Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
You forget the one Lib Dem leader who took the party into government.
Regarding leadership ratings it is fair to say that May's ratings are dipping, but a lot of that will be Tories disappointed that she hasn't taken the fight to Corbyn, that she should have blown him out the water and ridiculed him. She has disappointed them. But of course as we have seen her leadership numbers have dropped rapidly but the Tory VI has held firm, Tories wanted her to stick it to Jezza, but they will still be voting blue.
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
Being a bit unfair to Clegg. He doesn't seem to have been anything other than a decent if misguided fellow and he did take them into Government for the first time in many decades.
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
You forget the one Lib Dem leader who took the party into government.
And then led them to the brink of extinction. Presumably whatever his vice was, he gave it up between 2010 and 2015.
It is all in the weightings , look at Q3 in the Comres data tables and eliminate the 10% Don't Knows and you get Con 43 Lab 38.5 LD 8 . The data is pretty much the same for both today's polls , the end results differ a lot because of the way it is manipulated sorry fine adjusted .
But who has the right adjustments?
Polling Disaster Mk II coming up for somebody...
True. The learning point for the "Tories are always under-recorded" folks is that the pollsters think that they have compensated for that with their amazing array of adjustments. Maybe they have? But maybe they have under- or over-shot?
The fact that previous polls have understated the Tory vote is no longer relevant. Whether they are over or under this time is essentially a 50/50 coin toss....
It is all in the weightings , look at Q3 in the Comres data tables and eliminate the 10% Don't Knows and you get Con 43 Lab 38.5 LD 8 . The data is pretty much the same for both today's polls , the end results differ a lot because of the way it is manipulated sorry fine adjusted .
But who has the right adjustments?
Yes. What the polls are giving us is guesswork, and the guesses are diverging pretty widely.
It is all in the weightings , look at Q3 in the Comres data tables and eliminate the 10% Don't Knows and you get Con 43 Lab 38.5 LD 8 . The data is pretty much the same for both today's polls , the end results differ a lot because of the way it is manipulated sorry fine adjusted .
But who has the right adjustments?
Polling Disaster Mk II coming up for somebody...
True. The learning point for the "Tories are always under-recorded" folks is that the pollsters think that they have compensated for that with their amazing array of adjustments. Maybe they have? But maybe they have under- or over-shot?
The fact that previous polls have understated the Tory vote is no longer relevant. Whether they are over or under this time is essentially a 50/50 coin toss....
Well since 1983 they have never over-shot their correction.
Mr. Norm, it was even last time. Within a week of Cameron winning there was a protest against the Government and a statue/war memorial (I forget which) had 'Tory scum' spray-painted onto it.
Mr. JS, my gast would be flabbered if that were the result.
It is all in the weightings , look at Q3 in the Comres data tables and eliminate the 10% Don't Knows and you get Con 43 Lab 38.5 LD 8 . The data is pretty much the same for both today's polls , the end results differ a lot because of the way it is manipulated sorry fine adjusted .
But who has the right adjustments?
Yes. What the polls are giving us is guesswork, and the guesses are diverging pretty widely.
I wouldn't bet on this election.
Advice that arrives sadly too late for most PB'ers!
Regarding leadership ratings it is fair to say that May's ratings are dipping, but a lot of that will be Tories disappointed that she hasn't taken the fight to Corbyn, that she should have blown him out the water and ridiculed him. She has disappointed them. But of course as we have seen her leadership numbers have dropped rapidly but the Tory VI has held firm, Tories wanted her to stick it to Jezza, but they will still be voting blue.
LOL.
Are you sure her ratings fall is nothing to do with that manifesto, the u-turn, and piss poor explanation about social care changes?
Resurfacing to say I am stuck for the weekend in a place with two die hard corbynistas. I had expected one, not two. One used to vote Tory, but given the atmosphere I think I will avoid mentioning I am joining the pb Tory ranks on Thursday. These are not the positive, well meaning corbynistas, but the hang the Tories kind. Ah, family.
Shy Tory?
I have a 25 y.o niece who fills my FB feed with constant Corbynista propaganda. She has literally become obsessed. The comedown if the Tories secure a majority will be alarming.
My FB feed is full of articles on how dreadful May is - so I suspect I'm going to enjoy Friday.....
It is sad to think that for the overwhelming majority of right leaning voters on PB (and for quite a lot of left leaning ones as well), the main feeling on Friday if May has won will be one of guarded relief.
Are any of the bookies putting odds on May surviving to 2022 if she wins? I would be amazed if she lasts out this Parliament after this election performance.
If she gets a majority over 50 she will have greater control over her party and a bigger mandate than any Tory leader since Thatcher, she will survive, she will only be under threat if she does worse than Cameron did
She will also still be facing Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.....
Yes a majority of over 50 but under 100 would save both May and Jezza
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
You forget the one Lib Dem leader who took the party into government.
And then led them to the brink of extinction. Presumably whatever his vice was, he gave it up between 2010 and 2015.
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
Being a bit unfair to Clegg. He doesn't seem to have been anything other than a decent if misguided fellow ...
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
You forget the one Lib Dem leader who took the party into government.
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
You forget the one Lib Dem leader who took the party into government.
