For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.
A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.
I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
I think you're right, I also think Comic Book films are having an effect on the cinema, and I say that as someone who loves my Comic Book films.
If you don't have a Cineworld card, you have to pick and choose your films, which knocks on to people attending.
I think thats a good point. This year there's 5 or 6 big comic books movies, then various franchise/sequel movies which makes it difficult for anything original to really shine.
Off the top of my head:
Deadpool Cap America 3 Batman Vs Superman X-Men Apocalpse (sp) Suicide Squad Dr Strange
as all comic book movies.
Then add to that Independence Day2 Star Wars:Rogue TMNT 2
plus probably others.
I read in Empire last month the average cost of a cinema ticket now is £10, 3D films push it close to £12 and IMAX/4DX pushes it close to £18.
Now if you want a family trip to the cinema you can be looking at something between £40 to £75 for tickets alone, before you get the drinks and food at the cinema.
You can get Sky Movies and Sport for around £40 a month, netflix for £8.99 and you can see why some people might prefer to stay at home.
No wonder couples might prefer to stay home and netflix and chill
Also, TV screens are getting bigger and better, and home sound systems can almost match those in the cinema. So the difference in the experience is being whittled down. For me, it is the joint crowd experience that takes me to the few films I now see in the cinema - or the very rare film like Avatar that I know will be better on a very large screen.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
I enjoyed Inside Out (I saw it on a long flight too). There were some pretty neat examples of panto lines for the grown-ups in the audience - one about bears in San Francisco springs to mind.
Do these bears live in the woods, or can you find them on Castro St ?
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
On the other side, Ryan is similarly cheap for the brokered convention possibility.
Why would the GOP go past *all* the candidates in the race if it turns to a brokered convention?
At least for the Democrats, there'll probably be a good case that if Hillary falters, neither Sanders nor O'Malley will have done enough to be worthy of the nomination.
If Hillary withdraws from the race, would any other candidate have time to register for various primaries? Wouldn't Democrat establishment just unite round O'Malley as the stop Bernie candidate?
For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
Extraordinarily tedious, over-sentimental and predictable, in my opinion. Fell asleep for part of it. My 9-year-old thought it was "okay" and my 14-year-old disliked it. I certainly don't know of any children who actively talk about it the way they did with, say, "Frozen" or "Despicable Me".
(By way of comparison, my children both enjoyed "The Martian", as did I.)
Couldn't watch beyond 15 minutes - even on a 15-hour flight. Decided to read a book on safety in the nuclear power industry instead. That's how dull it was.
Some people just have no soul....
I'm seeing The Revenant tonight, what should I expect?
Beautiful scenery. A lot of Di Caprio not using his legs. And a winter-warmer that is unlikely to catch on.
And one OMFG heart-stopping moment.
But don't take a watch. You might just look at it too often....
The polls were wrong because the Labour /Lib voters told the pollsters they were voting for their respective Parties out of party loyalty ; but when they got into the privacy of the voting booth said........
''Bugger this ! I'm not going to take the risk of a weak L P, led by that dam fool Miliband , being jacked out and held to ransom by an odious national party from Scotland led by Lady Mcbeth ! ''
That's what happened ...there were simply not enough gormless voters in middle England
I confidently predicted a Tory Majority for over 3 months because I knew , intuitively , that folks in England would never allow a government to be hanged by a Scottish rope ....I also won a significant amount of money off my bet !
Some fool in London bet £200, 000 on a so called ''Hung Parliament '' ; yes , a sure thing , 3 months before the election ...a week is a long time in politics but apparently 3 months is not !
Au contraire, there was a surplus of gormless voters in England, hence the result.
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
I think the basis is "when you have eliminated the impossible, bet on whatever remains, however improbable - provided the odds are long enough, of course".
For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.
A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.
I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
I think you're right, I also think Comic Book films are having an effect on the cinema, and I say that as someone who loves my Comic Book films.
If you don't have a Cineworld card, you have to pick and choose your films, which knocks on to people attending.
I think thats a good point. This year there's 5 or 6 big comic books movies, then various franchise/sequel movies which makes it difficult for anything original to really shine.
Off the top of my head:
Deadpool Cap America 3 Batman Vs Superman X-Men Apocalpse (sp) Suicide Squad Dr Strange
as all comic book movies.
Then add to that Independence Day2 Star Wars:Rogue TMNT 2
plus probably others.
I read in Empire last month the average cost of a cinema ticket now is £10, 3D films push it close to £12 and IMAX/4DX pushes it close to £18.
Now if you want a family trip to the cinema you can be looking at something between £40 to £75 for tickets alone, before you get the drinks and food at the cinema.
You can get Sky Movies and Sport for around £40 a month, netflix for £8.99 and you can see why some people might prefer to stay at home.
No wonder couples might prefer to stay home and netflix and chill
Also, TV screens are getting bigger and better, and home sound systems can almost match those in the cinema. So the difference in the experience is being whittled down. For me, it is the joint crowd experience that takes me to the few films I now see in the cinema - or the very rare film like Avatar that I know will be better on a very large screen.
I'm fortunate I live near the best IMAX screen in the country, and the cinema also has some of the finest screens in the country.
The visual experience is awesome at my cinema, helps explain why I saw close to 150 films last year there.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump
Plus Gore is a proven winner. He won the popular vote in 2000.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump
Only to Europeans. Neither look that presidential to the all important Independents in the US. What's the point of them winning only Dem votes?
For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
Extraordinarily tedious, over-sentimental and predictable, in my opinion. Fell asleep for part of it. My 9-year-old thought it was "okay" and my 14-year-old disliked it. I certainly don't know of any children who actively talk about it the way they did with, say, "Frozen" or "Despicable Me".
(By way of comparison, my children both enjoyed "The Martian", as did I.)
Couldn't watch beyond 15 minutes - even on a 15-hour flight. Decided to read a book on safety in the nuclear power industry instead. That's how dull it was.
Some people just have no soul....
I'm seeing The Revenant tonight, what should I expect?
Beautiful scenery. A lot of Di Caprio not using his legs. And a winter-warmer that is unlikely to catch on.
And one OMFG heart-stopping moment.
But don't take a watch. You might just look at it too often....
Cheers.
Imagine the Fast Show's Unlucky Alf, as a trapper in 1820's North America - and you won't go far wrong....
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
I think the basis is "when you have eliminated the impossible, bet on whatever remains, however improbable - provided the odds are long enough, of course".
Biden is by far the most likely.
Right. I think it can be worth covering alternatives simply because Biden might be unavailable. He's not 17.
I had a chuckle at the previous thread reading the smears on Grayling by 1 or 2 "undecideds" on here. Its as if people have egged Grayling on to see what response he gets before they break cover themselves.
This is going to get ugly for the tories, nobody falls out quite like them. The plan clearly is to keep the heat on Corbyn before we all sit back and watch them tear each other apart.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump
Only to Europeans. Neither look that presidential to the all important Independents in the US. What's the point of them winning only Dem votes?
