"... spending dozens of hours playing a computer game ..."
Dozens of hours? Dozens? The first two playthroughs of Skyrim took up a tad over 1,000 hours. Then I discovered the player-made modifications which gave the game a whole new lease of life and another 1,000 hours were spent. Then they brought out the new version of Elite which took more than 600 hours before I finally got bored with it. Since July 2015 I have got into a WW2 flight sim, now that has been a real time sink. According to my log book I have spent more than 2,000 in virtual flight (along with about £1000 on controllers, monitors and sundry bits of kit).
Being retired is great.
I consider myself an avid gamer at my peak (I have been slacking the past few years), but the most I've clocked up is 300 in XCOM - I managed say 150 in Skyrim and don't really feel the need to go back, I don't know how people manage so much more, sometimes in short timespans too.
Think about people who play WoW for 12 years (or however long it has been), must be ten thousand hours at least.
Smaller games played once or twice for 6-10 hours can be fantastic too of course. 50-60 for a good RPG though, in a single play through, that's good money's worth (so long as the hours are entertaining).
Trump is not like leave because leaving the EU did not mean a maniac is in charge of the country. It was the public removing a weapon from the establishments artillery, but letting them stay in charge.
Voting Trump is a much riskier proposition.
It's sometimes hard but you should bear in mind that for many people this difference works in his favour rather than against him. On paper a billionaire businessman with great media skills is very appealing to the average guy as someone who can 'fix' Washington.
very much on paper. reality is that he is coming across as a ranting crazy person
Trump is not like leave because leaving the EU did not mean a maniac is in charge of the country. It was the public removing a weapon from the establishments artillery, but letting them stay in charge.
Voting Trump is a much riskier proposition.
It's sometimes hard but you should bear in mind that for many people this difference works in his favour rather than against him. On paper a billionaire businessman with great media skills is very appealing to the average guy as someone who can 'fix' Washington.
For c.30% of the population, that may be true. But that's nowhere near enough to win an election. Trumps campaign is a pure core vote strategy.
It would be the first core vote strategy to go out of its way to offend every part of the core voting coalition of the Republican party.
Despite everything I would contend that Trump's campaign strategy is based on winning and owning the policy arguments while overwhelming his opponents with an unpredictable barrage of attacks.
The improvement in tv sport technology is breathtaking. Sky have just shown a fly, in flight, going into Broad's eye. I can remember when you could hardly see a distant fielder, let alone the ball.
@MarqueeMark Arguably Sir John Major's biggest achievement was to start the process of getting public services being set service standards. The much-derided Cones Hotline was in fact the start of a sea change in public provider thinking.
With the double of the national lottery (with its related civic spending) and legalising Sunday trading, he did as much as any Prime Minister to increase the happiness of the general public.
Major's biggest achievement by a country mile is starting the NI peace process.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
I think that is probably right. I think Labour will very likely lose unles circumstances change in a big way in the next few years, but likewise their floor in England, in the absence of appreciable challenge, may just keep it from being historically disastrous.
@Jonathan Nature abhors a vacuum. There are currently two vacuums in British politics: one in the centre ground and one between Jeremy Corbyn's ears. One or both of these will not endure.
@DavidL I think they're writing in a form of English, but I'm not completely sure about that.
It's what they are writing about I really struggle to follow. I think the last computer game I played was sonic the hedgehog and that was stunningly dull. The idea of spending dozens of hours playing a computer game when there are so many other demands on my time is something I really struggle to comprehend. No doubt a failure of imagination on my part.
Early computer games are like early films while something like Witcher 3 is more like a box set of The Wire. The best tell a good story and give you meaningful control over its outcome.
But each to their own: I cannot see the point of ballet for instance.
The best games can be very entertaining (my step-son played them a lot as a teenager, and games like Grand Theft Auto, Solid Gear, and one based on the Lord of the Rings were great). I've never got into them as they'd take up too much of my time.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
A result like this week's TNS poll would be worse for Labour than 1983 was, both in terms of votes and seats.
@Jonathan Nature abhors a vacuum. There are currently two vacuums in British politics: one in the centre ground and one between Jeremy Corbyn's ears. One or both of these will not endure.
We'll have a better picture after the party conferences, but I suspect May is going to use hers to make a play for the "sensible centre".
