OK, let's run this for a moment. Fillon 27%, Macron 25%, Le Pen 23%.
Then the tightest squeeze on the remainder: Mélenchon 9%, Hollande 6%, Far Left 1%, Far Right 2%, Greens 2% ... Bayrou 5%?
You'd need Bayrou out at a minimum.
Then you could have Mélenchon 10%, Hollande 8%, which is a little more believable.
I've said all along: I think Bayrou is open to offers to sit this one out. He's 65 now. He's a long, long way from the second round, and there's another (younger, more charismatic) person in the centre ground.
He was Minister of Education before. I think if Fillon or Macron came a'calling, and offered him an important ministry, them I think he might jump. I think Macron is the more likely to forge an alliance with him (as they are similar in terms of outlook, albeit Bayrou is more of an outsider), but then again, Fillon is much more likely to win.
The problem with most of your Macron scenarios is that they're 60% of 40% of 25% of 20%.
You need -
Fillon to head off Le Pen Fillon to expose his left flank Bayrou to drop out, probably to Macron Hollande to continue to be shit Macron to perform well and in a balanced way
Then of course he has to beat Fillon in a head to head...
Is it the most ludicrous of suggestions? No.
Will it happen... probably not.
I think 20/1 on Macron is fair, maybe a smidgen of value, I have a defensive position.
Do I think Macron is likely to be the next French President? No.
But there are quite a few scenarios where he makes the second round. I think his correct odds are about 12-1, with the most egregiously expensive candidate being MLP. (In US Presidential elections, when a state is 66-33 in the polls, its 40-1 for the challenger, not 4-1.)
My guesstimate would be: Fillon 66% Macron 9% Marine Le Pen 9% Valls 7% Hollande 4% Bayrou 2% Someone else: 3%
OK, let's run this for a moment. Fillon 27%, Macron 25%, Le Pen 23%.
Then the tightest squeeze on the remainder: Mélenchon 9%, Hollande 6%, Far Left 1%, Far Right 2%, Greens 2% ... Bayrou 5%?
You'd need Bayrou out at a minimum.
Then you could have Mélenchon 10%, Hollande 8%, which is a little more believable.
I've said all along: I think Bayrou is open to offers to sit this one out. He's 65 now. He's a long, long way from the second round, and there's another (younger, more charismatic) person in the centre ground.
He was Minister of Education before. I think if Fillon or Macron came a'calling, and offered him an important ministry, them I think he might jump. I think Macron is the more likely to forge an alliance with him (as they are similar in terms of outlook, albeit Bayrou is more of an outsider), but then again, Fillon is much more likely to win.
The problem with most of your Macron scenarios is that they're 60% of 40% of 25% of 20%.
You need -
Fillon to head off Le Pen Fillon to expose his left flank Bayrou to drop out, probably to Macron Hollande to continue to be shit Macron to perform well and in a balanced way
Then of course he has to beat Fillon in a head to head...
Is it the most ludicrous of suggestions? No.
Will it happen... probably not.
I think 20/1 on Macron is fair, maybe a smidgen of value, I have a defensive position.
Do I think Macron is likely to be the next French President? No.
But there are quite a few scenarios where he makes the second round. I think his correct odds are about 12-1, with the most egregiously expensive candidate being MLP. (In US Presidential elections, when a state is 66-33 in the polls, its 40-1 for the challenger, not 4-1.)
My guesstimate would be: Fillon 66% Macron 9% Marine Le Pen 9% Valls 7% Hollande 4% Bayrou 2% Someone else: 3%
I would say: Fillon 75% Le Pen 12% Macron 7% Socialist 5% Someone else 1%.
I don't see a huge difference here, I didn't mean to sound too harsh. We are trading small probabilities for tiny ones on Macron...
OK, let's run this for a moment. Fillon 27%, Macron 25%, Le Pen 23%.
Then the tightest squeeze on the remainder: Mélenchon 9%, Hollande 6%, Far Left 1%, Far Right 2%, Greens 2% ... Bayrou 5%?
You'd need Bayrou out at a minimum.