See my edit, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, so just not to European eyes.
I'm fortunate I live near the best IMAX screen in the country, and the cinema also has some of the finest screens in the country.
The visual experience is awesome at my cinema, helps explain why I saw close to 150 films last year there.
In the US, cinema screens are getting smaller and smaller. The only improvements to the cinema (as opposed to audiovisual) are the seats.
Also, the selection is narrowing unless you live in a trendy area of a city. All the cinemas carry to same 5-10 films, with the 'blockbusters' on several screens simultaneously. If you want to see a moderately intellectual film, good luck if you live in B*mf*ck, WV - or even in rural MD.
If he was very active trying to address the situation within the IAAF, but respected the confidentiality of internal deliberations when he failed, he might have some claim to be the man. But even in that case, it would mean:
1. that he did not speak out publicly so was not sufficiently passionate about tackling the issue to be the man 2. he did not carry the day, so does not have the persuasive powers to be the man.
It all hangs on whether the Council in general and he in particular was aware or not.
If he was aware and didn't resign having argued his case, that would have been a misjudgement but not one that should necessarily be held against him too heavily if he could put a credible case that the matter couldn't be solved in the short term but if he kept working within, he'd be able to affect change before too long anyway.
However, that doesn't explain his inactivity these last five months, his dismissal of the suggestion of a cover-up just last Wednesday or his aggressive defence of the IAAF's actions on taking office.
Tis true the thrust of your argument, but several Tory ministers have said outright its Labour what was to blame [for the crash].
I don't think so. Do you have an example?
Are you being sarcastic? There are infinite examples of the Tories talking about "Labour wrecking the economy" and "Labour leaving a mess behind".
Indeed, but that's not blaming them for the global crash.
It amazes me that so many on the left don't understand the distinction. I don't think it's wilful misunderstanding, I think they genuinely don't see it.
Anywho, even leaving aside the argument in principle against saying the last Labour government overspent (as well as the inconvenient argument that PBTories don't like to hear that, if deficits are so evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office), it makes absolutely no sense at all as a political strategy.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
Extraordinarily tedious, over-sentimental and predictable, in my opinion. Fell asleep for part of it. My 9-year-old thought it was "okay" and my 14-year-old disliked it. I certainly don't know of any children who actively talk about it the way they did with, say, "Frozen" or "Despicable Me".
(By way of comparison, my children both enjoyed "The Martian", as did I.)
Couldn't watch beyond 15 minutes - even on a 15-hour flight. Decided to read a book on safety in the nuclear power industry instead. That's how dull it was.
Some people just have no soul....
I'm seeing The Revenant tonight, what should I expect?
Beautiful scenery. A lot of Di Caprio not using his legs. And a winter-warmer that is unlikely to catch on.
And one OMFG heart-stopping moment.
But don't take a watch. You might just look at it too often....
Cheers.
Imagine the Fast Show's Unlucky Alf, as a trapper in 1820's North America - and you won't go far wrong....
Bugger, I spent last night watching The Wolf of Wall Street to get me into the mood for a Di Cap film
Tis true the thrust of your argument, but several Tory ministers have said outright its Labour what was to blame [for the crash].
I don't think so. Do you have an example?
Are you being sarcastic? There are infinite examples of the Tories talking about "Labour wrecking the economy" and "Labour leaving a mess behind".
Indeed, but that's not blaming them for the global crash.
It amazes me that so many on the left don't understand the distinction. I don't think it's wilful misunderstanding, I think they genuinely don't see it.
If running a deficit is the ultimate economic evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office?
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
I think the basis is "when you have eliminated the impossible, bet on whatever remains, however improbable - provided the odds are long enough, of course".
Biden is by far the most likely.
Right. I think it can be worth covering alternatives simply because Biden might be unavailable. He's not 17.
Yes, exactly. At very long odds only, of course - these are not likely scenarios.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
On the other side, Ryan is similarly cheap for the brokered convention possibility.
Why would the GOP go past *all* the candidates in the race if it turns to a brokered convention?
At least for the Democrats, there'll probably be a good case that if Hillary falters, neither Sanders nor O'Malley will have done enough to be worthy of the nomination.
I don't think they would. But the argument would be for unity, and it might prove impossible to get delegates to switch to the verycandidates they've been deriding over the primary campaign.
A brokered convention is maybe 12/1 at the moment (are there any bets available?). That convention picking Ryan is maybe 25/1.
I agree that Joe Biden is by far the most likely "non-runner".
Anywho, even leaving aside the argument in principle against saying the last Labour government overspent (as well as the inconvenient argument that PBTories don't like to hear that, if deficits are so evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office), it makes absolutely no sense at all as a political strategy.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
... and then they would have been able to move on from arguing such a ludicrous position and arguing *for* what they'd do next time.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump
Only to Europeans. Neither look that presidential to the all important Independents in the US. What's the point of them winning only Dem votes?
See my edit, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, so just not to European eyes.
Anywho, even leaving aside the argument in principle against saying the last Labour government overspent (as well as the inconvenient argument that PBTories don't like to hear that, if deficits are so evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office), it makes absolutely no sense at all as a political strategy.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
That's why you address your weaknesses at the start. Like Cameron and the huskies, much mocked though it was.
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
I think the basis is "when you have eliminated the impossible, bet on whatever remains, however improbable - provided the odds are long enough, of course".
Biden is by far the most likely.
The risk is you are not betting on all the possible replacements, just the ones we have heard of. There must be dozens more in Congress or in Democrat-held states. Just consider how often we are surprised by VP picks.
Anywho, even leaving aside the argument in principle against saying the last Labour government overspent (as well as the inconvenient argument that PBTories don't like to hear that, if deficits are so evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office), it makes absolutely no sense at all as a political strategy.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
You say you've learned the lesson. Particularly when so many believe that there was indeed a lesson to be learned. Obviously, having Miliband and Balls at the head of Labour didn't help given their closeness to Brown. Really, they needed to cut themselves adrift of him.
The irony is that it was Brown, back in the mid-90s who finally cut the link in the public's mind between Labour and previous lot of economic mismanagement back in the 1970s. Labour could do worse than follow his example. Obviously, the current leadership won't but there'll be a next one.
Anywho, even leaving aside the argument in principle against saying the last Labour government overspent (as well as the inconvenient argument that PBTories don't like to hear that, if deficits are so evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office), it makes absolutely no sense at all as a political strategy.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
... and then they would have been able to move on from arguing such a ludicrous position and arguing *for* what they'd do next time.
No they wouldn't. The public wouldn't've "moved on" from an admission that they'd wrecked the economy last time, nor would the Tories (which I wouldn't've blamed for at all; if I was a political strategist and my chief opponent had validated one of my side's central attack lines, I certainly wouldn't let it go in a hurry).
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
I think the basis is "when you have eliminated the impossible, bet on whatever remains, however improbable - provided the odds are long enough, of course".
