politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s leader ratings have slumped sharply since the start o

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s leader ratings have slumped sharply since the start of the year

I’ve just discovered a Wikipedia page which seeks to record all the main leader ratings from the leading pollsters. The page describes itself as being confined to “approval ratings” which it doesn’t. Instead we see a range of four or five different formats.

Read the full story here

Sunil_Prasannan

First unlike Corbyn!

Philip_Thompson

Interesting that he's viewed worse now than he was before the election.

Time to replace May with someone positive, strike a Brexit deal then call an election

philiph

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting that he's viewed worse now than he was before the election.

Time to replace May with someone positive, strike a Brexit deal then call an election

I don't think that chart goes back that far. It starts in January 2018, GE was in 2017.

DavidL

Did we not do this this morning? I appreciate that we are in the dog days of August and not a lot is happening.

Nigelb

It would be nice to graph each pollster's ratings separately, but the trend appears quite marked.

Alanbrooke

So after 2 years of non stop scare mongering, it looks like a Brexit deal is in sight

Big_G_NorthWales

FPT

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
» show previous quotes
That's all right then.
I joined a couple of months ago.


And a warm welcome to you

philiph

DavidL said:

Did we not do this this morning? I appreciate that we are in the dog days of August and not a lot is happening.

Don't you have the stamina for more than once a day?

Philip_Thompson

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

williamglenn

Alanbrooke said:

So after 2 years of non stop scare mongering, it looks like a Brexit deal is in sight

Would you care to recapitulate?

Big_G_NorthWales

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting that he's viewed worse now than he was before the election.

Time to replace May with someone positive, strike a Brexit deal then call an election

She is doing just fine. Time to talk about her future after she comes home with the Brexit deal. No one else could achieve anything better at this late stage

Alanbrooke

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

So after 2 years of non stop scare mongering, it looks like a Brexit deal is in sight

Would you care to recapitulate?

Sorry I also forgot about the non stop bollocks, thanks for reminding me

DavidL

Interesting that Raab does not feel the need to have Olly Robbins holding his hand in front of the committee:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45344203

Perhaps an implication that, unlike his predecessor, he has a reasonably good idea about what is going on?

Stereotomy

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting that he's viewed worse now than he was before the election.

Time to replace May with someone positive, strike a Brexit deal then call an election

She is doing just fine. Time to talk about her future after she comes home with the Brexit deal. No one else could achieve anything better at this late stage

And what about at the stage when she took over?

Big_G_NorthWales

Alanbrooke said:

So after 2 years of non stop scare mongering, it looks like a Brexit deal is in sight

TM achieves a collective sigh of relief from the UK

Now that would be a headline

OldKingCole

Alanbrooke said:

So after 2 years of non stop scare mongering, it looks like a Brexit deal is in sight

Yes; looks like the EU has, with great regret, managed to accommodate the often conflicting wishes of the British Government.

All we need now is for one of Europhobic loons on the Tory right to throw a spanner in the works.

williamglenn

Important points:
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1034762224949239808
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1034762379396087809

Big_G_NorthWales

Stereotomy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting that he's viewed worse now than he was before the election.

Time to replace May with someone positive, strike a Brexit deal then call an election

She is doing just fine. Time to talk about her future after she comes home with the Brexit deal. No one else could achieve anything better at this late stage

And what about at the stage when she took over?

You cannot go back - the only way is forward

Big_G_NorthWales

DavidL said:

Interesting that Raab does not feel the need to have Olly Robbins holding his hand in front of the committee:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45344203

Perhaps an implication that, unlike his predecessor, he has a reasonably good idea about what is going on?

A deal in the air maybe

Cyclefree

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Corbyn ......

Yes, very sad and wrong. She’s not a stupid woman, though. She must realise that she has trashed her own and her country’s reputation. What on earth has she or Burma gained?

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FPT

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
» show previous quotes
That's all right then.
I joined a couple of months ago.


And a warm welcome to you

Thank you big G

DavidL

Alanbrooke said:

So after 2 years of non stop scare mongering, it looks like a Brexit deal is in sight

A better deal than for any other non EU country, apprently. Be interested to see it.

Big_G_NorthWales

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FPT

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
» show previous quotes
That's all right then.
I joined a couple of months ago.


And a warm welcome to you

Thank you big G

Thank you also. I hope you enjoy being a member.

Lots of issues coming up

DavidL

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Interesting that Raab does not feel the need to have Olly Robbins holding his hand in front of the committee:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45344203

Perhaps an implication that, unlike his predecessor, he has a reasonably good idea about what is going on?

A deal in the air maybe

Crossed my mind. Civil servants get the grief, Ministers claim the glory. It was always thus.

Big_G_NorthWales

OldKingCole said:

Alanbrooke said:

So after 2 years of non stop scare mongering, it looks like a Brexit deal is in sight

Yes; looks like the EU has, with great regret, managed to accommodate the often conflicting wishes of the British Government.

All we need now is for one of Europhobic loons on the Tory right to throw a spanner in the works.

