A blast from the past – politicalbetting.com

System · October 21

A blast from the past – politicalbetting.com

10 years ago this month: 48% of Britons thought UKIP would still be an important force in British politics by now, while the Lib Dems would have faded awayhttps://t.co/SH80QUprY2 pic.twitter.com/RxnXOHskXp

Read the full story here

rcs1000 · October 21

fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.

No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.

eek · October 21

UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...

kle4 · October 21

All the significant UKIP people forming a different party and transferring the brand was not very predicable, I don't blame people for thinking they would still be important, as their successor party still is.

It'd be like thinking the Liberal Party would still be around in notable form and being wrong because the Liberal Democrats exist instead (Not a perfect analogy with the UKIP/Brexit/Reform change, but I think close enough).

The LDs there were some real questions about for awhile, given their voteshare has remained stubbornly low, but boy did they maximise their support perfectly, which must have been beyond anyone's expectation. They even have very close to proportionate numbers of MPs now.

tlg86 · October 21

Having looked at bodycam footage of the shooting, I can see why the jury acquitted:

https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1848393888853065808

The context of armed police being deployed because the vehicle was involved in an armed incident previously is important. He wasn't armed, but the police weren't to know this. If he's prepared to use his car as a weapon, I think it's a reasonable response.

Andy_JS · October 21

"@BBCPolitics

Former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke appointed to lead review of prison sentencing by Keir Starmer"

https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1848349041408585741

David Gauke said he'd wasted £39 on joining the Tories after Cleverly was knocked out.

biggles · October 21

tlg86 said:
Having looked at bodycam footage of the shooting, I can see why the jury acquitted:

https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1848393888853065808

The context of armed police being deployed because the vehicle was involved in an armed incident previously is important. He wasn't armed, but the police weren't to know this. If he's prepared to use his car as a weapon, I think it's a reasonable response.

Watching that makes me wonder why it ever got this far.

MattW · October 21

"There is absolutely no epistemological problems ..."

A pedant unhelpfully speculates that the author might be a lawyer.

rcs1000 · October 21

kle4 said:
All the significant UKIP people forming a different party and transferring the brand was not very predicable, I don't blame people for thinking they would still be important, as their successor party still is.

It'd be like thinking the Liberal Party would still be around in notable form and being wrong because the Liberal Democrats exist instead (Not a perfect analogy with the UKIP/Brexit/Reform change, but I think close enough).

The LDs there were some real questions about for awhile, given their voteshare has remained stubbornly low, but boy did they maximise their support perfectly, which must have been beyond anyone's expectation. They even have very close to proportionate numbers of MPs now.

While the LD vote share is just 12.2%, it is worth remembering that is a *lot* better than it was in 2017, when they got just 7.4%.

tlg86 · October 21

biggles said:

tlg86 said:
Having looked at bodycam footage of the shooting, I can see why the jury acquitted:

https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1848393888853065808

The context of armed police being deployed because the vehicle was involved in an armed incident previously is important. He wasn't armed, but the police weren't to know this. If he's prepared to use his car as a weapon, I think it's a reasonable response.
Watching that makes me wonder why it ever got this far.

Because the suits are wise after the event and think the police should be psychic.

williamglenn · October 21

rcs1000 said:
fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.

And yet his polling is much better than four years ago:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/nevada/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/nevada/

If he's doing that much better against such a demographic headwind, maybe it's a bullish sign for him nationally?

Casino_Royale · October 21

Andy_JS said:
"@BBCPolitics

Former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke appointed to lead review of prison sentencing by Keir Starmer"

https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1848349041408585741

David Gauke said he'd wasted £39 on joining the Tories after Cleverly was knocked out.

If he takes such a transactional view then he's clearly left the Tories for good.

Sad.

rcs1000 · October 21

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:
fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
And yet his polling is much better than four years ago:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/nevada/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/nevada/

If he's doing that much better against such a demographic headwind, maybe it's a bullish sign for him nationally?

He's polling better pretty much everywhere than in 2020. Is he doing particularly better in Nevada than in - say - Florida or Georgia?

FWIW, none of the campaigns seem to be doing much in Nevada. I was there all last week, and it was a deadzone for campaigning, even compared to California.

The contrast with Arizona is incredible: in AZ, every corner has posters for Trump, Harris, Gallegos, Lake or the abortion ballot proposition. If you watch YouTube in Arizona, then every advert is a political one.

Omnium · October 21

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:
All the significant UKIP people forming a different party and transferring the brand was not very predicable, I don't blame people for thinking they would still be important, as their successor party still is.

It'd be like thinking the Liberal Party would still be around in notable form and being wrong because the Liberal Democrats exist instead (Not a perfect analogy with the UKIP/Brexit/Reform change, but I think close enough).

The LDs there were some real questions about for awhile, given their voteshare has remained stubbornly low, but boy did they maximise their support perfectly, which must have been beyond anyone's expectation. They even have very close to proportionate numbers of MPs now.
While the LD vote share is just 12.2%, it is worth remembering that is a *lot* better than it was in 2017, when they got just 7.4%.

Just electoral sludge though. Quite why escapes me. They could be a thing!

HYUFD · October 21

Not sure TSE's analysis is correct here. UKIP's former leader Nigel Farage now leads Reform who are polling in a clear 3rd place ahead of the LDs. Farage of course played a pivotal part in delivering Brexit too, the biggest change in UK politics for a generation. Tommy Robinson has also now endorsed UKIP and if he gets some of his white working class nationalist support to back them it could have a mini revival in strong Leave areas as a vehicle for his ambitions.