ComRes They've also got Con-Lab on 47(+1) to 35 (+1) which is just ridiculous.
Why?
Partly my feeling about the way it's going; partly the facts that this lead is a lot bigger than leads reported by other pollsters, and ComRes themselves report that May's favourability has fallen drastically while Corbyn's has risen fast.
Regarding leadership ratings it is fair to say that May's ratings are dipping, but a lot of that will be Tories disappointed that she hasn't taken the fight to Corbyn, that she should have blown him out the water and ridiculed him. She has disappointed them. But of course as we have seen her leadership numbers have dropped rapidly but the Tory VI has held firm, Tories wanted her to stick it to Jezza, but they will still be voting blue.
Yes, the lesson of this campaign is surely that the Tories have relied too little on negative campaigning and giving Corbyn rope to hang himself, and have instead bored us all rigid with setting out in detail their own positive plans for the next five years?
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
Being a bit unfair to Clegg. He doesn't seem to have been anything other than a decent if misguided fellow and he did take them into Government for the first time in many decades.
Yes, his huge flaw was taking them into government (on the terms offered).
ComRes shows Labour ahead in has the best policies, but May ahead of Corbyn in makes the best PM. And this is why Labour will lose.
That Conservative Manifesto is so awful that the puffin book of five-minute stories would probably poll better than it.
They would have been far better to nick Tony's pledge card idea and basically put Orderly BREXIT, Strong Economy, Control Immigration, insert 2 fillers like Bins.
She should have just spent the election talking about Brexit.
She doesn't have a plan, other than being "a bloody difficult woman"
I said at the beginning of May, that a Brexit election requires a clear and credible Brexit plan.
We still have no vision of what constitutes a "good deal" or a "bad deal" and no preparation for "no deal". She had one card, and played it badly.
Resurfacing to say I am stuck for the weekend in a place with two die hard corbynistas. I had expected one, not two. One used to vote Tory, but given the atmosphere I think I will avoid mentioning I am joining the pb Tory ranks on Thursday. These are not the positive, well meaning corbynistas, but the hang the Tories kind. Ah, family.
Shy Tory?
I have a 25 y.o niece who fills my FB feed with constant Corbynista propaganda. She has literally become obsessed. The comedown if the Tories secure a majority will be alarming.
Our Undergraduate Middle Class Hobby Socialist has been canvassing in a rock-solid Labour seat, where the only opposition was UKIP. Naturally, he is expecting a 80+ seat Labour maj.
He's not bothering to canvass in his University seat (in Scotland), and is very cross at Scottish people for not being 'sound' enough to vote for St. Jez. The level of messianic worship for Corbs is very worrying. He'll be in a right state on Friday morning, when the surge hasn't materialised.
Regarding leadership ratings it is fair to say that May's ratings are dipping, but a lot of that will be Tories disappointed that she hasn't taken the fight to Corbyn, that she should have blown him out the water and ridiculed him. She has disappointed them. But of course as we have seen her leadership numbers have dropped rapidly but the Tory VI has held firm, Tories wanted her to stick it to Jezza, but they will still be voting blue.
Flip side is Corbyn has exceeded low expectations, so lots of Labour folk are saying to themselves "well, he's an IRA-loving unilateralist who will fuck up the country with his absurd giveaways that will bankrupt the country as the rich flee; but he's OUR IRA-loving unilateralist who will....." and so his leadership ratings have risen.
Were you brought up on war movies? All that piece seems to be saying is that Dunkirk was a near-disaster and Lend-Lease was a thing. Well I never, and anyway so what?
The thing about WW2 is it actually is the greatest story ever told, and we are the heroes. Other heroic victories aren't actually good v evil, they are our ingroup vs the outgroup - Troy, Marathon, Roncesvalles, Lepanto all white European vs swarthy barbarian, with not much to choose morally between the parties - Darius and Xerxes invading Greece were no better or worse than Alexander invading the East. WW2 is the only exception, the one where the Good vs Evil markers are so heavy-handed that even Tolkien would have thought it was laying it on a bit thick - like the bit where one side kills 6m people in death camps, and the other side um, doesn't. And we - the UK - won it. Obviously there was a lot of help from our former colonists, but the UK headlined. If bedwetting guardianistas are embarrassed about that, fuck 'em.
The messiah worship from the cult of Corbyn is just utterly bizarre to me.
I think it's a replay of Sanders and Trump in the US: a snowballing hysteria, which you just don't grasp at all unless you're within the particular social media subculture.
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
Being a bit unfair to Clegg. He doesn't seem to have been anything other than a decent if misguided fellow and he did take them into Government for the first time in many decades.
Yes, his huge flaw was taking them into government (on the terms offered).
He was faced with an impossible situation given the economic situation. He plumped for giving the country a stable government for 5 years.
He acted in the national interest, but destroyed his party in the process. I would not have wanted to have been in his position. I suspect history will judge him kindly.
Were you brought up on war movies? All that piece seems to be saying is that Dunkirk was a near-disaster and Lend-Lease was a thing. Well I never, and anyway so what?