Not enough of them OKC

Alanbrooke

OldKingCole said:

Alanbrooke said:

So after 2 years of non stop scare mongering, it looks like a Brexit deal is in sight

Yes; looks like the EU has, with great regret, managed to accommodate the often conflicting wishes of the British Government.

All we need now is for one of Europhobic loons on the Tory right to throw a spanner in the works.

No its simply that the need to keep trading has finally brought people to their senses.

As for loons or otherwise, I really cant be arsed

What this process has shown is that our political class is not fit for purpose, and for those ramping that the end deal is rubbish, just remember that the same mob have put all the current EU deals in place, which is presumably why so many wanted to leave in the first place.

Philip_Thompson

Some good news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45341733

Big_G_NorthWales

williamglenn said:

Important points:
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1034762224949239808
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1034762379396087809

Only to you. A deal will happen and you will need to campaign to re-join.

Sean_F

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Corbyn ......

Yes, very sad and wrong. She’s not a stupid woman, though. She must realise that she has trashed her own and her country’s reputation. What on earth has she or Burma gained?

FPT

Cyclefree said:

» show previous quotes
Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

I think it's the norm for the oppressed to become oppressors, when they get the chance.

IanB2

Apart from the recent YouGov, not really.

Sunil_Prasannan

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Corbyn ......

Yes, very sad and wrong. She’s not a stupid woman, though. She must realise that she has trashed her own and her country’s reputation. What on earth has she or Burma gained?

FPT

Cyclefree said:

» show previous quotes
Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

I think it's the norm for the oppressed to become oppressors, when they get the chance.

It's OK, she's not Israeli. The Corbynistas will simply keep silent.

Philip_Thompson

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Corbyn ......

Yes, very sad and wrong. She’s not a stupid woman, though. She must realise that she has trashed her own and her country’s reputation. What on earth has she or Burma gained?

I don't think she necessarily wanted this, I suspect more the military has proceeded as it wanted to (and as it has done what it wanted for decades) and that rather than cause a scene or resign she's simply gone along with it.

JohnRussell

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

Stereotomy

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

Alanbrooke

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Corbyn ......

Yes, very sad and wrong. She’s not a stupid woman, though. She must realise that she has trashed her own and her country’s reputation. What on earth has she or Burma gained?

FPT

Cyclefree said:

» show previous quotes
Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

I think it's the norm for the oppressed to become oppressors, when they get the chance.

It's OK, she's not Israeli. The Corbynistas will simply keep silent.

Where's Bono ?

DavidL

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Important points:
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1034762224949239808
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1034762379396087809

Only to you. A deal will happen and you will need to campaign to re-join.

Jon Stone. Europe correspondent at the Independent based in Brussels. How could you get a more impartial view than that?

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FPT

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
» show previous quotes
That's all right then.
I joined a couple of months ago.


And a warm welcome to you

Thank you big G

Thank you also. I hope you enjoy being a member.

Lots of issues coming up

I was previously a member from 1997-2005.
I left after Michael Howard pissed me off.
Good to be back in the fold!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Russell, might be the majority view, but it's not a uniform consensus.

I think barring people who until recently were the money behind UKIP is different to trying to prevent general EU-sceptic voters from becoming members.

OldKingCole

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Corbyn ......

Yes, very sad and wrong. She’s not a stupid woman, though. She must realise that she has trashed her own and her country’s reputation. What on earth has she or Burma gained?

FPT

Cyclefree said:

» show previous quotes
Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

I think it's the norm for the oppressed to become oppressors, when they get the chance.

I just wonder how ‘in control’ of the generals she actually is.

Stereotomy

JohnRussell said:

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

They're welcomed. It was the centrists who became hysterical about "entryism" when they realised their members wanted a leader who was actually left wing

Big_G_NorthWales

JohnRussell said:

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

That is a strange argument.

We want centrists in our party specifically to resist the alt right and UKIP just as labour need centrists to resist the anti semites and SWP

Sean_F

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

Most governments would be content with the Conservatives' vote share at this stage of a Parliament.

Sean_F

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Corbyn ......

Yes, very sad and wrong. She’s not a stupid woman, though. She must realise that she has trashed her own and her country’s reputation. What on earth has she or Burma gained?

FPT

Cyclefree said:

» show previous quotes
Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

I think it's the norm for the oppressed to become oppressors, when they get the chance.

I just wonder how ‘in control’ of the generals she actually is.

Not at all is the answer, I think.

Big_G_NorthWales

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

Corbyn is taking labour to the abyss. Just give it time

JohnRussell

Stereotomy said:

JohnRussell said:

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

They're welcomed. It was the centrists who became hysterical about "entryism" when they realised their members wanted a leader who was actually left wing

That much is true.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1034797274751279104

Sunil_Prasannan

Sean_F said:

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

Most governments would be content with the Conservatives' vote share at this stage of a Parliament.

Doesn't Mike keep telling us leader ratings are a better predictor of election results than simple voting intention?

DavidL

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on that phenomenon. It suggests to me that Labour have a lot of potential upside when they get a leader who is not a disgrace. They need to decide if they want power or to be a slightly shoddy protest group.