At the moment while the LDs did gain significant numbers of seats at the general election they failed in their opposition to stop Brexit in 2019. Unless and until a minority Labour government requires their support to stay in office they remain of little relevance beyond the few councils they control

HYUFD · October 21

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:
fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
And yet his polling is much better than four years ago:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/nevada/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/nevada/

If he's doing that much better against such a demographic headwind, maybe it's a bullish sign for him nationally?
He's polling better pretty much everywhere than in 2020. Is he doing particularly better in Nevada than in - say - Florida or Georgia?

FWIW, none of the campaigns seem to be doing much in Nevada. I was there all last week, and it was a deadzone for campaigning, even compared to California.

The contrast with Arizona is incredible: in AZ, every corner has posters for Trump, Harris, Gallegos, Lake or the abortion ballot proposition. If you watch YouTube in Arizona, then every advert is a political one.

Trump has to win Arizona, he can win without Nevada as he did in 2016 but not without Arizona which he won to beat Hillary Clinton.

Harris has to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and one of NE 02 or Georgia, she can also win without Nevada

another_richard · October 21

rcs1000 said:
fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.

In 2022 Nevada the GOP gained the governorship, had a positive swing in the Senate race and got most votes in the combined House races:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nevada_gubernatorial_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Nevada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Nevada

HYUFD · October 21

kle4 said:
All the significant UKIP people forming a different party and transferring the brand was not very predicable, I don't blame people for thinking they would still be important, as their successor party still is.

It'd be like thinking the Liberal Party would still be around in notable form and being wrong because the Liberal Democrats exist instead (Not a perfect analogy with the UKIP/Brexit/Reform change, but I think close enough).

The LDs there were some real questions about for awhile, given their voteshare has remained stubbornly low, but boy did they maximise their support perfectly, which must have been beyond anyone's expectation. They even have very close to proportionate numbers of MPs now.

The Liberal Democrats are more leftwing than the old free market Liberals were though, as they include social democrat ex SDP members and voters as well as former Liberals

another_richard · October 21

Does anyone have a summary of the various House gerrymanders / boundary changes that have been implemented since 2022 ?

HYUFD · October 21

Andy_JS said:
"@BBCPolitics

Former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke appointed to lead review of prison sentencing by Keir Starmer"

https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1848349041408585741

David Gauke said he'd wasted £39 on joining the Tories after Cleverly was knocked out.

Good choice, Gauke has a brain and will focus on reducing reoffending

rcs1000 · October 21

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:
fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
In 2022 Nevada the GOP gained the governorship, had a positive swing in the Senate race and got most votes in the combined House races:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nevada_gubernatorial_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Nevada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Nevada

Yeah, but it's a midterm election. You expect the non-incumbent party to do well in midterms.

JosiasJessop · October 21

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:
fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
And yet his polling is much better than four years ago:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/nevada/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/nevada/

If he's doing that much better against such a demographic headwind, maybe it's a bullish sign for him nationally?
He's polling better pretty much everywhere than in 2020. Is he doing particularly better in Nevada than in - say - Florida or Georgia?

FWIW, none of the campaigns seem to be doing much in Nevada. I was there all last week, and it was a deadzone for campaigning, even compared to California.

The contrast with Arizona is incredible: in AZ, every corner has posters for Trump, Harris, Gallegos, Lake or the abortion ballot proposition. If you watch YouTube in Arizona, then every advert is a political one.

Is there any reason to trust the polling in US presidential elections?

algarkirk · October 21

No epistemological problems? Maybe not. But what about the de re/de dicto distinction along with others.

By UKIP do you mean a word, an organisation denoted by a name, an organisation, a concept, or a social imaginary?

Word: faded

Name of organisation: faded

Organisation: doing fine under different name

Concept: doing fine, mostly the concept being articulated as 'Reform'

Social imaginary: doing fine despite occasional riots; undoubtedly part of the framework of values and institutions making up the social whole, but not under that name.

LostPassword · October 21

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:
fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
And yet his polling is much better than four years ago:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/nevada/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/nevada/

If he's doing that much better against such a demographic headwind, maybe it's a bullish sign for him nationally?
He's polling better pretty much everywhere than in 2020. Is he doing particularly better in Nevada than in - say - Florida or Georgia?

FWIW, none of the campaigns seem to be doing much in Nevada. I was there all last week, and it was a deadzone for campaigning, even compared to California.

The contrast with Arizona is incredible: in AZ, every corner has posters for Trump, Harris, Gallegos, Lake or the abortion ballot proposition. If you watch YouTube in Arizona, then every advert is a political one.
Is there any reason to trust the polling in US presidential elections?

I think the US opinion polling is correct to make Harris and Trump the frontrunners for the Presidency.

Given all the problems there are with opinion polling I am surprised it does as well as it does. The national vote share margin in 2020 was only out by about 3.5pp. Obviously that error is large enough to swing the election for either candidate, but that's a function of the race being close, not the opinion polls being particularly untrustworthy.

Andy_JS · October 21

I wonder why Harris is doing so well in North Carolina relative to the other swing states. Trump is only 0.8% ahead there according to 538.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/

nico679 · October 21

You wonder just how much effect all those political ads have at this stage . Most people will just tune out after being flooded with them for months.

Today’s polling has been a mixed bag so far . Rasmussen popped up with its customary Trump lead . The Washington Post had some decent results for both candidates.

another_richard · October 21

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:
fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
In 2022 Nevada the GOP gained the governorship, had a positive swing in the Senate race and got most votes in the combined House races:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nevada_gubernatorial_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Nevada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Nevada
Yeah, but it's a midterm election. You expect the non-incumbent party to do well in midterms.