The thing about WW2 is it actually is the greatest story ever told, and we are the heroes. Other heroic victories aren't actually good v evil, they are our ingroup vs the outgroup - Troy, Marathon, Roncesvalles, Lepanto all white European vs swarthy barbarian, with not much to choose morally between the parties - Darius and Xerxes invading Greece were no better or worse than Alexander invading the East. WW2 is the only exception, the one where the Good vs Evil markers are so heavy-handed that even Tolkien would have thought it was laying it on a bit thick - like the bit where one side kills 6m people in death camps, and the other side um, doesn't. And we - the UK - won it. Obviously there was a lot of help from our former colonists, but the UK headlined. If bedwetting guardianistas are embarrassed about that, fuck 'em.
I'm not embarrassed at all; I love war movies.
The Guardian does nevertheless have a point that their mindset is probably not the best guide to positioning the UK in the globalised world of the 21st century.
Were you brought up on war movies? All that piece seems to be saying is that Dunkirk was a near-disaster and Lend-Lease was a thing. Well I never, and anyway so what?
The thing about WW2 is it actually is the greatest story ever told, and we are the heroes. Other heroic victories aren't actually good v evil, they are our ingroup vs the outgroup - Troy, Marathon, Roncesvalles, Lepanto all white European vs swarthy barbarian, with not much to choose morally between the parties - Darius and Xerxes invading Greece were no better or worse than Alexander invading the East. WW2 is the only exception, the one where the Good vs Evil markers are so heavy-handed that even Tolkien would have thought it was laying it on a bit thick - like the bit where one side kills 6m people in death camps, and the other side um, doesn't. And we - the UK - won it. Obviously there was a lot of help from our former colonists, but the UK headlined. If bedwetting guardianistas are embarrassed about that, fuck 'em.
"so this lad, running France, is called Charles France? Surely that's in the realms of fantasy"
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
Being a bit unfair to Clegg. He doesn't seem to have been anything other than a decent if misguided fellow and he did take them into Government for the first time in many decades.
Yes, his huge flaw was taking them into government (on the terms offered).
He was faced with an impossible situation given the economic situation. He plumped for giving the country a stable government for 5 years.
He acted in the national interest, but destroyed his party in the process. I would not have wanted to have been in his position. I suspect history will judge him kindly.
Before we get to history, the more pressing question is how the liberal voice will gain any meaningful expression within the current state of British politics. Thinking about this will put you in some esteemed, if only partly good, company.
Mr. Urquhart, I wonder if it's akin to teenage girls going wild for boy bands.
They normally go weak at the knees because the boys are clean cut and hot. As soon as scandals start their attractiveness goes.
But then well last time we supposedly had Milifandom (but nobody really believed it). This time 18-24 do seem to be going Beatles / Take That / Westlife about an old far left terrorist sympathizer.
I thought I had added a post by phone but can't see it.
Comedy Results has the SNP at 3%. That is seriously low for them. 5% is more normal. 3.0% is equivalent to roughly 31.5%. 3.49% is roughly equivalent to 36%.
I would like to believe that this is true but I hae ma doots.
Resurfacing to say I am stuck for the weekend in a place with two die hard corbynistas. I had expected one, not two. One used to vote Tory, but given the atmosphere I think I will avoid mentioning I am joining the pb Tory ranks on Thursday. These are not the positive, well meaning corbynistas, but the hang the Tories kind. Ah, family.
Shy Tory?
I have a 25 y.o niece who fills my FB feed with constant Corbynista propaganda. She has literally become obsessed. The comedown if the Tories secure a majority will be alarming.
Our Undergraduate Middle Class Hobby Socialist has been canvassing in a rock-solid Labour seat, where the only opposition was UKIP. Naturally, he is expecting a 80+ seat Labour maj.
He's not bothering to canvass in his University seat (in Scotland), and is very cross at Scottish people for not being 'sound' enough to vote for St. Jez. The level of messianic worship for Corbs is very worrying. He'll be in a right state on Friday morning, when the surge hasn't materialised.
the problem is he's excited the wrong demographic. Unlike LEAVE.
ComRes shows Labour ahead in has the best policies, but May ahead of Corbyn in makes the best PM. And this is why Labour will lose.
That is a very generic question though, on immigration, Brexit, welfare, law and order, their own taxes and national security and defence voters prefer the Tories, on the NHS, free school lunches, taxes for the rich, nationalisations, tuition fees and invading other countries voters prefer Corbyn Labour
I see a contradiction there. They dont want tax rises but want a raft of extra socialist spending.
Is this a genuine contradiction... if so what do we make of the electorate. Or is it a product of the questions and methodogy.
BTW why in any universe should I be remotely interested in my govt wasting billions on nationalising the railways? Why should I as a pensipner see my taxes go to subsidise rich train drivers and THEIR pensions and why should do anything to benefit rich commuters?
What earthly real benefit to anyone other than trade unions does the spending on nationalisation bring?
It is sad to think that for the overwhelming majority of right leaning voters on PB (and for quite a lot of left leaning ones as well), the main feeling on Friday if May has won will be one of guarded relief.
Are any of the bookies putting odds on May surviving to 2022 if she wins? I would be amazed if she lasts out this Parliament after this election performance.
If she gets a majority over 50 she will have greater control over her party and a bigger mandate than any Tory leader since Thatcher, she will survive, she will only be under threat if she does worse than Cameron did
She will also still be facing Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.....
