If he wins or not - he's said *lots of stuff* and setting up the non-entities of Burnham and Cooper to disagree now or have them replayed again and again should either of them win as to *why* they disagree. It's a seven course banquet of populism, spending other people's money and apple pie.
Like it or not, he's actually saying 'stuff'. He's performing the best out of the candidates for sure in terms of setting out his position and vision and potential polices.
Labour still need to do a lot of hard thinking - and I am not confident that they are even remotely close to starting that - but announcing that they are finished as a party seems a tad premature.
I would agree with that, but none of the candidates look capable of doing the job of getting the party back into power.
I agree with @MikeSmithson. Is this really news? Is a party, who is leaderless - and therefore directionless - off the back of a GE defeat ever looked 'electable' to the GBP? Electability, by virtue requires a party to have a leader, a team, and a programme which the public know of, understand and agree with. Without a leader Labour are obviously nowhere near that. The YG poll last night showed similar findings, although only a small percentage (4%) had formed this view during the leadership election, which would support @SouthamObserver's assertion that the public in general aren't *that* interested in the Labour leadership contest - and that this negative view is something much more long-term.
What will ultimately define Labour in the public's eyes is what they do after they elect a leader.
As for a more 'kinder' Conservative party - really? The Conservatives' ace card is their competence, not their kindness, or their warm heartness. In fact I think that position in British politics pretty vacant, as it stands. If you asked your average joe, if they remembered Cameron's 'speech' in 2005, I doubt they would actually remember - not in the least, because it was 10 years ago. Really, it was the 'election that never was' - that destroyed the previous perception of a competent Labour government - and the financial crisis in 2008 - which gave the Conservatives a narrative against the Labour government, which propelled Cameron to Downing Street. Much of the things, incidentally - designed to make the Conservatives appear more of a friendly party were mercilessly mocked - the Big Society, 'Hug a Husky', 'Hug a Hoodie' etc.
I think, contrary to @stodge that choice of leader does matter. But perhaps the biggest difference is, is that Corbyn, Cooper or Burnham - are not going up against Cameron. They will most likely be going up against Osborne - so the bar is already set a lot lower than it was before.
This class envy argument is also pretty redundant. If we look at YG's findings, from both yesterday and Sunday, most do not conclude that Labour lost because they were 'too left-wing' - which would link in with the class-envy argument. The electorate rejected Labour because they did not offer competent leadership in Ed Miliband, because of their lack of solutions on immigration and welfare, and because they were not economically credible (linked to Labour's inability to admit they overspent). No one said it was because they were 'too multicultural' or 'taxed the rich too much'.
Pam Ayres @PamAyres 16h16 hours ago All hypocrites should take due care, When snorting coke in Dolphin Square, An orange bra is not so cute, And best left on the prostitute.
Awesome. - out of interest, the real Miss Ayers or a spoof account ?
Surely the issue is that the world has moved on and Labour hasn't. There is no money left. One look at Greece tells anyone who is awake what happens when you let spending run riot. The whole era of public sector largesse is ancient history. We're slowly heading back to actual surpluses. So...WTF is Labour for? WTF is their point? WTF do they have to say to the man in Nuneaton when they can't promise him jam and unicorns and rainbows and free owls? They don't have a leadership problem so much as a raison d'etre problem.
I remember the last time the end of history was declared. It turned out not to be the case.
Quite so. Three months quite a lot of us were assuming that Labour would be in power. There is a strong whiff of hubris: Labour are in a mess but the votes have not been cast yet and it is quite possible that Corbyn does not win or even come in 2nd or 3rd.
Labour still need to do a lot of hard thinking - and I am not confident that they are even remotely close to starting that - but announcing that they are finished as a party seems a tad premature.
I seem to recall that Shirley Williams once claimed that Labour would never be in power again. Some time in the early 90s if I recall correctly.
Political parties have huge inertia and it takes a lot to kill one. But they are trying.
Labour still need to do a lot of hard thinking - and I am not confident that they are even remotely close to starting that - but announcing that they are finished as a party seems a tad premature.
I would agree with that, but none of the candidates look capable of doing the job of getting the party back into power.
Perhaps the best thing Labour can do is elect Corbyn now, having him be an obvious failure to even the left, and then put in someone good in 2019. But there's always the danger that he isn't terrible, but just mediocre, and the left never forgives him being stabbed in the back.
For me, the only way the Conservatives do not get in in 2020 is if the leadership are duplicitous over a poor EU negotiation, and that leads to a wave of recriminations from the eurosceptics. But hopefully Cameron will either defy expectations and win a genuine new settlement, or defy expectations and recommend a No vote if the EU is stubborn as a mule.
Always love the BBC balance when it comes to topics where their group think is in no doubt.
Labour politician caught in drugs and hookers scandal = must reform House of Lords, so says Adrian "Golly" Chiles and the idea of a balanced debate on this on R5. One guest says totally scrap HoL, another says much reduced and totally elected HoL, and final guest much reduced and overwhelming majority elected with a few spots for recognised experts.
This class envy argument is also pretty redundant. If we look at YG's findings, from both yesterday and Sunday, most do not conclude that Labour lost because they were 'too left-wing' - which would link in with the class-envy argument. The electorate rejected Labour because they did not offer competent leadership in Ed Miliband, because of their lack of solutions on immigration and welfare, and because they were not economically credible (linked to Labour's inability to admit they overspent). No one said it was because they were 'too multicultural' or 'taxed the rich too much'.
Was 'too multicultural' an option? I would imagine it is very much linked to the criticism on immigration. I have certainly heard it on the doorstep many times that Labour put ethnic minorities first.
I think, contrary to @stodge that choice of leader does matter. But perhaps the biggest difference is, is that Corbyn, Cooper or Burnham - are not going up against Cameron. They will most likely be going up against Osborne - so the bar is already set a lot lower than it was before.
But it will still mostly be about the pound in peoples pocket, if Osborne has the economy ticking over nicely, people feel relatively affluent, the cuts are old news and part of the wallpaper having been around for five years then people will be indifferent to party splits over the EU etc, and the Tories get 5 more years.
If on the other hand Osborne screws the pooch on the economy and people feel cheesed off, any splits will have a new salience and the Tories are toast.
Its is also possibly of cause the world event in the forms of some sort of financial crash or military/terrorism action will blow things off course, and then its down the how the government appears to be the blame and/or responding appropriately.
Dan Hodges is in the Let Corbyn Win & Fail camp - I can see a lot of merit in that point. It's the sort of electric shock Labour needs to become electable again.
Labour still need to do a lot of hard thinking - and I am not confident that they are even remotely close to starting that - but announcing that they are finished as a party seems a tad premature.
I would agree with that, but none of the candidates look capable of doing the job of getting the party back into power.
Perhaps the best thing Labour can do is elect Corbyn now, having him be an obvious failure to even the left, and then put in someone good in 2019. But there's always the danger that he isn't terrible, but just mediocre, and the left never forgives him being stabbed in the back.
For me, the only way the Conservatives do not get in in 2020 is if the leadership are duplicitous over a poor EU negotiation, and that leads to a wave of recriminations from the eurosceptics. But hopefully Cameron will either defy expectations and win a genuine new settlement, or defy expectations and recommend a No vote if the EU is stubborn as a mule.
This class envy argument is also pretty redundant. If we look at YG's findings, from both yesterday and Sunday, most do not conclude that Labour lost because they were 'too left-wing' - which would link in with the class-envy argument. The electorate rejected Labour because they did not offer competent leadership in Ed Miliband, because of their lack of solutions on immigration and welfare, and because they were not economically credible (linked to Labour's inability to admit they overspent). No one said it was because they were 'too multicultural' or 'taxed the rich too much'.
Was 'too multicultural' an option? I would imagine it is very much linked to the criticism on immigration. I have certainly heard it on the doorstep many times that Labour put ethnic minorities first.
Believe it or not, ethnic minorities can be British.
I'm one.
Also, as far as I was aware a lot of the criticism of immigration is related to EU immigration - from Eastern Europe, in regard to undercutting wages.
