2017 was the election where the safe assumption was somebody else would be voting to keep Corbyn out, so I don't have to. Very nearly an Oooooops.... there from the electorate.
I think that is very true.
If lots of people only voted Labour because they assumed Corbyn had no chance of winning, why then has Labour gone up further in the polls since the election even now that it's clear that he could well win in the next (possibly very imminent) election?
We're believing polls now, are we?
Why shouldn't we ?
Mainly because experience, not least very recent and searing experience, suggests that polls well in advance of any actual election tell you very little, especially when those polls are taking during tumultuous times.
Do people think Betfair is right to have ruled that Theresa May's post-election ministry is not yet formed? FWIW Wikipedia already has a page on TM's Second Ministry, formed 11 June 2017.
I think there is an arguable case that it hasn't proven its viability until the Queen's Speech goes through.
That's one of the two Baldwin precedents, that of 1924, where having won 67 more seats than the nearest opposition party he put forward a Queen's Speech, lost and went into opposition.
The second Baldwin precedent, that a government coming second in terms of votes and seats resigns at once, was ignored by O'Donnell and Brown in 2010. So that may have set a new precedent although it really shouldn't have done.
There was much misinformation spouted by commentators in the aftermath of the election. The suggestion that May went to the Palace to 'seek permission to form a government' was utter garbage - in that under our system PMs are not reappointed following a General Election but simply continue in office or resign to make way for someone else. Constitutionally there was no reason for May to have visited the Queen at all at that stage. The other nonsense uttered was to the effect that in the event of a Hung Parliament it is the largest party that is given the first opportunity to form a Government - whereas in fact that goes to the incumbent. Had the Tory and Labour figures been reversed May would still have been entitled to try to put together a majority - though she would have failed.
It's a fair point - there would be a level of disruption. But an unequal one. It's why we should not be contemplating a strategy that involves us walking away. If we stay at the table, politely refusing to accept certain terms and conditions and publicly explaining why, but saying we want to keep on talking, it puts the emphasis on the the EU27 to justify to domestic audiences why they are prepared to inflict damage on certain sectors by not doing a deal. Us declaring No Deal lets the EU27 off the hook completely, while inflicting huge damage on the UK.
Well, in the interests of both sides I hope we'll be patiently and carefully talking about the exit deal, arrangements to avoid a cliff-edge, a sensible financial settlement to smooth the transition from the EU's point of view, sensible arrangements for the Irish border, sensible and reciprocal rights for citizens, and a sensible trade deal which at the very least ensures tariff-free trade in goods and simplified customs formalities. All of that should be a no-brainer if both sides act rationally (no guarantee, of course). If we do well, we'll also hope to get something on services and the financial markets, although it's less obvious how attainable that is.
On the subject of crap gigs.... We went to see Paul Simon in Hyde Park a few years back.
Got a puncture on the way from Oxfordshire. Not a problem, we had masses of time to see my real interest, Alison Krauss and Union Station as support. But they had brought the whole show forward by 90 minutes. I arrived to hear her say "Thank you London!" as she walked off stage. Wifey had bought me my ticket for my birthday. I was so pissed off.
Then Paul Simon came on, looking ancient. Wifey couldn't cope with this. I had bought Wifey her ticket for her birthday. I read later it was a great show, but we just looked at each other - and went back home to Oxfordshire.
On the subject of crap gigs.... We went to see Paul Simon in Hyde Park a few years back.
Got a puncture on the way from Oxfordshire. Not a problem, we had masses of time to see my real interest, Alison Krauss and Union Station as support. But they had brought the whole show forward by 90 minutes. I arrived to hear her say "Thank you London!" as she walked off stage. Wifey had bought me my ticket for my birthday. I was so pissed off.
Then Paul Simon came on, looking ancient. Wifey couldn't cope with this. I had bought Wifey her ticket for her birthday. I read later it was a great show, but we just looked at each other - and went back home to Oxfordshire.
Not exactly a gig, but ten or so years ago I took a dear friend, a classical music fan, to a do at a theatre in Nottingham. It was a retrospective of 80s music featuring a series of jaded stars, headed by Limahl.
It was called "Oh what a feeling!", and the feeling was nausea. It was hideous.