Yes a majority of over 50 but under 100 would save both May and Jezza
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
Being a bit unfair to Clegg. He doesn't seem to have been anything other than a decent if misguided fellow and he did take them into Government for the first time in many decades.
Yes, his huge flaw was taking them into government (on the terms offered).
He was faced with an impossible situation given the economic situation. He plumped for giving the country a stable government for 5 years.
He acted in the national interest, but destroyed his party in the process. I would not have wanted to have been in his position. I suspect history will judge him kindly.
I have a lot of time for the likes of Clegg, and more so Alexander, Webb, Lamb...They all took their role seriously and acted in the national interest.
I am sure Danny Alexander especially has all sorts of shit he could have spun about the Tories in 2015, but I think he released one story that the Tories once considered something and the Lib Dems stopped it, and that was it.
But even 2 years down the line, nobody has a bad word to say about the Park Ranger and he says nothing about anybody else.
Penny for your thoughts on how well the LibDems will/won't do on Thursday? DO you believe the polls?
It hangs on the possible resurgence of tactical voting - very much on topic. If yes, 15-20. If not, 4-5. The 10-12 that most people are predicting seems the least likely to me (delivered only if Scotland goes well and England goes badly),
Were you brought up on war movies? All that piece seems to be saying is that Dunkirk was a near-disaster and Lend-Lease was a thing. Well I never, and anyway so what?
The thing about WW2 is it actually is the greatest story ever told, and we are the heroes. Other heroic victories aren't actually good v evil, they are our ingroup vs the outgroup - Troy, Marathon, Roncesvalles, Lepanto all white European vs swarthy barbarian, with not much to choose morally between the parties - Darius and Xerxes invading Greece were no better or worse than Alexander invading the East. WW2 is the only exception, the one where the Good vs Evil markers are so heavy-handed that even Tolkien would have thought it was laying it on a bit thick - like the bit where one side kills 6m people in death camps, and the other side um, doesn't. And we - the UK - won it. Obviously there was a lot of help from our former colonists, but the UK headlined. If bedwetting guardianistas are embarrassed about that, fuck 'em.
"so this lad, running France, is called Charles France? Surely that's in the realms of fantasy"
You will enjoy this - a critique of WW2 as if it were fiction.
Resurfacing to say I am stuck for the weekend in a place with two die hard corbynistas. I had expected one, not two. One used to vote Tory, but given the atmosphere I think I will avoid mentioning I am joining the pb Tory ranks on Thursday. These are not the positive, well meaning corbynistas, but the hang the Tories kind. Ah, family.
Shy Tory?
I have a 25 y.o niece who fills my FB feed with constant Corbynista propaganda. She has literally become obsessed. The comedown if the Tories secure a majority will be alarming.
The messiah worship from the cult of Corbyn is just utterly bizarre to me.
What day of the week does the print edition of the NME come out? The Guardian said on Thursday that Jeremy Corbyn "will" appear on its cover "this week".
Some PB Tories may be letting their emotions block them from realising that Team Corbyn has so far fought an extremely competent campaign.
It is sad to think that for the overwhelming majority of right leaning voters on PB (and for quite a lot of left leaning ones as well), the main feeling on Friday if May has won will be one of guarded relief.
Are any of the bookies putting odds on May surviving to 2022 if she wins? I would be amazed if she lasts out this Parliament after this election performance.
If she gets a majority over 50 she will have greater control over her party and a bigger mandate than any Tory leader since Thatcher, she will survive, she will only be under threat if she does worse than Cameron did
She will also still be facing Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.....
Yes a majority of over 50 but under 100 would save both May and Jezza
The goldilocks election?
can I just point out I think I used that phrase a while back.
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
They could always try Limbit but maybe he's a bit small time?
The interesting part to me in that article that he didn't really run with were the negotiations between the US and UK for support during the war prior to Pearl Harbor. While the US would probably benefit from the UK winning against Germany, they weren't that interested and so charged top dollar for the help, which was given in the belief that Britain was a match for Germany militarily and economically, thanks largely to Britain's international connections at the time.
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
Being a bit unfair to Clegg. He doesn't seem to have been anything other than a decent if misguided fellow and he did take them into Government for the first time in many decades.
Yes, his huge flaw was taking them into government (on the terms offered).
He was faced with an impossible situation given the economic situation. He plumped for giving the country a stable government for 5 years.
He acted in the national interest, but destroyed his party in the process. I would not have wanted to have been in his position. I suspect history will judge him kindly.
I have a lot of time for the likes of Clegg, and more so Alexander, Webb, Lamb...They all took their role seriously and acted in the national interest.
I am sure Danny Alexander especially has all sorts of shit he could have spun about the Tories in 2015, but I think he released one story that the Tories once considered something and the Lib Dems stopped it, and that was it.
But even 2 years down the line, nobody has a bad word to say about Poo the Park Ranger and he says nothing about anybody else.
The bottom line is that our current political system appears designed to do down the sort of intelligent and thoughtful politicians that, in a sensible world, we should actually want. Hence we are left with the risible choice on offer, across all the parties, next week.