Amen to that but can you recall the latest indy polling - I believe yes is falling albeit only a little. Do the SNP really want another ref at the moment?
Given where the polling started in independence when the last campaign began, and where it ended up, I shouldn't think they'd be that nervous about starting from behind again.
Surely the issue is that the world has moved on and Labour hasn't. There is no money left. One look at Greece tells anyone who is awake what happens when you let spending run riot. The whole era of public sector largesse is ancient history. We're slowly heading back to actual surpluses. So...WTF is Labour for? WTF is their point? WTF do they have to say to the man in Nuneaton when they can't promise him jam and unicorns and rainbows and free owls? They don't have a leadership problem so much as a raison d'etre problem.
I remember the last time the end of history was declared. It turned out not to be the case.
Quite so. Three months quite a lot of us were assuming that Labour would be in power. There is a strong whiff of hubris: Labour are in a mess but the votes have not been cast yet and it is quite possible that Corbyn does not win or even come in 2nd or 3rd.
Labour still need to do a lot of hard thinking - and I am not confident that they are even remotely close to starting that - but announcing that they are finished as a party seems a tad premature.
I seem to recall that Shirley Williams once claimed that Labour would never be in power again. Some time in the early 90s if I recall correctly.
Political parties have huge inertia and it takes a lot to kill one. But they are trying.
Union money is key to the survival of the Labour party. What happens to the bulk of this is what will determine Labour's long term future.
I think, contrary to @stodge that choice of leader does matter. But perhaps the biggest difference is, is that Corbyn, Cooper or Burnham - are not going up against Cameron. They will most likely be going up against Osborne - so the bar is already set a lot lower than it was before.
But it will still mostly be about the pound in peoples pocket, if Osborne has the economy ticking over nicely, people feel relatively affluent, the cuts are old news and part of the wallpaper having been around for five years then people will be indifferent to party splits over the EU etc, and the Tories get 5 more years.
If on the other hand Osborne screws the pooch on the economy and people feel cheesed off, any splits will have a new salience and the Tories are toast.
Its is also possibly of cause the world event in the forms of some sort of financial crash or military/terrorism action will blow things off course, and then its down the how the government appears to be the blame and/or responding appropriately.
I don't know about that, regarding EU split. A split government which open questions up about competence - infighting never looks good, in any political party. Austerity also seems to be constantly extended with this government, so it is questionable how much the cuts will be old news - a lot of these changes appear to be kicking in 2017, too.
Still, I agree that if people ultimately don't want change then the Tories will still be in power after 2020.
The hubris of the Tories really is astonishing. They've got their first majority in decades, and it's tiny. All it would take to lose it is for a minor uptick in the lib dem's fortunes, after five years of detoxification, having put the kiss of death of being associated with the toxic Tories behind them - even if labour stand still.
I think, contrary to @stodge that choice of leader does matter. But perhaps the biggest difference is, is that Corbyn, Cooper or Burnham - are not going up against Cameron. They will most likely be going up against Osborne - so the bar is already set a lot lower than it was before.
But it will still mostly be about the pound in peoples pocket, if Osborne has the economy ticking over nicely, people feel relatively affluent, the cuts are old news and part of the wallpaper having been around for five years then people will be indifferent to party splits over the EU etc, and the Tories get 5 more years.
If on the other hand Osborne screws the pooch on the economy and people feel cheesed off, any splits will have a new salience and the Tories are toast.
Its is also possibly of cause the world event in the forms of some sort of financial crash or military/terrorism action will blow things off course, and then its down the how the government appears to be the blame and/or responding appropriately.
I don't know about that, regarding EU split. A split government which open questions up about competence - infighting never looks good, in any political party. Austerity also seems to be constantly extended with this government, so it is questionable how much the cuts will be old news - a lot of these changes appear to be kicking in 2017, too.
Still, I agree that if people ultimately don't want change then the Tories will still be in power after 2020.
There's a big difference between a split in opinion and "in-fighting". If there is an honest difference of opinion, people can have an honest and mature debate. Especially if it's in an area that most of the public are uncertain about. In fact, I think a grown up debate in the Conservative party comes across better than the Labour position of refusing to leave the EU no matter what happens. The problem is when that debate becomes dishonest, with people lying about the facts and what's happened. That causes people to get angry and to start finger pointing.
TBH, I think Comrade Corbyn is very dangerous. A lot of new members really like him, a lot of new MPs like him and nominated him. If he does win [and it's looking fairly bright prospect wise], what will Labour do then?
They can't get rid of him because they don't like the result, Labour has a terrible track record of dumping the unelectable - so they ride to oblivion in GE2020 with either a crushing defeat or win and we all end up like Greece. I think the chances of Corbyn's Labour winning is vanishingly small myself, but trying to recover from him will take a lot of years either way.
The hubris of the Tories really is astonishing. They've got their first majority in decades, and it's tiny. All it would take to lose it is for a minor uptick in the lib dem's fortunes, after five years of detoxification having put the kiss of death of being associated with the toxic Tories behind them - even if labour stand still.
Win the leadership, and fail to win the General Election is his dream scenario, but might not happen.
Win the leadership and the GE (like Hollande) but fail the economy. Bad news all round
Win the leadership and the GE but fail the economy catastrophically with rioting in the street (like Syriza)
Who does that help?
Or worst case scenario of all, wins the election and starts to actually make the country better again and wrest power from the feckless idle rich.
Yeah, right. Because that has happened so many times in recent history.
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Do begrudgingly admire the Tory ruthlessness and chutzpah though - using their own toxicity to destroy the lib dems in the UK and labour in Scotland by association. A fine example of why no party should stand beside them again for any cause.
I think, contrary to @stodge that choice of leader does matter. But perhaps the biggest difference is, is that Corbyn, Cooper or Burnham - are not going up against Cameron. They will most likely be going up against Osborne - so the bar is already set a lot lower than it was before.
But it will still mostly be about the pound in peoples pocket, if Osborne has the economy ticking over nicely, people feel relatively affluent, the cuts are old news and part of the wallpaper having been around for five years then people will be indifferent to party splits over the EU etc, and the Tories get 5 more years.
If on the other hand Osborne screws the pooch on the economy and people feel cheesed off, any splits will have a new salience and the Tories are toast.
Its is also possibly of cause the world event in the forms of some sort of financial crash or military/terrorism action will blow things off course, and then its down the how the government appears to be the blame and/or responding appropriately.
I don't know about that, regarding EU split. A split government which open questions up about competence - infighting never looks good, in any political party. Austerity also seems to be constantly extended with this government, so it is questionable how much the cuts will be old news - a lot of these changes appear to be kicking in 2017, too.
Still, I agree that if people ultimately don't want change then the Tories will still be in power after 2020.
There's a big difference between a split in opinion and "in-fighting". If there is an honest difference of opinion, people can have an honest and mature debate. Especially if it's in an area that most of the public are uncertain about. In fact, I think a grown up debate in the Conservative party comes across better than the Labour position of refusing to leave the EU no matter what happens. The problem is when that debate becomes dishonest, with people lying about the facts and what's happened. That causes people to get angry and to start finger pointing.
I think the trouble is, in the past the Conservatives' being split in opinion has turned into, or been by definition 'infighting' on the subject of the EU. Then there is also the fact that the Conservative party hierarchy - Cameron and Osborne - pretty much hold the same opinion that the Labour party hierarchy do on the EU - of never leaving no matter what.
This class envy argument is also pretty redundant. If we look at YG's findings, from both yesterday and Sunday, most do not conclude that Labour lost because they were 'too left-wing' - which would link in with the class-envy argument. The electorate rejected Labour because they did not offer competent leadership in Ed Miliband, because of their lack of solutions on immigration and welfare, and because they were not economically credible (linked to Labour's inability to admit they overspent). No one said it was because they were 'too multicultural' or 'taxed the rich too much'.
Was 'too multicultural' an option? I would imagine it is very much linked to the criticism on immigration. I have certainly heard it on the doorstep many times that Labour put ethnic minorities first.
Believe it or not, ethnic minorities can be British.
I'm one.
Also, as far as I was aware a lot of the criticism of immigration is related to EU immigration - from Eastern Europe, in regard to undercutting wages.
