politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Zac to win mayoralty, Corbyn to survive, Trump to fail: Ipsos MORI poll on what people think will happen in 2016
It’s that time of year when people look to the next year and start making predictions. One new development on this that I don’t recall seeing before is a national phone poll as seen in some of the charts above from Ipsos MORI.
Same chance of finding life on Mars as England getting to a football final!
Both remarkably high considering that England has only reached one final in about thirty goes and there are no new missions planned to explicitly look for life on Mars during 2016 (I think).
Same chance of finding life on Mars as England getting to a football final!
Both remarkably high considering that England has only reached one final in about thirty goes and there are no new missions planned to explicitly look for life on Mars during 2016 (I think).
I blame the film the Martian for that high figure.
All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.
I don't live in London but I fear the mayoral contest will descend along racial/cultural lines which will be a dreadful shame. Ethnics voting for Kahn because he is Khan, WWC Londoners holding their nose and voting for a toff because he's not a Khan. I predict a dirty, unedifying campaign which in fairness to Goldsmith he'll do nothing to encourage.
Agree with all of that except I think Khan will win London which is more pro Corbyn than average. I think Trump will win the nomination but lose the presidency
Same chance of finding life on Mars as England getting to a football final!
Both remarkably high considering that England has only reached one final in about thirty goes and there are no new missions planned to explicitly look for life on Mars during 2016 (I think).
Curiosity is still being curious on Mars, it may find something new next year. The last football final featuring England was indeed in 1966, that will be 50 years ago next year.
This is a great little skit with contemporary videos
00:59: To the reader who has joined us after Googling "Who won the 1979 general election?", welcome! It's early days yet but it looks likely that the Conservatives will be in, with a big enough majority to withstand any number of by-election shocks.
00:57: But the BBC's election forecasters don't agree. After 22 results they have a new projection: ...
00:51: "I've not sat in this chair before," says new anchor Dimbleby, "But usually we'd have a clear idea of the result by now, wouldn't we?" "Oh, yes," says David Butler, "We'd usually have many more results."
00:48: The North West is not going for Margaret Thatcher at all. Just a two point swing to the Tories there so far. But big swings away from Labour in the South.
All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.
Moreover, London is not Britain. Huge numbers of Corbynites are being signed up in London. This will only strengthen their ground game here.
Maybe but I note that I have received far more literature (and far more impressively produced literature) from the Tories, starting immediately after Zac was chosen, so far than from Labour. Early days of course and only anecdotal. But sign-ups does not necessarily mean people willing to put in the actual hard work.
All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.
Moreover, London is not Britain. Huge numbers of Corbynites are being signed up in London. This will only strengthen their ground game here.
Maybe but I note that I have received far more literature (and far more impressively produced literature) from the Tories, starting immediately after Zac was chosen, so far than from Labour. Early days of course and only anecdotal. But sign-ups does not necessarily mean people willing to put in the actual hard work.
I haven't had a peep out of any candidate. I'm a floating voter in this election, being so far pretty unimpressed by both main candidates so far. I may confine myself to minor candidates on this occasion.
I should warn readers that this is the first time I've posted on PB with a zero bankroll (only cus of drawings lols) - dare say this will affect my style.
Agree with all of that except I think Khan will win London which is more pro Corbyn than average. I think Trump will win the nomination but lose the presidency
I do wonder why people say London is more pro-Corbyn. London is at high risk of terrorism and Londoners are no keener than anyone else at being slaughtered by homicidal maniacs or at having their politicians stroke their chins while wondering whether to order the police to shoot those self-same maniacs. Nor are we particularly keen on politicians inviting in and/or being friendly with those who justify and excuse said maniacs
Housing will be the only real issue in the London campaign. Protection for renters, houses for first time buyers, etc. etc. It's one of those things that cuts across all racial and class lines.
''I do wonder why people say London is more pro-Corbyn.''
Plus what's the relationship between Khan and the Corbynistas??? Khan's rhetoric is very pro business, very pro City. Goodness knows what they will make of that in Islington.
All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.