Sure, but generally the GOP didn't in 2022.

How many other states did the GOP get swings to them in all three of governor, senate and house elections in 2022.

Not AZ, GA, MI, NC, WI or PA.

Andy_JS · October 21

another_richard said:
Does anyone have a summary of the various House gerrymanders / boundary changes that have been implemented since 2022 ?

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/three-takeaways-redistricting-and-competition-2022-midterms

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/

https://www.fixourhouse.org/resources/fix-our-house-redistricting-report

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/congressional-redistricting-maps-by-state-and-district/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/redistricting-tracker-map/

BlancheLivermore · October 21

I think Kemi is a suture from the future

TheScreamingEagles · October 21

FPT

moonshine said:

algarkirk said:

Alanbrooke said:

moonshine said:

Andy_JS said:
This is the MP for Boston and Skegness.

"Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧
@TiceRichard

Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."

https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/1848320885754630155
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.

More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.

If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.

Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.

Woman who milkshaked Farage gets what ?
There is a gigantic gulf between a self publicising idiot throwing milkshakes and using words and actions to a large and enraged audience inciting, urging and encouraging them to burn down buildings with people inside them and kill innocent strangers.

Shouty trolling this is not. Shouty trolling is widely available from many sources and is not a criminal offence.
How quickly people forget. Even the owners of this very site were briefly scared by the long arm of the law into threatening expulsion of members. Not for inciting violence or racial hatred, but for what would otherwise count as normal civic discussion in a free society.

But then again our new prime minister thought it was dangerous and reckless to allow citizens to show their faces uncovered even after the vaccine programme. And half the people here fully agreed.

That is a mis-remembering of the situation.

I have friends at the CPS and in the legal profession who rightly predicted given the situation any comments that sought to condone, glorify, encourage, or assist the disorder were likely to lead to the rozzers getting involved.

Robert, myself, and the moderation team had to remove several comments that violated that (along with somebody posting the locations of the upcoming disorder.

Remember you probably didn't see the deleted comments.

OGH has made it clear he doesn't want any legal issues on PB or the potential of damages, so if we appear overly cautious that's why and we're not going to apologise for that.

Barnesian · October 21

another_richard said:
Does anyone have a summary of the various House gerrymanders / boundary changes that have been implemented since 2022 ?

The recent 538 roadtrip podcast covers a lot of the House boundary changes. It provides an interesting insight beyond the presidential election and covers many states. But it is 43 minutes long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvFV7EcilxM

nico679 · October 21

Andy_JS said:
I wonder why Harris is doing so well in North Carolina relative to the other swing states. Trump is only 0.8% ahead there according to 538.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/

I think Harris has a better chance there than in Georgia because of demographic changes, an increase in college grads and also those from the Asian community .

turbotubbs · October 21

biggles said:

tlg86 said:
Having looked at bodycam footage of the shooting, I can see why the jury acquitted:

https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1848393888853065808

The context of armed police being deployed because the vehicle was involved in an armed incident previously is important. He wasn't armed, but the police weren't to know this. If he's prepared to use his car as a weapon, I think it's a reasonable response.
Watching that makes me wonder why it ever got this far.

BLM creating an environment where the PTB felt they had to go to trial to show why the police officer should be acquitted, I suspect.

Luckyguy1983 · October 21

BlancheLivermore said:
I think Kemi is a suture from the future

Not an elastoplast from the past?

Taz · October 21

JP Morgan FX election scenarios

https://x.com/mrmbrown/status/1848307553567957361?s=61

HYUFD · October 21

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...

Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC

WhisperingOracle · October 21

I see a new Trumpist gif is spreading on Twitter, that well encapsulates what I was describing about the two sides of his appeal.

"Christ is Lord.
Cry about it."

viewcode · October 21

BlancheLivermore said:
I think Kemi is a suture from the future

The bitch with the stitch

(Sorry, but it was irresistible)

Andy_JS · October 21

nico679 said:

Andy_JS said:
I wonder why Harris is doing so well in North Carolina relative to the other swing states. Trump is only 0.8% ahead there according to 538.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/
I think Harris has a better chance there than in Georgia because of demographic changes, an increase in college grads and also those from the Asian community .

Maybe she wins the election because of North Carolina.

kjh · October 21

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC

Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.

rcs1000 · October 21

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:
fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
In 2022 Nevada the GOP gained the governorship, had a positive swing in the Senate race and got most votes in the combined House races:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nevada_gubernatorial_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Nevada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Nevada
Yeah, but it's a midterm election. You expect the non-incumbent party to do well in midterms.
Sure, but generally the GOP didn't in 2022.

How many other states did the GOP get swings to them in all three of governor, senate and house elections in 2022.

Not AZ, GA, MI, NC, WI or PA.

If you look at the House of Representatives elections in each of those States to get a rough feel for how things trended, you saw:

AZ - R +6.0%
GA - R +1.3%
MI - D +0.2%
NC - R +2.6%
WI - R +4.1%
PA - R +1.8%

In every state except Michigan, you saw the Republican House vote rise between 1.3% and 6.0%. And Nevada - at 4% - would have been right in the middle of that range.

BatteryCorrectHorse · October 21

@Andy_JS it is a brilliant appointment by SKS. One of the better moves he’s made.

williamglenn · October 21

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time, for what they achieved. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.

Maybe Nigel Lawson too?

Andy_JS · October 21

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
@Andy_JS it is a brilliant appointment by SKS. One of the better moves he’s made.

I agree. It makes sense to pick someone from outside his own party.

