Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
While the Tories need a 1987 which with TMay as leader is simply a wild fantasy.
No, as SeanF has mentioned just a 4% Tory lead would give a small overall majority, perfectly possible for Boris if he goes in having dumped the dementia tax, allowed modest public sector pay increases and committed to ending free movement and leaving the single market within a year of taking office to appeal to Labour Leave voters
The only problem with that one is that nobody believes anything Boris Johnson says. Whatever happened to the 350,000,000 per week for the NHS?
If he runs - I reckon that would be his main promise.
Any government if they do intend to it, can easily do it. Cut defence by the same amount. Do we really have to be Uncle Sam's sidekick. No one gives a shit if we have 6 planes bombing ISIS with the few missiles we have or the few hundred soldiers we have in Afghanistan. Only we are deluded by our [ past ] power.
Off topic, but the weather forecast for Houston is dire. At least 7 more days of rain predicted. This could make or break the Trump presidency. It could be worse than Katrina, in that Houston is much bigger and far more economically important than New Orleans. Let's hope the worst predictions prove unfounded. Trump is planning to go ther tomorrow which shows a level of concern and willingness to lead. However, Don is perfectly capable of going there and making a fool of himself.
This article was published on 24th August and has a map showing how uneven the impact of climate change in the US is predicted to be... basically the South, and particularly South East fares the worst:
Off topic, but the weather forecast for Houston is dire. At least 7 more days of rain predicted. This could make or break the Trump presidency. It could be worse than Katrina, in that Houston is much bigger and far more economically important than New Orleans. Let's hope the worst predictions prove unfounded. Trump is planning to go ther tomorrow which shows a level of concern and willingness to lead. However, Don is perfectly capable of going there and making a fool of himself.
This article was published on 24th August and has a map showing how uneven the impact of climate change in the US is predicted to be... basically the South, and particularly South East fares the worst:
Mr. B, other suppliers also benefit from multiple teams running their engines providing more mileage and data.
As an aside, Verstappen's not far off Alonso in the DNF stakes.
(Apologies, Mr.D. - I had to abandon you for lunch.)
But Mercedes have taken all four allowed engines, and Ferrari and Renault three; Ferrari have used four turbos, and are expected to introduce their final engine iteration at Monza...etc. None of the factory teams (with the possible exception of Renault ??) can afford multiple deliberate engine penalties like Honda, as they can't risk championship position, so whatever information they glean will only be of use in tweaking the current power plant and/or development for next year. Given their parlous situation, and absolute imperative to catch up if they are to retain McLaren as a partner, Honda will continue to introduce developments as quickly as they can produce them.
Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
While the Tories need a 1987 which with TMay as leader is simply a wild fantasy.
No, as SeanF has mentioned just a 4% Tory lead would give a small overall majority, perfectly possible for Boris if he goes in having dumped the dementia tax, allowed modest public sector pay increases and committed to ending free movement and leaving the single market within a year of taking office to appeal to Labour Leave voters
The only problem with that one is that nobody believes anything Boris Johnson says. Whatever happened to the 350,000,000 per week for the NHS?
Who believes Corbyn's magic money tree either? The best way to beat Corbyn for the Tories is to put up a charismatic populist like Boris, a 'take your medicine' serious, humourless leader like May did not manage to beat him by enough to get a majority so maybe Boris might? He at least believe in Brexit unlike Corbyn's constant changing of mind, I would not put it past Boris to find more money for the NHS too as well as promising tax cuts, if he is questioned on the figures he can always promise some Reaganomics and increased revenues through higher growth.
Boris is the likely next leader in my view, Davis would win the leadership tomorrow but by 2019 he will be too tird to the Brexit deal and any compromises made
Off topic, but the weather forecast for Houston is dire. At least 7 more days of rain predicted. This could make or break the Trump presidency. It could be worse than Katrina, in that Houston is much bigger and far more economically important than New Orleans. Let's hope the worst predictions prove unfounded. Trump is planning to go ther tomorrow which shows a level of concern and willingness to lead. However, Don is perfectly capable of going there and making a fool of himself.
This article was published on 24th August and has a map showing how uneven the impact of climate change in the US is predicted to be... basically the South, and particularly South East fares the worst:
The people who will be affected the most don't believe in climate change !
Yes... although the impacts will be worse still in developing world. It's interesting though that Trump is playing up how unprecedented this hurricane is. Smart to emphasise the scale of the challenge - but surely will make some wonder about climate change...
This article from a year ago is pretty worrying... suggests Houston is not well prepared for this.
Interesting, have you published your research anywhere?
I can't take the credit for this, unfortunately, as I'm parrotting what others have deduced. The sources are:
MULLEN, A. and BURKITT, B. (2005), Spinning Europe: Pro-European Union Propaganda Campaigns in Britain, 1962–1975. The Political Quarterly, 76: 100–113. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2005.00660.x
Butler, David; Kitzinger, Uwe (1996). The 1975 referendum. ISBN 9780333662908. OCLC 958137188.