Moreover, London is not Britain. Huge numbers of Corbynites are being signed up in London. This will only strengthen their ground game here.
Maybe but I note that I have received far more literature (and far more impressively produced literature) from the Tories, starting immediately after Zac was chosen, so far than from Labour. Early days of course and only anecdotal. But sign-ups does not necessarily mean people willing to put in the actual hard work.
I haven't had a peep out of any candidate. I'm a floating voter in this election, being so far pretty unimpressed by both main candidates so far. I may confine myself to minor candidates on this occasion.
I voted against Livingstone on the last two occasions. I'm not particularly impressed by Khan. For all her faults, I would have preferred Jowell. Not really sure what to make of Zac. But on the whole I find a Corbyn-led Labour party so ghastly that anything I can do to make sure it is ultimately defeated is probably where I will end up.
''I do wonder why people say London is more pro-Corbyn.''
Plus what's the relationship between Khan and the Corbynistas??? Khan's rhetoric is very pro business, very pro City. Goodness knows what they will make of that in Islington.
So was Livingstone when he started out. Now look at him. I think Khan will say whatever he thinks is needed. I'm not sure how much of what he says he actually believes. He will, I think, be as pro-Corbyn as is politically expedient for him.
What a load of shit I speak sometimes - found some pennies in my betfair - do I still just lay the draw at 8s ??????????????? what's it like out there ?
Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.
Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.
Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster
Don't work for a pollster, but 2015 has to rate amongst the worst years ever. Beats 83, 92 by some margin.
Look on the bright side, five years after 1992 you won a landslide, and also the Conservative Party's strongest asset will not be fighting the next election.
Didn't Khan cast his nomination vote for Corbyn? He's either stupid or has sympathies.
Neither is a good look. If I had a vote, I'd have gone for Jowell even as a Tory - I don't like Zac's zeal or very deep pockets. I don't doubt his sincerity, but he's too ideological/loose cannon for me.
''I do wonder why people say London is more pro-Corbyn.''
Plus what's the relationship between Khan and the Corbynistas??? Khan's rhetoric is very pro business, very pro City. Goodness knows what they will make of that in Islington.
So was Livingstone when he started out. Now look at him. I think Khan will say whatever he thinks is needed. I'm not sure how much of what he says he actually believes. He will, I think, be as pro-Corbyn as is politically expedient for him.
Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.
Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.
Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster
Don't work for a pollster, but 2015 has to rate amongst the worst years ever. Beats 83, 92 by some margin.
Look on the bright side, five years after 1992 you won a landslide, and also the Conservative Party's strongest asset will not be fighting the next election.
Very kind.
The left (Lab and Lib Dems) are in the weakest position I've seen in my lifetime and prognosis is not good, things are going to get worse before they get better.
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
Those economic expectation numbers help explain why the Tories, while doing ok in the polls, are not reaping the full reward that the hard economic figures might indicate. People expect to be treading water rather than experience economic improvement, with some negatives re interest rates and inflation.
Housing will be the only real issue in the London campaign. Protection for renters, houses for first time buyers, etc. etc. It's one of those things that cuts across all racial and class lines.
I agree with that. But if a terrorist act happens in the lead up to the election, it could change matters. Housing and security are the key concerns, even though the Mayor can do relatively little about the latter. What is said and tone - however - are very important. And Livingstone's and Corbyn's recent comments will not help Khan.
Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.
Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.
Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster
Don't work for a pollster, but 2015 has to rate amongst the worst years ever. Beats 83, 92 by some margin.
Look on the bright side, five years after 1992 you won a landslide, and also the Conservative Party's strongest asset will not be fighting the next election.
Very kind.
The left (Lab and Lib Dems) are in the weakest position I've seen in my lifetime and prognosis is not good, things are going to get worse before they get better.
I mean the Tory party might also fatally split over the EU.
So whilst the Tories are banging on about the minutiae of the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, Corbyn and Labour focus on the economy, that might see Labour taking power if Owen Paterson becomes Tory leader and there's a recession on
Housing will be the only real issue in the London campaign. Protection for renters, houses for first time buyers, etc. etc. It's one of those things that cuts across all racial and class lines.