Daveyboy1961 · October 21

biggles said:

tlg86 said:
Having looked at bodycam footage of the shooting, I can see why the jury acquitted:

https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1848393888853065808

The context of armed police being deployed because the vehicle was involved in an armed incident previously is important. He wasn't armed, but the police weren't to know this. If he's prepared to use his car as a weapon, I think it's a reasonable response.
Watching that makes me wonder why it ever got this far.

I've said before that the cps are not interested in guilt or innocence or the truth of the matter, only whether they can get a conviction.

kle4 · October 21

nico679 said:
You wonder just how much effect all those political ads have at this stage . Most people will just tune out after being flooded with them for months.

Today’s polling has been a mixed bag so far . Rasmussen popped up with its customary Trump lead . The Washington Post had some decent results for both candidates.

I'm not sure what's worse, that billions is spent on political ads, or that much of that money is wasted.

TheScreamingEagles · October 21

Shocked.

SCOOP:

Remember the baseless conspiracy being pushed on [Twitter] last week about Tim Walz abusing a former student?

Turns out, it came from Russia...

https://x.com/daithaigilbert/status/1848441852422479972

another_richard · October 21

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:
fpt:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
·
1h
#NEW
@RedfieldWilton
/
@Telegraph
Poll:

Arizona: Trump +3
North Carolina: Trump +3
Nevada: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +1
Florida: Trump +4
Michigan: Tied
Pennsylvania: Tied
Wisconsin: Harris +1
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania

With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week

And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.

I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.

I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:

I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.

Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.

In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.

I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.

(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.

No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.

So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.

Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
In 2022 Nevada the GOP gained the governorship, had a positive swing in the Senate race and got most votes in the combined House races:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nevada_gubernatorial_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Nevada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Nevada
Yeah, but it's a midterm election. You expect the non-incumbent party to do well in midterms.
Sure, but generally the GOP didn't in 2022.

How many other states did the GOP get swings to them in all three of governor, senate and house elections in 2022.

Not AZ, GA, MI, NC, WI or PA.
If you look at the House of Representatives elections in each of those States to get a rough feel for how things trended, you saw:

AZ - R +6.0%
GA - R +1.3%
MI - D +0.2%
NC - R +2.6%
WI - R +4.1%
PA - R +1.8%

In every state except Michigan, you saw the Republican House vote rise between 1.3% and 6.0%. And Nevada - at 4% - would have been right in the middle of that range.

I think the AZ and WI results were affected by the lack of Dem candidates in some House races.

kle4 · October 21

TheScreamingEagles said:
Shocked.

SCOOP:

Remember the baseless conspiracy being pushed on [Twitter] last week about Tim Walz abusing a former student?

Turns out, it came from Russia...

https://x.com/daithaigilbert/status/1848441852422479972

Какой сюрприз

Andy_JS · October 21

"What the world thinks of Harris versus Trump
Gideon Rachman" (£)

https://www.ft.com/content/19ef9629-805f-49aa-81bc-54c84240b733

ydoethur · October 21

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.

Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.

FrankBooth · October 21

williamglenn said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time, for what they achieved. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Maybe Nigel Lawson too?

The lectures are well worth viewing. He initially included Iain Macleod instead of Farage.

another_richard · October 21

TheScreamingEagles said:
Shocked.

SCOOP:

Remember the baseless conspiracy being pushed on [Twitter] last week about Tim Walz abusing a former student?

Turns out, it came from Russia...

https://x.com/daithaigilbert/status/1848441852422479972

Haven't heard that one before but I do remember Walz peddling stories about Vance's sexual activities.

The 'Vance shags his couch' being a variant of 'hillbillies shag their sisters'.

Mexicanpete · October 21

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.

I much prefer your list.

Powell's legacy is he made an incendiary speech in Birmingham and Jenkins just enjoyed the sauce too much. I despise Farage so one would expect me not to place him on a list of influentials on those grounds alone. If he were to enter a list of influencers it would be for wholly negative endeavours.

P.S. And Benn? Far too keen on consuming his own Koolade. One could add Corbyn to that particular list of left wing no- marks.

another_richard · October 21

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.

It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.

Mexicanpete · October 21

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Shocked.

SCOOP:

Remember the baseless conspiracy being pushed on [Twitter] last week about Tim Walz abusing a former student?

Turns out, it came from Russia...

https://x.com/daithaigilbert/status/1848441852422479972
Haven't heard that one before but I do remember Walz peddling stories about Vance's sexual activities.

The 'Vance shags his couch' being a variant of 'hillbillies shag their sisters'.

Don't worry. I think your team has got this. Hats off to William Glenn for his endeavours.

Still don't see the attraction myself mind.

another_richard · October 21

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Shocked.

SCOOP:

Remember the baseless conspiracy being pushed on [Twitter] last week about Tim Walz abusing a former student?

Turns out, it came from Russia...

https://x.com/daithaigilbert/status/1848441852422479972
Haven't heard that one before but I do remember Walz peddling stories about Vance's sexual activities.

The 'Vance shags his couch' being a variant of 'hillbillies shag their sisters'.
Don't worry. I think your team has got this. Hats off to William Glenn for his endeavours.

Still don't see the attraction myself mind.

I want Trump to lose.

Perhaps if Harris and Walz stuck to the issues instead of spouting bigoted crap they would be more likely to win.

nico679 · October 21

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC

I loathe Farage but agree with putting him in that list .

rcs1000 · October 21

nico679 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
I loathe Farage but agree with putting him in that list .

Of course he should be on the list!

I guess the whole idea is to produce six people who (a) were never Prime Minister, but (b) had an outsized impact on the politics of the UK, then he should definitely be there.