Goodhart, Philip (1976) Full-Hearted Consent: The Story of the Referendum Campaign—and the Campaign for the Referendum . ISBN 10: 0706702069 ISBN 13: 9780706702064
One thought though - Kezia Dugdale does not run Scotland...
She thinks she should and will soon, called massive delusion. PS: she does supposedly lead Labour regional party in Scotland, which she reckons is the same.
You might add that the likes of Wilson and Heath were also people of middling background who had wider experience of other people.
Cameron always seemed as someone who admired his own supposed cleverness too much and thought he could bullshit his way through things whether that was a Leaders debate, a Budget, an EU negotiation or a Referendum campaign.
This has a resonance you might not be aware of. Prior to the 2016 referendum I did some research on prior referenda, here and abroad, and this included reading "The 1975 Referendum" (Butler, Kitzinger) and "Full-hearted Consent" (Goodhart), two books about the 75 referendum. One striking difference between 16 and 75 was the lack of preparation in 16 and the surfeit in 75.
People forget how organised/communal society used to be. In present times we socialise in smaller groups or alone, have shorter relationships and accept suggestions from the State. In WW2 it was entirely organised (as somebody has already pointed out on this board, Britain went full-on command economy on the civilian population very early), socialisation was in larger groups, relationships were longer and people accepted instructions from the State.
In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit ) for the EC entry but this is entirely unfair: the 75 Yes vote was the result of over six years of patient campaigning.
Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Thank you. Very interesting. I have thought for some time that the EU referendum was won/lost long before the campaign. An object lesson perhaps in not using referenda for tactical purposes unless you have a real strategy as well.
One thing shocked me during the campaign and that was when the immigration figures came out: the Remain campaign had simply nothing to say. It's as if the existence of such a statistic and its timing came as a complete shock. And it really shouldn't have. Why on earth were they not better prepared, even taking everything you have said into account?
Thank you. Very interesting. I have thought for some time that the EU referendum was won/lost long before the campaign. An object lesson perhaps in not using referenda for tactical purposes unless you have a real strategy as well.
One thing shocked me during the campaign and that was when the immigration figures came out: the Remain campaign had simply nothing to say. It's as if the existence of such a statistic and its timing came as a complete shock. And it really shouldn't have. Why on earth were they not better prepared, even taking everything you have said into account?
Agreed.
On the immigration figures, Anna Soubry said she was actually told by the campaign not to talk about them when she was booked to provide the pro side of the argument.
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001. London (especially posh suburbia) moved further to Labour, as did middle class Southern seats. Working class Northern seats showed some big pro-Tory swings. But, the Tories were so far behind, these did not result in gains. .
Indeed, I campaigned for the Tories in Warwick and Leamington in 2001 as a student when Labour won by 5,953 votes, a feat they repeated this year when they won by 1,206 votes. 2001 did see 1 or 2 Tory gains in Essex and the border with London, Castle Point, Upminster and Romford and this year every Essex seat went Tory, including Braintree by a massive 18,422 votes, in 2001 I also campaigned in Braintree in the holidays and although there was a small swing to the Tories Labour narrowly won it by 358 votes
See how well Labour did in seats like Dartford, Chatham, Gravesham, Sittinngbourne, Amber Valley, North Warwickshire, in the Blair years, which now look completely out of reach.
Indeed, in 2001 Labour won 7 seats in Kent, 5 in Essex, 4 in Warwickshire and 10 in Derbyshire. Now they have just 1 seat in Kent, 0 in Essex, 1 in Warwickshire and 5 in Derbyshire. The seats they won in Kent and Warwickshire (Canterbury and Warwick and Leamington) both are full of students and academics from nearby Kent and Warwick Universities
Thank you. Very interesting. I have thought for some time that the EU referendum was won/lost long before the campaign. An object lesson perhaps in not using referenda for tactical purposes unless you have a real strategy as well.
One thing shocked me during the campaign and that was when the immigration figures came out: the Remain campaign had simply nothing to say. It's as if the existence of such a statistic and its timing came as a complete shock. And it really shouldn't have. Why on earth were they not better prepared, even taking everything you have said into account?
Agreed.
On the immigration figures, Anna Soubry said she was actually told by the campaign not to talk about them when she was booked to provide the pro side of the argument.
*facepalm*
I don't think we can accuse Remain of amateurism. I've known some very competent amateurs.
The EU must be more popular than I realised if we got that close to winning despite such grade a muppetry.
Edit - come to think of it they never nailed the wrong figures about the NHS or Hannah's lie about not leaving the single market either. They really were hopeless, weren't they?
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001. London (especially posh suburbia) moved further to Labour, as did middle class Southern seats. Working class Northern seats showed some big pro-Tory swings. But, the Tories were so far behind, these did not result in gains. .
Indeed, I campaigned for the Tories in Warwick and Leamington in 2001 as a student when Labour won by 5,953 votes, a feat they repeated this year when they won by 1,206 votes. 2001 did see 1 or 2 Tory gains in Essex and the border with London, Castle Point, Upminster and Romford and this year every Essex seat went Tory, including Braintree by a massive 18,422 votes, in 2001 I also campaigned in Braintree in the holidays and although there was a small swing to the Tories Labour narrowly won it by 358 votes
See how well Labour did in seats like Dartford, Chatham, Gravesham, Sittinngbourne, Amber Valley, North Warwickshire, in the Blair years, which now look completely out of reach.