Biden is by far the most likely.
The risk is you are not betting on all the possible replacements, just the ones we have heard of. There must be dozens more in Congress or in Democrat-held states. Just consider how often we are surprised by VP picks.
The Dem bench at the State level is very weak at the moment. If I were to think hard about a totally out of left field guy, how about Joe Manchin from WV. Senator and former governor, very much the blue collar (miners) section of the party where the Dems need all the help they can get.
@Danny565 - No one (in mainstream politics or economics) has ever claimed that running a deficit is automatically a bad idea. It's another example of the left inventing a non-existent claim.
Running a deficit of over 10% of GDP, on the other hand, or running a substantial deficit at a time when tax revenues were pouring in from the City at a rate never before seen in history and never likely to be seen again, or running a deficit by hugely increasing expenditure with nothing much to show for it, is another matter, of course.
Anywho, even leaving aside the argument in principle against saying the last Labour government overspent (as well as the inconvenient argument that PBTories don't like to hear that, if deficits are so evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office), it makes absolutely no sense at all as a political strategy.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
... and then they would have been able to move on from arguing such a ludicrous position and arguing *for* what they'd do next time.
No they wouldn't. The public wouldn't've "moved on" from an admission that they'd wrecked the economy last time, nor would the Tories (which I wouldn't've blamed for at all; if I was a political strategist and my chief opponent had validated one of my side's central attack lines, I certainly wouldn't let it go in a hurry).
Given that Labour's economic reputation is dirt, how are you going to rebuild it? By arguing that its *not* dirt? Good one.
You fought 2015 on the same lines and using the same basic arguments as 2010.
Tis true the thrust of your argument, but several Tory ministers have said outright its Labour what was to blame [for the crash].
I don't think so. Do you have an example?
Are you being sarcastic? There are infinite examples of the Tories talking about "Labour wrecking the economy" and "Labour leaving a mess behind".
Indeed, but that's not blaming them for the global crash.
It amazes me that so many on the left don't understand the distinction. I don't think it's wilful misunderstanding, I think they genuinely don't see it.
This interests me, I'm not sure if they're in denial or genuinely believe it. The message is "don't punish the poor for something rich bankers created" which is a powerful one to the young but is totally misleading.
During the GE campaign I spoke with plenty of Labour supporters who refused to countenance that Labour had knighted Fred the Shred. It shows the complete muddleheadedness of the Labour Party and why they're so royally phucked.
I think this is a rare case of people underestimating the public, or at least a sizeable part of it. It's understood that Labour didn't cause a global crisis. However the idea that Labour didn't prepare well to weather it is widely accepted.
Yes, precisely. Labour keep repeating the moan that they 'weren't responsible for the global crash', and they genuinely seem to think, or at least to have convinced themselves when they talk to each other, that they get the blame for this because of some evil Tory twisting of the facts. In reality, no-one has ever suggested that they were to blame for the global crash, it's a complete red herring.
If anything, they escaped very lightly: they actually were to blame for the ludicrous structure of financial regulation which Brown put in place, and which made the UK fallout from the crash much worse than it needed to have been. They don't get blamed enough for that.
Tis true the thrust of your argument, but several Tory ministers have said outright its Labour what was to blame.
Of course Labour were to blame - for 'our' crash. And if the regulation system had worked properly our banks would not have bought into the sub prime debts which effectively ruined them. Its arguable that if our banks (properly regulated) had called foul earlier then other authorities would have taken notice earlier. Brown is entirely responsible for our deficit and all the problems we face as a result. If spending had not been so high and the deficit so high at the time of the crash we could have afforded more easily to run down the deficit more slowly with less in the way of cuts. Brown also thought that the revenue he was getting from banks was there permanently instead of being cyclical. The crash destroyed the business and the tax income. So the governments finances were far worse than Brown realised when the crash hit.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump
Only to Europeans. Neither look that presidential to the all important Independents in the US. What's the point of them winning only Dem votes?
See my edit, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, so just not to European eyes.
That was then, this is now.
Indeed, but he might seem appealing if Hillary falls under a bus, gets indicted and the other alternative is Bernie Sanders.
Anywho, even leaving aside the argument in principle against saying the last Labour government overspent (as well as the inconvenient argument that PBTories don't like to hear that, if deficits are so evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office), it makes absolutely no sense at all as a political strategy.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
But therein lies Labour's problem, illuminated by a giant neon sign hanging over them.
Q. Did you overspend? A. Yes --> BIG PROBLEM
Q. Did you overspend? A. No --> BIG PROBLEM
Labour never had an answer to that. They still don't. They were at least putting a little distance between themselves and Gordon The Boom-and-Bust Slayer. But just when one bat-shit crazy economic guru disappears over the horizon, along come MaoDonnell...
Ask yourself this: would you trust the current Labour opposition with everything you have: your job, your house, your pension?
A. Yes --> BIG PROBLEM FOR YOU - you're an idiot
A. No ---> BIG PROBLEM FOR LABOUR - they're idiots
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
I think the basis is "when you have eliminated the impossible, bet on whatever remains, however improbable - provided the odds are long enough, of course".
Biden is by far the most likely.
Right. I think it can be worth covering alternatives simply because Biden might be unavailable. He's not 17.
Neither is Kerry. If there's an age/health-related issue with Biden, the Democrats aren't going to plump for another septuagenarian.
Anywho, even leaving aside the argument in principle against saying the last Labour government overspent (as well as the inconvenient argument that PBTories don't like to hear that, if deficits are so evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office), it makes absolutely no sense at all as a political strategy.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
That's why you address your weaknesses at the start. Like Cameron and the huskies, much mocked though it was.
I don't know of anyone who was swayed by Cameron's huskies stunt (his stuff to show he "understood" the importance of the NHS is a better example).
But that's not the point anyway. Correcting negative sterotypes about what your party would do in the future, is a different thing to saying you messed things up when you last had the chance. I don't recall Cameron going around apologising for huge swathes of the 1980s/1990s Tory government's record; the only exception is Section 28 which I remember him apologising for, but saying they got gay rights wrong isn't as fundamental as saying they were incapable of managing the economy properly. If he had used much of his time as Opposition leader constantly reminding people of Black Wednesday and going on about how it was all the Tories' fault and how incompetent they were, I'm not sure the results would've been good for the Tories.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump
Only to Europeans. Neither look that presidential to the all important Independents in the US. What's the point of them winning only Dem votes?
See my edit, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, so just not to European eyes.
That was then, this is now.
Indeed, but he might seem appealing if Hillary falls under a bus, gets indicted and the other alternative is Bernie Sanders.
Gore has the Jeb Bush problem - too wooden and out of politics way too long. Out of touch, no people touch. Worse, if he is mentioned at all in public discourse these days, it is mainly to ridicule him about the internet or his carbon footprint.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump.