London is a very successful city in that lots and lots of people want to live there, more people every year in fact. So what can a Mayor actually do about housing?
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
If the Proteas close up shop to end at say 110-1 (With a touch of bad light), then tommorow 300 or so are needed.
South Africa would bite your hand off for a draw from there (And if wickets fall, their run rate will drop to sub 2.5), it's unlikely but not a dead cert it isn't a draw.
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
Thanks for the Ackroyd recommendation - just bought a very good used copy for 32p....
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
Just me that finds the bog standard #skynews a bit bitchy and OTT with regards to making sure you're not exactly sure what's going on in the cricket unless you pay full price ???
Yeah, yeah: they've been saying this sort of stuff for months behind their hands. There was going to be all sorts of stuff happening if McDonnell was made Shadow Chancellor. And a big fat nothing happened.
Just me that finds the bog standard #skynews a bit bitchy and OTT with regards to making sure you're not exactly sure what's going on in the cricket unless you pay full price ???
Saffers are 86/2. Amla just gone, caught behind.
It looks like it's getting rather dark, floodlights on and big black clouds in the sky. A rain or light delay could favour the draw.
Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.
Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.
Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster
Don't work for a pollster, but 2015 has to rate amongst the worst years ever. Beats 83, 92 by some margin.
Look on the bright side, five years after 1992 you won a landslide, and also the Conservative Party's strongest asset will not be fighting the next election.
Very kind.
The left (Lab and Lib Dems) are in the weakest position I've seen in my lifetime and prognosis is not good, things are going to get worse before they get better.
I mean the Tory party might also fatally split over the EU.
So whilst the Tories are banging on about the minutiae of the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, Corbyn and Labour focus on the economy, that might see Labour taking power if Owen Paterson becomes Tory leader and there's a recession on
Even, then I doubt it. Corbyn-led Labour v pro-EU Conservatives v anti-EU Conservatives/UKIP sees each faction winning 25-30% of the vote, IMHO.
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
Labour tried to abolish England and still from time to time pretend that it doesn't exist - but the English have other ideas, as we saw in May.
Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.
Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.
Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster
Don't work for a pollster, but 2015 has to rate amongst the worst years ever. Beats 83, 92 by some margin.
Look on the bright side, five years after 1992 you won a landslide, and also the Conservative Party's strongest asset will not be fighting the next election.
Very kind.
The left (Lab and Lib Dems) are in the weakest position I've seen in my lifetime and prognosis is not good, things are going to get worse before they get better.
I mean the Tory party might also fatally split over the EU.
So whilst the Tories are banging on about the minutiae of the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, Corbyn and Labour focus on the economy, that might see Labour taking power if Owen Paterson becomes Tory leader and there's a recession on
Even, then I doubt it. Corbyn-led Labour v pro-EU Conservatives v anti-EU Conservatives/UKIP sees each faction winning 25-30% of the vote, IMHO.
2015 has been a dream for the Tories, I just know we cannot expect Labour to be so flipping self indulgent
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
Would it be possible, just once, for someone to mention English identity without this trolling? The truth, or not, does not even matter - it was an interesting discussion up to them. Such is life.
It does somewhat counter-intuitive that Corbyn survives Mayor Goldsmith.... If he survives that, he is there until 2020.
May 2016 will not be a very good time to be Jeremy Corbyn.
They face a massive defeat in Scotland, losing perhaps half their MSPs.
They face a significant defeat in Wales, losing control and possibly being unable to reach a coalition to remain in charge.
The London Mayoralty and retaining control of the London Assembly are his only hopes for anything positive.
I don't know what the current projections are for the Assembly but if he loses the Mayoralty then surely he might also lose the Assembly as well?
A four-fold catastrophe may be hard for even the great Jezziah to survive.
Losing the London Assembly election would be the worst result for Jezza. Labour won that in 2012 even though Boris beat Ken. Losing the mayoralty could be blamed on Khan, Jezza would own losing the Assembly.