The last five polls have the LDs on 8, 9, 7, 7, and 9. I reckon they'll marginally outperform that (partly because we'll have lowish turnout, partly because they'll benefit from some tactical voting, and partly because past voting weighting has pushed them down a little). I'm going to go for 10% as my wild stab in the dark.
I thought I had added a post by phone but can't see it.
Comedy Results has the SNP at 3%. That is seriously low for them. 5% is more normal. 3.0% is equivalent to roughly 31.5%. 3.49% is roughly equivalent to 36%.
I would like to believe that this is true but I hae ma doots.
Were you brought up on war movies? All that piece seems to be saying is that Dunkirk was a near-disaster and Lend-Lease was a thing. Well I never, and anyway so what?
The thing about WW2 is it actually is the greatest story ever told, and we are the heroes. Other heroic victories aren't actually good v evil, they are our ingroup vs the outgroup - Troy, Marathon, Roncesvalles, Lepanto all white European vs swarthy barbarian, with not much to choose morally between the parties - Darius and Xerxes invading Greece were no better or worse than Alexander invading the East. WW2 is the only exception, the one where the Good vs Evil markers are so heavy-handed that even Tolkien would have thought it was laying it on a bit thick - like the bit where one side kills 6m people in death camps, and the other side um, doesn't. And we - the UK - won it. Obviously there was a lot of help from our former colonists, but the UK headlined. If bedwetting guardianistas are embarrassed about that, fuck 'em.
Resurfacing to say I am stuck for the weekend in a place with two die hard corbynistas. I had expected one, not two. One used to vote Tory, but given the atmosphere I think I will avoid mentioning I am joining the pb Tory ranks on Thursday. These are not the positive, well meaning corbynistas, but the hang the Tories kind. Ah, family.
Shy Tory?
I have a 25 y.o niece who fills my FB feed with constant Corbynista propaganda. She has literally become obsessed. The comedown if the Tories secure a majority will be alarming.
Our Undergraduate Middle Class Hobby Socialist has been canvassing in a rock-solid Labour seat, where the only opposition was UKIP. Naturally, he is expecting a 80+ seat Labour maj.
He's not bothering to canvass in his University seat (in Scotland), and is very cross at Scottish people for not being 'sound' enough to vote for St. Jez. The level of messianic worship for Corbs is very worrying. He'll be in a right state on Friday morning, when the surge hasn't materialised.
the problem is he's excited the wrong demographic. Unlike LEAVE.
I know, I know. I've tried to point out to the UMCHS that:
a) Da Kidz don't get off their arses and vote in the same numbers as his grandmother's pals.
and
b) Da Kidz are not a homogenous group anyway, despite what he thinks from speaking to people on Twitter.
Resurfacing to say I am stuck for the weekend in a place with two die hard corbynistas. I had expected one, not two. One used to vote Tory, but given the atmosphere I think I will avoid mentioning I am joining the pb Tory ranks on Thursday. These are not the positive, well meaning corbynistas, but the hang the Tories kind. Ah, family.
Shy Tory?
I have a 25 y.o niece who fills my FB feed with constant Corbynista propaganda. She has literally become obsessed. The comedown if the Tories secure a majority will be alarming.
The messiah worship from the cult of Corbyn is just utterly bizarre to me.
What day of the week does the print edition of the NME come out? The Guardian said on Thursday that Jeremy Corbyn "will" appear on its cover "this week".
Some PB Tories may be letting their emotions block them from realising that Team Corbyn has so far fought an extremely competent campaign.
Extremely competent campaign is going way too far. Diane police figures etc etc etc. It was a f##k up a day at the start for Labour and Tories didn't do anything.
Which was all fine until the Tories blew their own feet off and totally focused all attention on one terribly received policy for over a week. Then a terrorist attack was the focus for another week+.
There hasn't really been any sustained attacks on Labour's manifesto either by the Tories or the press. Jezza hasn't been pressured in any real way.
I said this weeks ago, I never understand the apparent love in with Kim Jong May. Perhaps because I follow the news more closely, but I just didn't get the sky high ratings for her.
I think a lot of it was based on her apparent strength, decisiveness and calm leadership.
Which she may well have in spades, as a working PM. Perhaps just no camera-appeal, plus TV nerves. Some voters look below superficial performance skills and debating wit under studio lights. I would vote for boring, high-achieving Atlee over lyrical Lloyd George or debating champion Foot - for political reasons.
The last five polls have the LDs on 8, 9, 7, 7, and 9. I reckon they'll marginally outperform that (partly because we'll have lowish turnout, partly because they'll benefit from some tactical voting, and partly because past voting weighting has pushed them down a little). I'm going to go for 10% as my wild stab in the dark.
I suspect that share of the vote is almost completely meaningless in assessing how the LibDems will do. It's all about how they do in seats where they have a chance.
But you're right that WWII is unusual in that it's taken as being very much a just war with good guys on one side and bad guys on the other.
*cough*Stalin*cough*
Professor Richard Overy of the University of Exeter:
'The real irony of the Second World War was that the democratic powers, Britain and the United States, won it in an alliance with a regime that was quite as brutal and indifferent to human rights as the Nazis were.'