The LibDems should make a play for the sensible centre-left. But then, some of us have been urging them to do that for years.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
A result like this week's TNS poll would be worse for Labour than 1983 was, both in terms of votes and seats.
But not in terms of Tory majority or lead in the popular vote!
''There are currently two vacuums in British politics: one in the centre ground and one between Jeremy Corbyn's ears. One or both of these will not endure.''
Corbyn's clever enough to know that, despite all the sound and fury, he holds the ace trump of the membership.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
A result like this week's TNS poll would be worse for Labour than 1983 was, both in terms of votes and seats.
But not in terms of Tory majority or lead in the popular vote!
Well no, the Conservatives won 44% in 1983. But, that would be cold comfort for Labour if they finished on 190 - 200 seats.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
@Sean_F If Labour go into the next election with Jeremy Corbyn as leader, they can look forward to a considerably worse result than 1983.
Why? Whats the Falklands effect?
May's invasion of the Irish Republic. It's important that the country has tidy borders.
It would show she's serious about Brexit too. No technocratic hurdles on border controls for her.
Dublin as an alternative financial capital to London in a post-Brexit world is a clear threat to our national interest. It would be madness not to take action and restore our historic borders to those obtaining under Henry II .
@Sean_F If Labour go into the next election with Jeremy Corbyn as leader, they can look forward to a considerably worse result than 1983.
Why? Whats the Falklands effect?
May's invasion of the Irish Republic. It's important that the country has tidy borders.
It would show she's serious about Brexit too. No technocratic hurdles on border controls for her.
Dublin as an alternative financial capital to London in a post-Brexit world is a clear threat to our national interest. It would be madness not to take action and restore our historic borders to those obtaining under Henry II .
Do we really want half of France? We would be lamenting how reasonable the RMT were in the good old days.
LOL. My family is apparently from there (obviously they were imported Scots, but the trail peters out pre- our Irish sojourn). How's your better half getting on?
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
The Tories were recovering in some polls - but not all - pre Falklands. They had lost Crosby to the SDP at the end of 1981 and Hillhead barely a week before the invasion. We can never know whether or to what extent any recovery would have continued had there never been that conlict.Personally I doubt that the Tory lead in popular vote share would have reached 10% - a fair bit less than the 15.2% that Thatcher managed in the end.
@Sean_F If Labour go into the next election with Jeremy Corbyn as leader, they can look forward to a considerably worse result than 1983.
Why? Whats the Falklands effect?
May's invasion of the Irish Republic. It's important that the country has tidy borders.
It would show she's serious about Brexit too. No technocratic hurdles on border controls for her.
Dublin as an alternative financial capital to London in a post-Brexit world is a clear threat to our national interest. It would be madness not to take action and restore our historic borders to those obtaining under Henry II .
Do we really want half of France? We would be lamenting how reasonable the RMT were in the good old days.
No land borders with the EU. Think of the paperwork. We'll demonstrate goodwill and settle for overlordship of Ireland. Magnanimous in etc.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
A result like this week's TNS poll would be worse for Labour than 1983 was, both in terms of votes and seats.
But not in terms of Tory majority or lead in the popular vote!
Well no, the Conservatives won 44% in 1983. But, that would be cold comfort for Labour if they finished on 190 - 200 seats.
The Tories polled 43.5% to Labour's 28.3% and 26.2% for the Alliance.
''There are currently two vacuums in British politics: one in the centre ground and one between Jeremy Corbyn's ears. One or both of these will not endure.''
Corbyn's clever enough to know that, despite all the sound and fury, he holds the ace trump of the membership.
The membership are the key. We know they will vote for Corbyn, but is that their limit. Are they prepared to canvass and deliver and/or are they prepared to deselect anti-Corbyn MPs?
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
The "3rd party challenge" for Labour in Scotland is to stop being it.
Henry II was a damned fool. The short-term solution to the issue of Gascony he reached was positively Blairite in its tactical convenience and strategic stupidity.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
The "3rd party challenge" for Labour in Scotland is to stop being it.
Or to hold onto it. The Lib Dems winning more seats in Scotland than Labour at the next GE is quite a realistic prospect.