Then you could have Mélenchon 10%, Hollande 8%, which is a little more believable.
I've said all along: I think Bayrou is open to offers to sit this one out. He's 65 now. He's a long, long way from the second round, and there's another (younger, more charismatic) person in the centre ground.
He was Minister of Education before. I think if Fillon or Macron came a'calling, and offered him an important ministry, them I think he might jump. I think Macron is the more likely to forge an alliance with him (as they are similar in terms of outlook, albeit Bayrou is more of an outsider), but then again, Fillon is much more likely to win.
The problem with most of your Macron scenarios is that they're 60% of 40% of 25% of 20%.
You need -
Fillon to head off Le Pen Fillon to expose his left flank Bayrou to drop out, probably to Macron Hollande to continue to be shit Macron to perform well and in a balanced way
Then of course he has to beat Fillon in a head to head...
Is it the most ludicrous of suggestions? No.
Will it happen... probably not.
I think 20/1 on Macron is fair, maybe a smidgen of value, I have a defensive position.
Do I think Macron is likely to be the next French President? No.
But there are quite a few scenarios where he makes the second round. I think his correct odds are about 12-1, with the most egregiously expensive candidate being MLP. (In US Presidential elections, when a state is 66-33 in the polls, its 40-1 for the challenger, not 4-1.)
My guesstimate would be: Fillon 66% Macron 9% Marine Le Pen 9% Valls 7% Hollande 4% Bayrou 2% Someone else: 3%
I would say: Fillon 75% Le Pen 12% Macron 7% Socialist 5% Someone else 1%.
I don't see a huge difference here, I didn't mean to sound too harsh. We are trading small probabilities for tiny ones on Macron...
Buying 9% probabilities at 5% will make you a lot of money in the long run.
"Viagra" is the first word that stands out. Brexit and Trump as cultural erectile dysfunction seems fairly accurate to me. But as with most things the pharmacological has to work with the psychological and pathological. Viagra can cure an I'll, buy extra time for natural usage but it can't turn back the law of entropy. Much less permanently. So Viagra is great if used properly and with appropriate expectations. Used as a way of avoiding the Kubler Ross process it can be disastrous.
Chirac got 82%, I doubt that will be replicated but for tonight at least Fillon looks more like Juppé electorally than Sarkozy.
As I've been saying for a long time, MLP still does terribly on transfers. And - unlike every other insurgent political movement - the FN has tended to underperform its poll ratings.
Chirac got 82%, I doubt that will be replicated but for tonight at least Fillon looks more like Juppé electorally than Sarkozy.
As I've been saying for a long time, MLP still does terribly on transfers. And - unlike every other insurgent political movement - the FN has tended to underperform its poll ratings.
Because unlike the other movements you're comparing them with, the FN have been a perennial part of French politics for as long as anyone can remember and Marine Le Pen has been a big figure in French public life for over a decade.
Firstly we don't criticise Hurricanes for not seeking a democratic mandate because we know the weather is an elemental force. Is the Nexus we are labeling " Globalisation " any different ? A little bit. We have some choices. We could theoretically ban certain technological advances. But broadly History does have a certain sweep and nearly all of this stuff isn't going away. The problem is voters have developed this extraordinary idea they can stop Globalisation via the ballot box. They are almost entirely wrong.
Secondly so much of this stuff is mandated. Voters like internet shopping, dirt cheap imported food, out of town shopping centres and Starbucks. Voters like paying lower taxes made possible by importing labour to wipe their Nana's arses for them for BMW. Voters could Elect Green councils and radically relocalise economies. They could build a Granny Flat and wipe Nana's arses themselves. But they like these things while raging at the consequences. Now they've voted to end the consequences while keeping their benefits. Good Luck with that.
Paragraph 4 is excellent. It's Chesterton's " When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing they start believing in anything. " But again we have plenty of churches. Secularisation was chosen. Ditto 1960's liberalism. Other than the death penalty which 60's liberal reform would voters chose to reverse ?
Atomisation is like anything else. You pays your money you makes your choice.
How we leave the EU (if we do) and how our new relationship works with the institution will have a substantial bearing on how this sort of thing progresses.