Why do you do this? I have never said anything about ethnic minorities not being British, or even anything close to it. Yet people like you turn around and deliberate distort what people have said to make them sound racist. You prefer to dishonestly delegitimise the other side rather than actually engage in the argument. It's why Labour loses elections.
Win the leadership, and fail to win the General Election is his dream scenario, but might not happen.
Win the leadership and the GE (like Hollande) but fail the economy. Bad news all round
Win the leadership and the GE but fail the economy catastrophically with rioting in the street (like Syriza)
Who does that help?
Or worst case scenario of all, wins the election and starts to actually make the country better again and wrest power from the feckless idle rich.
Yeah, right. Because that has happened so many times in recent history.
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Err. No. Because their money has been sucked out of the economy in the first place. It didn't appear out of nowhere.
Win the leadership, and fail to win the General Election is his dream scenario, but might not happen.
Win the leadership and the GE (like Hollande) but fail the economy. Bad news all round
Win the leadership and the GE but fail the economy catastrophically with rioting in the street (like Syriza)
Who does that help?
Or worst case scenario of all, wins the election and starts to actually make the country better again and wrest power from the feckless idle rich.
Yeah, right. Because that has happened so many times in recent history.
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
This wasn't directed to me, but I don't hate the rich. That said, I don't love them and think they are absolutely amazing like many Conservatives do. Of course the rich pay most of tax - they earn the most. There's not exactly that much to take from low-paid people, and average earners by comparison. Those wealthy people also rely on many of the average and low-paid earners to help their businesses ticking too, and therefore in part have also contributed to the financial success of the wealthy.
Win the leadership, and fail to win the General Election is his dream scenario, but might not happen.
Win the leadership and the GE (like Hollande) but fail the economy. Bad news all round
Win the leadership and the GE but fail the economy catastrophically with rioting in the street (like Syriza)
Who does that help?
The Hodges scenario of course is to fail as leader of the Labour Party- and for then a more electable leader to contest 2020.
I have no doubts now that Corbyn will win and have changed my betting accordingly. Everyone I know personally is going Corbyn- old school lefties, moderates, Blairites, newbies, oldies, youngies, girlies, and boysies.
People are either voting with their heart, going for Corbyn as a protest, feel disenfranchised as young people, feel appalled about the period of Ed's stewardship, fed up with robotic, careerist politicians who appear self serving. There are a million and one credible reasons why the bearded, old school, republican, Hamas loving, IRA sympathising, unreconstructed lefty is handsomely winning this contest- and very few are ideological.
Corbybn is hoovering the eclectic, disparate Labour membership up at a rate of knots. He's got my vote, and I'm not going to bother to give a 2nd preference.
The hubris of the Tories really is astonishing. They've got their first majority in decades, and it's tiny. All it would take to lose it is for a minor uptick in the lib dem's fortunes, after five years of detoxification, having put the kiss of death of being associated with the toxic Tories behind them - even if labour stand still.
Again, I have to point out that there are plenty of Labour doomsayers alongside the Tory hubris brigade. Neither is representative of the other side's general views I would say.
Do begrudgingly admire the Tory ruthlessness and chutzpah though - using their own toxicity to destroy the lib dems in the UK and labour in Scotland by association. A fine example of why no party should stand beside them again for any cause.
An absurd demonisation. They're are a political party like any other.
I've voted LD 3 times in a row btw (though I wanted a coalition the last 2 times), in a safe Tory seat
I think there's a fair amount of misunderstanding the Tories stance on the EU - and trying to re-open the fights of 2001ish again is wishful thinking.
Most Tories are sceptics or BOOers. Ken Clarke is in a minority of one and a bit. So it's a matter of degree rather than two different sides.
There's a referendum and a decision based on that - so it's not even a Party policy issue as the electorate will decide. That takes a lot of the heat out of potential infighting. And BINs vs BOOers will be cross-party.
I will be very surprised if this causes anything much that changes the Tories fortunes either way bar moaning from the losers as ever.
I think, contrary to @stodge that choice of leader does matter. But perhaps the biggest difference is, is that Corbyn, Cooper or Burnham - are not going up against Cameron. They will most likely be going up against Osborne - so the bar is already set a lot lower than it was before.
But it will still mostly be about the pound in peoples pocket, if Osborne has the economy ticking over nicely, people feel relatively affluent, the cuts are old news and part of the wallpaper having been around for five years then people will be indifferent to party splits over the EU etc, and the Tories get 5 more years.
If on the other hand Osborne screws the pooch on the economy and people feel cheesed off, any splits will have a new salience and the Tories are toast.
Its is also possibly of cause the world event in the forms of some sort of financial crash or military/terrorism action will blow things off course, and then its down the how the government appears to be the blame and/or responding appropriately.
I don't know about that, regarding EU split. A split government which open questions up about competence - infighting never looks good, in any political party. Austerity also seems to be constantly extended with this government, so it is questionable how much the cuts will be old news - a lot of these changes appear to be kicking in 2017, too.
Still, I agree that if people ultimately don't want change then the Tories will still be in power after 2020.
snip
I think the trouble is, in the past the Conservatives' being split in opinion has turned into, or been by definition 'infighting' on the subject of the EU. Then there is also the fact that the Conservative party hierarchy - Cameron and Osborne - pretty much hold the same opinion that the Labour party hierarchy do on the EU - of never leaving no matter what.
As others have said, Corbyn does have a scenario, policies and a sort of narrative, even though there are a lot of missing links - he is an adept public speaker and conceals the hard bits with much skill. Also he has monied backers.
Cooper and Burnham have none of this, except a mass of confusion and policy-making on the hoof - a bit like EdM. Liz K has been shut down by the reality-deniers who have fingers in their ears so not to hear the truth and only take them out to sing The Red Flag.
TBH, I think Comrade Corbyn is very dangerous. A lot of new members really like him, a lot of new MPs like him and nominated him. If he does win [and it's looking fairly bright prospect wise], what will Labour do then?
They can't get rid of him because they don't like the result, Labour has a terrible track record of dumping the unelectable - so they ride to oblivion in GE2020 with either a crushing defeat or win and we all end up like Greece. I think the chances of Corbyn's Labour winning is vanishingly small myself, but trying to recover from him will take a lot of years either way.
Perhaps unsurprising. Red Bull had four years of total dominance and two weaker years now (though they just scored a double podium and achieved three victories in 2014), but have been whining persistently. The Renault isn't top notch, but the bleating from Red Bull has been worse than McLaren's about the Honda.
Off topic: US Presidential. Here's another breakdown of two recent polls of Hillary's numbers. Again with the caveat of these polls continuing to be confirmed as a trend/fact, then it would appear that she will do worse the whiter the State is:
This class envy argument is also pretty redundant. If we look at YG's findings, from both yesterday and Sunday, most do not conclude that Labour lost because they were 'too left-wing' - which would link in with the class-envy argument. The electorate rejected Labour because they did not offer competent leadership in Ed Miliband, because of their lack of solutions on immigration and welfare, and because they were not economically credible (linked to Labour's inability to admit they overspent). No one said it was because they were 'too multicultural' or 'taxed the rich too much'.
Was 'too multicultural' an option? I would imagine it is very much linked to the criticism on immigration. I have certainly heard it on the doorstep many times that Labour put ethnic minorities first.
Believe it or not, ethnic minorities can be British.
I'm one.
Also, as far as I was aware a lot of the criticism of immigration is related to EU immigration - from Eastern Europe, in regard to undercutting wages.
Why do you do this? I have never said anything about ethnic minorities not being British, or even anything close to it. Yet people like you turn around and deliberate distort what people have said to make them sound racist. You prefer to dishonestly delegitimise the other side rather than actually engage in the argument. It's why Labour loses elections.
I mentioned immigration, and the subject of multiculturalism. You mentioned that Labour putting ethnic minorities ''first'' was an issue among many who you talked to as if immigration = ethnic minorities. If individuals have an issue with Labour's support of ethnic minorities, then that is not necessarily related to immigration at all - not least because many ethnic minority MPs are British born, and have lived most of their lives in Britain.