@John_M After a very bad week last week (last week's thread header was light relief - but since almost everyone stayed on topic throughout the thread, it must have been one of my better ones), he's making good progress again this week. It's a long slow process and he is starting to understand this. He is remarkably realistic and stoical, considering.
Henry II was a damned fool. The short-term solution to the issue of Gascony he reached was positively Blairite in its tactical convenience and strategic stupidity.
Currently reading Robert Tombs English history epic, interleaved with Tom Holland's 'Athelstan'. Both excellent in very different ways. Tombs' prose is wonderful. Highly recommended.
@Jonathan Nature abhors a vacuum. There are currently two vacuums in British politics: one in the centre ground and one between Jeremy Corbyn's ears. One or both of these will not endure.
Really, really, really not liking Jeremy Corbyn does not necessarily translate into an electoral result.
It's possible that we will discover that Corbyn has a greater net electoral appeal than Ed Milliband.
If we assume that May has less reach than Cameron and after 4 bruising years is not necessarily popular. It could easily swing the other way. Albeit not enough to get Labour within sniffing distance of No10.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
The "3rd party challenge" for Labour in Scotland is to stop being it.
@Jonathan I'm sceptical about the longterm appeal of Theresa May. She looks like Gordon Brown in kitten heels to me. She would be very well-advised to find a route to an early election.
@John_M After a very bad week last week (last week's thread header was light relief - but since almost everyone stayed on topic throughout the thread, it must have been one of my better ones), he's making good progress again this week. It's a long slow process and he is starting to understand this. He is remarkably realistic and stoical, considering.
I hope you'll accept my very best wishes for you both, despite my moral repugnancy. From my experience, its as hard to be the partner as it is the patient, at least in emotional terms.
Mr. M, I can recommend Thomas Asbridge's The Greatest Knight. Excellent bio of William Marshal which also covers (sometimes closely, sometimes not) the lives of Henry II, Henry the Younger, Richard the Lion Heart and John Softsword.
I think I've seen that Athelstan book. May give it a read sometime. If I get some time.
Henry II was a damned fool. The short-term solution to the issue of Gascony he reached was positively Blairite in its tactical convenience and strategic stupidity.
Mr. M, I can recommend Thomas Asbridge's The Greatest Knight. Excellent bio of William Marshal which also covers (sometimes closely, sometimes not) the lives of Henry II, Henry the Younger, Richard the Lion Heart and John Softsword.
I think I've seen that Athelstan book. May give it a read sometime. If I get some time.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
A result like this week's TNS poll would be worse for Labour than 1983 was, both in terms of votes and seats.
But not in terms of Tory majority or lead in the popular vote!
there really is no difference between say a 70 seat majority or 170 seat majority with both the government can do whatever the fuck they want.
@Jonathan I'm sceptical about the longterm appeal of Theresa May. She looks like Gordon Brown in kitten heels to me. She would be very well-advised to find a route to an early election.
I agree. IMO Thresa May and the B team are very beatable. In normal circumstances, Labour should be getting ready.
Her GE denial is a give away that she is thinking about it though. The problem is that right now she doesn't gain too much from it. Defeat in 2021 is about the same as defeat in 2020. Give it a year and you might have something worth doing.
PS "Gordon Brown in kitten heels to me", please pass the mind bleach.
@Jonathan I'm sceptical about the longterm appeal of Theresa May. She looks like Gordon Brown in kitten heels to me. She would be very well-advised to find a route to an early election.
I think Labour can delay an election this year such that it would not take place before December 1st or 8th - which imho probably means no election before 2017.
Has someone analysed the betting market implications if Trump withdraws?
At some point even if he says he quits, it will be too late to remove his name from the ballot. So what on earth happens if he quits, stays on the ballot, and "wins"? That could happen for reasons other than that tens of millions of people want Obama "the Kenyan" and Clinton "the Devil" indicted as founders of ISIS. (Note: psychiatrists mustn't draw any conclusions on Trump's sanity, because of the Goldwater rule; and the rest of us mustn't either, because it's not our place.) It could happen because after Trump quits the Republicans could spend a billion dollars telling people a vote for Trump is actually a vote for Pence, and people could then act accordingly, given that Clinton will then assume the mantle as the most disliked "actual" candidate.