Resurfacing to say I am stuck for the weekend in a place with two die hard corbynistas. I had expected one, not two. One used to vote Tory, but given the atmosphere I think I will avoid mentioning I am joining the pb Tory ranks on Thursday. These are not the positive, well meaning corbynistas, but the hang the Tories kind. Ah, family.
I feel your pain
Just had a week in Brecon with 2 as well.
Although interestingly the Min L went off him after the Cambridge debate-thought he was saying waht people wanted to hear not what he thought-but she will still vote for him
I have to religiously go through my Facebook feed and "hide posts like these" from my two brothers and their children I don't want to unfriendl them but don't want their crap. It's not that I'm atory either but in their world being a Lib Dem is even worse. Do they influence anybody, I doubt it but at least they're not out doing anything useful. I told them when Corbyn was elected leader it will all end in tears but I fear not, they will frame a Tory majority of under a 100 as a victory and they are on the roas to Jerusalem. When I tell them they are robbing those people who need a labour government frm achieving it they tell me losing is better than winning with anything that looks like new labour. All negative criticism of JC DA and JMc is nothing other than a MSM plot and BBC right wing bias. Funny that others tell me that the BBC is right wing and biased towards the left. I have to think they must have got the balance right. I
??? Britain will be in trouble when faced with a German occupied Europe.
Is that the Guardian's analogy?
The reality is the Guardian have invented a delusion that does not exist.
I think it is because so many people make allusions between us standing alone in WW2 and Brexit. Including the man who is negotiating Brexit for us. The concerns are that the analogies are false, as I think you point out, but also because they are comparing Brexit to a myth. Our role in WW2 wasn't like that.
ComRes shows Labour ahead in has the best policies, but May ahead of Corbyn in makes the best PM. And this is why Labour will lose.
That is a very generic question though, on immigration, Brexit, welfare, law and order, their own taxes and national security and defence voters prefer the Tories, on the NHS, free school lunches, taxes for the rich, nationalisations, tuition fees and invading other countries voters prefer Corbyn Labour
I see a contradiction there. They dont want tax rises but want a raft of extra socialist spending.
Is this a genuine contradiction... if so what do we make of the electorate. Or is it a product of the questions and methodogy.
BTW why in any universe should I be remotely interested in my govt wasting billions on nationalising the railways? Why should I as a pensipner see my taxes go to subsidise rich train drivers and THEIR pensions and why should do anything to benefit rich commuters?
What earthly real benefit to anyone other than trade unions does the spending on nationalisation bring?
'From the many to the few'
Yep.
Rail nationalisation is telling nurses and factory workers in the Midlands and the North they must pay more in tax so that bankers and city types in London can get more comfortable subsidised travel to work every day.
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
Being a bit unfair to Clegg. He doesn't seem to have been anything other than a decent if misguided fellow and he did take them into Government for the first time in many decades.
Yes, his huge flaw was taking them into government (on the terms offered).
He was faced with an impossible situation given the economic situation. He plumped for giving the country a stable government for 5 years.
He acted in the national interest, but destroyed his party in the process. I would not have wanted to have been in his position. I suspect history will judge him kindly.
I have a lot of time for the likes of Clegg, and more so Alexander, Webb, Lamb...They all took their role seriously and acted in the national interest.
I am sure Danny Alexander especially has all sorts of shit he could have spun about the Tories in 2015, but I think he released one story that the Tories once considered something and the Lib Dems stopped it, and that was it.
But even 2 years down the line, nobody has a bad word to say about the Park Ranger and he says nothing about anybody else.
From my understanding, he's doing very well at the AIIB in Beijing, after a slightly rocky start. (And unlike many ex-politicians, who settle for highly paid non-exec or advisor roles, he's actually got his hands dirty.)
The interesting part to me in that article that he didn't really run with were the negotiations between the US and UK for support during the war prior to Pearl Harbor. While the US would probably benefit from the UK winning against Germany, they weren't that interested and so charged top dollar for the help, which was given in the belief that Britain was a match for Germany militarily and economically, thanks largely to Britain's international connections at the time.
We need Europe for trade and security. If the Europeans are honest with themselves they need us for the same reasons.
The last five polls have the LDs on 8, 9, 7, 7, and 9. I reckon they'll marginally outperform that (partly because we'll have lowish turnout, partly because they'll benefit from some tactical voting, and partly because past voting weighting has pushed them down a little). I'm going to go for 10% as my wild stab in the dark.
I suspect that share of the vote is almost completely meaningless in assessing how the LibDems will do. It's all about how they do in seats where they have a chance.
But it is meaningful in assessing how the two main parties do. If the Lib Dems outperform their polls by 2-3% in makes a big difference which party they gain the extra votes from.
Mr. Urquhart, I agree. Danny Alexander substantially exceeded expectations.
The quad generally worked very well.
It actually really irks me that those ministers who were so good in coalition lost their seats, while we still have the likes of Keith Vaz and Labour's potential cabinet of absolutely incompetents.
Who would I prefer doing the sums, Alexander and Professor Steve Webb or Team Twat....it isn't even close.
Again you would think the brain trust for the Tories seeing Corbyn leadership ratings heading upwards would be focusing their fire on a daily basis on informing the public of what a total incompetent he and his team are. But nope.
May is indeed a genius. She does not want a landslide to keep Corbyn as leader, obvs.