Indeed, in 2001 Labour won 7 seats in Kent, 5 in Essex, 4 in Warwickshire and 10 in Derbyshire. Now they have just 1 seat in Kent, 0 in Essex, 1 in Warwickshire and 5 in Derbyshire. The seats they won in Kent and Warwickshire (Canterbury and Warwick and Leamington) both are full of students and academics from nearby Kent and Warwick Universities
You are right. Educated people vote Labour.
I voted Tory Sunil Prasannan, BSc. (Hons.), ARCS, PhD
Off topic, but the weather forecast for Houston is dire. At least 7 more days of rain predicted. This could make or break the Trump presidency. It could be worse than Katrina, in that Houston is much bigger and far more economically important than New Orleans. Let's hope the worst predictions prove unfounded. Trump is planning to go ther tomorrow which shows a level of concern and willingness to lead. However, Don is perfectly capable of going there and making a fool of himself.
This article was published on 24th August and has a map showing how uneven the impact of climate change in the US is predicted to be... basically the South, and particularly South East fares the worst:
Interesting, have you published your research anywhere?
I can't take the credit for this, unfortunately, as I'm parrotting what others have deduced. The sources are:
MULLEN, A. and BURKITT, B. (2005), Spinning Europe: Pro-European Union Propaganda Campaigns in Britain, 1962–1975. The Political Quarterly, 76: 100–113. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2005.00660.x
Butler, David; Kitzinger, Uwe (1996). The 1975 referendum. ISBN 9780333662908. OCLC 958137188.
Goodhart, Philip (1976) Full-Hearted Consent: The Story of the Referendum Campaign—and the Campaign for the Referendum . ISBN 10: 0706702069 ISBN 13: 9780706702064
This has a resonance you might not be aware of. Prior to the 2016 referendum I did some research on prior referenda, here and abroad, and this included reading "The 1975 Referendum" (Butler, Kitzinger) and "Full-hearted Consent" (Goodhart), two books about the 75 referendum. One striking difference between 16 and 75 was the lack of preparation in 16 and the surfeit in 75. People forget how organised/communal society used to be. In present times we socialise in smaller groups or alone, have shorter relationships and accept suggestions from the State. In WW2 it was entirely organised (as somebody has already pointed out on this board, Britain went full-on command economy on the civilian population very early), socialisation was in larger groups, relationships were longer and people accepted instructions from the State. In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, e used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Thank you. Very interesting. I have thought for some time that the EU referendum was won/lost long before the campaign. An object lesson perhaps in not using referenda for tactical purposes unless you have a real strategy as well. One thing shocked me during the campaign and that was when the immigration figures came out: the Remain campaign had simply nothing to say. It's as if the existence of such a statistic and its timing came as a complete shock. And it really shouldn't have. Why on earth were they not better prepared, even taking everything you have said into account?
The Remain campaign was run by Conservatives. It was a hopeless campaign. Mrs May and her party have form.
People who admire the EU are rare in this country, and seen as weird. Therefore, no one important on the Remain side made the case for the EU being a good thing.
It was a choice between the EU is crap, we need to leave, and the EU is crap, but resistance is futile.
This has a resonance you might not be aware of. Prior to the 2016 referendum I did some research on prior referenda, here and abroad, and this included reading "The 1975 Referendum" (Butler, Kitzinger) and "Full-hearted Consent" (Goodhart), two books about the 75 referendum. One striking difference between 16 and 75 was the lack of preparation in 16 and the surfeit in 75. People forget how organised/communal society used to be. In present times we socialise in smaller groups or alone, have shorter relationships and accept suggestions from the State. In WW2 it was entirely organised (as somebody has already pointed out on this board, Britain went full-on command economy on the civilian population very early), socialisation was in larger groups, relationships were longer and people accepted instructions from the State. In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, e used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Thank you. Very interesting. I have thought for some time that the EU referendum was won/lost long before the campaign. An object lesson perhaps in not using referenda for tactical purposes unless you have a real strategy as well. One thing shocked me during the campaign and that was when the immigration figures came out: the Remain campaign had simply nothing to say. It's as if the existence of such a statistic and its timing came as a complete shock. And it really shouldn't have. Why on earth were they not better prepared, even taking everything you have said into account?
The Remain campaign was run by Conservatives. It was a hopeless campaign. Mrs May and her party have form.
People who admire the EU are rare in this country, and seen as weird. Therefore, no one important on the Remain side made the case for the EU being a good thing. It was a choice between the EU is crap, we need to leave, and the EU is crap, but resistance is futile.
But this was after Mr Cameron spent ages and ages going round the countries of the EU and negotiating a better deal. They did fight the Remain campaign on that, didn`t they? I have to ask, because I didn`t notice.
But this was after Mr Cameron spent ages and ages going round the countries of the EU and negotiating a better deal. They did fight the Remain campaign on that, didn`t they? I have to ask, because I didn`t notice.
