplayed as Thatcher without it seems understanding who Thatcher was.
Was there ever anything substantive to Truss beyond her misreading of Thatcher ?
Everyone says of Thatcher that she would have 'balanced the budget' before cutting taxes, but we have no idea how Thatcher would have handled the situation that Truss came into. Thatcher was astute enough to be aware of the dynamic effects of taxation - I certainly don't think she'd have put CT up the way that Sunak did.
Maybe. Remember Mrs Thatcher was no economist but had been captured by monetarism from Milton Friedman via Sir Keith Joseph. Remember too that she tanked the economy and would likely have been ousted before the end of her first term were it not for the Falklands. Is that so different from Liz Truss similarly accepting fringe, right wing economic ideas from think tanks?
I don't think it is conclusive that Thatcher would have been ousted, let alone lost in 1984, in the absence of a war. 1. Before the war, the Alliance had already won three by-elections, suggesting a vulnerability in Labour's ability to lead opposition to Thatcher, let alone set out a popular alternative. It is hard to see how just mid-term blues would trigger a challenge. 2. The Conservatives were beginning to take regular polling leads in the months prior to the war. Prior to this, they had never enjoyed a persistent polling lead since the election. 3. While unemployment stayed persistently high, inflation was dropping persistently since 1980 and had reached sub-5% by 1983. 4. Organised opposition in her cabinet is well-evidenced by her biographers, but my reading is that there was no figure at that time capable of leading opposition to a first-term PM with a mandate, unlike in the second half of the decade.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Truss cosplayed as Thatcher without it seems understanding who Thatcher was.
Was there ever anything substantive to Truss beyond her misreading of Thatcher ?
Everyone says of Thatcher that she would have 'balanced the budget' before cutting taxes, but we have no idea how Thatcher would have handled the situation that Truss came into. Thatcher was astute enough to be aware of the dynamic effects of taxation - I certainly don't think she'd have put CT up the way that Sunak did.
Thatcher would have suggested that hard work and living within your means was the way to handle the situation not yet another round of spending increases and tax cuts.
All that Truss proved was that there is a limit to how far this country is allowed to live beyond its means.
And why the obsession about corporation tax - like other taxes its allowed to go up as well as down.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Truss cosplayed as Thatcher without it seems understanding who Thatcher was.
Was there ever anything substantive to Truss beyond her misreading of Thatcher ?
Everyone says of Thatcher that she would have 'balanced the budget' before cutting taxes, but we have no idea how Thatcher would have handled the situation that Truss came into. Thatcher was astute enough to be aware of the dynamic effects of taxation - I certainly don't think she'd have put CT up the way that Sunak did.
Thatcher would have suggested that hard work and living within your means was the way to handle the situation not yet another round of spending increases and tax cuts.
All that Truss proved was that there is a limit to how far this country is allowed to live beyond its means.
And why the obsession about corporation tax - like other taxes its allowed to go up as well as down.
Is there any evidence that cuts in corporation tax has led to any increase in business investment in this country ?
There is a strong correlation between British CT falling and tax revenues going up in the past. There is a 15% CT territory on our doorstep doing very well indeed out of it. There are companies like Astrazeneca who've chosen to base new enterprises in ROI in preference to the UK since the recent rise. Given that such things are based on hundreds/thousands of individual company decisions, and those decisions each based on many factors, I'd say the indicators are as clear as they can be without God sending a hand to write on a wall.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Amazing how long it takes these politicians to arrive at the obvious. It’s almost as if they have to try everything else first. Cf Rory.
Wonder how long it'll take you to realise that using the objective measure by which Truss 'failed' - the increased costs of borrowing, Sunak has 'failed' more. And indeed failed more before Truss as well as after her.
Truss failed because she lost the confidence of the markets. Sunak has not.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
Whilst he might very well be right about Truss's unsuitability, it's quite a weird argument in that it WAS the mini-budget that blew up - HIS mini-budget.
Quite. Stupid tosspot.
Indeed - he can’t have it both ways, if it was all Liz Truss’s fault it means that he was simply a puppet and so was a front rather than the Chancellor or if he wants to put Chancellor of the Exchequer on his CV then it was his budget and he needs to own it.
I think he can get away with including the position on his CV while blaming Truss for the budget…
The mini-budget was literally the only thing he did as Chancellor, unless you count sniggering his way through the Queen's funeral, almost like a man fuelled by Columbian marching powder might.
So if he disowns the mini-budget, he was Chancellor in name only.
Comments
Get someone to take an IQ test for the first time, then get someone to take it again a second time three months later, and the scores are not likely to be the same.
If someone's never seen an IQ test before, or anything like it, they'll get a lower score than one who's sat many before and understands how they work.
Same reason students today study past papers before exams.
Kwasi Kwarteng, too, has thought a lot about how things played out. His friendship with Truss, strained by office, has not been destroyed.
But with the passage of time has come clarity about how equipped his old ally was for the job. “I love her dearly, she’s a great person, very sincere and honest,” said Kwarteng. “But if it hadn’t been the mini-Budget, she would have blown up on something else. I just don’t think her temperament was right. She was just not wired to be a prime minister.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/17/liz-truss-prime-minister-disaster-unravelled/
The issue for me is that, based on the leader popularity and the economic direction, I couldn't rule out a plague-on-both mood leading to some third force polling 20% during the next year. If that happens, it's hard to know who would suffer more, but time-for-change dynamics would suggest Labour.
There was that clown car vote... Fracking? And had Truss stayed, things like that would have kept happening.
Was there ever anything substantive to Truss beyond her misreading of Thatcher ?