The one I am doubtful of is Benn. Simply: what did he achieve that made such a big difference? I mean he led the left wing group of the Labour Party... but he didn't lead an intellectual revolution, like Joseph. Or split the Labour Party, like Jenkins, etc etc.

rcs1000 · October 21

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.

I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.

HYUFD · October 21

Yougov finds 64% of British voters want Harris to win, 18% Trump.

86% of LDs, 83% of Labour voters and 57% of Tories back Harris, 54% of Reform voters want Trump to win however
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50752-who-did-britons-want-to-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election

TimS · October 21

HYUFD said:
Yougov finds 64% of British voters want Harris to win, 18% Trump.

86% of LDs, 83% of Labour voters and 57% of Tories back Harris, 54% of Reform voters want Trump to win however
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50752-who-did-britons-want-to-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election

One wonders about the 4% of Lib Dems rooting for Trump (or indeed the 10% who don’t know).

One wonders equally about the 26% of Reform supporters who want Harris to win! Interesting demographic.

Stark_Dawning · October 21

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.

Benn's antics arguably wrecked Labour as a political force from the late 70s to the mid 80s: no Benn, no Thatcherism. Powell's influence really faded away with the demise of the skinhead movement.

Stuartinromford · October 21

HYUFD said:
Yougov finds 64% of British voters want Harris to win, 18% Trump.

86% of LDs, 83% of Labour voters and 57% of Tories back Harris, 54% of Reform voters want Trump to win however
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50752-who-did-britons-want-to-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election

Another pointer that Reform voters aren't Conservatives-on-a-break. They've properly moved out and taken their toothbrush with them. (To the extent that they were ever Conservatives in the first place.)

Mexicanpete · October 21

HYUFD said:
Yougov finds 64% of British voters want Harris to win, 18% Trump.

86% of LDs, 83% of Labour voters and 57% of Tories back Harris, 54% of Reform voters want Trump to win however
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50752-who-did-britons-want-to-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election

It looks like an awful lot of us are going to be disappointed.

I am not looking forward to William Glenn's and Sandpit's lap of honour. Although after Trump sells Ukraine down the river Sandpit might have second thoughts too.

TimS · October 21

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.

Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash

another_richard · October 21

rcs1000 said:

nico679 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
I loathe Farage but agree with putting him in that list .
Of course he should be on the list!

I guess the whole idea is to produce six people who (a) were never Prime Minister, but (b) had an outsized impact on the politics of the UK, then he should definitely be there.

The one I am doubtful of is Benn. Simply: what did he achieve that made such a big difference? I mean he led the left wing group of the Labour Party... but he didn't lead an intellectual revolution, like Joseph. Or split the Labour Party, like Jenkins, etc etc.

You could argue that Benn caused the split in Labour with him being the 'push' factor and Jenkins being the 'pull' factor.

But I would agree that he is the weakest of the six.

Perhaps Bogdanor wanted three on the political left to match the three on the political right.

HYUFD · October 21

Stark_Dawning said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Benn's antics arguably wrecked Labour as a political force from the late 70s to the mid 80s: no Benn, no Thatcherism. Powell's influence really faded away with the demise of the skinhead movement.

Benn and Powell were also early architects of Brexit, from left and right

Andy_JS · October 21

HYUFD said:
Yougov finds 64% of British voters want Harris to win, 18% Trump.

86% of LDs, 83% of Labour voters and 57% of Tories back Harris, 54% of Reform voters want Trump to win however
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50752-who-did-britons-want-to-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election

It's their election, not ours.

Mexicanpete · October 21

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.

What lasting achievement can we lay at Powell's door? A weighty intellectual who used his brilliant mind to reach unfortunate prejudices and conclusions.

Benn liked the sound of his own voice and if achievement is measured on how much electoral damage he bestowed on the Labour Party he goes to almost top of the list, if not he wasn't that important.

I would argue without Johnson's unfortunate and largely accidental intervention with the Brexit vote it wouldn't have happened, and Farage would be but a footnote in history. He was a fool emboldened by more egregious fools.

maxh · October 21

TimS said:

HYUFD said:
Yougov finds 64% of British voters want Harris to win, 18% Trump.

86% of LDs, 83% of Labour voters and 57% of Tories back Harris, 54% of Reform voters want Trump to win however
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50752-who-did-britons-want-to-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election
One wonders about the 4% of Lib Dems rooting for Trump (or indeed the 10% who don’t know).

One wonders equally about the 26% of Reform supporters who want Harris to win! Interesting demographic.

I'm not sure your second paragraph is right. I can imagine someone who finds Reform the best fit for them politically but doesn't support, oh I don't
know, a convicted felon entering the White House, or someone who has said they will happily use the military against their own citizens running the country.

williamglenn · October 21

Mexicanpete said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
What lasting achievement can we lay at Powell's door? A weighty intellectual who used his brilliant mind to reach unfortunate prejudices and conclusions.

The closure of mental asylums?

WhisperingOracle · October 21

Rather interesting story here :

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/drones-military-pentagon-defense-331871f4

another_richard · October 21

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash

John Profumo
Airey Neave
Dick Taverne

JohnLilburne · October 21

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

nico679 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
I loathe Farage but agree with putting him in that list .
Of course he should be on the list!

I guess the whole idea is to produce six people who (a) were never Prime Minister, but (b) had an outsized impact on the politics of the UK, then he should definitely be there.

The one I am doubtful of is Benn. Simply: what did he achieve that made such a big difference? I mean he led the left wing group of the Labour Party... but he didn't lead an intellectual revolution, like Joseph. Or split the Labour Party, like Jenkins, etc etc.
You could argue that Benn caused the split in Labour with him being the 'push' factor and Jenkins being the 'pull' factor.