An effective "Mass walkout" has to involve resignation of the Labour whip, otherwise it's completely meaningless.
As was suggested here this morning, 50 by-elections would focus Corbyn's mind somewhat, as would a similar number of defections under an SDP2 type banner. Two or three "traitors" will make no difference though, and might even strengthen Corbyn's position - it has to be several dozen MPs or not at all.
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
Would it be possible, just once, for someone to mention English identity without this trolling? The truth, or not, does not even matter - it was an interesting discussion up to them. Such is life.
Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
Would it be possible, just once, for someone to mention English identity without this trolling? The truth, or not, does not even matter - it was an interesting discussion up to them. Such is life.
Of course the truth matters.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
It has more meaning as a country than Scotland. After all, for most of your history, every time you ended up in a fight with the English half your own people sided with your enemy. Scotland is basically a suburb of northern England.
Callous thieves are targeting the victims of flooding which has struck homes and businesses in the north of England, looting shops and stealing items salvaged from houses, it has emerged.
Motorcycle clubs have now volunteered to help police carry out patrols.
Bold - isn't he still beating Clinton in the head to heads ?
What's gonna go wrong for him ?
The inauguration is planned in 2017 for starters...
If I win my cricket bet I might stick some quids on that nice Dr guy - maybees the US is like - Once you go black you don't go back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
It has more meaning as a country than Scotland. After all, for most of your history, every time you ended up in a fight with the English half your own people sided with your enemy.
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
Would it be possible, just once, for someone to mention English identity without this trolling? The truth, or not, does not even matter - it was an interesting discussion up to them. Such is life.
Of course the truth matters.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
LOL, you will cause much frothing and anguish posting truths like that.
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
Would it be possible, just once, for someone to mention English identity without this trolling? The truth, or not, does not even matter - it was an interesting discussion up to them. Such is life.
Of course the truth matters.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
It does somewhat counter-intuitive that Corbyn survives Mayor Goldsmith.... If he survives that, he is there until 2020.
May 2016 will not be a very good time to be Jeremy Corbyn.
They face a massive defeat in Scotland, losing perhaps half their MSPs.
They face a significant defeat in Wales, losing control and possibly being unable to reach a coalition to remain in charge.
The London Mayoralty and retaining control of the London Assembly are his only hopes for anything positive.
I don't know what the current projections are for the Assembly but if he loses the Mayoralty then surely he might also lose the Assembly as well?
A four-fold catastrophe may be hard for even the great Jezziah to survive.
Losing the London Assembly election would be the worst result for Jezza. Labour won that in 2012 even though Boris beat Ken. Losing the mayoralty could be blamed on Khan, Jezza would own losing the Assembly.
Losing in Wales to the extent that they cannot form another coalition and therefore are not in government in Wales for the first time ever, could well be as important as the London Assembly.
Wales could actually end up ungovernable after 2016. If UKIP get three or four list seats and the Liberals vanish. Plaid won't do any deal involving UKIP (and probably vice versa) which could leave only a Grand Coalition as a viable option, which itself could be too much of a poison pill.
This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
It's all about the members. For them to understand what Corbyn is really about it's much better for him to fire Labour moderates rather than for them to walk out.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
Which is to say "not at all".
You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.
You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.
Would it be possible, just once, for someone to mention English identity without this trolling? The truth, or not, does not even matter - it was an interesting discussion up to them. Such is life.
Of course the truth matters.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
It is an interesting sub-belief of Scottish Nationalism that England doesn't exist, there is no such thing as English identity etc.
Much entertainment can be had by arguing the reverse, of course - there is no such place as Scotland, just a set of regions.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
Which is to say "not at all".
You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.
So what? I am still English, born in a country called England and living there too. Sorry.
This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
It was a free vote, which by most definitions and precident means that MPs speak and vote according to their own views, on either side of the debate.
Corbyn's subsequent interpretation of it meaning free to agree with him or be fired is more usually associated with a three-line whip than a free vote, especially with reference to Mr Corbyn's attitude towards the whips over the last 30 years.