I can't see who else the Republicans might say a vote for a withdrawn Trump is a vote for. Never mind that the problem then shifts on to who the vice-president will be.
Then who, if anyone, will Betfair pay out on?
Betfair say they will settle the market "according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election". Electors, who vote on 19 December, won't vote for someone who has said he doesn't want the job (that would be taking the piss), so the projection at the time the results are announced wouldn't be for Trump, right? As I understand it, the appointment of electors must be signed off no more than six days before the EC meets.
Betfair further say that "In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
@Jonathan Nature abhors a vacuum. There are currently two vacuums in British politics: one in the centre ground and one between Jeremy Corbyn's ears. One or both of these will not endure.
Really, really, really not liking Jeremy Corbyn does not necessarily translate into an electoral result.
It's possible that we will discover that Corbyn has a greater net electoral appeal than Ed Milliband.
If we assume that May has less reach than Cameron and after 4 bruising years is not necessarily popular. It could easily swing the other way. Albeit not enough to get Labour within sniffing distance of No10.
I think not being led by Jeremy Corbyn will be enough for the Conservatives to win, against a party led by Jeremy Corbyn.
Every time that term is used, I shall do a thread on AV during my next stint as guest editor, which starts in less than a fortnight.
Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels Gordon Brown in kitten heels
there really is no difference between say a 70 seat majority or 170 seat majority with both the government can do whatever the fuck they want.
I'm not sure that's entirely right. Labour were considerably more constrained 2005-2010 when their majority dipped from 160 to 66. Also, the 2010-15 Coalition had a majority of 75-ish and it was hardly straightforward. While a coalition is different in important ways, the MPs are still whipped.
Mr. L, yes, it's horrendously modern, but I thought I'd read a smidgen on medieval stuff [also handy for warfare and morality when writing not-quite-medieval fantasy].
Putting a competent business leader up as a candidate vs a Labour MP with zero business competence. Expect Labour to win as Birmingham have been picking lousy Leaders for years and seem to care little about the competence of them. We can pray for a Damascene conversion to sanity.
Putting a competent business leader up as a candidate vs a Labour MP with zero business competence. Expect Labour to win as Birmingham have been picking lousy Leaders for years and seem to care little about the competence of them. We can pray for a Damascene conversion to sanity.
We're also going to get a bunch if leftoids in the Guardian swearing off Waitrose for life. Excellent.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
Any Labour MP facing the Tories with less than a 5,000 majority should feel very concerned. A lot of Labour voters will stay at home if Corbyn is leader, while others will switch direct to the Tories or to the LibDems.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
Any Labour MP facing the Tories with less than a 5,000 majority should feel very concerned. A lot of Labour voters will stay at home if Corbyn is leader, while others will switch direct to the Tories or to the LibDems.
I'd put that figure a bit higher in the Midlands, maybe 6,000+. There's much more of a tradition of straight switching from Labour --> Tory --> Labour there, rather than messing about with the LibDems.
Corbyn at the helm could see a reverse '97, with some WTF??? seats changing hands.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
Any Labour MP facing the Tories with less than a 5,000 majority should feel very concerned. A lot of Labour voters will stay at home if Corbyn is leader, while others will switch direct to the Tories or to the LibDems.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
Any Labour MP facing the Tories with less than a 5,000 majority should feel very concerned. A lot of Labour voters will stay at home if Corbyn is leader, while others will switch direct to the Tories or to the LibDems.
I'd put that figure a bit higher in the Midlands, maybe 6,000+. There's much more of a tradition of straight switching from Labour --> Tory --> Labour there, rather than messing about with the LibDems.
Corbyn at the helm could see a reverse '97, with some WTF??? seats changing hands.
@Jonathan I'm sceptical about the longterm appeal of Theresa May. She looks like Gordon Brown in kitten heels to me. She would be very well-advised to find a route to an early election.
I agree. IMO Thresa May and the B team are very beatable. In normal circumstances, Labour should be getting ready.
Her GE denial is a give away that she is thinking about it though. The problem is that right now she doesn't gain too much from it. Defeat in 2021 is about the same as defeat in 2020. Give it a year and you might have something worth doing.
PS "Gordon Brown in kitten heels to me", please pass the mind bleach.