Biden has gravitas as well, combined with a job that enables him to campaign (Kerry's doesn't so he'd have to stand down), and has expressed an interest. Kerry also lost to a weak Bush candidacy.
For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.
A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.
I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
The Revenant is a great film. The scandal is that it's not listed for Bafta VFX.
It left me colder than the scenery....
EDIT: and the reason it didn't make BAFTA VFX is that the director went to very great lengths to publicly eschew VFX. That, and many BAFTA voters didn't get past 10 minutes in before they went to the next screener, I understand from a well connected source on the judging panel!
What judging panel? There isn't a group that physically meet up and pick the films. Or do you mean the members in the individual chapter who vote online, and without consulting each other?
@Danny565 - No one (in mainstream politics or economics) has ever claimed that running a deficit is automatically a bad idea. It's another example of the left inventing a non-existent claim.
Running a deficit of over 10% of GDP, on the other hand, or running a substantial deficit at a time when tax revenues were pouring in from the City at a rate never before seen in history and never likely to be seen again, or running a deficit by hugely increasing expenditure with nothing much to show for it, is another matter, of course.
George Osborne's fiscal charter mandating surpluses (except for him)?
I don't know of anyone who was swayed by Cameron's huskies stunt (his stuff to show he "understood" the importance of the NHS is a better example).
But that's not the point anyway. Correcting negative sterotypes about what your party would do in the future, is a different thing to saying you messed things up when you last had the chance.
The distinction is that people generally (not specific to any particular government) distrust the Tories' motives, especially on public services, and Labour's competence, especially on finance. So Ed needed to start by addressing the perception/reality that Labour had f*cked up on that and illustrate that he wouldn't.
Cameron's huskies didn't directly sway anyone, but they created a lasting impression.
@Danny565 - No one (in mainstream politics or economics) has ever claimed that running a deficit is automatically a bad idea. It's another example of the left inventing a non-existent claim.
Running a deficit of over 10% of GDP, on the other hand, or running a substantial deficit at a time when tax revenues were pouring in from the City at a rate never before seen in history and never likely to be seen again, or running a deficit by hugely increasing expenditure with nothing much to show for it, is another matter, of course.
Don't be silly Richard, Gordon Brown abolished boom and bust.
I think this is a rare case of people underestimating the public, or at least a sizeable part of it. It's understood that Labour didn't cause a global crisis. However the idea that Labour didn't prepare well to weather it is widely accepted.
Yes, precisely. Labour keep repeating the moan that they 'weren't responsible for the global crash', and they genuinely seem to think, or at least to have convinced themselves when they talk to each other, that they get the blame for this because of some evil Tory twisting of the facts. In reality, no-one has ever suggested that they were to blame for the global crash, it's a complete red herring.
If anything, they escaped very lightly: they actually were to blame for the ludicrous structure of financial regulation which Brown put in place, and which made the UK fallout from the crash much worse than it needed to have been. They don't get blamed enough for that.
Tis true the thrust of your argument, but several Tory ministers have said outright its Labour what was to blame.
Very sensible Lab-supporting economists disagree with austerity, think George is c*cking it up now, but do accept that Gordon spent too much money.
So no, he didn't cause it (although I can see, albeit tortuously, that "cause" is shorthand for what he did). But the UK was in a very difficult place once it had happened. Everyone runs sensible and moderate deficits but his was after one of the most sustained expansions in UK economic history.
Oh sorry just had a sense of pre-May 2015 deja-vu all over again..
No they wouldn't. The public wouldn't've "moved on" from an admission that they'd wrecked the economy last time, nor would the Tories (which I wouldn't've blamed for at all; if I was a political strategist and my chief opponent had validated one of my side's central attack lines, I certainly wouldn't let it go in a hurry).
On this point I think you right, the political strategy for Labour under Miliband was always going to be very difficult. He made it worse by flip-flopping between two positions of accepting there had to be savings made, and then criticising any savings made, and further compounded the problem by establishing 'too far, too fast' as the initial mantra, and then laying into Osborne for not cutting the deficit fast enough. No wonder the public were not impressed.
Of course, all that pales into complete insignifance compared with the difficulty of presenting Corbyn and McDonnell as credible custodians for the public finances.
BBCLauraK "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"
"2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "
"3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...
No shit, Sherlock.
Labour supporters don't believe point 1. On a different forum yesterday, a (relatively sane) Labour supporter posed the following question:
"I've been thinking a bit about this the past 2 days, who gets the blame for the next crash - assuming there's one say this year/next. Obviously last time the bankers took a large amount of the vilification and politicians were let off for the most part. Will they be blamed this time? Or will another scapegoat be found?"
If we have a crash (and I believe we will be in recession at some point in the next two or three years) there is no way it can be blamed on Labour this time.
Economies work in cycles. So a downswing is not a bad thing in itself - its inevitable. A downswing does not necessarily mean a recession, which is 2 quarters of negative growth. And a recession is not a 'crash' or crisis. Talk currently is about the move of interest rates upwards. This is generally done to take the heat out of an economy - in other words to steer it onto a downswing of the economic cycle. Generally you lower interest rates when in the downswing or recession to restart growth. We currently have something like trend growth and 0.5% interest rates. So if the next move for interest rates is upwards then its hardly suggestive of an economy heading for recession. I think the general view is that interest rates are not going to go beyond 2% in the foreseeable future.
Corbyn's latest appointment Thangam Debbonaire, has had experience of working as a professional cellist, though how far she is able to cope with the portfolio on top of MP's workload may be open to question. Her treatment is still on going.
For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.
A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.
I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
I think you're right, I also think Comic Book films are having an effect on the cinema, and I say that as someone who loves my Comic Book films.
If you don't have a Cineworld card, you have to pick and choose your films, which knocks on to people attending.
I think thats a good point. This year there's 5 or 6 big comic books movies, then various franchise/sequel movies which makes it difficult for anything original to really shine.
Off the top of my head:
Deadpool Cap America 3 Batman Vs Superman X-Men Apocalpse (sp) Suicide Squad Dr Strange
as all comic book movies.
Then add to that Independence Day2 Star Wars:Rogue TMNT 2
plus probably others.
I read in Empire last month the average cost of a cinema ticket now is £10, 3D films push it close to £12 and IMAX/4DX pushes it close to £18.
Now if you want a family trip to the cinema you can be looking at something between £40 to £75 for tickets alone, before you get the drinks and food at the cinema.
You can get Sky Movies and Sport for around £40 a month, netflix for £8.99 and you can see why some people might prefer to stay at home.
No wonder couples might prefer to stay home and netflix and chill
I got back-to-back screenings of Star Wars at Leicester Square as a birthday* present - £20 each!
I don't know of anyone who was swayed by Cameron's huskies stunt (his stuff to show he "understood" the importance of the NHS is a better example).
But that's not the point anyway. Correcting negative sterotypes about what your party would do in the future, is a different thing to saying you messed things up when you last had the chance.