As for Labour losing elections, the number one reason shown by YouGov was not even on the subject of immigration, but Ed Miliband's leadership. So it looks like that was the main reason why Labour lost the election.
Win the leadership, and fail to win the General Election is his dream scenario, but might not happen.
Win the leadership and the GE (like Hollande) but fail the economy. Bad news all round
Win the leadership and the GE but fail the economy catastrophically with rioting in the street (like Syriza)
Who does that help?
Or worst case scenario of all, wins the election and starts to actually make the country better again and wrest power from the feckless idle rich.
Yeah, right. Because that has happened so many times in recent history.
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Err. No. Because their money has been sucked out of the economy in the first place. It didn't appear out of nowhere.
Their money largely IS the economy.... Let them all go to Monaco then. We'll be writing begging letters to Greece by the end of the month.
I think there's a fair amount of misunderstanding the Tories stance on the EU - and trying to re-open the fights of 2001ish again is wishful thinking.
Most Tories are sceptics or BOOers. Ken Clarke is in a minority of one and a bit. So it's a matter of degree rather than two different sides.
There's a referendum and a decision based on that - so it's not even a Party policy issue as the electorate will decide. That takes a lot of the heat out of potential infighting. And BINs vs BOOers will be cross-party.
I will be very surprised if this causes anything much that changes the Tories fortunes either way bar moaning from the losers as ever.
I don't think it's wishful thinking at all. As far as I've read, the Tories from the 1990s onwards have never been on Europe - Europhiles (they have always been a small minority) vs BOOers. It's always been sceptics vs BOOERS, it's just that sceptics still want to work within the EU, while BOOers don't. Many of these BOOers see this referendum as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and are so desperate to get of the EU that they are gearing up for a second referendum if Cameron does not get the terms they want, or if the referendum win is by a close margin.
I don't see how it not being seen as 'party-policy' issue takes the heat out of infighting. The Conservatives are currently in the party in power, so of course it matters how they conduct themselves during the referendum. If they infight, and look about to tear themselves apart then that damages their image of competence. The difference between other parties on the EU, is that is not a divisive issue, but for the Tories it is.
I find it very hard to compartmentalise my EdM Is Crap feelings from the mess Labour is now in.
He was the worst sort of arrogant, metropolitan intellectual with his hands on policy. Almost everything he said was either the product of some childhood dinner table debate with his parents, or copied from Bandwagon Today.
Only someone with a total tin-ear and a massive ego could seriously commission the EdStone. It's so incredibly pretentious a la Pseuds Corner.
The leadership election process is so full of WTFery loopholes that it appears to have never been wargamed before it was published. It all smacks of his I'm So Clever mindset that infected almost everything his leadership stood for.
So yup - I think he's left a poisonous legacy for Labour - a differently shaped one to Gordon as we all had to suffer that one.
As others have said, Corbyn does have a scenario, policies and a sort of narrative, even though there are a lot of missing links - he is an adept public speaker and conceals the hard bits with much skill. Also he has monied backers.
Cooper and Burnham have none of this, except a mass of confusion and policy-making on the hoof - a bit like EdM. Liz K has been shut down by the reality-deniers who have fingers in their ears so not to hear the truth and only take them out to sing The Red Flag.
TBH, I think Comrade Corbyn is very dangerous. A lot of new members really like him, a lot of new MPs like him and nominated him. If he does win [and it's looking fairly bright prospect wise], what will Labour do then?
They can't get rid of him because they don't like the result, Labour has a terrible track record of dumping the unelectable - so they ride to oblivion in GE2020 with either a crushing defeat or win and we all end up like Greece. I think the chances of Corbyn's Labour winning is vanishingly small myself, but trying to recover from him will take a lot of years either way.
Win the leadership, and fail to win the General Election is his dream scenario, but might not happen.
Win the leadership and the GE (like Hollande) but fail the economy. Bad news all round
Win the leadership and the GE but fail the economy catastrophically with rioting in the street (like Syriza)
Who does that help?
Or worst case scenario of all, wins the election and starts to actually make the country better again and wrest power from the feckless idle rich.
Yeah, right. Because that has happened so many times in recent history.
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Err. No. Because their money has been sucked out of the economy in the first place. It didn't appear out of nowhere.
*facepalm*
Has it occurred to you that those who invest and take risks might be key to the generation of wealth?
The ones who are successful pay a lot of tax to fund the services the rest of us rely upon.
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Huckabee isn't the same candidate he was in 2008. He was a folksy southern governor who has an inspiring personal story about weight-loss and a good sense of humour.
Now he's piled the pounds back on and seems to become a vehicle for the worst elements of the religious right.
But even in 2008 Huckabee was widely deemed to be unelectable. That he survived so long in the primaries and collected so many delegates was due to the low cost of his campaign and Romney dropping out (and hence Huckabee picking up all the late State not-McCain delegates). Sure he was funny, but he was still a religious whack-job who could never have won over the centre.
Win the leadership, and fail to win the General Election is his dream scenario, but might not happen.
Win the leadership and the GE (like Hollande) but fail the economy. Bad news all round
Win the leadership and the GE but fail the economy catastrophically with rioting in the street (like Syriza)
Who does that help?
Or worst case scenario of all, wins the election and starts to actually make the country better again and wrest power from the feckless idle rich.
Yeah, right. Because that has happened so many times in recent history.
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Err. No. Because their money has been sucked out of the economy in the first place. It didn't appear out of nowhere.
*facepalm*
Has it occurred to you that those who invest and take risks might be key to the generation of wealth?
The ones who are successful pay a lot of tax to fund the services the rest of us rely upon.
Risk-takers and wealth creators deserve all they get - more even. We don't have enough of them in the UK, by a long chalk. We do have plenty of very well paid CEOs and other senior corporate executives who have never started a business in their lives, but who know how to play the game and are duly rewarded for that; and we have out fair share of finance folk who, thanks to QE, have had a remarkably lucrative few years at the expense of the rest of us.
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Err. No. Because their money has been sucked out of the economy in the first place. It didn't appear out of nowhere.
Rich people tend to be lazy, or if they choose to work they do something they enjoy which doesn't really classify as work at all. Furthermore, they blame poor people for being poor, they are obsessed by wealth and the trappings of it, they are judgmental and feel that wealth allows them the moral high ground. They also tend to be right wing because the prospect of giving up any of the trappings of their power base terrifies them. They mostly associate with people of like mind who only confirm their skewed view of the world. They are narcissistic and self obsessed.
Yes they pay taxes, or as little as they can get away with because they really do not want to- this simply feeds into their moral superiority that they are paying for things like the NHS as you allude to above, or spongers benefits. Two of their favourite conversation pieces.
When I'm around rich people, a position I find much too often mind, I can get away on conversational terms by talking about holidays, restaurants or wine. Sport, cars and gadgets are also pretty safe if you are forced into a corner with a rich bloke at some engagement. I have found that they are often too ignorant to have a decent discussion about films or books.
I think there's a fair amount of misunderstanding the Tories stance on the EU - and trying to re-open the fights of 2001ish again is wishful thinking.
Most Tories are sceptics or BOOers. Ken Clarke is in a minority of one and a bit. So it's a matter of degree rather than two different sides.
There's a referendum and a decision based on that - so it's not even a Party policy issue as the electorate will decide. That takes a lot of the heat out of potential infighting. And BINs vs BOOers will be cross-party.
I will be very surprised if this causes anything much that changes the Tories fortunes either way bar moaning from the losers as ever.
I don't think it's wishful thinking at all. As far as I've read, the Tories from the 1990s onwards have never been on Europe - Europhiles (they have always been a small minority) vs BOOers. It's always been sceptics vs BOOERS, it's just that sceptics still want to work within the EU, while BOOers don't. Many of these BOOers see this referendum as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and are so desperate to get of the EU that they are gearing up for a second referendum if Cameron does not get the terms they want, or if the referendum win is by a close margin.
I don't see how it not being seen as 'party-policy' issue takes the heat out of infighting. The Conservatives are currently in the party in power, so of course it matters how they conduct themselves during the referendum. If they infight, and look about to tear themselves apart then that damages their image of competence. The difference between other parties on the EU, is that is not a divisive issue, but for the Tories it is.