I dunno, she's passed the first Brownian test. Managed to go on a proper holiday (walking in Alps according to Guido) without a lot of rubbish about wearing a special 'holiday' jacket and looking throughly bored, miserable and missing the red boxes next to a lake.
Putting a competent business leader up as a candidate vs a Labour MP with zero business competence. Expect Labour to win as Birmingham have been picking lousy Leaders for years and seem to care little about the competence of them. We can pray for a Damascene conversion to sanity.
Brum is politically unrecognisable from the 80's. Hall Green was back then a Tory seat, now with a Labour majority of 19,818 (albeit with some boundary change). Edgbaston refuses to return to the blue fold, and former bellwether seat Yardley has long lost that title, the Tories now 12,000 back in fourth.
@Jonathan I'm sceptical about the longterm appeal of Theresa May. She looks like Gordon Brown in kitten heels to me. She would be very well-advised to find a route to an early election.
I agree. IMO Thresa May and the B team are very beatable. In normal circumstances, Labour should be getting ready.
Her GE denial is a give away that she is thinking about it though. The problem is that right now she doesn't gain too much from it. Defeat in 2021 is about the same as defeat in 2020. Give it a year and you might have something worth doing.
PS "Gordon Brown in kitten heels to me", please pass the mind bleach.
I dunno, she's passed the first Brownian test. Managed to go on a proper holiday (walking in Alps according to Guido) without a lot of rubbish about wearing a special 'holiday' jacket and looking throughly bored, miserable and missing the red boxes next to a lake.
According to Guido - every press release is now being vetted by #10. And all appts for Spads. Let's see...
Putting a competent business leader up as a candidate vs a Labour MP with zero business competence. Expect Labour to win as Birmingham have been picking lousy Leaders for years and seem to care little about the competence of them. We can pray for a Damascene conversion to sanity.
Brum is politically unrecognisable from the 80's. Hall Green was back then a Tory seat, now with a Labour majority of 19,818 (albeit with some boundary change). Edgbaston refuses to return to the blue fold, and former bellwether seat Yardley has long lost that title, the Tories now 12,000 back in fourth.
Yardley was the Libdem target all through my years growing up in Brum - late 70s until late 80s. Hemming finally did it in 2005.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
Any Labour MP facing the Tories with less than a 5,000 majority should feel very concerned. A lot of Labour voters will stay at home if Corbyn is leader, while others will switch direct to the Tories or to the LibDems.
I'd put that figure a bit higher in the Midlands, maybe 6,000+. There's much more of a tradition of straight switching from Labour --> Tory --> Labour there, rather than messing about with the LibDems.
Corbyn at the helm could see a reverse '97, with some WTF??? seats changing hands.
Imagine a hustings between Jezza and Tony!
At least they would agree that Labour needs to change :-)
Ian Jones Team GB has now surpassed its (admittedly tiny) medal haul at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. #Rio2016 https://t.co/cS6xSlbVjA
How did we get so bad re Atlanta?
Our funding rewarded mediocrity. We gave funding for being, say, the beat sprinter in Britain rather than being a world class sprinter.
Failure to funnel athletes into sports where we could win medals, for instance would we have been better off getting our mediocre sprinters focusing on long and triple jump instead?
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
Any Labour MP facing the Tories with less than a 5,000 majority should feel very concerned. A lot of Labour voters will stay at home if Corbyn is leader, while others will switch direct to the Tories or to the LibDems.
The first challenge for Labour MPs will be to make it on to the ballot if their CLPs have been overrun by Momentum.
Putting a competent business leader up as a candidate vs a Labour MP with zero business competence. Expect Labour to win as Birmingham have been picking lousy Leaders for years and seem to care little about the competence of them. We can pray for a Damascene conversion to sanity.
Putting up a competent business leader -- is that a good thing? Will Trump be president? Did Stuart Rose win it for Remain?
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
Any Labour MP facing the Tories with less than a 5,000 majority should feel very concerned. A lot of Labour voters will stay at home if Corbyn is leader, while others will switch direct to the Tories or to the LibDems.
I'd put that figure a bit higher in the Midlands, maybe 6,000+. There's much more of a tradition of straight switching from Labour --> Tory --> Labour there, rather than messing about with the LibDems.