Aye, albeit that the EU’s days appear numbered, and there is, fundamentally, no escaping motion of the ocean (of discontent), whether or not the elites/MSM seek to frustrate or pervert Brexit, or to spin away Trump’s victory (or, more to the point, their horse’s dire form)
'Blue Labour' has to be part of Labour's response to the new political order. Debating gender-neutral bathrooms is not what working class voters want to hear
Indeed so. My wee addendum re: Labour vs. the 'take home message' is, shall we say, rather less pessimistically put than present political realities warrant. Shot themselves in the foot over completely misjudging/ignoring (delete as appropriate) the public mood re: Brexit (not to mention the manifest intellectual inconsistency/hypocrisy of 'Mr. Principled'); if they don’t change their tune (fixating on the disingenuously narrow 'left behind' narrative) come 2020 then they’ll be absolutely decimated (as opposed to merely trounced):
The first thing the centre must do is take a deep breath. The second thing it must do is hold the right to account
Agreed, provided Step 1 includes pausing for thought re: the take home message conveyed, and seeking to inculcate the relevant prescribed culture shift
As indicated, to continue to put their fingers in their ears would be a grave error on the part of mainstreamers, and surely only fan the flames of discontent
It is precisely because relative traditionalists feel ignored that demagoguery is gaining traction. The liberal left/establishment is ostensibly responsible for the resurgence of the right:
That Corbyn firewall only lasts for as long as Corbyn is there
Right wing politicians have indeed had the benefit of usefully unpopular and incredible foils, plus the rub of the green re: international political events
However, the left must not only find credible leadership, it must establish a vision that really resonates i.e. not just broadly, and on the surface, but among the core, and to their core; little use attempting to become the Lib Dems-gone-Marxist, who's going to vote for that?
Labour are offering essentially the stale clichés of 1960s radical socialism while people actually want jobs and financial security, Corbyn is only likely to lead them backwards
'21st Century Socialism' could garner considerable political currency if it can collect on the depressive real earnings vs. cost of living/housing crisis and the (associated) growing appeal of (part-)renationalised sectors (house building, rail, utilities), plus other vestiges of an arguably pro-social rebalancing of the mixed economic model (including space for the proposed national/global investment bank/fund)
They must quell their idealistic revolutionary zeal, and pick their battles more keenly (rather than going full-on re: counter-productive and unsustainable regulation and taxation)
They must also do more to tease out the sociocultural thorns in their side, such as those touched on in the article, on the flip side. Renewed pragmatism, authenticity, and community sensibility, are on the menu - qualities historically at the core of the Labour movement
Granted, this may be a tall order where Momentum are concerned, so the practical reality will in all probability play out as you suggest, but the potential does exist for the left to finally be seen to be pursuing a saleable, genuinely progressive agenda, if only they take heed
none of this change is anxiety-causing or even threatening. It is merely an opportunity
Well, that certainly is one way of looking at it. Not sure I’d feel the same way in the shoes of some in society right now – although I too prefer to see this popular conception that #NWOisDead as (the prelude to) a positive opportunity for genuine progression
is it all not because our Western culture now measures us by achievements
From a conformist/materialist perspective, yes, a lot of it has to do with the perversion and primacy of aspirational concerns. Consumer culture has run away with itself
Consumerism is merely the tangible expression of our success measured by outcomes
Largely, aye, albeit that it is also sold to us on the basis of (the illusion of) choice and capacity for individualist differentiation, comfort, and convenience a la economics of ‘utility’
Community and family success are, in contrast, about the now undervalued process. How do politicians revived the mindful, growth mindset more broadly in the population?