Do you still think "The Remain campaign was run by Conservatives"? There seems to have been a fair bit that you didn't notice.
BA MA PhD PGCE MRHistS although technically that last cannot be used in a formal context until or unless I get it effed up.
Do you tell 'em the questions in advance? All the best schools do: Eton; Winchester; Charterhouse ...
Eton is a good school? A school that gave us Boris, Cameron, T Hunt, Douglas Hurd...?
Guy Burgess.
cheating at exams, who would have wondered how those dumb rich oiks managed to pass exams.
yo malc
not retired yet ?
Hello , Still here Alan. Debating what to do , I would just end up getting roped into looking after grankids from school etc so lots of driving and mucking about , so hanging in for a bit. I have an interesting new job again so as long as enjoying I will hang about for a bit. Knowing they cannot do anything to you is good as well as I can do and say pretty much what I like. Your wife still OK. I expect more casualties before the year is out. PS: how is your business going. I was jealous seeing you were in Germany recently. I need to get something booked up.
BA MA PhD PGCE MRHistS although technically that last cannot be used in a formal context until or unless I get it effed up.
Do you tell 'em the questions in advance? All the best schools do: Eton; Winchester; Charterhouse ...
Eton is a good school? A school that gave us Boris, Cameron, T Hunt, Douglas Hurd...?
Guy Burgess.
cheating at exams, who would have wondered how those dumb rich oiks managed to pass exams.
yo malc
not retired yet ?
Hello , Still here Alan. Debating what to do , I would just end up getting roped into looking after grankids from school etc so lots of driving and mucking about , so hanging in for a bit. I have an interesting new job again so as long as enjoying I will hang about for a bit. Knowing they cannot do anything to you is good as well as I can do and say pretty much what I like. Your wife still OK. I expect more casualties before the year is out. PS: how is your business going. I was jealous seeing you were in Germany recently. I need to get something booked up.
The missus is not really enjoying work, her boss - a scot! - is retiring and she enjoyed working with him so shes a bit down. technically she should br his replacement but she said no as it meant lots of extra work and hassle but no more money for it.
My son is in his last Uni year so when we get him off the books she wants to pack it in, so shes been telling me I need to be paying myself more :-)
Business is a bit like a roller coaster atm it's either feast or famine but I have a few new projects coming up which could allow me to stabilise things so fingers crossed!
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
Do you remember how depressing the Labour leadership contest was in 2015 before Corbyn, with Burnham, Cooper, and Kendall chasing the lowest common denominator? The party seemed tired and pointless, and it's only Corbyn that's made it seem worth paying attention to since. I can't see Burnham doing better any more than I can see Angela Eagle or Owen Smith doing better.
Back in August 2016 I posted a few names of associates that would come back and haunt Trump. One was Russian mobster and Trump partner/advisor Felix Sater.
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
If Burnham had won I doubt TM would have called an early election though....
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
Do you remember how depressing the Labour leadership contest was in 2015 before Corbyn, with Burnham, Cooper, and Kendall chasing the lowest common denominator? The party seemed tired and pointless, and it's only Corbyn that's made it seem worth paying attention to since. I can't see Burnham doing better any more than I can see Angela Eagle or Owen Smith doing better.
Every poll in 2015 had Burnham more popular than the other 3, including Corbyn, with the general public. We now have the evidence for that too with Burnham winning even Trafford in 2017 which Labour failed to take from the Tories under Corbyn in 2016
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
If Burnham had won I doubt TM would have called an early election though....
Yes, the polls would likely have been much closer, Labour maybe even ahead
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
Do you remember how depressing the Labour leadership contest was in 2015 before Corbyn, with Burnham, Cooper, and Kendall chasing the lowest common denominator? The party seemed tired and pointless, and it's only Corbyn that's made it seem worth paying attention to since. I can't see Burnham doing better any more than I can see Angela Eagle or Owen Smith doing better.
Every poll in 2015 had Burnham more popular than the other 3, including Corbyn, with the general public. We now have the evidence for that too with Burnham winning even Trafford in 2017 which Labour failed to take from the Tories under Corbyn in 2016
I'm sure Andy Burnham would have been an adequate but boring face for a party in a slow decline, shedding members and the support of the trade unions, hoping for a no-surprises, nothing controversial, one more heave strategy. He certainly wouldn't have energised the activists that Corbyn has managed, or got so many more thousands involved, surely a major element in the relative success of 2017.
His major message in 2015 was 'let's apologise for spending too much', while Cooper preferred 'let's apologise for immigration'. It was only Corbyn who had anything positive to say. Burnham may be a decent second-line face, but as a leader, what would be the point.
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
There wouldn't have been a 2017 election if Burnham had been the leader of the Labour party.
You can't say Corbyn losing the 2017 election damaged his reputation or that of his Party or the Country. People won't say in years to come "Remember when Corbyn lost the 2017 election! Terrible mistake!" But they will say that of Blair, Cameron and May's mistakes.
If anything, Corbyn has enhanced his reputation by winning the leadership of the Labour Party (against the odds) twice, boosting the morale of the Labour Party, and doing some smart politicking on Europe that's probably for the long term good of the country. A good score card so far.