But I would agree that he is the weakest of the six.

Perhaps Bogdanor wanted three on the political left to match the three on the political right.

Benn basically invented life peers. If life peers had never been a thing, then I think we would now have an elected upper house rather than one stuffed full of political bumlickers

Andy_JS · October 21

WhisperingOracle said:
Rather interesting story here :

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/drones-military-pentagon-defense-331871f4

What is it with America and conspiracy theories?

rcs1000 · October 21

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash

Hmmm: you can make a case for Cash (early proponent of Brexit), and Salmond (the rise of the SNP in Scotland.)

Owen is a bit... meh... because he's like Jenkins only with the number of achievements before the SDP.

And Livingstone was a nonentity as an MP.

While Barbara Castle, other than being (the first?) women cabinet minister, what's the case for her being particularly influential?

Mexicanpete · October 21

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
What lasting achievement can we lay at Powell's door? A weighty intellectual who used his brilliant mind to reach unfortunate prejudices and conclusions.
The closure of mental asylums?

I was not aware of that, although such a policy is hardly seminal in the grand scheme of post war events. I think you'll have to do better. His historical relevance is based around a controversial speech he made in Birmingham City Hall.

Stark_Dawning · October 21

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Benn's antics arguably wrecked Labour as a political force from the late 70s to the mid 80s: no Benn, no Thatcherism. Powell's influence really faded away with the demise of the skinhead movement.
Benn and Powell were also early architects of Brexit, from left and right

They were arguing against Britain's EU membership before we actually joined. So the cases they made weren't particularly quick out of the blocks.

Andy_JS · October 21

"Letter from Michigan: “No one I know is voting for Kamala Harris”
Will Donald Trump win the struggling swing state?
By Bruno Maçães"

https://www.newstatesman.com/us-election-2024/2024/10/letter-from-michigan-no-one-i-know-is-voting-kamala-harris

HYUFD · October 21

Andy_JS said:
"Letter from Michigan: “No one I know is voting for Kamala Harris”
Will Donald Trump win the struggling swing state?
By Bruno Maçães"

https://www.newstatesman.com/us-election-2024/2024/10/letter-from-michigan-no-one-i-know-is-voting-kamala-harris

Even in 2020 when Biden won Michigan, Trump won most of the state's counties. It was Oakland county containing Detroit and surrounding suburbs which put Biden over the line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Michigan#By_county

Mexicanpete · October 21

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash

Castle maybe for the Equal Pay Act of 1970 which was largely ignored for a decade, but an A* for her effort. The rest of them would barely feature in the top 50, and Cash in the top 1000!

rcs1000 · October 21

Andy_JS said:
"Letter from Michigan: “No one I know is voting for Kamala Harris”
Will Donald Trump win the struggling swing state?
By Bruno Maçães"

https://www.newstatesman.com/us-election-2024/2024/10/letter-from-michigan-no-one-i-know-is-voting-kamala-harris

Harris voters only know Harris voters.
Trump voters only know Trump voters.

It's one of the most unhealthy things about US democracy right now.

another_richard · October 21

rcs1000 said:

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash
Hmmm: you can make a case for Cash (early proponent of Brexit), and Salmond (the rise of the SNP in Scotland.)

Owen is a bit... meh... because he's like Jenkins only with the number of achievements before the SDP.

And Livingstone was a nonentity as an MP.

While Barbara Castle, other than being (the first?) women cabinet minister, what's the case for her being particularly influential?

First female cabinet minister was in 1929:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Bondfield

I'm not sure what Barbara Castle achieved either beyond being an earlier version of Shirley Williams.

Stuartinromford · October 21

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
What lasting achievement can we lay at Powell's door? A weighty intellectual who used his brilliant mind to reach unfortunate prejudices and conclusions.
The closure of mental asylums?
I was not aware of that, although such a policy is hardly seminal in the grand scheme of post war events. I think you'll have to do better. His historical relevance is based around a controversial speech he made in Birmingham City Hall.

Not this photo?

Eat your heart out, Ed Davey.

WhisperingOracle · October 21

Andy_JS said:

WhisperingOracle said:
Rather interesting story here :

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/drones-military-pentagon-defense-331871f4
What is it with America and conspiracy theories?

I'm not sure that these are conspiracy theories.
They just seem.to have no clue.

moonshine · October 21

TheScreamingEagles said:
FPT

moonshine said:

algarkirk said:

Alanbrooke said:

moonshine said:

Andy_JS said:
This is the MP for Boston and Skegness.

"Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧
@TiceRichard

Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."

https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/1848320885754630155
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.

More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.

If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.

Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.

Woman who milkshaked Farage gets what ?
There is a gigantic gulf between a self publicising idiot throwing milkshakes and using words and actions to a large and enraged audience inciting, urging and encouraging them to burn down buildings with people inside them and kill innocent strangers.

Shouty trolling this is not. Shouty trolling is widely available from many sources and is not a criminal offence.
How quickly people forget. Even the owners of this very site were briefly scared by the long arm of the law into threatening expulsion of members. Not for inciting violence or racial hatred, but for what would otherwise count as normal civic discussion in a free society.

But then again our new prime minister thought it was dangerous and reckless to allow citizens to show their faces uncovered even after the vaccine programme. And half the people here fully agreed.
That is a mis-remembering of the situation.

I have friends at the CPS and in the legal profession who rightly predicted given the situation any comments that sought to condone, glorify, encourage, or assist the disorder were likely to lead to the rozzers getting involved.