The distinction is that people generally (not specific to any particular government) distrust the Tories' motives, especially on public services, and Labour's competence, especially on finance. So Ed needed to start by addressing the perception/reality that Labour had f*cked up on that and illustrate that he wouldn't.
Cameron's huskies didn't directly sway anyone, but they created a lasting impression.
Again though, the idea that people would be reassured by an admission that someone fucked up the last time they were given the job, is mystifying to me.
If an electrician put an ad in the paper saying how someone had got electrocuted at the last job they did because they wrecked the wiring so much, my reaction wouldn't be to congratulate them for having "learned their lesson". My reaction would be if they messed up before, they'll mess up again, and resolve never to even consider hiring them.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump
Only to Europeans. Neither look that presidential to the all important Independents in the US. What's the point of them winning only Dem votes?
See my edit, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, so just not to European eyes.
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
I think the basis is "when you have eliminated the impossible, bet on whatever remains, however improbable - provided the odds are long enough, of course".
Biden is by far the most likely.
The risk is you are not betting on all the possible replacements, just the ones we have heard of. There must be dozens more in Congress or in Democrat-held states. Just consider how often we are surprised by VP picks.
That there are (or may be) lots of below-the-radar options is one reason it shouldn't be any of them. It'll be an almighty bunfight at the convention if they do start going down that route. The discussions and votes could take days; it'd be like going back to the 1920s. Why would any one senator or governor stand back in order to let someone of a similar standing go forward, if they still think they stand an outside chance? Which is why it would need to go to someone of a higher political standing and whose reputation is visibly cleaner than most. Fortunately for the Democrats, Biden ticks both boxes.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump.
Biden has gravitas as well, combined with a job that enables him to campaign (Kerry's doesn't so he'd have to stand down), and has expressed an interest. Kerry also lost to a weak Bush candidacy.
Plus Gore is a proven winner. He won the popular vote in 2000.
No prizes for that, though.
Hold on. The question was who else to buy as insurance at crazy odds if Hillary goes under the proverbial FBI driven bus. I think (and have bet accordingly) a couple of quid on Gore, Kerry or Biden is a sensible response.
Ask yourself this: would you trust the current Labour opposition with everything you have: your job, your house, your pension?
Would you trust Kim Jong Jez, McMAo, Red Ken, that Abbott woman, etc, etc, with: 1, The defence of the realm? 2. The defence of your country if you happen to be English? 3. A sensible policy on immigration and culture? 4. Educating your child sensibly? 5. etc 6. etc
If you answer Yes to any of these you're a moron. And how long is this list of potential questions? EVERY issue sees them in the loony camp. Not a good electoral look.
Again though, the idea that people would be reassured by an admission that someone fucked up the last time they were given the job, is mystifying to me.
You don't do it by a grovelling apology, you do it by a long and painstaking effort to demonstrate that you are now worthy of trust. Brown, Blair and Mandelson did that quite brilliantly in the '90s. There's no shortcut, though; it takes time and a lot of effort and discipline.
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump.
Biden has gravitas as well, combined with a job that enables him to campaign (Kerry's doesn't so he'd have to stand down), and has expressed an interest. Kerry also lost to a weak Bush candidacy.
Plus Gore is a proven winner. He won the popular vote in 2000.
No prizes for that, though.
Hold on. The question was who else to buy as insurance at crazy odds if Hillary goes under the proverbial FBI driven bus. I think (and have bet accordingly) a couple of quid on Gore, Kerry or Biden is a sensible response.
Depends what you mean by crazy odds. Biden should be value down to about 66/1; Kerry I wouldn't back south of 500/1 and Gore not below four figures.
If it's not Hillary or Biden then I can't see the logic for Kerry or Gore. In that situation, you would have to be looking at a next-generation candidate, for all the trouble the selection would bring.
For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.
A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.
I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
The Revenant is a great film. The scandal is that it's not listed for Bafta VFX.
It left me colder than the scenery....
EDIT: and the reason it didn't make BAFTA VFX is that the director went to very great lengths to publicly eschew VFX. That, and many BAFTA voters didn't get past 10 minutes in before they went to the next screener, I understand from a well connected source on the judging panel!
What judging panel? There isn't a group that physically meet up and pick the films. Or do you mean the members in the individual chapter?
By "judging panel", I mean those who are BAFTA awards big-wigs, the organisers, who get feedback...
Again though, the idea that people would be reassured by an admission that someone fucked up the last time they were given the job, is mystifying to me.
You don't do it by a grovelling apology, you do it by a long and painstaking effort to demonstrate that you are now worthy of trust. Brown, Blair and Mandelson did that quite brilliantly in the '90s. There's no shortcut, though; it takes time and a lot of effort and discipline.
Sure, but the ways they did it were much more cute than just saying "the last Labour government fucked up and the Tories are right" -- for example, the "public-private partnerships" (or PFI as it was later known) was a good tool in opposition in the 1990s to illustrate how they'd improve public services much more than the Tories without racking up taxes on the middle class.
Again though, the idea that people would be reassured by an admission that someone fucked up the last time they were given the job, is mystifying to me.
If an electrician put an ad in the paper saying how someone had got electrocuted at the last job they did because they wrecked the wiring so much, my reaction wouldn't be to congratulate them for having "learned their lesson". My reaction would be if they messed up before, they'll mess up again, and resolve never to even consider hiring them.
Essentially she may have told an aide to use an unclassified channel for classified data because the fax machine was down, just avoiding identifying it as such: there's no evidence that he actually did, but maybe the State Department has lost the email. It's all very if-maybe, and essentially the accusation is that she might have at some point been a bit careless of following the data security rules. I doubt if she's the only public figure to be guilty of that once or twice.
Is there any polling data that directly asks whether people care about any of this?
Sure, but the ways they did it were much more cute than just saying "the last Labour government fucked up and the Tories are right" -- for example, the "public-private partnerships" (or PFI as it was later known) was a good tool in opposition in the 1990s to illustrate how they'd improve public services much more than the Tories without racking up taxes on the middle class.
Yes, and the 'Prawn Cocktail' initiative. That was crucial not because the public would directly care or even notice, but because it meant that (a) Labour top-brass had actually talked to financiers and learnt something from them, and (b) business would be reasurred and that would indirectly change the mood-music. In fact they did even better than that - they got quite a lot of active support from business.
I believe that Ed Balls understood all this and was trying his best (and Chuka as well), but they were fighting with their hands tied behind their backs by Miliband's odd combination of naivety and intellectual arrogance.
Anywho, even leaving aside the argument in principle against saying the last Labour government overspent (as well as the inconvenient argument that PBTories don't like to hear that, if deficits are so evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office), it makes absolutely no sense at all as a political strategy.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
I recall in one of the pieces after the GE there was an explanation of the answer Ed was supposed to give at QT to that question on overspending - instead of opening with a flat no, I recall he was supposed to explain the context first, and that in that circumstance he didn't accept that they had overspent.