Except that Labour once again are doing favours to the Tories in having more and more Labourites come out for Out. That means that come the referendum we will have Out featuring some Labour, some Tory and UKIP with in featuring some Labour, some Tory, Lib Dems and SNP.
Since Labour and Tories are the only national broad church parties while LD, UKIP and SNP are all very niche thanks to Labour we will now have a truly cross-party In and cross-party Out. That means it won't be about Tory divisions but about the subject matter.
This class envy argument is also pretty redundant. If we look at YG's findings, from both yesterday and Sunday, most do not conclude that Labour lost because they were 'too left-wing' - which would link in with the class-envy argument. The electorate rejected Labour because they did not offer competent leadership in Ed Miliband, because of their lack of solutions on immigration and welfare, and because they were not economically credible (linked to Labour's inability to admit they overspent). No one said it was because they were 'too multicultural' or 'taxed the rich too much'.
Was 'too multicultural' an option? I would imagine it is very much linked to the criticism on immigration. I have certainly heard it on the doorstep many times that Labour put ethnic minorities first.
Believe it or not, ethnic minorities can be British.
I'm one.
Also, as far as I was aware a lot of the criticism of immigration is related to EU immigration - from Eastern Europe, in regard to undercutting wages.
Why do you do this? I have never said anything about ethnic minorities not being British, or even anything close to it. Yet people like you turn around and deliberate distort what people have said to make them sound racist. You prefer to dishonestly delegitimise the other side rather than actually engage in the argument. It's why Labour loses elections.
I mentioned immigration, and the subject of multiculturalism. You mentioned that Labour putting ethnic minorities ''first'' was an issue among many who you talked to as if immigration = ethnic minorities. If individuals have an issue with Labour's support of ethnic minorities, then that is not necessarily related to immigration at all - not least because many ethnic minority MPs are British born, and have lived most of their lives in Britain.
As for Labour losing elections, the number one reason shown by YouGov was not even on the subject of immigration, but Ed Miliband's leadership. So it looks like that was the main reason why Labour lost the election.
Ah yes, YouGov the ultra reliabe polling organisation - must be spot on.
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Err. No. Because their money has been sucked out of the economy in the first place. It didn't appear out of nowhere.
Rich people tend to be lazy, or if they choose to work they do something they enjoy which doesn't really classify as work at all. Furthermore, they blame poor people for being poor, they are obsessed by wealth and the trappings of it, they are judgmental and feel that wealth allows them the moral high ground. They also tend to be right wing because the prospect of giving up any of the trappings of their power base terrifies them. They mostly associate with people of like mind who only confirm their skewed view of the world. They are narcissistic and self obsessed.
Yes they pay taxes, or as little as they can get away with because they really do not want to- this simply feeds into their moral superiority that they are paying for things like the NHS as you allude to above, or spongers benefits. Two of their favourite conversation pieces.
When I'm around rich people, a position I find much too often mind, I can get away on conversational terms by talking about holidays, restaurants or wine. Sport, cars and gadgets are also pretty safe if you are forced into a corner with a rich bloke at some engagement. I have found that they are often too ignorant to have a decent discussion about films or books.
'Rich people tend to be lazy, or if they choose to work they do something they enjoy which doesn't really classify as work at all.'
@georgegalloway: I'm running for Mayor of London. I hope to work closely with the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Please help....galloway4london@gmail.com
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
If Corbyn wins, will that mean Farron has demonstrated the efficacy of prayer and thus proved the existence of God? Quite an accomplishment in his first two months as leader!
@georgegalloway: I'm running for Mayor of London. I hope to work closely with the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Please help....galloway4london@gmail.com
I see that Vladimir Putin has suggested that Sepp Blatter should get a Nobel Prize. Presumably he's thinking of Literature: those books don't cook themselves.
This class envy argument is also pretty redundant. If we look at YG's findings, from both yesterday and Sunday, most do not conclude that Labour lost because they were 'too left-wing' - which would link in with the class-envy argument. The electorate rejected Labour because they did not offer competent leadership in Ed Miliband, because of their lack of solutions on immigration and welfare, and because they were not economically credible (linked to Labour's inability to admit they overspent). No one said it was because they were 'too multicultural' or 'taxed the rich too much'.
Was 'too multicultural' an option? I would imagine it is very much linked to the criticism on immigration. I have certainly heard it on the doorstep many times that Labour put ethnic minorities first.
Believe it or not, ethnic minorities can be British.
I'm one.
Also, as far as I was aware a lot of the criticism of immigration is related to EU immigration - from Eastern Europe, in regard to undercutting wages.
Why do you do this? I have never said anything about ethnic minorities not being British, or even anything close to it. Yet people like you turn around and deliberate distort what people have said to make them sound racist. You prefer to dishonestly delegitimise the other side rather than actually engage in the argument. It's why Labour loses elections.
I mentioned immigration, and the subject of multiculturalism. You mentioned that Labour putting ethnic minorities ''first'' was an issue among many who you talked to as if immigration = ethnic minorities. If individuals have an issue with Labour's support of ethnic minorities, then that is not necessarily related to immigration at all - not least because many ethnic minority MPs are British born, and have lived most of their lives in Britain.
As for Labour losing elections, the number one reason shown by YouGov was not even on the subject of immigration, but Ed Miliband's leadership. So it looks like that was the main reason why Labour lost the election.
Being ethnic minority is not relevant to immigration, but multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism is a philosophy whereby immigrants and their descendants should maintain separate cultures to the country they have immigrated to. The fact that a large number of people don't see their neighbors as really being British is because of the cultural gap between them. The same white working class people that will call one ethnic minority family "immigrants", will refer to another ethnic minority family as "not counting as immigrants" because the second is culturally integrated and the first is not. Even if both are officially British.
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
There's a line to be drawn. Cloud cover helps the bowlers, torrential rain and washed out days favours a draw.
@felix Well, everyone is taking OBR at face-value and they seem a relatively new polling company. PBers also seemed more than happy to take YouGov at face-value when it showed Corbyn leading.
I think there's a fair amount of misunderstanding the Tories stance on the EU - and trying to re-open the fights of 2001ish again is wishful thinking.
Most Tories are sceptics or BOOers. Ken Clarke is in a minority of one and a bit. So it's a matter of degree rather than two different sides.
There's a referendum and a decision based on that - so it's not even a Party policy issue as the electorate will decide. That takes a lot of the heat out of potential infighting. And BINs vs BOOers will be cross-party.
I will be very surprised if this causes anything much that changes the Tories fortunes either way bar moaning from the losers as ever.
I don't think it's wishful thinking at all. As far as I've read, the Tories from the 1990s onwards have never been on Europe - Europhiles (they have always been a small minority) vs BOOers. It's always been sceptics vs BOOERS, it's just that sceptics still want to work within the EU, while BOOers don't. Many of these BOOers see this referendum as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and are so desperate to get of the EU that they are gearing up for a second referendum if Cameron does not get the terms they want, or if the referendum win is by a close margin.
I don't see how it not being seen as 'party-policy' issue takes the heat out of infighting. The Conservatives are currently in the party in power, so of course it matters how they conduct themselves during the referendum. If they infight, and look about to tear themselves apart then that damages their image of competence. The difference between other parties on the EU, is that is not a divisive issue, but for the Tories it is.
Except that Labour once again are doing favours to the Tories in having more and more Labourites come out for Out. That means that come the referendum we will have Out featuring some Labour, some Tory and UKIP with in featuring some Labour, some Tory, Lib Dems and SNP.
Since Labour and Tories are the only national broad church parties while LD, UKIP and SNP are all very niche thanks to Labour we will now have a truly cross-party In and cross-party Out. That means it won't be about Tory divisions but about the subject matter.
Thanks Labour. The gift that keeps on giving.
@Plato already mentioned the point of the referendum being cross-party. I don't see how that changes the point that infighting damages the Tories' image of competence. If anything, that it is cross-party this will be even more so - if other parties can disagree peacefully, but Conservatives are busy infighting over differences.