That is the question. The article hints at the way forward, but those who set the agenda have so far been slow to cotton on, and will likely prove slower still to act – for to do so would fly in the face of the predominant narrative of many a false prophet of human progress
Ultimately, I think the answer lies in a sensible mix of less restrictive vs. more cultured public discourse, debate, and education, empowerment of and cautious, merited influence over the disaffected and disenfranchised, and paternalistic nudges vs. direct intervention, where necessary. Getting there will almost certainly require the indicated systemic reforms, and hence a rebalancing of power and restoration of guiding principles like truth and humanity
The stuff that seems to matter most to many left-wing activists and politicians is completely divorced from the concerns most people have about their lives
Activists, certainly, but the leadership are close to tapping a rich vein or two; if they can just strike the right balance with their progressive prospecting, cautiously chipping away layers rather than dynamiting the lot (risking total collapse), they may yet strike gold
there's a grudging respect from the public that at least the right's focus on making money might serve some greater purpose down the track
I view it a little more cynically. Don’t think much of the population is under any illusions regarding the particular spirit of ‘enterprise’ that the Conservatives represent, for example
I understand that to many, the party is seen as ‘the lesser of two evils’ (e.g. on the economy, EUref, and immigration, in our pathetically binary oligopolistic (FPTP) political system
They’ve also become better at appearing to pander to populist sensibilities, judging tone, and placating the disgruntled where necessary – possibly because of a more natural coincidence, and feasible harmonisation, of interests between their regular vs. special ‘constituents’, excepting the #EUref
I doubt if the AoC would lecture on the need for transgender anything
Wouldn't put it past a man who seems to have completely changed his tune on issues as big as Brexit and ISIS and is just one in a long line of 'leaders' to have presided over the iterative 'progressive' perversion and debasement of relevant institutions - the very sacrilegious embodiment of a movable feast!
Carney .. Britain to remain in the single market .. Just who does this man think he is?
A: Ex-Goldman Sachs. As alluded to in the article, it's this kind of technocratic arrogance, and top-down diktat, that landed the establishment (and the EU) in the mess it's in to begin with. Cats like Carney need to wake up and smell the coffee
worth reminding ourselves that Clinton did actually get the most votes
Party relates to the above, but she played on said concerns not in relation to current conditions but, instead, regarding the prospect of a Trump presidency
She failed to pitch campaign on a change ticket perceived to be truly authentic, never mind positive, instead preferring to denigrate Trump and his supporters as "deplorables"
Remain (Stronger In) arguably behaved similarly. Both got trashed by their respective electorates when victory should, on the face of it, have been a formality. A lesson for the elites
So how's that Old Commonwealth trade block coming along?
The overtures of our Commonwealth partners have been encouraging, albeit that as you may well be aware there is the question of the legality of entering into individual negotiations pre-Brexit, and our future trading relations are contingent upon the terms by which we remain bound following said withdrawal e.g. with respect to any continued EEA involvement
the lowest paid people in the country generally don't vote for their party
Watch how straight, white, cis-gender households vote at the next election, because if Labour don't get it right now, as intimated in the article, you could be in for quite a shock!
The working class have just been a useful human shield for the right to .. convey their own antipathy to not just recent immigration, but really post-war immigration in general
You've melded the opportunistic 'modern Conservative' establishment narrative with the altogether less worldly/ivory tower tribal prejudices of ordinary voters, but you're not far off, aye
Theresa May can rhetorise as much as she wants but, unlike Trump, she will be judged entirely on results
The defence of the establishment IN crowd (and Hammond in particular) will be that Brexit is the cause of all ills (OBR have already picked £59bn out of thin air), and is something that they themselves were against and the silly 'little Englanders' brought upon themselves
reduce inflationary pressure and cause problems for the project fear forecasts of the OBR and IFS
Aye, except they can always fall back on the main element of their gloomy predictions (counterfactual GDP differentials plucked from thin air) and that old chestnut, confidence i.e. market uncertainty perpetuated by establishment commentators and opinion leaders
Putin says NATO is outdated, America is not a banana republic whose election could be influenced from outside, the UN is the most legitimate international body and that Russia does not aspire to global dominance or expansion
Too much #RealTalk in one hit. He must be silenced!