Corbyn at the helm could see a reverse '97, with some WTF??? seats changing hands.
Yep, I agree. If Labour thought 2015 was bad in the Midlands, they ain't seen nothing yet. It will be utter carnage if Corbyn is still in charge.
@Jonathan I'm sceptical about the longterm appeal of Theresa May. She looks like Gordon Brown in kitten heels to me. She would be very well-advised to find a route to an early election.
More like John Major and Brown had to face Cameron not Corbyn or Smith
Putting a competent business leader up as a candidate vs a Labour MP with zero business competence. Expect Labour to win as Birmingham have been picking lousy Leaders for years and seem to care little about the competence of them. We can pray for a Damascene conversion to sanity.
Brum is politically unrecognisable from the 80's. Hall Green was back then a Tory seat, now with a Labour majority of 19,818 (albeit with some boundary change). Edgbaston refuses to return to the blue fold, and former bellwether seat Yardley has long lost that title, the Tories now 12,000 back in fourth.
I think Edgbaston is the only place I could conceive myself voting Labour.
And if Gisela was up against someone like Soubry, I'd pound the streets for her with a red rosette.
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
Any Labour MP facing the Tories with less than a 5,000 majority should feel very concerned. A lot of Labour voters will stay at home if Corbyn is leader, while others will switch direct to the Tories or to the LibDems.
I'd put that figure a bit higher in the Midlands, maybe 6,000+. There's much more of a tradition of straight switching from Labour --> Tory --> Labour there, rather than messing about with the LibDems.
Corbyn at the helm could see a reverse '97, with some WTF??? seats changing hands.
Yep, I agree. If Labour thought 2015 was bad in the Midlands, they ain't seen nothing yet. It will be utter carnage if Corbyn is still in charge.
Trump's white working class support overlaps strongly with the voters who most heavily backed Leave and opposition to NAFTA drives many of them too. Boris withdrew from the leadership campaign himself and was still more popular with voters as a whole than Tory MPs when he withdrew. Yet it was Tory MPs he needed to woo before he could get his leadership bid off the ground. Trump is not trying to win Republican Congressmen to become Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader otherwise he would have no chance
Trump needs to woo traditional republicans who support free trade and capitalism. His failure to do that is why he's losing. He has been unable to reach across the left right divide in the same way leave did while also pissing off traditional republicans. Trump is a busted flush, even if he became disciplined and stayed on message to attack Hillary's record he probably wouldn't win. He's damaged goods, beyond rescue. I say this as someone who thought a Trump presidency might be interesting and wouldn't have been as bothered by it as most people. I don't see any path for him to victory in a nation that has an electoral college. He needs to overturn too many safe blue states and hold too many toss ups, without losing places like Arizona and even Texas which have high Hispanic populations.
Leave did not win by appealing to traditional conservatives who backed free trade and capitalism, both the Leave campaign and Trump in the primaries won by appealing to white working class voters concerned about immigration primarily and the fact they were being ignored by the establishment. Trump added some protectionism too which is also evident on the Leave side with those opposed to UK membership of the single market
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
Any Labour MP facing the Tories with less than a 5,000 majority should feel very concerned. A lot of Labour voters will stay at home if Corbyn is leader, while others will switch direct to the Tories or to the LibDems.
I'd put that figure a bit higher in the Midlands, maybe 6,000+. There's much more of a tradition of straight switching from Labour --> Tory --> Labour there, rather than messing about with the LibDems.
Corbyn at the helm could see a reverse '97, with some WTF??? seats changing hands.
Yep, I agree. If Labour thought 2015 was bad in the Midlands, they ain't seen nothing yet. It will be utter carnage if Corbyn is still in charge.
Why?
The Midlands is swinging very heavily away from Labour, politically.
Trump's white working class support overlaps strongly with the voters who most heavily backed Leave and opposition to NAFTA drives many of them too. Boris withdrew from the leadership campaign himself and was still more popular with voters as a whole than Tory MPs when he withdrew. Yet it was Tory MPs he needed to woo before he could get his leadership bid off the ground. Trump is not trying to win Republican Congressmen to become Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader otherwise he would have no chance
Trump needs to woo traditional republicans who support free trade and capitalism. His failure to do that is why he's losing. He has been unable to reach across the left right divide in the same way leave did while also pissing off traditional republicans. Trump is a busted flush, even if he became disciplined and stayed on message to attack Hillary's record he probably wouldn't win. He's damaged goods, beyond rescue. I say this as someone who thought a Trump presidency might be interesting and wouldn't have been as bothered by it as most people. I don't see any path for him to victory in a nation that has an electoral college. He needs to overturn too many safe blue states and hold too many toss ups, without losing places like Arizona and even Texas which have high Hispanic populations.