I'm sure Benn didn't expect to be looking at the sack for a very eloquent and well delivered speech.
Comments
All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.
London was Labour's only decent performance in May, I expect that to continue next May
Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.
Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.
00:59: To the reader who has joined us after Googling "Who won the 1979 general election?", welcome! It's early days yet but it looks likely that the Conservatives will be in, with a big enough majority to withstand any number of by-election shocks.
00:57: But the BBC's election forecasters don't agree. After 22 results they have a new projection: ...
00:51: "I've not sat in this chair before," says new anchor Dimbleby, "But usually we'd have a clear idea of the result by now, wouldn't we?" "Oh, yes," says David Butler, "We'd usually have many more results."
00:48: The North West is not going for Margaret Thatcher at all. Just a two point swing to the Tories there so far. But big swings away from Labour in the South.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/ns-liveblog-retro-edition-1979
There is very little evidence that the new signups have translated into people who are actually prepared to do something for a campaign.
Plus what's the relationship between Khan and the Corbynistas??? Khan's rhetoric is very pro business, very pro City. Goodness knows what they will make of that in Islington.
Neither is a good look. If I had a vote, I'd have gone for Jowell even as a Tory - I don't like Zac's zeal or very deep pockets. I don't doubt his sincerity, but he's too ideological/loose cannon for me.
Will JBriskin have a bankroll still?
Oh the fun we have
The left (Lab and Lib Dems) are in the weakest position I've seen in my lifetime and prognosis is not good, things are going to get worse before they get better.
In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.
When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.
So whilst the Tories are banging on about the minutiae of the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, Corbyn and Labour focus on the economy, that might see Labour taking power if Owen Paterson becomes Tory leader and there's a recession on
Isn't that when it started ????? God bless the Glorious Revolution and our continuation of it.
South Africa would bite your hand off for a draw from there (And if wickets fall, their run rate will drop to sub 2.5), it's unlikely but not a dead cert it isn't a draw.
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in.
I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on.
I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely.
I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate.
I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy.
The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
Anywhoo-
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/681829514876448769
Nice keks; now't in'em.
Briskin likes to keep PBers up to date with the latest info!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
It looks like it's getting rather dark, floodlights on and big black clouds in the sky. A rain or light delay could favour the draw.
They face a massive defeat in Scotland, losing perhaps half their MSPs.
They face a significant defeat in Wales, losing control and possibly being unable to reach a coalition to remain in charge.
The London Mayoralty and retaining control of the London Assembly are his only hopes for anything positive.
I don't know what the current projections are for the Assembly but if he loses the Mayoralty then surely he might also lose the Assembly as well?
A four-fold catastrophe may be hard for even the great Jezziah to survive.
Joining SDP mark 2 maybees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.
As was suggested here this morning, 50 by-elections would focus Corbyn's mind somewhat, as would a similar number of defections under an SDP2 type banner. Two or three "traitors" will make no difference though, and might even strengthen Corbyn's position - it has to be several dozen MPs or not at all.
What's gonna go wrong for him ?
I will remain top of the pb fantasy football, until two weeks before the end, a la Arsenal.
Nobody predicted the Peasants' Revolt apparently. Watt Tyler was dismissed as a nobody.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
Wales could actually end up ungovernable after 2016. If UKIP get three or four list seats and the Liberals vanish. Plaid won't do any deal involving UKIP (and probably vice versa) which could leave only a Grand Coalition as a viable option, which itself could be too much of a poison pill.
Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.
Cricket bet!-
Does England exist as a country?
i.e Will England win the cricket.
No badgers available for various reasons apparently
But I like what you did there.
You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.
Much entertainment can be had by arguing the reverse, of course - there is no such place as Scotland, just a set of regions.
Corbyn's subsequent interpretation of it meaning free to agree with him or be fired is more usually associated with a three-line whip than a free vote, especially with reference to Mr Corbyn's attitude towards the whips over the last 30 years.
I'm sure Benn didn't expect to be looking at the sack for a very eloquent and well delivered speech.