That is not good for the country, as she will face troubles and he would be the one able to tear her to pieces over it, consolidating him or a like minded successor.
The last five polls have the LDs on 8, 9, 7, 7, and 9. I reckon they'll marginally outperform that (partly because we'll have lowish turnout, partly because they'll benefit from some tactical voting, and partly because past voting weighting has pushed them down a little). I'm going to go for 10% as my wild stab in the dark.
I suspect that share of the vote is almost completely meaningless in assessing how the LibDems will do. It's all about how they do in seats where they have a chance.
Which was, of course, what happened in the Holyrood elections last year. List vote down from 7% to 5% (which I think captures underlying support best), while they picked up two FPTP seats, and came very close in another.
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
Being a bit unfair to Clegg. He doesn't seem to have been anything other than a decent if misguided fellow and he did take them into Government for the first time in many decades.
Yes, his huge flaw was taking them into government (on the terms offered).
He was faced with an impossible situation given the economic situation. He plumped for giving the country a stable government for 5 years.
He acted in the national interest, but destroyed his party in the process. I would not have wanted to have been in his position. I suspect history will judge him kindly.
I have a lot of time for the likes of Clegg, and more so Alexander, Webb, Lamb...They all took their role seriously and acted in the national interest.
I am sure Danny Alexander especially has all sorts of shit he could have spun about the Tories in 2015, but I think he released one story that the Tories once considered something and the Lib Dems stopped it, and that was it.
But even 2 years down the line, nobody has a bad word to say about the Park Ranger and he says nothing about anybody else.
Danny Alexander was class and a great attribute to the UK political scene. Steven Webb was another. There was a lot of talent in the pre-2015 Lib Dems. Post, not so much.
Mr. Urquhart, I agree. Danny Alexander substantially exceeded expectations.
The quad generally worked very well.
It actually really irks me that those ministers who were so good in coalition lost their seats, while we still have the likes of Keith Vaz and Labour's potential cabinet of absolutely incompetents.
Who would I prefer doing the sums, Alexander and Professor Steve Webb or Team Twat....it isn't even close.
As I was saying downthread. Our system is broken and gives us the voters little meaningful choice over the people who get to represent us.
The interesting part to me in that article that he didn't really run with were the negotiations between the US and UK for support during the war prior to Pearl Harbor. While the US would probably benefit from the UK winning against Germany, they weren't that interested and so charged top dollar for the help, which was given in the belief that Britain was a match for Germany militarily and economically, thanks largely to Britain's international connections at the time.
We need Europe for trade and security. If the Europeans are honest with themselves they need us for the same reasons.
I agree. In the long run we'll hopefully sort something out.
Is it my imagination, or do the Liberal Democrats (or Liberals) need someone with serious personal flaws to perform well? Put a prissy vicar in charge and they sink without a trace.
Thorpe. Ashdown. Kennedy.
Conspiracy to murder, adultery, alcoholism.
Just think what the LibDems could have achieved with Huhne or Oaten in charge.
Being a bit unfair to Clegg. He doesn't seem to have been anything other than a decent if misguided fellow and he did take them into Government for the first time in many decades.
Yes, his huge flaw was taking them into government (on the terms offered).
He was faced with an impossible situation given the economic situation. He plumped for giving the country a stable government for 5 years.
He acted in the national interest, but destroyed his party in the process. I would not have wanted to have been in his position. I suspect history will judge him kindly.
I have a lot of time for the likes of Clegg, and more so Alexander, Webb, Lamb...They all took their role seriously and acted in the national interest.
I am sure Danny Alexander especially has all sorts of shit he could have spun about the Tories in 2015, but I think he released one story that the Tories once considered something and the Lib Dems stopped it, and that was it.
But even 2 years down the line, nobody has a bad word to say about the Park Ranger and he says nothing about anybody else.
From my understanding, he's doing very well at the AIIB in Beijing, after a slightly rocky start. (And unlike many ex-politicians, who settle for highly paid non-exec or advisor roles, he's actually got his hands dirty.)
Good to hear. Osborne owns him a bloody lot of drinks for the number of times he was sent out to try and calmly explain whatever balls up old Squeaky had made in the budget.
Resurfacing to say I am stuck for the weekend in a place with two die hard corbynistas. I had expected one, not two. One used to vote Tory, but given the atmosphere I think I will avoid mentioning I am joining the pb Tory ranks on Thursday. These are not the positive, well meaning corbynistas, but the hang the Tories kind. Ah, family.
Shy Tory?
I have a 25 y.o niece who fills my FB feed with constant Corbynista propaganda. She has literally become obsessed. The comedown if the Tories secure a majority will be alarming.
The messiah worship from the cult of Corbyn is just utterly bizarre to me.
What day of the week does the print edition of the NME come out? The Guardian said on Thursday that Jeremy Corbyn "will" appear on its cover "this week".
Some PB Tories may be letting their emotions block them from realising that Team Corbyn has so far fought an extremely competent campaign.
Oh no his campaign has been competent enough. But so was Ed's and Foot's and the rest.....
It's been noted before, but the drift from the locals is insane - and not just for the big two. The LDs are polling 10% below what they got in the locals, a gap which has generally been 5-6%. While Labour are polling 10% ABOVE their NEV. We're through the looking glass if the polls are remotely correct.