Leave did not win by appealing to traditional conservatives who backed free trade and capitalism, both the Leave campaign and Trump in the primaries won by appealing to white working class voters concerned about immigration primarily and the fact they were being ignored by the establishment. Trump added some protectionism too which is also evident on the Leave side with those opposed to UK membership of the single market
Wrong. Leave.EU and Niger Farage wanted to concentrate solely on the WWC anti immigrant vote and that would have been a losing strategy. Vote Leave concentrated on winning that Vote AND free trade Conservatives etc too which got them up to 52%. With only the WWC they would have lost comprehensively.
Putting a competent business leader up as a candidate vs a Labour MP with zero business competence. Expect Labour to win as Birmingham have been picking lousy Leaders for years and seem to care little about the competence of them. We can pray for a Damascene conversion to sanity.
Brum is politically unrecognisable from the 80's. Hall Green was back then a Tory seat, now with a Labour majority of 19,818 (albeit with some boundary change). Edgbaston refuses to return to the blue fold, and former bellwether seat Yardley has long lost that title, the Tories now 12,000 back in fourth.
Yardley was the Libdem target all through my years growing up in Brum - late 70s until late 80s. Hemming finally did it in 2005.
The Midlands are not historically an area of LD strength, but there are possibilities. The combination of economic sanity, pavement politics and a healthy and consistent mistrust of foeriegn military adventurism can play well in some seats.
Putting a competent business leader up as a candidate vs a Labour MP with zero business competence. Expect Labour to win as Birmingham have been picking lousy Leaders for years and seem to care little about the competence of them. We can pray for a Damascene conversion to sanity.
Brum is politically unrecognisable from the 80's. Hall Green was back then a Tory seat, now with a Labour majority of 19,818 (albeit with some boundary change). Edgbaston refuses to return to the blue fold, and former bellwether seat Yardley has long lost that title, the Tories now 12,000 back in fourth.
Indeed, the only seats in Birmingham held by the Tories now are in wealthy outer suburbia i.e. Solihull and Sutton Coldfield. While in 2015 the lost Birmingham seats like Edgbaston and Hall Green they won in 1992 they did win some Midlands seats like Nuneaton and Warwickshire North which Kinnock one, conforming how big cities are becoming Labour strongholds but smaller towns are becoming ever more Tory
@Jonathan The Conservatives were rising in the polls before the Falklands. Labour were higher in the polls at the end of 1982 than at the beginning of that year.
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
So, in short, to be as bad as 83. Labour needs a strong 3rd party challenge and a Tory leader with (at least the equaivalent of) a post war victory bounce.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
Yes, the Labour Party will retain a very large number of seats even on a very low voting share in the absence of a credible centre left alternative. Of course if there is a split of a significant part of the PLP then all bets are off.
Any Labour MP facing the Tories with less than a 5,000 majority should feel very concerned. A lot of Labour voters will stay at home if Corbyn is leader, while others will switch direct to the Tories or to the LibDems.
I'd put that figure a bit higher in the Midlands, maybe 6,000+. There's much more of a tradition of straight switching from Labour --> Tory --> Labour there, rather than messing about with the LibDems.
Corbyn at the helm could see a reverse '97, with some WTF??? seats changing hands.
Yep, I agree. If Labour thought 2015 was bad in the Midlands, they ain't seen nothing yet. It will be utter carnage if Corbyn is still in charge.
Why?
Because he is repellant to voters in marginal seats. He activly dislikes aspiration, is anti-monarcy, anti-Trident, pro-unlimited immigration and attracts snarling, aggressive organisations on the hard left. He is everything the average voter in the Midlands finds unpalatable about Labour. And all this is before the Tories get stuck into him.
Comments
Think about people who play WoW for 12 years (or however long it has been), must be ten thousand hours at least.