That explanation would still have been attacked by Tories, but it would have played a little better by obscuring the issue better, not shocking people with such a seemingly firm refutation of the premise (widely accepted, hence needing the qualifying context)
I don't know of anyone who was swayed by Cameron's huskies stunt (his stuff to show he "understood" the importance of the NHS is a better example).
But that's not the point anyway. Correcting negative sterotypes about what your party would do in the future, is a different thing to saying you messed things up when you last had the chance.
The distinction is that people generally (not specific to any particular government) distrust the Tories' motives, especially on public services, and Labour's competence, especially on finance. So Ed needed to start by addressing the perception/reality that Labour had f*cked up on that and illustrate that he wouldn't.
Cameron's huskies didn't directly sway anyone, but they created a lasting impression.
Again though, the idea that people would be reassured by an admission that someone fucked up the last time they were given the job, is mystifying to me.
If an electrician put an ad in the paper saying how someone had got electrocuted at the last job they did because they wrecked the wiring so much, my reaction wouldn't be to congratulate them for having "learned their lesson". My reaction would be if they messed up before, they'll mess up again, and resolve never to even consider hiring them.
The phrase you're looking for is "under new management".
Ask yourself this: would you trust the current Labour opposition with everything you have: your job, your house, your pension?
Would you trust Kim Jong Jez, McMAo, Red Ken, that Abbott woman, etc, etc, with: 1, The defence of the realm? 2. The defence of your country if you happen to be English? 3. A sensible policy on immigration and culture? 4. Educating your child sensibly? 5. etc 6. etc
If you answer Yes to any of these you're a moron. And how long is this list of potential questions? EVERY issue sees them in the loony camp. Not a good electoral look.
No to all of them (except I don't have kids). But neither would I trust Blair or Brown on them, or Cameron for that matter.
I don't know of anyone who was swayed by Cameron's huskies stunt (his stuff to show he "understood" the importance of the NHS is a better example).
But that's not the point anyway. Correcting negative sterotypes about what your party would do in the future, is a different thing to saying you messed things up when you last had the chance.
The distinction is that people generally (not specific to any particular government) distrust the Tories' motives, especially on public services, and Labour's competence, especially on finance. So Ed needed to start by addressing the perception/reality that Labour had f*cked up on that and illustrate that he wouldn't.
Cameron's huskies didn't directly sway anyone, but they created a lasting impression.
Again though, the idea that people would be reassured by an admission that someone fucked up the last time they were given the job, is mystifying to me.
If an electrician put an ad in the paper saying how someone had got electrocuted at the last job they did because they wrecked the wiring so much, my reaction wouldn't be to congratulate them for having "learned their lesson". My reaction would be if they messed up before, they'll mess up again, and resolve never to even consider hiring them.
The phrase you're looking for is "under new management".
Anywho, even leaving aside the argument in principle against saying the last Labour government overspent (as well as the inconvenient argument that PBTories don't like to hear that, if deficits are so evil, why did Thatcher run a deficit for 9 of her 11 years in office), it makes absolutely no sense at all as a political strategy.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
I recall in one of the pieces after the GE there was an explanation of the answer Ed was supposed to give at QT to that question on overspending - instead of opening with a flat no, I recall he was supposed to explain the context first, and that in that circumstance he didn't accept that they had overspent.
That explanation would still have been attacked by Tories, but it would have played a little better by obscuring the issue better, not shocking people with such a seemingly firm refutation of the premise (widely accepted, hence needing the qualifying context)
The Question Time debate also ensnared Miliband on Labour’s greatest long-term weakness – how it would handle the deficit. Beales had prepped him for a likely question on whether the previous Labour government had spent too much, with one of Harriet Harman’s aides playing the role of a voter furious with Labour about spending. The prepared answer, broadly, was: “I don’t think every penny was well spent. I can give you plenty of examples where the last Labour government did not spend money well and, as someone who believes that spending on health and education can change lives, it is incumbent on me to make sure that every pound is well spent. But if you are asking me, ‘Did that spending actually cause the crash?’, the answer is ‘No.’ The answer lies in failure to regulate the banks.”
Instead, when an audience member asked him: “Do you accept that when Labour was last in power, it overspent?”, Miliband began his answer, “No, I don’t,” to gasps from members of the audience. The next day, Miliband was ripped apart in the media, which added to the sense that his campaign was losing its discipline.
I don't know of anyone who was swayed by Cameron's huskies stunt (his stuff to show he "understood" the importance of the NHS is a better example).
But that's not the point anyway. Correcting negative sterotypes about what your party would do in the future, is a different thing to saying you messed things up when you last had the chance.
The distinction is that people generally (not specific to any particular government) distrust the Tories' motives, especially on public services, and Labour's competence, especially on finance. So Ed needed to start by addressing the perception/reality that Labour had f*cked up on that and illustrate that he wouldn't.
Cameron's huskies didn't directly sway anyone, but they created a lasting impression.
Again though, the idea that people would be reassured by an admission that someone fucked up the last time they were given the job, is mystifying to me.
If an electrician put an ad in the paper saying how someone had got electrocuted at the last job they did because they wrecked the wiring so much, my reaction wouldn't be to congratulate them for having "learned their lesson". My reaction would be if they messed up before, they'll mess up again, and resolve never to even consider hiring them.
The alternatives are what? Employ an electrician who had got someone electrocuted, which you don't know about for sure but that's the gossip? Or employ an electrician who got someone electrocuted but says "No, absolutely not me.." when you ask them about it?
Surely, you would do as the electorate did - not take them on at all. Wouldn't you?
Labour has now actually gone so far backwards, they not only have taken on someone with no understanding of AC/DC - but someone who has a long-held belief that the best form of electricity to wire your house with is static electricity...
I don't know of anyone who was swayed by Cameron's huskies stunt (his stuff to show he "understood" the importance of the NHS is a better example).
But that's not the point anyway. Correcting negative sterotypes about what your party would do in the future, is a different thing to saying you messed things up when you last had the chance.
The distinction is that people generally (not specific to any particular government) distrust the Tories' motives, especially on public services, and Labour's competence, especially on finance. So Ed needed to start by addressing the perception/reality that Labour had f*cked up on that and illustrate that he wouldn't.
Cameron's huskies didn't directly sway anyone, but they created a lasting impression.
Again though, the idea that people would be reassured by an admission that someone fucked up the last time they were given the job, is mystifying to me.
If an electrician put an ad in the paper saying how someone had got electrocuted at the last job they did because they wrecked the wiring so much, my reaction wouldn't be to congratulate them for having "learned their lesson". My reaction would be if they messed up before, they'll mess up again, and resolve never to even consider hiring them.
The alternatives are what? Employ an electrician who had got someone electrocuted, which you don't know about for sure but that's the gossip? Or employ an electrician who got someone electrocuted but says "No, absolutely not me.." when you ask them about it?
Surely, you would do as the electorate did - not take them on at all. Wouldn't you?