Back in August 2016 I posted a few names of associates that would come back and haunt Trump. One was Russian mobster and Trump partner/advisor Felix Sater.
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
Do you remember how depressing the Labour leadership contest was in 2015 before Corbyn, with Burnham, Cooper, and Kendall chasing the lowest common denominator? The party seemed tired and pointless, and it's only Corbyn that's made it seem worth paying attention to since. I can't see Burnham doing better any more than I can see Angela Eagle or Owen Smith doing better.
Every poll in 2015 had Burnham more popular than the other 3, including Corbyn, with the general public. We now have the evidence for that too with Burnham winning even Trafford in 2017 which Labour failed to take from the Tories under Corbyn in 2016
I'm sure Andy Burnham would have been an adequate but boring face for a party in a slow decline, shedding members and the support of the trade unions, hoping for a no-surprises, nothing controversial, one more heave strategy. He certainly wouldn't have energised the activists that Corbyn has managed, or got so many more thousands involved, surely a major element in the relative success of 2017.
His major message in 2015 was 'let's apologise for spending too much', while Cooper preferred 'let's apologise for immigration'. It was only Corbyn who had anything positive to say. Burnham may be a decent second-line face, but as a leader, what would be the point.
Burnham was an acceptable face to swing voters while still being able to keep on board most of the left Corbyn mobilised, Corbyn still got over 50 fewer seats than the Tories because he turned off too many swing voters
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
There wouldn't have been a 2017 election if Burnham had been the leader of the Labour party.
You can't say Corbyn losing the 2017 election damaged his reputation or that of his Party or the Country. People won't say in years to come "Remember when Corbyn lost the 2017 election! Terrible mistake!" But they will say that of Blair, Cameron and May's mistakes.
If anything, Corbyn has enhanced his reputation by winning the leadership of the Labour Party (against the odds) twice, boosting the morale of the Labour Party, and doing some smart politicking on Europe that's probably for the long term good of the country. A good score card so far.
They will do if Corbyn loses the next election to Boris though, he will be the man who twice lost a general election not the man who did a bit better expected in 2017. Blair, Cameron and May have all won majorities and most seats in general elections unlike Corbyn.
As for Europe his policy changes from week to week
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
There wouldn't have been a 2017 election if Burnham had been the leader of the Labour party.
You can't say Corbyn losing the 2017 election damaged his reputation or that of his Party or the Country. People won't say in years to come "Remember when Corbyn lost the 2017 election! Terrible mistake!" But they will say that of Blair, Cameron and May's mistakes.
If anything, Corbyn has enhanced his reputation by winning the leadership of the Labour Party (against the odds) twice, boosting the morale of the Labour Party, and doing some smart politicking on Europe that's probably for the long term good of the country. A good score card so far.
They will do if Corbyn loses the next election to Boris though, he will be the man who twice lost a general election not the man who did a bit better expected in 2017. Blair, Cameron and May have all won majorities and most seats in general elections unlike Corbyn.
As for Europe his policy changes from week to week
It may be that his colleagues have forced him to act. Politically, they seem to be about the right moves at the right time, so keep them coming.
I think Corbyn and McD are fairly isolated as Eurosceptics in the shadow cabinet. I can only think of four other Labour definite Europhobes or -sceptics: Hoey, Field, Skinner and Mann. Ken Livingstone has long since become a Europhile. So creating a shadow cabinet full of Labour Eurosceptics would be impossible.
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
There wouldn't have been a 2017 election if Burnham had been the leader of the Labour party.
You can't say Corbyn losing the 2017 election damaged his reputation or that of his Party or the Country. People won't say in years to come "Remember when Corbyn lost the 2017 election! Terrible mistake!" But they will say that of Blair, Cameron and May's mistakes.
If anything, Corbyn has enhanced his reputation by winning the leadership of the Labour Party (against the odds) twice, boosting the morale of the Labour Party, and doing some smart politicking on Europe that's probably for the long term good of the country. A good score card so far.
They will do if Corbyn loses the next election to Boris though, he will be the man who twice lost a general election not the man who did a bit better expected in 2017. Blair, Cameron and May have all won majorities and most seats in general elections unlike Corbyn.
As for Europe his policy changes from week to week
It may be that his colleagues have forced him to act. Politically, they seem to be about the right moves at the right time, so keep them coming.
I think Corbyn and McD are fairly isolated as Eurosceptics in the shadow cabinet. I can only think of four other Labour definite Europhobes or -sceptics: Hoey, Field, Skinner and Mann. Ken Livingstone has long since become a Europhile. So creating a shadow cabinet full of Labour Eurosceptics would be impossible.
He is trying to balance a tightrope of appeasing the majority of Labour MPs and voters who were Remainers without losing the significant minority of Labour voters, especially white working class Labour voters, who voted Leave
Republican controlled North Carolina committee responds to Dem politician buying house in different district by adding a wedge to put it in his original district
BA MA PhD PGCE MRHistS although technically that last cannot be used in a formal context until or unless I get it effed up.