Sure, some genetic throwbacks voted for Leave for all the wrong reasons but, manifestly, there be eunuchs a plenty on the flip-side. Brexit was, by and large, about believing in Britain, our sovereignty, and Democracy, taking a big leap of faith, and grabbing fate by the balls
Don't let's get it twisted, most voters knew exactly what they were voting for, and hence that extricating ourselves from an institution that had managed to work its way into every corner of our lives (largely by stealth) would not be plain sailing. Many took a suitably considered view
Arguably, indirectly, aye, and predominantly uncontentiously so. However, transformative societal and constitutional change stand out, in my analysis, as areas that really ought to reflect open and pluralistic discourse and, ultimately, "common consent" - as opposed to arbitrary (psuedo-)progressive positions being foisted on the little people from on high
Voters could Elect Green councils and radically relocalise economies
..and would perhaps be more inclined to if one could elect a representative to individual executive portfolios, excepting other obstacles e.g. those relating to the persuasiveness of perceived credibility of particular (relatively well established) personnel/parties
Now they've voted to end the consequences while keeping their benefits. Good Luck with that
As Merryn Somerset-Webb put it on QT the other day, it's perfectly possible that, "looking back .. we would say that the UK made some minor changes to its trading arrangements with its next-door partners"
A variety of possibilities exist and, ultimately, Brexit is plainly not going to lead to an end to benefits stemming from international trade. To imply this, or to fairly directly state it (as Chris Leslie [a centrist Blairite, no less] did on the same program), is ridiculous in the extreme
Equally, 'The Donald' is likely to cool his jets on retrograde isolationism and provocative Mercantilism with a team around him who know a thing or two, once in office
Secularisation was chosen. Ditto 1960's liberalism
Indeed so, and have left a sizeable sociocultural void, and inherent psychological/sociological instability, as touched on in the article, have they not? Mortals require modelled behaviour
which 60's liberal reform would voters chose to reverse?
It's not about reversing 'progressive' reforms per sae, it's about seeking to inculcate a pragmatic and sustainable pro-social culture shift e.g. by way of the means noted in the article, and further alluded to in this response:
"I think the answer lies in a sensible mix of less restrictive vs. more cultured public discourse, debate, and education, empowerment of and cautious, merited influence over the disaffected and disenfranchised, and paternalistic nudges vs. direct intervention, where necessary. Getting there will almost certainly require the indicated systemic reforms, and hence a rebalancing of power and restoration of guiding principles like truth and humanity"
Atomisation is like anything else. You pays your money you makes your choice
This sentiment embodies, in a nutshell, one of the main barriers to genuine progress (never mind electoral viability) presently faced by many 'liberals'/on the left. For too long habitually conditioned relentless concessions to change labelled 'progressive', and the incrementally graduated (moralistic/legalistic) delegitimisation of critical voices, have driven affected ideologues/sheeple further and further from positions of general consensus, stability, and sustainability; hence, 'out of touch' vs. #TakeControl
Comments
Fillon (LR-EPP) 32% Le Pen (FN-ENF) 22% Macron (EM-NI) 13% Mélenchon (FG-LEFT) 12% Hollande (PS-S&D) 8%
But there are quite a few scenarios where he makes the second round. I think his correct odds are about 12-1, with the most egregiously expensive candidate being MLP. (In US Presidential elections, when a state is 66-33 in the polls, its 40-1 for the challenger, not 4-1.)
My guesstimate would be:
Fillon 66%
Macron 9%
Marine Le Pen 9%
Valls 7%
Hollande 4%
Bayrou 2%
Someone else: 3%
Fillon 75%
Le Pen 12%
Macron 7%
Socialist 5%
Someone else 1%.
I don't see a huge difference here, I didn't mean to sound too harsh. We are trading small probabilities for tiny ones on Macron...
Firstly we don't criticise Hurricanes for not seeking a democratic mandate because we know the weather is an elemental force. Is the Nexus we are labeling " Globalisation " any different ? A little bit. We have some choices. We could theoretically ban certain technological advances. But broadly History does have a certain sweep and nearly all of this stuff isn't going away. The problem is voters have developed this extraordinary idea they can stop Globalisation via the ballot box. They are almost entirely wrong.