Comments
The fact that previous polls have understated the Tory vote is no longer relevant. Whether they are over or under this time is essentially a 50/50 coin toss....
I wouldn't bet on this election.
Mr. Norm, it was even last time. Within a week of Cameron winning there was a protest against the Government and a statue/war memorial (I forget which) had 'Tory scum' spray-painted onto it.
Mr. JS, my gast would be flabbered if that were the result.
Are you sure her ratings fall is nothing to do with that manifesto, the u-turn, and piss poor explanation about social care changes?
When is the next poll?
Well, pledge breaker but close enough.
?!?!?
I said at the beginning of May, that a Brexit election requires a clear and credible Brexit plan.
We still have no vision of what constitutes a "good deal" or a "bad deal" and no preparation for "no deal". She had one card, and played it badly.
Britain will be in trouble when faced with a German occupied Europe.
Is that the Guardian's analogy?
The reality is the Guardian have invented a delusion that does not exist.
On polls: when are the others due?
He's not bothering to canvass in his University seat (in Scotland), and is very cross at Scottish people for not being 'sound' enough to vote for St. Jez. The level of messianic worship for Corbs is very worrying. He'll be in a right state on Friday morning, when the surge hasn't materialised.
The thing about WW2 is it actually is the greatest story ever told, and we are the heroes. Other heroic victories aren't actually good v evil, they are our ingroup vs the outgroup - Troy, Marathon, Roncesvalles, Lepanto all white European vs swarthy barbarian, with not much to choose morally between the parties - Darius and Xerxes invading Greece were no better or worse than Alexander invading the East. WW2 is the only exception, the one where the Good vs Evil markers are so heavy-handed that even Tolkien would have thought it was laying it on a bit thick - like the bit where one side kills 6m people in death camps, and the other side um, doesn't. And we - the UK - won it. Obviously there was a lot of help from our former colonists, but the UK headlined. If bedwetting guardianistas are embarrassed about that, fuck 'em.
He acted in the national interest, but destroyed his party in the process. I would not have wanted to have been in his position. I suspect history will judge him kindly.
The Guardian does nevertheless have a point that their mindset is probably not the best guide to positioning the UK in the globalised world of the 21st century.
Penny for your thoughts on how well the LibDems will/won't do on Thursday? DO you believe the polls?
I think it was the life's work of an academic that he set fire to?
But then well last time we supposedly had Milifandom (but nobody really believed it). This time 18-24 do seem to be going Beatles / Take That / Westlife about an old far left terrorist sympathizer.
If COMRES is right TMICIPM (BAL) is back on
Glad I cashed out my profit last night
Self-confessed arsonist.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/nick-clegg-i-set-fire-to-a-cacti-collection-and-im-not-proud-of-it-9375806.html
Comedy Results has the SNP at 3%. That is seriously low for them. 5% is more normal. 3.0% is equivalent to roughly 31.5%. 3.49% is roughly equivalent to 36%.
I would like to believe that this is true but I hae ma doots.
But you're right that WWII is unusual in that it's taken as being very much a just war with good guys on one side and bad guys on the other.
*cough*Stalin*cough*
They dont want tax rises but want a raft of extra socialist spending.
Is this a genuine contradiction... if so what do we make of the electorate. Or is it a product of the questions and methodogy.
BTW why in any universe should I be remotely interested in my govt wasting billions on nationalising the railways? Why should I as a pensipner see my taxes go to subsidise rich train drivers and THEIR pensions and why should do anything to benefit rich commuters?
What earthly real benefit to anyone other than trade unions does the spending on nationalisation bring?
'From the many to the few'
I am sure Danny Alexander especially has all sorts of shit he could have spun about the Tories in 2015, but I think he released one story that the Tories once considered something and the Lib Dems stopped it, and that was it.
But even 2 years down the line, nobody has a bad word to say about the Park Ranger and he says nothing about anybody else.
this - a critique of WW2 as if it were fiction.
Some PB Tories may be letting their emotions block them from realising that Team Corbyn has so far fought an extremely competent campaign.
a) Da Kidz don't get off their arses and vote in the same numbers as his grandmother's pals.
and
b) Da Kidz are not a homogenous group anyway, despite what he thinks from speaking to people on Twitter.
Which was all fine until the Tories blew their own feet off and totally focused all attention on one terribly received policy for over a week. Then a terrorist attack was the focus for another week+.
There hasn't really been any sustained attacks on Labour's manifesto either by the Tories or the press. Jezza hasn't been pressured in any real way.
'The real irony of the Second World War was that the democratic powers, Britain and the United States, won it in an alliance with a regime that was quite as brutal and indifferent to human rights as the Nazis were.'
The quad generally worked very well.
I
Rail nationalisation is telling nurses and factory workers in the Midlands and the North they must pay more in tax so that bankers and city types in London can get more comfortable subsidised travel to work every day.
Socialism in action.
Who would I prefer doing the sums, Alexander and Professor Steve Webb or Team Twat....it isn't even close.
(Don't you mean 1944 for the second one - not pressuring Stalin to move into Warsaw in support of Bor's uprising?)