Fortunately our friendship survived the experience. Just ...
There had long been a Cash-Rees-Mogg-Redwoodite faction to the Cons. No BBG speech, no commitment to the referendum, no overall majority.
Now, was that an error?
As an, ahem, spirited Remainer, I can't say that it was. It was politics. Analagous to the LDs getting into bed with the Cons. They were in power and politics is all about being in power.
Of course the subsequent Remain campaign was cackhanded, but, as with the recent GE, the "situation: no change" message is not a very persuasive one when the people are restless.
FPT:
I'm being quite pedantic here, but I think Rees Mogg represents quite a different strand of the Tory right to Cash-Redwood.
Rees Mogg is an old fashioned High Tory whose beliefs bear a distinct resemblance to those of the pre-1832, or even 18th century Tory Party (at least in terms of attitude if not policy). That he is a Roman Catholic only strengthens the point - if you were to call him a crypto-Jacobite he probably wouldn't deny it.
Cash and Redwood are the ideological descendants of mid-19th century free trade, laissez faire Whigs/Liberals. I think Cash wrote a biography of Richard Cobden recently.
Or to put it simply: Rees-Mogg is a Cavalier, the other two are Roundheads.
I think they'd take umbrage at being called Roundheads. The Tory/Whig divide is closer.
Cash and Redwood aren't Whigs, they are Radicals. The Whigs are people like Paddy Mayhew and Micky Ancram.
Quite. And JRM is more Peel than Wellington. In fact every time I listen to him I think more of him.
A good man. He is the right wing equivalent of Corbyn. Only bright, godly and patriotic too.
Well-spoken does not equate to bright. Rees-Mogg speaks nonsense eloquently.
Urm, just no. He is one of the top minds in the commons. Unlike most of the others he can also communicate.
I also think you're in no position to question the intelligence of others when Corbyn is the leader of Labour. 2 Es FFS
Well at least he has two A levels - unlike Major and Callaghan. Moreover two Es from the mid-1960s would be the rquivalent of at least two Cs today!
Two Cs today is still thick. I mean, FFS, most do 3+ A levels.
Maybe - but in the mid-1960s the vast majority of pupils did not sit A levels and left school at 15 or 16. To be in the Sixth form studying on an A level course was seen as a sign of being academic - in relation to the general population.
WTO terms is the least of it. There is also the added time and expense of actually exporting to the EU to factor in; while if we just walk away, on 29th March 2019 the UK ceases to be party to any international agreement of which it is part thanks to its membership of the EU. That will affect industries as diverse as aviation and pharmaceuticals, while having absolutely zero impact on the EU27. No amount of swivel-eyed willy waving gets us round that fact.
It is completely untrue that a chaotic crash-out like that would have zero impact on the EU27. To take an obvious example, what on earth do you think would happen to the French, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Maltese, Cypriot and Czech tourist industries if UK aviation was disrupted? And what would happen to their healthcare systems if they suddenly couldn't use UK-sourced pharmaceuticals? In addition, the EU is almost as much bound up with these agreements as we are; to take another example, the WTO quotas are set on the basis that the UK is part of the EU.
WTO quotas? Other than on poultry (bizarrely), what quotas does the EU impose?
I meant tariff quotas, for example on New Zealand lamb
" Ms Bradshaw said: “I would be surprised if many residents would feel comfortable telling an MP who was publicly endorsed by paramilitaries only a few weeks ago they were intimidated by a flag glorifying one of those same groups. Instead they come to Alliance and others, often confidentially, as we realise people want to see positive community relations and good neighbourliness. ”
The Debt/GDP ratio is no higher today than at the time of the 1964 election - and is lower than when the 1959 'you have never had it so good' election took place. At neither of those elections was the size of the National Debt a big campaign issue.
The UK had a surplus then (and did for approx 1950-1975), thus the huge debts of WW1 and WW2 were being rapidly chopped away. That's not the case now, it's taken most of a decade to cut the deficit down by 3/4, and even then we're still borrowing 50bn/year - what happens when the next recession comes along?