Has it occurred to you that those who invest and take risks might be key to the generation of wealth?
The ones who are successful pay a lot of tax to fund the services the rest of us rely upon.
@Casino- as I said above, the fact that rich people pay taxes, or as little as they can possibly get away with, gives them in their head this skewed moral superiority and makes them opinionated on the plight of the poor who they blame, castigate and see as spongers.
And yes- you are right rich people do invest, but they tend to invest as leverage on other people's money.
Once you have money it is the easiest thing to make more money. A rich person who becomes poor must be either mentally ill, or an addict, or both (even the dumbest buffoon can keep hold of his wealth and then some).
It is much, much, much, much harder for a poor person to become rich than a rich person to become poor.
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
There's a line to be drawn. Cloud cover helps the bowlers, torrential rain and washed out days favours a draw.
Doesn't look like a washout forecast to me though !
Win the leadership, and fail to win the General Election is his dream scenario, but might not happen.
Win the leadership and the GE (like Hollande) but fail the economy. Bad news all round
Win the leadership and the GE but fail the economy catastrophically with rioting in the street (like Syriza)
Who does that help?
Or worst case scenario of all, wins the election and starts to actually make the country better again and wrest power from the feckless idle rich.
Yeah, right. Because that has happened so many times in recent history.
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Err. No. Because their money has been sucked out of the economy in the first place. It didn't appear out of nowhere.
*facepalm*
Has it occurred to you that those who invest and take risks might be key to the generation of wealth?
The ones who are successful pay a lot of tax to fund the services the rest of us rely upon.
Risk-takers and wealth creators deserve all they get - more even. We don't have enough of them in the UK, by a long chalk. We do have plenty of very well paid CEOs and other senior corporate executives who have never started a business in their lives, but who know how to play the game and are duly rewarded for that; and we have out fair share of finance folk who, thanks to QE, have had a remarkably lucrative few years at the expense of the rest of us.
To be fair, SO, some CEOs are wealth creators. But, as you imply, far too many are not and compensation at that level rarely seems to bear any relation to actual performance.
Likewise, finance is necessary to wealth creation, but I do wonder what many in the financial industry really add personally to that process (and hence why they think they are worth their bonuses).
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
I took the forecast half an hour ago from MetCheck who I usually find to be pretty accurate, although Saturday must clearly be more of a guesstimate at this stage
@georgegalloway: I'm running for Mayor of London. I hope to work closely with the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Please help....galloway4london@gmail.com
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
It's almost impossible now to have a draw in a UK test match. What with floodlights, the fact that they always look to play the extra time to make up lost ground, and that teams inevitably capitulate in the final innings. And very few batters know how to defend.
Long gone are the days of Dikkie Bird and his light meter, 11 over hours, and Tavare and Boycers scratching around to make 40 runs in a session.
Being ethnic minority is not relevant to immigration, but multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism is a philosophy whereby immigrants and their descendants should maintain separate cultures to the country they have immigrated to. The fact that a large number of people don't see their neighbors as really being British is because of the cultural gap between them. The same white working class people that will call one ethnic minority family "immigrants", will refer to another ethnic minority family as "not counting as immigrants" because the second is culturally integrated and the first is not. Even if both are officially British.
Really? I've never been aware of that definition of multiculturalism.
What do you see as being integrated (out of interest)? My family still eat food from the West Indies (although we eat traditionally British food too). I would say my grand-parents, and their descendants have integrated well. I've never been considered, to my knowledge anything but British by my friends, family and neighbours.
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
It's almost impossible now to have a draw in a UK test match. What with floodlights, the fact that they always look to play the extra time to make up lost ground, and that teams inevitably capitulate in the final innings. And very few batters know how to defend.
Long gone are the days of Dikkie Bird and his light meter, 11 over hours, and Tavare and Boycers scratching around to make 40 runs in a session.
Is it true that "Test Cricket" is so-named because it "tests" your patience?
Being ethnic minority is not relevant to immigration, but multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism is a philosophy whereby immigrants and their descendants should maintain separate cultures to the country they have immigrated to. The fact that a large number of people don't see their neighbors as really being British is because of the cultural gap between them. The same white working class people that will call one ethnic minority family "immigrants", will refer to another ethnic minority family as "not counting as immigrants" because the second is culturally integrated and the first is not. Even if both are officially British.
Really? I've never been aware of that definition of multiculturalism.
What do you see as being integrated (out of interest)? My family still eat food from the West Indies (although we eat traditionally British food too). I would say my grand-parents, and their descendants have integrated well. I've never been considered, to my knowledge anything but British by my friends, family and neighbours.
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
It's almost impossible now to have a draw in a UK test match. What with floodlights, the fact that they always look to play the extra time to make up lost ground, and that teams inevitably capitulate in the final innings. And very few batters know how to defend.
Long gone are the days of Dikkie Bird and his light meter, 11 over hours, and Tavare and Boycers scratching around to make 40 runs in a session.
Here are the stats for backing or laying various options "blind" on Betfair (at SP) over the last 7.5 years:
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
Those who moan on here about wealth creators enjoying the many fruits of their success and passing them on to their family should just read about James Dyson.
First he invented the ball-barrow but it took him from the late 1970s to 1983 to get to market his first commercial vacuum cleaner and til 1986 to get his first US patent. During this time he lived off his wife's salary and also I believe he remortgaged the family home (both of which often lead to divorce). It was not until 1993 that he set up his R&D and factory in Wiltshire but in 2002 was forced by economic reasons to switch manufacturing to Malaysia. He is now a billionaire. So it takes a very long time often to reach financial success notwithstanding the huge financial and personal sacrifices along the way.
There are many aspiring James Dysons in the UK but few get there in the end and many only get a meagre living in the end for all the sacrifices made. So it annoys me immensely when there are cries of Tax The Rich and Get Rid of Them from those who have the comfort of a 9-5 job with up to 35 days holiday plus flexitime and a rewarding pension.
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
It's almost impossible now to have a draw in a UK test match. What with floodlights, the fact that they always look to play the extra time to make up lost ground, and that teams inevitably capitulate in the final innings. And very few batters know how to defend.
Long gone are the days of Dikkie Bird and his light meter, 11 over hours, and Tavare and Boycers scratching around to make 40 runs in a session.
Is it true that "Test Cricket" is so-named because it "tests" your patience?
What an outrageous slur, sir!
You know, I don't think those Tebbit chips ever really worked at all.
Re trusting polling companies go, everyone knows the gold standard is the one showing the outcome you like, or alternatively what would be funniest.
''as I said above, the fact that rich people pay taxes, or as little as they can possibly get away with, gives them in their head this skewed moral superiority and makes them opinionated on the plight of the poor who they blame, castigate and see as spongers.''
That is an over-generalization, isn;t it? There are many rich labour supporters, for example, who don;t think like that. There are many wealthy philanthropists.
I think you'll find many of the 'moral superiority' brigade are actually moderately well off strivers who resent the amounts they pay in tax.
Maybe the only way to stop Corbyn is for both Kendall and either Cooper or Burnham to stand down to leave it as a two horse race between JC and one of those two. That way the problem of non-transferable ballots doesn't come into play, ie. people who forget or can't be bothered to list a second preference.
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
BIB: What does that mean?
Gone with the wind - old movie - Clark Gable - Rhett Butler -"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn"
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
Maybe the only way to stop Corbyn is for both Kendall and either Cooper or Burnham to stand down to leave it as a two horse race between JC and one of those two. That way the problem of non-transferable ballots doesn't come into play, ie. people who forget or can't be bothered to list a second preference.
At which point Labour would convulse with recriminations of a Blairite stitch-up and lots of toys would be thrown from prams as the purist "protest group" segment in Labour decamp en-masse to the Greens or the SWP!
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
I took the forecast half an hour ago from MetCheck who I usually find to be pretty accurate, although Saturday must clearly be more of a guesstimate at this stage
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
It's almost impossible now to have a draw in a UK test match. What with floodlights, the fact that they always look to play the extra time to make up lost ground, and that teams inevitably capitulate in the final innings. And very few batters know how to defend.