The only way I would take them on would be if they proved that the gossip was wrong and they hadn't messed it up in the first place.
Both have their downsides. I don't think anyone is pretending that there's an easy answer here, but one answer starts to give you a chance for defining yourself and the other goes further down an ideological and electoral dead end.
Corbyn's latest appointment Thangam Debbonaire, has had experience of working as a professional cellist, though how far she is able to cope with the portfolio on top of MP's workload may be open to question. Her treatment is still on going.
Corbyn's latest appointment Thangam Debbonaire, has had experience of working as a professional cellist, though how far she is able to cope with the portfolio on top of MP's workload may be open to question. Her treatment is still on going.
What the...? She has been quite sick, and according to that article isn't expected to be back at work full time for another three or four months. Why would Corbyn appoint her to a ministry if he hadn't completely run out of MPs that would take a job?
OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
Al Gore.
On what basis?!
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
Gravitas. Both Kerry and Gore look like Presidents, especially if the Republican nominee is Trump
Only to Europeans. Neither look that presidential to the all important Independents in the US. What's the point of them winning only Dem votes?
See my edit, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, so just not to European eyes.
Attlee won the popular vote in 1951.
Heath also "won" in Feb 1974
The Conservatives won the popular vote in 1929 but lost on seat numbers.
Corbyn's latest appointment Thangam Debbonaire, has had experience of working as a professional cellist, though how far she is able to cope with the portfolio on top of MP's workload may be open to question. Her treatment is still on going.
What the...? She has been quite sick, and according to that article isn't expected to be back at work full time for another three or four months. Why would Corbyn appoint her to a ministry if he hadn't completely run out of MPs that would take a job?
She is certainly dedicated to the party if she is still undergoing treatment yet accepted the position.
“At the start of the parliament, we had an immediate challenge,” one of Miliband’s top advisers said. “The question was whether you confront the Tory spin that Labour had overspent, causing the crash, or whether you concede the point. But we neither confronted nor conceded – we simply tried to move on.”
Corbyn's latest appointment Thangam Debbonaire, has had experience of working as a professional cellist, though how far she is able to cope with the portfolio on top of MP's workload may be open to question. Her treatment is still on going.
What the...? She has been quite sick, and according to that article isn't expected to be back at work full time for another three or four months. Why would Corbyn appoint her to a ministry if he hadn't completely run out of MPs that would take a job?
Look, she's not expected to actually DO anything with the misogynists in Cabinet; just play a little background mood music on the cello, as the men decide on the important stuff....
“At the start of the parliament, we had an immediate challenge,” one of Miliband’s top advisers said. “The question was whether you confront the Tory spin that Labour had overspent, causing the crash, or whether you concede the point. But we neither confronted nor conceded – we simply tried to move on.”
It's still wrong though - The Tories might well have implied that Labour caused the crash, but they didn't generally say it, which made accusations they did fall flat as mere counter spin - both sides are adept at defending themselves from ridiculous assertions their opponents never actually make. I don't have the link to hand on my iPad, but even in 2010 in his conference speech Cameron was saying Labour didn't cause everything, but they did make it worse.
I don't know of anyone who was swayed by Cameron's huskies stunt (his stuff to show he "understood" the importance of the NHS is a better example).
But that's not the point anyway. Correcting negative sterotypes about what your party would do in the future, is a different thing to saying you messed things up when you last had the chance.
The distinction is that people generally (not specific to any particular government) distrust the Tories' motives, especially on public services, and Labour's competence, especially on finance. So Ed needed to start by addressing the perception/reality that Labour had f*cked up on that and illustrate that he wouldn't.
Cameron's huskies didn't directly sway anyone, but they created a lasting impression.
Again though, the idea that people would be reassured by an admission that someone fucked up the last time they were given the job, is mystifying to me.
If an electrician put an ad in the paper saying how someone had got electrocuted at the last job they did because they wrecked the wiring so much, my reaction wouldn't be to congratulate them for having "learned their lesson". My reaction would be if they messed up before, they'll mess up again, and resolve never to even consider hiring them.
The alternatives are what? Employ an electrician who had got someone electrocuted, which you don't know about for sure but that's the gossip? Or employ an electrician who got someone electrocuted but says "No, absolutely not me.." when you ask them about it?
Surely, you would do as the electorate did - not take them on at all. Wouldn't you?
The only way I would take them on would be if they proved that the gossip was wrong and they hadn't messed it up in the first place.
"So then Mr Miliband, about that dead electrician.....what proof do you have that the gossip was wrong?"
Comments
I wouldn't back Kerry either. What does he bring to the table that Biden doesn't? I can't see that he's improved as a presidential candidate since 2004 and in many ways has gone backwards.
At least for the Democrats, there'll probably be a good case that if Hillary falters, neither Sanders nor O'Malley will have done enough to be worthy of the nomination.
Biden is by far the most likely.
The visual experience is awesome at my cinema, helps explain why I saw close to 150 films last year there.
Plus Gore is a proven winner. He won the popular vote in 2000.
This is going to get ugly for the tories, nobody falls out quite like them. The plan clearly is to keep the heat on Corbyn before we all sit back and watch them tear each other apart.
Also, the selection is narrowing unless you live in a trendy area of a city. All the cinemas carry to same 5-10 films, with the 'blockbusters' on several screens simultaneously. If you want to see a moderately intellectual film, good luck if you live in B*mf*ck, WV - or even in rural MD.
If he was very active trying to address the situation within the IAAF, but respected the confidentiality of internal deliberations when he failed, he might have some claim to be the man. But even in that case, it would mean:
1. that he did not speak out publicly so was not sufficiently passionate about tackling the issue to be the man
2. he did not carry the day, so does not have the persuasive powers to be the man.
It all hangs on whether the Council in general and he in particular was aware or not.
If he was aware and didn't resign having argued his case, that would have been a misjudgement but not one that should necessarily be held against him too heavily if he could put a credible case that the matter couldn't be solved in the short term but if he kept working within, he'd be able to affect change before too long anyway.
However, that doesn't explain his inactivity these last five months, his dismissal of the suggestion of a cover-up just last Wednesday or his aggressive defence of the IAAF's actions on taking office.
He needs to buck up or butt out.
It amazes me that so many on the left don't understand the distinction. I don't think it's wilful misunderstanding, I think they genuinely don't see it.
What do you think would've happened if Ed Miliband had answered "Yes, we overspent" to that question on Question Time? The Tories would've put out an instant response saying "see, this proves it, it's not just a Tory lie, even Labour admit they wrecked the economy, you definitely can't trust them now", and the economic competence polls would've turned from the 50% saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy, into damn-near 100%.
.... alas that classical knowledge merely allows one to despise the wealth it prevents one achieving.
A brokered convention is maybe 12/1 at the moment (are there any bets available?). That convention picking Ryan is maybe 25/1.
I agree that Joe Biden is by far the most likely "non-runner".
Still, you keep arguing and 'explaining' away.