Smaller games played once or twice for 6-10 hours can be fantastic too of course. 50-60 for a good RPG though, in a single play through, that's good money's worth (so long as the hours are entertaining).
Less sad than my PB hours tally
Despite everything I would contend that Trump's campaign strategy is based on winning and owning the policy arguments while overwhelming his opponents with an unpredictable barrage of attacks.
That's Ed Miliband. "Ed Stone" Miliband. A man who couldn't eat a sandwich without shedding votes.
Hur hur hur....
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2449/Voting-Intentions-in-Great-Britain-19761987.aspx
The main impact of the Falklands War was to squash the Alliance (whose support halved in the calendar year of 1982), not Labour.
Labour has got the 3rd party challenge in Scotland already. But UKIP and the LDs are weaker than the Alliance.
I doubt May will be popular come 2020, nothing like Thatcher in 83.
The LibDems should make a play for the sensible centre-left. But then, some of us have been urging them to do that for years.
Corbyn's clever enough to know that, despite all the sound and fury, he holds the ace trump of the membership.
We know they will vote for Corbyn, but is that their limit. Are they prepared to canvass and deliver and/or are they prepared to deselect anti-Corbyn MPs?
It's possible that we will discover that Corbyn has a greater net electoral appeal than Ed Milliband.
If we assume that May has less reach than Cameron and after 4 bruising years is not necessarily popular. It could easily swing the other way. Albeit not enough to get Labour within sniffing distance of No10.
They're worse than French Air trafic controllers for going on strike...
I think I've seen that Athelstan book. May give it a read sometime. If I get some time.
What a joke....even cage fighting, with a terrible reputation for PED use, is spending more than that on anti-doping.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/john-lewis-chief-touted-as-metro-mayor-xztw509wv
Her GE denial is a give away that she is thinking about it though. The problem is that right now she doesn't gain too much from it. Defeat in 2021 is about the same as defeat in 2020. Give it a year and you might have something worth doing.
PS "Gordon Brown in kitten heels to me", please pass the mind bleach.
At some point even if he says he quits, it will be too late to remove his name from the ballot. So what on earth happens if he quits, stays on the ballot, and "wins"? That could happen for reasons other than that tens of millions of people want Obama "the Kenyan" and Clinton "the Devil" indicted as founders of ISIS. (Note: psychiatrists mustn't draw any conclusions on Trump's sanity, because of the Goldwater rule; and the rest of us mustn't either, because it's not our place.) It could happen because after Trump quits the Republicans could spend a billion dollars telling people a vote for Trump is actually a vote for Pence, and people could then act accordingly, given that Clinton will then assume the mantle as the most disliked "actual" candidate.
I can't see who else the Republicans might say a vote for a withdrawn Trump is a vote for. Never mind that the problem then shifts on to who the vice-president will be.
Then who, if anyone, will Betfair pay out on?
Betfair say they will settle the market "according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election". Electors, who vote on 19 December, won't vote for someone who has said he doesn't want the job (that would be taking the piss), so the projection at the time the results are announced wouldn't be for Trump, right? As I understand it, the appointment of electors must be signed off no more than six days before the EC meets.
Betfair further say that "In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
England looking at a serious deficit here once again.
Every time that term is used, I shall do a thread on AV during my next stint as guest editor, which starts in less than a fortnight.
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
Gordon Brown in kitten heels
A promise is a promise
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/the-surprising-thing-about-the-backlash-against-globalization/
He once impersonated a journalist?
Corbyn at the helm could see a reverse '97, with some WTF??? seats changing hands.
Failure to funnel athletes into sports where we could win medals, for instance would we have been better off getting our mediocre sprinters focusing on long and triple jump instead?
https://twitter.com/albiondumsday/status/764065864786161664
And if Gisela was up against someone like Soubry, I'd pound the streets for her with a red rosette.
Just look at the Leave vote there. Huge.
Clinton 38.25 .. Trump 45.92
Note - Trump polling almost 13% AA and 32% Hispanic.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/08/11/trump-leads-texas-in-ktvt-cbs-11dixie-strategies-poll/?e=nqnAj57idgC1eA
Only 13% of recovering alcoholics voting for Trump? thought it would be much higher. Don;t know why.