Long gone are the days of Dikkie Bird and his light meter, 11 over hours, and Tavare and Boycers scratching around to make 40 runs in a session.
Here are the stats for backing or laying various options "blind" on Betfair (at SP) over the last 7.5 years:
I find it very hard to compartmentalise my EdM Is Crap feelings from the mess Labour is now in. He was the worst sort of arrogant, metropolitan intellectual with his hands on policy. Almost everything he said was either the product of some childhood dinner table debate with his parents, or copied from Bandwagon Today..... So yup - I think he's left a poisonous legacy for Labour - a differently shaped one to Gordon as we all had to suffer that one.
As others have said, Corbyn does have a scenario, policies and a sort of narrative, even though there are a lot of missing links - he is an adept public speaker and conceals the hard bits with much skill. Also he has monied backers.
Cooper and Burnham have none of this, except a mass of confusion and policy-making on the hoof - a bit like EdM. Liz K has been shut down by the reality-deniers who have fingers in their ears so not to hear the truth and only take them out to sing The Red Flag.
TBH, I think Comrade Corbyn is very dangerous. A lot of new members really like him, a lot of new MPs like him and nominated him. If he does win [and it's looking fairly bright prospect wise], what will Labour do then?
They can't get rid of him because they don't like the result, Labour has a terrible track record of dumping the unelectable - so they ride to oblivion in GE2020 with either a crushing defeat or win and we all end up like Greece. I think the chances of Corbyn's Labour winning is vanishingly small myself, but trying to recover from him will take a lot of years either way.
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
It's almost impossible now to have a draw in a UK test match. What with floodlights, the fact that they always look to play the extra time to make up lost ground, and that teams inevitably capitulate in the final innings. And very few batters know how to defend.
Long gone are the days of Dikkie Bird and his light meter, 11 over hours, and Tavare and Boycers scratching around to make 40 runs in a session.
Is it true that "Test Cricket" is so-named because it "tests" your patience?
What an outrageous slur, sir!
You know, I don't think those Tebbit chips ever really worked at all.
Re trusting polling companies go, everyone knows the gold standard is the one showing the outcome you like, or alternatively what would be funniest.
My Tebbit Chip seems to have an in-built bug that assumes Cricket is a - shall we say - "Subcontinental" sport, given its popularity in that part of the world
However, it seems to function perfectly well with regard to the "trainspottery" part of my personality.
Those who moan on here about wealth creators enjoying the many fruits of their success and passing them on to their family should just read about James Dyson.
First he invented the ball-barrow but it took him from the late 1970s to 1983 to get to market his first commercial vacuum cleaner and til 1986 to get his first US patent. During this time he lived off his wife's salary and also I believe he remortgaged the family home (both of which often lead to divorce). It was not until 1993 that he set up his R&D and factory in Wiltshire but in 2002 was forced by economic reasons to switch manufacturing to Malaysia. He is now a billionaire. So it takes a very long time often to reach financial success notwithstanding the huge financial and personal sacrifices along the way.
There are many aspiring James Dysons in the UK but few get there in the end and many only get a meagre living in the end for all the sacrifices made. So it annoys me immensely when there are cries of Tax The Rich and Get Rid of Them from those who have the comfort of a 9-5 job with up to 35 days holiday plus flexitime and a rewarding pension.
There are very many highly paid people who are not wealth creators. James Dyson deserves every penny he gets. Many other very well paid people in this country have not taken his risks and have benefited hugely from, say, QE. Good luck to them, but let's not pretend they have ever put anything on the line.
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
If she doesn't know what a whippersnapper is (threads passim) it's unlikely she's watched GWTW. She's probably never been on the Romford-Upminster line either. #bucketlist
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
Comments
If he wins or not - he's said *lots of stuff* and setting up the non-entities of Burnham and Cooper to disagree now or have them replayed again and again should either of them win as to *why* they disagree. It's a seven course banquet of populism, spending other people's money and apple pie.
He has nothing to lose either way.
What will ultimately define Labour in the public's eyes is what they do after they elect a leader.
As for a more 'kinder' Conservative party - really? The Conservatives' ace card is their competence, not their kindness, or their warm heartness. In fact I think that position in British politics pretty vacant, as it stands. If you asked your average joe, if they remembered Cameron's 'speech' in 2005, I doubt they would actually remember - not in the least, because it was 10 years ago. Really, it was the 'election that never was' - that destroyed the previous perception of a competent Labour government - and the financial crisis in 2008 - which gave the Conservatives a narrative against the Labour government, which propelled Cameron to Downing Street. Much of the things, incidentally - designed to make the Conservatives appear more of a friendly party were mercilessly mocked - the Big Society, 'Hug a Husky', 'Hug a Hoodie' etc.
I think, contrary to @stodge that choice of leader does matter. But perhaps the biggest difference is, is that Corbyn, Cooper or Burnham - are not going up against Cameron. They will most likely be going up against Osborne - so the bar is already set a lot lower than it was before.
This class envy argument is also pretty redundant. If we look at YG's findings, from both yesterday and Sunday, most do not conclude that Labour lost because they were 'too left-wing' - which would link in with the class-envy argument. The electorate rejected Labour because they did not offer competent leadership in Ed Miliband, because of their lack of solutions on immigration and welfare, and because they were not economically credible (linked to Labour's inability to admit they overspent). No one said it was because they were 'too multicultural' or 'taxed the rich too much'.
Political parties have huge inertia and it takes a lot to kill one. But they are trying.
For me, the only way the Conservatives do not get in in 2020 is if the leadership are duplicitous over a poor EU negotiation, and that leads to a wave of recriminations from the eurosceptics. But hopefully Cameron will either defy expectations and win a genuine new settlement, or defy expectations and recommend a No vote if the EU is stubborn as a mule.
Labour politician caught in drugs and hookers scandal = must reform House of Lords, so says Adrian "Golly" Chiles and the idea of a balanced debate on this on R5. One guest says totally scrap HoL, another says much reduced and totally elected HoL, and final guest much reduced and overwhelming majority elected with a few spots for recognised experts.
If on the other hand Osborne screws the pooch on the economy and people feel cheesed off, any splits will have a new salience and the Tories are toast.
Its is also possibly of cause the world event in the forms of some sort of financial crash or military/terrorism action will blow things off course, and then its down the how the government appears to be the blame and/or responding appropriately.
https://twitter.com/PamAyres/status/625726093136404480
I'm one.
Also, as far as I was aware a lot of the criticism of immigration is related to EU immigration - from Eastern Europe, in regard to undercutting wages.
Win what, and fail how?
Win the leadership, and fail to win the General Election is his dream scenario, but might not happen.
Win the leadership and the GE (like Hollande) but fail the economy. Bad news all round
Win the leadership and the GE but fail the economy catastrophically with rioting in the street (like Syriza)
Who does that help?
It's daft for both the party and the country to deliberately seek to have someone considered likely to be awful elected leader.
Still, I agree that if people ultimately don't want change then the Tories will still be in power after 2020.
They can't get rid of him because they don't like the result, Labour has a terrible track record of dumping the unelectable - so they ride to oblivion in GE2020 with either a crushing defeat or win and we all end up like Greece. I think the chances of Corbyn's Labour winning is vanishingly small myself, but trying to recover from him will take a lot of years either way.
Who takes a cheque from a man who drops his principles as fast as his pants?
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Christ knows why.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-33139218?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=[A mythical suicide note?&10:18]&ns_fee=0#post_55b747811d00002b006ed3e7
I have no doubts now that Corbyn will win and have changed my betting accordingly. Everyone I know personally is going Corbyn- old school lefties, moderates, Blairites, newbies, oldies, youngies, girlies, and boysies.
People are either voting with their heart, going for Corbyn as a protest, feel disenfranchised as young people, feel appalled about the period of Ed's stewardship, fed up with robotic, careerist politicians who appear self serving. There are a million and one credible reasons why the bearded, old school, republican, Hamas loving, IRA sympathising, unreconstructed lefty is handsomely winning this contest- and very few are ideological.