Secondly so much of this stuff is mandated. Voters like internet shopping, dirt cheap imported food, out of town shopping centres and Starbucks. Voters like paying lower taxes made possible by importing labour to wipe their Nana's arses for them for BMW. Voters could Elect Green councils and radically relocalise economies. They could build a Granny Flat and wipe Nana's arses themselves. But they like these things while raging at the consequences. Now they've voted to end the consequences while keeping their benefits. Good Luck with that.
Atomisation is like anything else. You pays your money you makes your choice.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/11/28/labours-migration-dilemma
As indicated, to continue to put their fingers in their ears would be a grave error on the part of mainstreamers, and surely only fan the flames of discontent
It is precisely because relative traditionalists feel ignored that demagoguery is gaining traction. The liberal left/establishment is ostensibly responsible for the resurgence of the right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs&t=24s Right wing politicians have indeed had the benefit of usefully unpopular and incredible foils, plus the rub of the green re: international political events
However, the left must not only find credible leadership, it must establish a vision that really resonates i.e. not just broadly, and on the surface, but among the core, and to their core; little use attempting to become the Lib Dems-gone-Marxist, who's going to vote for that?
They must quell their idealistic revolutionary zeal, and pick their battles more keenly (rather than going full-on re: counter-productive and unsustainable regulation and taxation)
They must also do more to tease out the sociocultural thorns in their side, such as those touched on in the article, on the flip side. Renewed pragmatism, authenticity, and community sensibility, are on the menu - qualities historically at the core of the Labour movement
Granted, this may be a tall order where Momentum are concerned, so the practical reality will in all probability play out as you suggest, but the potential does exist for the left to finally be seen to be pursuing a saleable, genuinely progressive agenda, if only they take heed
Ultimately, I think the answer lies in a sensible mix of less restrictive vs. more cultured public discourse, debate, and education, empowerment of and cautious, merited influence over the disaffected and disenfranchised, and paternalistic nudges vs. direct intervention, where necessary. Getting there will almost certainly require the indicated systemic reforms, and hence a rebalancing of power and restoration of guiding principles like truth and humanity
I understand that to many, the party is seen as ‘the lesser of two evils’ (e.g. on the economy, EUref, and immigration, in our pathetically binary oligopolistic (FPTP) political system
They’ve also become better at appearing to pander to populist sensibilities, judging tone, and placating the disgruntled where necessary – possibly because of a more natural coincidence, and feasible harmonisation, of interests between their regular vs. special ‘constituents’, excepting the #EUref
She failed to pitch campaign on a change ticket perceived to be truly authentic, never mind positive, instead preferring to denigrate Trump and his supporters as "deplorables"
Remain (Stronger In) arguably behaved similarly. Both got trashed by their respective electorates when victory should, on the face of it, have been a formality. A lesson for the elites
In a political world full of ideologues, a political pragmatist has no future
Don't let's get it twisted, most voters knew exactly what they were voting for, and hence that extricating ourselves from an institution that had managed to work its way into every corner of our lives (largely by stealth) would not be plain sailing. Many took a suitably considered view
A variety of possibilities exist and, ultimately, Brexit is plainly not going to lead to an end to benefits stemming from international trade. To imply this, or to fairly directly state it (as Chris Leslie [a centrist Blairite, no less] did on the same program), is ridiculous in the extreme
Equally, 'The Donald' is likely to cool his jets on retrograde isolationism and provocative Mercantilism with a team around him who know a thing or two, once in office
"I think the answer lies in a sensible mix of less restrictive vs. more cultured public discourse, debate, and education, empowerment of and cautious, merited influence over the disaffected and disenfranchised, and paternalistic nudges vs. direct intervention, where necessary. Getting there will almost certainly require the indicated systemic reforms, and hence a rebalancing of power and restoration of guiding principles like truth and humanity" This sentiment embodies, in a nutshell, one of the main barriers to genuine progress (never mind electoral viability) presently faced by many 'liberals'/on the left. For too long habitually conditioned relentless concessions to change labelled 'progressive', and the incrementally graduated (moralistic/legalistic) delegitimisation of critical voices, have driven affected ideologues/sheeple further and further from positions of general consensus, stability, and sustainability; hence, 'out of touch' vs. #TakeControl