Robert, myself, and the moderation team had to remove several comments that violated that (along with somebody posting the locations of the upcoming disorder.

Remember you probably didn't see the deleted comments.

OGH has made it clear he doesn't want any legal issues on PB or the potential of damages, so if we appear overly cautious that's why and we're not going to apologise for that.

Fair do’s. No I didn’t see any comments here glorifying, encouraging or assisting disorder etc… and it would surprise me to have seen anyone here doing that. But perhaps your moderation got there first and I think too much of posters’ ability not to get carried away

moonshine · October 21

nico679 said:
You wonder just how much effect all those political ads have at this stage . Most people will just tune out after being flooded with them for months.

Today’s polling has been a mixed bag so far . Rasmussen popped up with its customary Trump lead . The Washington Post had some decent results for both candidates.

This is a weird election. Sure, there are true believers on each side. But mostly it’s about who do you hate least, and are you sufficiently motivated against the one you hate most to bother turning up.

Carnyx · October 21

rcs1000 said:

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash
Hmmm: you can make a case for Cash (early proponent of Brexit), and Salmond (the rise of the SNP in Scotland.)

Owen is a bit... meh... because he's like Jenkins only with the number of achievements before the SDP.

And Livingstone was a nonentity as an MP.

While Barbara Castle, other than being (the first?) women cabinet minister, what's the case for her being particularly influential?

I thought the Duchess of Atholl came before her as a minister, but even she was perhaps first equal (would need to check timings).

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-information-office/m04c.pdf

Mrs Castle - In Place of Strife and Equal Pay Act.

Mexicanpete · October 21

another_richard said:

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash
John Profumo
Airey Neave
Dick Taverne

You would say that wouldn't you?

There are some really left field ideas coming in thick and fast.

In some respects it's easier to suggest who definitely shouldn't be on the list. I still like the list @ydoethur compiled earlier. Who doesn't like a bit of Buttskellism?

Dopermean · October 21

FrankBooth said:

williamglenn said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time, for what they achieved. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Maybe Nigel Lawson too?
The lectures are well worth viewing. He initially included Iain Macleod instead of Farage.

Of the 6 only Bevan left an unarguable achievement that has, and will continue, to outlive him.
Powell, a racist campaigning against commonwealth immigration, failed to "make the weather" even at his zenith.
Farage, a pound shop populist, whose legacy is a diminished UK economically and on the world stage, and he wouldn't have managed that without Johnson and Cummings.
Benn, Minister of Technology pushing UK technological development but it didn't last.
Joseph, monetarism and privatisation, one of the intellects behind Thatcherism, certainly made the weather
Jenkins, legacy of liberalisation as Home sec. Ok.
So,
Bevan definitely
Jenkins and Joseph arguably yes
Benn briefly but sadly legacy didn't last
Powell, thankfully no
Farage, in a massive festering turd that will take years to flush.

Mexicanpete · October 21

rcs1000 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Letter from Michigan: “No one I know is voting for Kamala Harris”
Will Donald Trump win the struggling swing state?
By Bruno Maçães"

https://www.newstatesman.com/us-election-2024/2024/10/letter-from-michigan-no-one-i-know-is-voting-kamala-harris
Harris voters only know Harris voters.
Trump voters only know Trump voters.

It's one of the most unhealthy things about US democracy right now.

That's true here too. In the PB village Sunak would have won a landslide.

another_richard · October 21

rcs1000 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Letter from Michigan: “No one I know is voting for Kamala Harris”
Will Donald Trump win the struggling swing state?
By Bruno Maçães"

https://www.newstatesman.com/us-election-2024/2024/10/letter-from-michigan-no-one-i-know-is-voting-kamala-harris
Harris voters only know Harris voters.
Trump voters only know Trump voters.

It's one of the most unhealthy things about US democracy right now.

Although many who think they don't know anyone who votes for the other side will actually know someone who votes for the other side but keeps quiet about it.

HYUFD · October 21

Mexicanpete said:

rcs1000 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Letter from Michigan: “No one I know is voting for Kamala Harris”
Will Donald Trump win the struggling swing state?
By Bruno Maçães"

https://www.newstatesman.com/us-election-2024/2024/10/letter-from-michigan-no-one-i-know-is-voting-kamala-harris
Harris voters only know Harris voters.
Trump voters only know Trump voters.

It's one of the most unhealthy things about US democracy right now.
That's true here too. In the PB village Sunak would have won a landslide.

On what grounds? I can think of only about 5 who definitely voted for Sunak on here, me, BigG, TSE and JohnO and Casino

Andy_JS · October 21

If you only know people who support the same political party as you, that's pretty weird in my opinion.

rcs1000 · October 21

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash
Hmmm: you can make a case for Cash (early proponent of Brexit), and Salmond (the rise of the SNP in Scotland.)

Owen is a bit... meh... because he's like Jenkins only with the number of achievements before the SDP.

And Livingstone was a nonentity as an MP.

While Barbara Castle, other than being (the first?) women cabinet minister, what's the case for her being particularly influential?
First female cabinet minister was in 1929:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Bondfield

I'm not sure what Barbara Castle achieved either beyond being an earlier version of Shirley Williams.

There you go... first female cabinet minister who was an MP perhaps?

I guess you could argue that she wrote In Place of Strife. Stil...

Edit to add: Margaret Bondfield was an MP and Cabinet Minister. So I was wildly wrong.

another_richard · October 21

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash
John Profumo
Airey Neave
Dick Taverne
You would say that wouldn't you?

There are some really left field ideas coming in thick and fast.