Second, in recent decades I have become less satisfied with frequentist approaches, where there are not actually experiments -- but not enough to really dig into any Bayesian alternatives. Maybe this will inspire me to do so.
A high LD vote skews it towards Labour, a low LD vote skews it towards the Tories.
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/08/15/charingcross_feature.shtml
- https://lightwater.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/mileages_from_london_16049013071-1.jpg
- https://ads9rca.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/point-zero-a-starting-point/
Originally it was measured from Queen Eleanor's Cross at Charing Cross. But that no longer exists because the extant one outside Charing Cross Station is a replica made in 1863. The statue is on the site of the original cross. So presently the distances are from the statue.General elections in England, and to an extent Wales, look a lot like the Tories versus everyone else, even more so in the post-coalition era, when the LDs were gradually wiped out in constituencies where Labour could plausibly win.
Would have cost £41bn - the biggest measure by far. Was dubbed going ‘full Estonia’
https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1703334365986509114
"Micronutrient deficiencies, including iodine deficiency, impair the development of intelligence. Lacking iodine during human development causes a fall, in average, of 12 intelligence quotient (IQ) points in China.[28] A study of U.S. military data collected during the First and Second World Wars found that the introduction of salt iodization in the U.S. in the 1920s resulted in an increase in IQ, by approximately one standard deviation, for the quarter of the U.S. population most deficient in iodine, explaining about "one decade's worth of the upward trend in IQ" in the U.S. (i.e., the Flynn effect)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency
And this one: Drinking alcohol during pregnancy may lower the baby's IQ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_spectrum_disorder
I met Truss in either 2014 or 2015 as part of a discussion at a Conservative Conference fringe event discussing the UK's problems with productivity. She was very clued up and very impressive, I could see why Cameron had promoted her.
The internet is full of dog lovers in denial. “It’s the owner, my one is a softy” blah blah. The only possible way you can shake them out of this determined blindness is by showing them something as shocking as that appalling video. Because it is so horrific the danger cannot be denied
And then that poor man will not have died for nothing. At least these brutal dogs will be banned ASAP before more people die. And they will die. And they will be children
In a Direct Democracy who decides who gets to ask the questions? I think in California the voters do, if a proposition gets enough signatures I believe it gets added to the ballot.
If you're going to have direct democracy it's hard to avoid this. In part I think it only works in Switzerland so well as it's such a small country and the voters take their responsibilities seriously. I don't think Swiss style would work in this country.
But I learned a year or two ago that the Charing Cross Eleanor Cross is a Victorian version (which I should have realised as it is far too well preserved) and not quite in the same place - the original stood where Charles I now is as you say.
Mid Beds is an interesting test in a formerly very safe Tory seat, and it is possible that the Tories could win on 30% or so, but even so both LAB and LD should go for it and test what they can achieve.
Everyone always knew that if an unprecedented worldwide pandemic came along he’d get found out
Opener Roy was in the provisional squad announced last month but missed the recent one-day internationals against New Zealand because of back spasms.
Brook scored only 37 runs across three matches against the Black Caps but has starred in international cricket over the past year and can bat in both the top and middle order.
Holders England start their campaign by facing New Zealand on 5 October.
The 2023 ICC Men's Cricket World Cup in India features 10 teams and runs until 19 November.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66837122
England should finish top 4 and then anything can happen.
Are India favourites though?
Though it's worth noting that California have had direct democracy for a long time too and still haven't figured it out.
About 30 years ago there was a vote to cap property tax as a percentage of the value of the home. Democrats hate it, but a clear majority of the population support it (the radical left claims this is an attempt to entrench racial privilege as it is whites who own property and ethnic minorities who benefit from state spending)
The intention was it would force the politicians to live within their means by cutting off access to a goldmine. Politicians carried on spending. The spending side of the equation is just the typical “spend more” pressure that you see in every democracy
Okay, so it revealed itself partly through Partygate, which was linked to COVID restrictions. But it would simply have manifested itself in some other way had the pandemic not happened. Indeed his downfall was materially contributed to by the response to Paterson, and the coup de grace was delived by his response to Pincher, neither of which had anything to do with COVID.
But it was the existence of that video and its shocking virality which spurred the government into belated action. Or was that video different because no one died? What if the girl had lost an arm or half her face but survived? Who draws these ridiculous lines?
Sometimes awful things have to be seen so we understand. I put the terrible video of Ian Price in that category. It is very different to watching an ISIS video where you are arguably oxygenating the terrrorists
So if he disowns the mini-budget, he was Chancellor in name only.
(it is Trafalgar Square.)
NEW THREAD
1. Before the war, the Alliance had already won three by-elections, suggesting a vulnerability in Labour's ability to lead opposition to Thatcher, let alone set out a popular alternative. It is hard to see how just mid-term blues would trigger a challenge.
2. The Conservatives were beginning to take regular polling leads in the months prior to the war. Prior to this, they had never enjoyed a persistent polling lead since the election.
3. While unemployment stayed persistently high, inflation was dropping persistently since 1980 and had reached sub-5% by 1983.
4. Organised opposition in her cabinet is well-evidenced by her biographers, but my reading is that there was no figure at that time capable of leading opposition to a first-term PM with a mandate, unlike in the second half of the decade.
All that Truss proved was that there is a limit to how far this country is allowed to live beyond its means.
And why the obsession about corporation tax - like other taxes its allowed to go up as well as down.
Under Thatcher it was never lower than 35%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_corporation_tax#History
Is there any evidence that cuts in corporation tax has led to any increase in business investment in this country ?