I am sorry but that is wrong - there were very few years of Budget surplus in that period - indeed virtually every year saw a Budget deficit. There was a tiny surplus in a single year in the late 1950s - but beyond that the UK ran a small deficit on an ongoing basis. Admittedly those deficits were tiny compared to the 11% of GDP in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, but recovery and economic growth was always going to bring that down to a more manageable level. Now that the Budget Deficit is less than 3% of GDP it is far from clear that further austerity is required - particularly as the Debt to GDP ratio is no higher than in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
I am first and second my version of the new Thread. Not counting my chickens though. Could be as close to a win as Jezza.
Only because I opted to read the thread first ... for the first time in a long time, as unusually it was on real betting and not someones random and unrequested (by me) opinion.
" Ms Bradshaw said: “I would be surprised if many residents would feel comfortable telling an MP who was publicly endorsed by paramilitaries only a few weeks ago they were intimidated by a flag glorifying one of those same groups. Instead they come to Alliance and others, often confidentially, as we realise people want to see positive community relations and good neighbourliness. ”
Well at least he has two A levels - unlike Major and Callaghan. Moreover two Es from the mid-1960s would be the rquivalent of at least two Cs today!
Not necessarily. In 1964 just under 20% of school leavers had 1 A-level. Given how rare they were that must have been pretty much everyone who was entered. That said, I can imagine if they were unlikely to pass they wouldn't be put forward anyway.
Slightly relevant, although not strictly, there is a fascinating chapter in Hobsbawm's autobiography where he talks about changes in HE over his lifetime. He commented that in the 1950s and 1960s a First at Cambridge was a very rigorous qualification, one that was extremely hard to get and which showed an exceptional mind. However, a third was effectively a piece of paper with some pretty writing on it.
But under the system of Relative Marking by which A levels - and O levels - were assessed until the late 1980s 30% of pupils entered for the exams failed to achieve even a grade E pass.
As for Corbyn being too old , he is much younger than Churchill was in October 1951 - almost 77 - and Attlee in 1955 - gone 72.
One had had a serious stroke and should have retired in 1949. His peacetime premiership, marred by another stroke in 1953, was hardly an unqualified success. The other was hanging on only to wreck the chances of Morrison succeeding him. His age told against him in 1955 against the much younger Eden. You could have mentioned Joseph Chamberlain as well, who was 70 when he became (officially the acting) leader of the Unionists in 1906 and was incapacitated by a stroke five months later. Equally there are others like Lansbury who took it on and did well.
I have actually said repeatedly that Corbyn is remarkably fit, healthy and energetic. I am also wondering aloud whether it is possible for him to keep this up for ever given (a) the difficult situation he's in and (b) his other significant drawbacks - in particular his lack of support which places the whole burden of leadership on him.
PS - on your other point the key thing is few people had a degree in the 1950s and even 1960s so it was a very minor issue. Given its steady expansion since then it is now a very major one. Eight times as important, indeed!
I have always taken the view as somebody who was a student for eight years and a lecturer for three that the current funding system is unworkable in practice and unsustainable in the medium term. Corbyn's proposals were to get rid of it but he had no meaningful ideas on how to replace it. He would have made matters considerably worse, however well intentioned (as with his schools policy). It is not inconceivable that only five universities would have survived the first year of such a scheme.
Whilst I am in no way medically qualified - or indeed particularly aware when it come to such matters - I suspect that many would argue - due to changes in longevity , medicine and lifestyles - that he age of 70 in the early 1950s is comparable to being in the early to mid-80s today. On a similar basis, Corbyn at 70 would be likely to be as fit and healthy as - say - a 60 year old in the early to mid-1950s.
Comments
Human League were very disappointing too, Oakey was dire.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/878581266093928448
Got a puncture on the way from Oxfordshire. Not a problem, we had masses of time to see my real interest, Alison Krauss and Union Station as support. But they had brought the whole show forward by 90 minutes. I arrived to hear her say "Thank you London!" as she walked off stage. Wifey had bought me my ticket for my birthday. I was so pissed off.
Then Paul Simon came on, looking ancient. Wifey couldn't cope with this. I had bought Wifey her ticket for her birthday. I read later it was a great show, but we just looked at each other - and went back home to Oxfordshire.
SURPRISE!!!
It was called "Oh what a feeling!", and the feeling was nausea. It was hideous.
Fortunately our friendship survived the experience. Just ...