In some respects it's easier to suggest who definitely shouldn't be on the list. I still like the list @ydoethur compiled earlier. Who doesn't like a bit of Buttskellism?

Without Profumo perhaps the Conservatives win in 1964.

Without Neave perhaps Heath holds off Thatcher in 1975.

Without Taverne perhaps there is no SDP.

The actions of 'little people' can affect the world of politics.

A more recent example would be those final two Labour MPs who allowed Corbyn to become a Labour leader candidate.

Mexicanpete · October 21

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

rcs1000 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Letter from Michigan: “No one I know is voting for Kamala Harris”
Will Donald Trump win the struggling swing state?
By Bruno Maçães"

https://www.newstatesman.com/us-election-2024/2024/10/letter-from-michigan-no-one-i-know-is-voting-kamala-harris
Harris voters only know Harris voters.
Trump voters only know Trump voters.

It's one of the most unhealthy things about US democracy right now.
That's true here too. In the PB village Sunak would have won a landslide.
On what grounds? I can think of only about 5 who definitely voted for Sunak on here, me, BigG, TSE and JohnO and Casino

Oh come, come. @MarqueeMark putting a cross besides the yellow peril. I think not!

Onto the other question of the night. What about Hume and Trimble as a double header?

What a great debate this evening. It is of course only enabled because it is bedtime in Japan.

MattW · October 21

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash
Hmmm: you can make a case for Cash (early proponent of Brexit), and Salmond (the rise of the SNP in Scotland.)

Owen is a bit... meh... because he's like Jenkins only with the number of achievements before the SDP.

And Livingstone was a nonentity as an MP.

While Barbara Castle, other than being (the first?) women cabinet minister, what's the case for her being particularly influential?
I thought the Duchess of Atholl came before her as a minister, but even she was perhaps first equal (would need to check timings).

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-information-office/m04c.pdf

Mrs Castle - In Place of Strife and Equal Pay Act.

Drunk Driving Laws. National Speed Limit. Seatbelts fitted to all new cars. All were prescient.

All 1966-1967.

Road deaths peaked at 8,000 in 1966.
By 1980 they were down to 6,000, and 5,000 by 1990.

Just between 1966 and 1980 that's about 14,000 people who weren't dead. That uses the assumption in would have stuck 8,000 a year; in fact the trend was sharply up at that stage.

rcs1000 · October 21

another_richard said:

Mexicanpete said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash
John Profumo
Airey Neave
Dick Taverne
You would say that wouldn't you?

There are some really left field ideas coming in thick and fast.

In some respects it's easier to suggest who definitely shouldn't be on the list. I still like the list @ydoethur compiled earlier. Who doesn't like a bit of Buttskellism?
Without Profumo perhaps the Conservatives win in 1964.

Without Neave perhaps Heath holds off Thatcher in 1975.

Without Taverne perhaps there is no SDP.

The actions of 'little people' can affect the world of politics.

A more recent example would be those final two Labour MPs who allowed Corbyn to become a Labour leader candidate.

You could also argue that it was the assassination of Airey Neave that saved the Liberal Democrats.

Mexicanpete · October 21

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

rcs1000 said:

TimS said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:
UKIP at the time was Nigel Farage and his mates.

Nigel Farage left UKIP and created Reform instead - so yep a brand has disappeared but Farage is still around attracting a particular type of voter...
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron's old PPE tutor, has included Farage in his list of the 6 most influential UK politicians since WW2 who never became PM which form the basis of his new book.

Benn, Bevan, Powell, Jenkins and Joseph also make the list
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Weather-Politicians-Changed-Britain-ebook/dp/B0DDSZXLXC
Difficult to argue with that list.

The standout ones for me are Jenkins and Farage for what they achieved, although Bevan also maybe, but he is before my time. Benn, Powell and Joseph I don't think achieved as much.

A missing one is possibly Healy.
Hmmm.

I would have said missing out Butler, Gaitskell, Dalton, Cripps, Crosland and Macleod for the likes of Powell or Jenkins raises some serious questions over the reliability of that list.

Really, it’s always bound to be subjective, but the omissions are pretty glaring. Sounds more like a wish list of people he’s heard of and wants to write about than a realistic assessment of who mattered and when.

However it could have been worse. He could have included Roy Hattersley.
It looks more like the effect they had on the political parties and elections than what they did in government.

Powell with his effect on 1970 and 1974.

Jenkins with his effect on the SDP and 1983.
I think there's a much bigger case for putting Powell on there than Benn.
Others in the next category down:

- David Owen
- Ken Livingstone
- Alex Salmond
- Barbara Castle
- Bill Cash
Hmmm: you can make a case for Cash (early proponent of Brexit), and Salmond (the rise of the SNP in Scotland.)

Owen is a bit... meh... because he's like Jenkins only with the number of achievements before the SDP.

And Livingstone was a nonentity as an MP.

While Barbara Castle, other than being (the first?) women cabinet minister, what's the case for her being particularly influential?
I thought the Duchess of Atholl came before her as a minister, but even she was perhaps first equal (would need to check timings).

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-information-office/m04c.pdf

Mrs Castle - In Place of Strife and Equal Pay Act.

Drunk Driving Laws. National Speed Limit. Seatbelts fitted to all new cars.

All 1966-1967.

Road deaths peaked at 8,000 in 1966.
By 1980 they were down to 6,000, and 5,000 by 1990.

Just between 1966 and 1980 that's about 14,000 people who weren't dead. That uses the assumption in would have stuck 8,000 a year; in fact the trend was sharply up at that stage.

Harold had a great sense of humour. A Transport Secretary that didn't drive!

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

A blast from the past – politicalbetting.com

Comments