Corbybn is hoovering the eclectic, disparate Labour membership up at a rate of knots. He's got my vote, and I'm not going to bother to give a 2nd preference.
I've voted LD 3 times in a row btw (though I wanted a coalition the last 2 times), in a safe Tory seat
Most Tories are sceptics or BOOers. Ken Clarke is in a minority of one and a bit. So it's a matter of degree rather than two different sides.
There's a referendum and a decision based on that - so it's not even a Party policy issue as the electorate will decide. That takes a lot of the heat out of potential infighting. And BINs vs BOOers will be cross-party.
I will be very surprised if this causes anything much that changes the Tories fortunes either way bar moaning from the losers as ever.
Cooper and Burnham have none of this, except a mass of confusion and policy-making on the hoof - a bit like EdM. Liz K has been shut down by the reality-deniers who have fingers in their ears so not to hear the truth and only take them out to sing The Red Flag.
So is this leadership contest EdM's last failure?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33674638
Perhaps unsurprising. Red Bull had four years of total dominance and two weaker years now (though they just scored a double podium and achieved three victories in 2014), but have been whining persistently. The Renault isn't top notch, but the bleating from Red Bull has been worse than McLaren's about the Honda.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/26/why-is-hillary-clinton-viewed-so-unfavorably-in-early-primary-states/
As for Labour losing elections, the number one reason shown by YouGov was not even on the subject of immigration, but Ed Miliband's leadership. So it looks like that was the main reason why Labour lost the election.
I don't see how it not being seen as 'party-policy' issue takes the heat out of infighting. The Conservatives are currently in the party in power, so of course it matters how they conduct themselves during the referendum. If they infight, and look about to tear themselves apart then that damages their image of competence. The difference between other parties on the EU, is that is not a divisive issue, but for the Tories it is.
He was the worst sort of arrogant, metropolitan intellectual with his hands on policy. Almost everything he said was either the product of some childhood dinner table debate with his parents, or copied from Bandwagon Today.
Only someone with a total tin-ear and a massive ego could seriously commission the EdStone. It's so incredibly pretentious a la Pseuds Corner.
The leadership election process is so full of WTFery loopholes that it appears to have never been wargamed before it was published. It all smacks of his I'm So Clever mindset that infected almost everything his leadership stood for.
So yup - I think he's left a poisonous legacy for Labour - a differently shaped one to Gordon as we all had to suffer that one.
Has it occurred to you that those who invest and take risks might be key to the generation of wealth?
The ones who are successful pay a lot of tax to fund the services the rest of us rely upon.
Can we just quote this everytime this chap posts.
WOW.
***** Betting Post *****
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw.
Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR.
(I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Err. No. Because their money has been sucked out of the economy in the first place. It didn't appear out of nowhere.
@above thread
Rich people tend to be lazy, or if they choose to work they do something they enjoy which doesn't really classify as work at all. Furthermore, they blame poor people for being poor, they are obsessed by wealth and the trappings of it, they are judgmental and feel that wealth allows them the moral high ground. They also tend to be right wing because the prospect of giving up any of the trappings of their power base terrifies them. They mostly associate with people of like mind who only confirm their skewed view of the world. They are narcissistic and self obsessed.
Yes they pay taxes, or as little as they can get away with because they really do not want to- this simply feeds into their moral superiority that they are paying for things like the NHS as you allude to above, or spongers benefits. Two of their favourite conversation pieces.
When I'm around rich people, a position I find much too often mind, I can get away on conversational terms by talking about holidays, restaurants or wine. Sport, cars and gadgets are also pretty safe if you are forced into a corner with a rich bloke at some engagement. I have found that they are often too ignorant to have a decent discussion about films or books.
Since Labour and Tories are the only national broad church parties while LD, UKIP and SNP are all very niche thanks to Labour we will now have a truly cross-party In and cross-party Out. That means it won't be about Tory divisions but about the subject matter.
Thanks Labour. The gift that keeps on giving.
@above thread
Rich people tend to be lazy, or if they choose to work they do something they enjoy which doesn't really classify as work at all. Furthermore, they blame poor people for being poor, they are obsessed by wealth and the trappings of it, they are judgmental and feel that wealth allows them the moral high ground. They also tend to be right wing because the prospect of giving up any of the trappings of their power base terrifies them. They mostly associate with people of like mind who only confirm their skewed view of the world. They are narcissistic and self obsessed.
Yes they pay taxes, or as little as they can get away with because they really do not want to- this simply feeds into their moral superiority that they are paying for things like the NHS as you allude to above, or spongers benefits. Two of their favourite conversation pieces.
When I'm around rich people, a position I find much too often mind, I can get away on conversational terms by talking about holidays, restaurants or wine. Sport, cars and gadgets are also pretty safe if you are forced into a corner with a rich bloke at some engagement. I have found that they are often too ignorant to have a decent discussion about films or books.
'Rich people tend to be lazy, or if they choose to work they do something they enjoy which doesn't really classify as work at all.'
What a load of old bollocks.
And remind us how many houses you own.
Light the 'red' touchpaper and depart.
*facepalm*
Has it occurred to you that those who invest and take risks might be key to the generation of wealth?
The ones who are successful pay a lot of tax to fund the services the rest of us rely upon.
@Casino- as I said above, the fact that rich people pay taxes, or as little as they can possibly get away with, gives them in their head this skewed moral superiority and makes them opinionated on the plight of the poor who they blame, castigate and see as spongers.
And yes- you are right rich people do invest, but they tend to invest as leverage on other people's money.
Once you have money it is the easiest thing to make more money. A rich person who becomes poor must be either mentally ill, or an addict, or both (even the dumbest buffoon can keep hold of his wealth and then some).
It is much, much, much, much harder for a poor person to become rich than a rich person to become poor.
Likewise, finance is necessary to wealth creation, but I do wonder what many in the financial industry really add personally to that process (and hence why they think they are worth their bonuses).
It's almost impossible now to have a draw in a UK test match. What with floodlights, the fact that they always look to play the extra time to make up lost ground, and that teams inevitably capitulate in the final innings. And very few batters know how to defend.
Long gone are the days of Dikkie Bird and his light meter, 11 over hours, and Tavare and Boycers scratching around to make 40 runs in a session.
What do you see as being integrated (out of interest)? My family still eat food from the West Indies (although we eat traditionally British food too). I would say my grand-parents, and their descendants have integrated well. I've never been considered, to my knowledge anything but British by my friends, family and neighbours.
Remember, IDS never lost a General Election as Tory Leader!
https://twitter.com/FrogCrunchy/status/618403097161953280
Obviously individual draws can be value, but it's rare.
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
Those who moan on here about wealth creators enjoying the many fruits of their success and passing them on to their family should just read about James Dyson.
First he invented the ball-barrow but it took him from the late 1970s to 1983 to get to market his first commercial vacuum cleaner and til 1986 to get his first US patent. During this time he lived off his wife's salary and also I believe he remortgaged the family home (both of which often lead to divorce). It was not until 1993 that he set up his R&D and factory in Wiltshire but in 2002 was forced by economic reasons to switch manufacturing to Malaysia. He is now a billionaire. So it takes a very long time often to reach financial success notwithstanding the huge financial and personal sacrifices along the way.
There are many aspiring James Dysons in the UK but few get there in the end and many only get a meagre living in the end for all the sacrifices made. So it annoys me immensely when there are cries of Tax The Rich and Get Rid of Them from those who have the comfort of a 9-5 job with up to 35 days holiday plus flexitime and a rewarding pension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankly,_my_dear,_I_don't_give_a_damn
#1 on this list! http://www.afi.com/100years/quotes.aspx
You know, I don't think those Tebbit chips ever really worked at all.
Re trusting polling companies go, everyone knows the gold standard is the one showing the outcome you like, or alternatively what would be funniest.
That is an over-generalization, isn;t it? There are many rich labour supporters, for example, who don;t think like that. There are many wealthy philanthropists.
I think you'll find many of the 'moral superiority' brigade are actually moderately well off strivers who resent the amounts they pay in tax.
Thanks for the info.
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0088370/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_7
However, it seems to function perfectly well with regard to the "trainspottery" part of my personality.