Do you tell 'em the questions in advance? All the best schools do: Eton; Winchester; Charterhouse ...
Eton is a good school? A school that gave us Boris, Cameron, T Hunt, Douglas Hurd...?
Guy Burgess.
cheating at exams, who would have wondered how those dumb rich oiks managed to pass exams.
yo malc
not retired yet ?
Hello , Still here Alan. Debating what to do , I would just end up getting roped into looking after grankids from school etc so lots of driving and mucking about , so hanging in for a bit. I have an interesting new job again so as long as enjoying I will hang about for a bit. Knowing they cannot do anything to you is good as well as I can do and say pretty much what I like. Your wife still OK. I expect more casualties before the year is out. PS: how is your business going. I was jealous seeing you were in Germany recently. I need to get something booked up.
The missus is not really enjoying work, her boss - a scot! - is retiring and she enjoyed working with him so shes a bit down. technically she should br his replacement but she said no as it meant lots of extra work and hassle but no more money for it.
My son is in his last Uni year so when we get him off the books she wants to pack it in, so shes been telling me I need to be paying myself more :-)
Business is a bit like a roller coaster atm it's either feast or famine but I have a few new projects coming up which could allow me to stabilise things so fingers crossed!
Are you down this way any time ?
Alan, not travelling much at all, avoid it where possible. If I am ever down your way I will be sure to let you know.
BA MA PhD PGCE MRHistS although technically that last cannot be used in a formal context until or unless I get it effed up.
Do you tell 'em the questions in advance? All the best schools do: Eton; Winchester; Charterhouse ...
Eton is a good school? A school that gave us Boris, Cameron, T Hunt, Douglas Hurd...?
Guy Burgess.
cheating at exams, who would have wondered how those dumb rich oiks managed to pass exams.
yo malc
not retired yet ?
Knowing they cannot do anything to you is good as well as I can do and say pretty much what I like...
Sounds like an entertaining workplace...
Nigel, I can now retire when I want and as I have some key skills , I am in a very good position. So it is almost pleasant working, keeps my old brain going at least, just need to get a grip on working so many hours.
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
There wouldn't have been a 2017 election if Burnham had been the leader of the Labour party.
You can't say Corbyn losing the 2017 election damaged his reputation or that of his Party or the Country. People won't say in years to come "Remember when Corbyn lost the 2017 election! Terrible mistake!" But they will say that of Blair, Cameron and May's mistakes.
If anything, Corbyn has enhanced his reputation by winning the leadership of the Labour Party (against the odds) twice, boosting the morale of the Labour Party, and doing some smart politicking on Europe that's probably for the long term good of the country. A good score card so far.
They will do if Corbyn loses the next election to Boris though, he will be the man who twice lost a general election not the man who did a bit better expected in 2017. Blair, Cameron and May have all won majorities and most seats in general elections unlike Corbyn.
As for Europe his policy changes from week to week
It may be that his colleagues have forced him to act. Politically, they seem to be about the right moves at the right time, so keep them coming.
I think Corbyn and McD are fairly isolated as Eurosceptics in the shadow cabinet. I can only think of four other Labour definite Europhobes or -sceptics: Hoey, Field, Skinner and Mann. Ken Livingstone has long since become a Europhile. So creating a shadow cabinet full of Labour Eurosceptics would be impossible.
Corbyn and McD are only slightly eurosceptic, but they recognised some time ago that if they were to come out as remainers, the British media would slaughter them as going against the divine will of the great British electorate, and the Tories would rally behind their leader. As it is, the Conservative Party is busy trying to disguise the fact that they are tearing themselves apart, May's coat is on a very shooglie peg, and there is no one in the Tory Party who can replace her. Corbyn is out campaigning, May and rest are "hiding out in their bunkers".
Every poll in 2015 had Burnham more popular than the other 3, including Corbyn, with the general public. We now have the evidence for that too with Burnham winning even Trafford in 2017 which Labour failed to take from the Tories under Corbyn in 2016
I'm sure Andy Burnham would have been an adequate but boring face for a party in a slow decline, shedding members and the support of the trade unions, hoping for a no-surprises, nothing controversial, one more heave strategy. He certainly wouldn't have energised the activists that Corbyn has managed, or got so many more thousands involved, surely a major element in the relative success of 2017.
His major message in 2015 was 'let's apologise for spending too much', while Cooper preferred 'let's apologise for immigration'. It was only Corbyn who had anything positive to say. Burnham may be a decent second-line face, but as a leader, what would be the point.
Burnham was an acceptable face to swing voters while still being able to keep on board most of the left Corbyn mobilised, Corbyn still got over 50 fewer seats than the Tories because he turned off too many swing voters
Burnham would not have carried the Left for sure. Unite were grumbling about splitting off and starting a new party because of his positioning in the 2015 leadership election. He would not have recruited so any new members, or provoked great interest from anybody. His message was relentlessly negative about Labour's past performance, coming from a person who was at the centre of what he was criticising, without putting any new message in its place. That's not a package for the success of the party.