By just denying it outright, he looked like he was treating the audience like mushrooms - keeping them in the dark and feeding them shit.
The irony is that it was Brown, back in the mid-90s who finally cut the link in the public's mind between Labour and previous lot of economic mismanagement back in the 1970s. Labour could do worse than follow his example. Obviously, the current leadership won't but there'll be a next one.
Running a deficit of over 10% of GDP, on the other hand, or running a substantial deficit at a time when tax revenues were pouring in from the City at a rate never before seen in history and never likely to be seen again, or running a deficit by hugely increasing expenditure with nothing much to show for it, is another matter, of course.
You fought 2015 on the same lines and using the same basic arguments as 2010.
There's no pattern there, I'm sure.
During the GE campaign I spoke with plenty of Labour supporters who refused to countenance that Labour had knighted Fred the Shred. It shows the complete muddleheadedness of the Labour Party and why they're so royally phucked.
How Germany wanted the world to look, 1917. https://t.co/jHnkhnO3sY https://t.co/ukcGDAiUiT
Brown is entirely responsible for our deficit and all the problems we face as a result. If spending had not been so high and the deficit so high at the time of the crash we could have afforded more easily to run down the deficit more slowly with less in the way of cuts.
Brown also thought that the revenue he was getting from banks was there permanently instead of being cyclical. The crash destroyed the business and the tax income. So the governments finances were far worse than Brown realised when the crash hit.
The last two words probably the most damning there.
Q. Did you overspend? A. Yes --> BIG PROBLEM
Q. Did you overspend? A. No --> BIG PROBLEM
Labour never had an answer to that. They still don't. They were at least putting a little distance between themselves and Gordon The Boom-and-Bust Slayer. But just when one bat-shit crazy economic guru disappears over the horizon, along come MaoDonnell...
Ask yourself this: would you trust the current Labour opposition with everything you have: your job, your house, your pension?
A. Yes --> BIG PROBLEM FOR YOU - you're an idiot
A. No ---> BIG PROBLEM FOR LABOUR - they're idiots
Yes.
Obviously admitting it with a week to go would have been ludicrous, but it might have given a chance at a clear deck next time around.
But that's not the point anyway. Correcting negative sterotypes about what your party would do in the future, is a different thing to saying you messed things up when you last had the chance. I don't recall Cameron going around apologising for huge swathes of the 1980s/1990s Tory government's record; the only exception is Section 28 which I remember him apologising for, but saying they got gay rights wrong isn't as fundamental as saying they were incapable of managing the economy properly. If he had used much of his time as Opposition leader constantly reminding people of Black Wednesday and going on about how it was all the Tories' fault and how incompetent they were, I'm not sure the results would've been good for the Tories.
Cameron's huskies didn't directly sway anyone, but they created a lasting impression.
So no, he didn't cause it (although I can see, albeit tortuously, that "cause" is shorthand for what he did). But the UK was in a very difficult place once it had happened. Everyone runs sensible and moderate deficits but his was after one of the most sustained expansions in UK economic history.
Oh sorry just had a sense of pre-May 2015 deja-vu all over again..
Of course, all that pales into complete insignifance compared with the difficulty of presenting Corbyn and McDonnell as credible custodians for the public finances.
Talk currently is about the move of interest rates upwards. This is generally done to take the heat out of an economy - in other words to steer it onto a downswing of the economic cycle. Generally you lower interest rates when in the downswing or recession to restart growth.
We currently have something like trend growth and 0.5% interest rates. So if the next move for interest rates is upwards then its hardly suggestive of an economy heading for recession. I think the general view is that interest rates are not going to go beyond 2% in the foreseeable future.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Jeremy-Corbyn-appoints-Bristol-MP-Thangam/story-28529472-detail/story.html
* birthday was actually in November
If an electrician put an ad in the paper saying how someone had got electrocuted at the last job they did because they wrecked the wiring so much, my reaction wouldn't be to congratulate them for having "learned their lesson". My reaction would be if they messed up before, they'll mess up again, and resolve never to even consider hiring them.
Heath also "won" in Feb 1974
1, The defence of the realm?
2. The defence of your country if you happen to be English?
3. A sensible policy on immigration and culture?
4. Educating your child sensibly?
5. etc
6. etc
If you answer Yes to any of these you're a moron. And how long is this list of potential questions? EVERY issue sees them in the loony camp. Not a good electoral look.
Labour shouldn’t be looking at why it lost in 2015, but why only three of its leaders have won majorities. That’s three out of 25.
If it's not Hillary or Biden then I can't see the logic for Kerry or Gore. In that situation, you would have to be looking at a next-generation candidate, for all the trouble the selection would bring.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35305899
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/632899854641971200
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-mail-baggage-1452730477
Essentially she may have told an aide to use an unclassified channel for classified data because the fax machine was down, just avoiding identifying it as such: there's no evidence that he actually did, but maybe the State Department has lost the email. It's all very if-maybe, and essentially the accusation is that she might have at some point been a bit careless of following the data security rules. I doubt if she's the only public figure to be guilty of that once or twice.
Is there any polling data that directly asks whether people care about any of this?
I believe that Ed Balls understood all this and was trying his best (and Chuka as well), but they were fighting with their hands tied behind their backs by Miliband's odd combination of naivety and intellectual arrogance.
As for the current team...
That explanation would still have been attacked by Tories, but it would have played a little better by obscuring the issue better, not shocking people with such a seemingly firm refutation of the premise (widely accepted, hence needing the qualifying context)
1, The defence of the realm?
2. The defence of your country if you happen to be English?
3. A sensible policy on immigration and culture?
4. Educating your child sensibly?
5. etc
6. etc
If you answer Yes to any of these you're a moron. And how long is this list of potential questions? EVERY issue sees them in the loony camp. Not a good electoral look.
No to all of them (except I don't have kids). But neither would I trust Blair or Brown on them, or Cameron for that matter.
Instead, when an audience member asked him: “Do you accept that when Labour was last in power, it overspent?”, Miliband began his answer, “No, I don’t,” to gasps from members of the audience. The next day, Miliband was ripped apart in the media, which added to the sense that his campaign was losing its discipline.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election
Surely, you would do as the electorate did - not take them on at all. Wouldn't you?
Labour has now actually gone so far backwards, they not only have taken on someone with no understanding of AC/DC - but someone who has a long-held belief that the best form of electricity to wire your house with is static electricity...
Clear the decks and move on
OR
Come at me in squares
Both have their downsides. I don't think anyone is pretending that there's an easy answer here, but one answer starts to give you a chance for defining yourself and the other goes further down an ideological and electoral dead end.
“At the start of the parliament, we had an immediate challenge,” one of Miliband’s top advisers said. “The question was whether you confront the Tory spin that Labour had overspent, causing the crash, or whether you concede the point. But we neither confronted nor conceded – we simply tried to move on.”
It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.
Hillary's sins are more numerous and at least as serious. Will she get special treatment?