It's easy to be acceptable to the public when you're a relative unknown. He didn't have Corbyn's spine or his steel - he abstained on that welfare vote against his better judgement under Harman to keep his position in the shadow cabinet, being one of the things that finally pushed Corbyn to say 'fine, I'll give it a go'. He was always going around hinting he was more left-wing than his voting record or his two failed leadership campaigns seemed, without being able to back it up. Trying to be all things to all people only works until he'd have to take a stand on something.
It's easy to project an image of acceptability on him from outside, before he's faced much public scrutiny. But if you were part of the Labour Party during that leadership election campaign, you might understand why the members were so tired of these people, why Corbyn felt he needed to run just to shake it up a bit, and why his message rang true for the membership. I don't believe for a second Burnham would have been more of a success as a Labour leader.
Damage to personal reputation Blair Iraq Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Party Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Election17 Corbyn ??
Damage to Country Blair Brown Cameron UKREF May Handling of BREXIT Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
Corbyn still lost the 2017 general election though, if Burnham had won the leadership in 2015 he might actually have won that election or at least got most seats (see his Manchester Mayoral bid where he even won Tory Trafford)
There wouldn't have been a 2017 election if Burnham had been the leader of the Labour party.
You can't say Corbyn losing the 2017 election damaged his reputation or that of his Party or the Country. People won't say in years to come "Remember when Corbyn lost the 2017 election! Terrible mistake!" But they will say that of Blair, Cameron and May's mistakes.
If anything, .
They will do if Corbyn loses the next election to Boris though, he will be the man who twice lost a general election not the man who did a bit better expected in 2017. Blair, Cameron and May have all won majorities and most seats in general elections unlike Corbyn.
As for Europe his policy changes from week to week
It may be that his colleagues have forced him to act. Politically, they seem to be about the right moves at the right time, so keep them coming.
I think Corbyn and McD are fairly isolated as Eurosceptics in the shadow cabinet. I can only think of four other Labour definite Europhobes or -sceptics: Hoey, Field, Skinner and Mann. Ken Livingstone has long since become a Europhile. So creating a shadow cabinet full of Labour Eurosceptics would be impossible.
Corbyn and McD are only slightly eurosceptic, but they recognised some time ago that if they were to come out as remainers, the British media would slaughter them as going against the divine will of the great British electorate, and the Tories would rally behind their leader. As it is, the Conservative Party is busy trying to disguise the fact that they are tearing themselves apart, May's coat is on a very shooglie peg, and there is no one in the Tory Party who can replace her. Corbyn is out campaigning, May and rest are "hiding out in their bunkers".
There is no election and there will not be an election for at least 2 years, May is far too busy with the Brexit talks. If Corbyn wants to wear himself out for a non-existent general election fine, just means he will have less energy to take on Boris or whoever succeeds May in 2020
Every poll in 2015 had Burnham more popular than the other 3, including Corbyn, with the general public. We now have the evidence for that too with Burnham winning even Trafford in 2017 which Labour failed to take from the Tories under Corbyn in 2016
I'm sure Andy Burnham would have been an adequate but boring face for a party in a slow .
Burnham was an acceptable face to swing voters while still being able to keep on board most of the left Corbyn mobilised, Corbyn still got over 50 fewer seats than the Tories because he turned off too many swing voters
Burnham would not have carried the Left for sure. Unite were grumbling about splitting off and starting a new party because of his positioning in the 2015 leadership election. He would not have recruited so any new members, or provoked great interest from anybody. His message was relentlessly negative about Labour's past performance, coming from a person who was at the centre of what he was criticising, without putting any new message in its place. That's not a package for the success of the party.
It's easy to be acceptable to the public when you're a relative unknown. He didn't have Corbyn's spine or his steel - he abstained on that welfare vote against his better judgement under Harman to keep his position in the shadow cabinet, being one of the things that finally pushed Corbyn to say 'fine, I'll give it a go'. He was always going around hinting he was more left-wing than his voting record or his two failed leadership campaigns seemed, without being able to back it up. Trying to be all things to all people only works until he'd have to take a stand on something.
It's easy to project an image of acceptability on him from outside, before he's faced much public scrutiny. But if you were part of the Labour Party during that leadership election campaign, you might understand why the members were so tired of these people, why Corbyn felt he needed to run just to shake it up a bit, and why his message rang true for the membership. I don't believe for a second Burnham would have been more of a success as a Labour leader.
In 2015 most polls showed Burnham the favourite of Labour party voters, albeit not Labour Party members. As the 2017 general election showed mobilising the left can get you close but it still leads to defeat if you do not win over enough swing voters
Comments
I shouldn't laugh at such a horrendous tragedy, but I must admit I felt a certain Schadenfreude at this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37116661/us-pastor-who-believes-floods-are-gods-punishment-flees-flooded-home
But Mercedes have taken all four allowed engines, and Ferrari and Renault three; Ferrari have used four turbos, and are expected to introduce their final engine iteration at Monza...etc.
None of the factory teams (with the possible exception of Renault ??) can afford multiple deliberate engine penalties like Honda, as they can't risk championship position, so whatever information they glean will only be of use in tweaking the current power plant and/or development for next year.
Given their parlous situation, and absolute imperative to catch up if they are to retain McLaren as a partner, Honda will continue to introduce developments as quickly as they can produce them.
Boris is the likely next leader in my view, Davis would win the leadership tomorrow but by 2019 he will be too tird to the Brexit deal and any compromises made
It's interesting though that Trump is playing up how unprecedented this hurricane is. Smart to emphasise the scale of the challenge - but surely will make some wonder about climate change...
This article from a year ago is pretty worrying... suggests Houston is not well prepared for this.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/houston-is-a-sitting-duck-for-the-next-big-hurricane-why-isnt-texas-ready/
http://derekbateman.scot/2017/08/28/a-trip-up-north/
MULLEN, A. and BURKITT, B. (2005), Spinning Europe: Pro-European Union Propaganda Campaigns in Britain, 1962–1975. The Political Quarterly, 76: 100–113. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2005.00660.x
(the online link I have for this doesn't work: see http://andymullen.com/downloads/research4/spinning_europe.pdf )
Butler, David; Kitzinger, Uwe (1996). The 1975 referendum. ISBN 9780333662908. OCLC 958137188.
Goodhart, Philip (1976) Full-Hearted Consent: The Story of the Referendum Campaign—and the Campaign for the Referendum . ISBN 10: 0706702069 ISBN 13: 9780706702064
If you want a brief rundown, try this gentleman: http://voxscot.com/what-happened-in-1975/
One thought though - Kezia Dugdale does not run Scotland...
PS: she does supposedly lead Labour regional party in Scotland, which she reckons is the same.
Sunil Prasannan, BSc. (Hons.), ARCS, PhD
I don't think we can accuse Remain of amateurism. I've known some very competent amateurs.
The EU must be more popular than I realised if we got that close to winning despite such grade a muppetry.
Edit - come to think of it they never nailed the wrong figures about the NHS or Hannah's lie about not leaving the single market either. They really were hopeless, weren't they?
Do they count or only if it's a tie?
It was a choice between the EU is crap, we need to leave, and the EU is crap, but resistance is futile.
Damage to personal reputation
Blair Iraq
Cameron UKREF
May Election17
Corbyn ??
Damage to Party
Blair Brown
Cameron UKREF
May Election17
Corbyn ??
Damage to Country
Blair Brown
Cameron UKREF
May Handling of BREXIT
Corbyn ??
Thinking about it - Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong yet.
F1: Force India drivers embark upon performance art as they re-enact the Blair/Brown relationship:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41074278
He made a bunch of mistakes early on - but they don't seem to have mattered too much.
Something for ydoethur to work towards...
not retired yet ?
Your wife still OK. I expect more casualties before the year is out.
PS: how is your business going. I was jealous seeing you were in Germany recently. I need to get something booked up.
My son is in his last Uni year so when we get him off the books she wants to pack it in, so shes been telling me I need to be paying myself more :-)
Business is a bit like a roller coaster atm it's either feast or famine but I have a few new projects coming up which could allow me to stabilise things so fingers crossed!
Are you down this way any time ?
Back in August 2016 I posted a few names of associates that would come back and haunt Trump. One was Russian mobster and Trump partner/advisor Felix Sater.
Sater has reportedly turned supergrass.
His major message in 2015 was 'let's apologise for spending too much', while Cooper preferred 'let's apologise for immigration'. It was only Corbyn who had anything positive to say. Burnham may be a decent second-line face, but as a leader, what would be the point.
You can't say Corbyn losing the 2017 election damaged his reputation or that of his Party or the Country. People won't say in years to come "Remember when Corbyn lost the 2017 election! Terrible mistake!" But they will say that of Blair, Cameron and May's mistakes.
If anything, Corbyn has enhanced his reputation by winning the leadership of the Labour Party (against the odds) twice, boosting the morale of the Labour Party, and doing some smart politicking on Europe that's probably for the long term good of the country. A good score card so far.
As for Europe his policy changes from week to week
I think Corbyn and McD are fairly isolated as Eurosceptics in the shadow cabinet. I can only think of four other Labour definite Europhobes or -sceptics: Hoey, Field, Skinner and Mann. Ken Livingstone has long since become a Europhile. So creating a shadow cabinet full of Labour Eurosceptics would be impossible.
he'll have to go back to his colleagues and admit he fked it up
It's easy to be acceptable to the public when you're a relative unknown. He didn't have Corbyn's spine or his steel - he abstained on that welfare vote against his better judgement under Harman to keep his position in the shadow cabinet, being one of the things that finally pushed Corbyn to say 'fine, I'll give it a go'. He was always going around hinting he was more left-wing than his voting record or his two failed leadership campaigns seemed, without being able to back it up. Trying to be all things to all people only works until he'd have to take a stand on something.
It's easy to project an image of acceptability on him from outside, before he's faced much public scrutiny. But if you were part of the Labour Party during that leadership election campaign, you might understand why the members were so tired of these people, why Corbyn felt he needed to run just to shake it up a bit, and why his message rang true for the membership. I don't believe for a second Burnham would have been more of a success as a Labour leader.