Philip_Thompson

JohnRussell said:

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

People close to the Tories wanting to join to influence is reasonable.
Active supporters of another party wanting to hijack is not.

The comparison isn't centrists who were formerly Labour, the comparison would be if the Lib Dems were to try and do a reverse takeover of Labour.

JohnRussell

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JohnRussell said:

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

That is a strange argument.

We want centrists in our party specifically to resist the alt right and UKIP just as labour need centrists to resist the anti semites and SWP

It is a strange argument only if you believe every party has to be formed of centrists!

DavidL

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Corbyn ......

Yes, very sad and wrong. She’s not a stupid woman, though. She must realise that she has trashed her own and her country’s reputation. What on earth has she or Burma gained?

FPT

Cyclefree said:

» show previous quotes
Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

I think it's the norm for the oppressed to become oppressors, when they get the chance.

I just wonder how ‘in control’ of the generals she actually is.

Not at all is the answer, I think.

Life was probably easier when she was under house arrest.

Pulpstar

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

Not really. The Tories have eaked back into the lead... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

Historically that's a poor position for the opposition to be at this moment in time.

Big_G_NorthWales

JohnRussell said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JohnRussell said:

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

That is a strange argument.

We want centrists in our party specifically to resist the alt right and UKIP just as labour need centrists to resist the anti semites and SWP

It is a strange argument only if you believe every party has to be formed of centrists!

Of course not but the hard right and hard left will only cause division in parties

surby

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Corbyn ......

Yes, very sad and wrong. She’s not a stupid woman, though. She must realise that she has trashed her own and her country’s reputation. What on earth has she or Burma gained?

FPT

Cyclefree said:

» show previous quotes
Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

I think it's the norm for the oppressed to become oppressors, when they get the chance.

I just wonder how ‘in control’ of the generals she actually is.

She really is as nasty as she seems. Her statements even before the genocide were wishy washy regards the Rohingyas. She is a nasty piece of work.

Big_G_NorthWales

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1034797274751279104

All is not well in the EU by a long way and next May could see the Parliament flooded with hard right and hard left MEPs

philiph

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JohnRussell said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JohnRussell said:

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

That is a strange argument.

We want centrists in our party specifically to resist the alt right and UKIP just as labour need centrists to resist the anti semites and SWP

It is a strange argument only if you believe every party has to be formed of centrists!

Of course not but the hard right and hard left will only cause division in parties

Or the hard centre will cause division.

It is a minority strongly held view that causes division.

JohnRussell

Philip_Thompson said:

JohnRussell said:

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

People close to the Tories wanting to join to influence is reasonable.
Active supporters of another party wanting to hijack is not.

The comparison isn't centrists who were formerly Labour, the comparison would be if the Lib Dems were to try and do a reverse takeover of Labour.

I accept the point on Arron Banks, but wouldn't you think a lot of people have gone Tory>UKIP>Tory over the last decade? UKIP went from 3% to 12% to 1% between 2010 and 2017, you'd have thought the Tories wanted those people back when Labour's membership is through the roof.

In any case, their goal seems to be to get ex Tory mayor of London and perennial favourite for the job Boris Johnson in as leader, hardly an outsider to the Con Club

Fysics_Teacher

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1034797274751279104

“Un discours de haine” sounds much classier than hate-speech, assuming I’ve tranlated that correctly.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

Interesting that Raab does not feel the need to have Olly Robbins holding his hand in front of the committee:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45344203

Perhaps an implication that, unlike his predecessor, he has a reasonably good idea about what is going on?

Bold assumption David, if he does he will be the first

DavidL

Meanwhile Corbyn explains that NATO was formed in 1948 to promote a cold war with the Soviet Union forcing the poor lambs into forming that wonderful Warsaw Pact: https://twitter.com/NudderingNudnik/status/1034494951822946310

I am not sure that stupid really does him justice. It's much more fundamental than that.

JohnRussell

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JohnRussell said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JohnRussell said:

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

That is a strange argument.

We want centrists in our party specifically to resist the alt right and UKIP just as labour need centrists to resist the anti semites and SWP

It is a strange argument only if you believe every party has to be formed of centrists!

Of course not but the hard right and hard left will only cause division in parties

Well its your party and you can cry foul if you want to, but seems to me both Labour and Tories just got roughly their biggest vote shares this century on the back of promises of Hard Brexit, and Socialism

Stereotomy

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on that phenomenon. It suggests to me that Labour have a lot of potential upside when they get a leader who is not a disgrace. They need to decide if they want power or to be a slightly shoddy protest group.

Their tactic last time was to take advantage of the media's requirement to give equal time during an election, based on the belief that when the public actually saw Corbyn speak for himself, they'd like him.

It appeared to work, though it's possible to argue that actually May did it all for him. Still, the party hasn't had a lot of luck with centrists since the extremely charismatic Blair, and it'd completely suck the energy out of the base if he was replaced with somebody who they didn't agree with politically. So I'm not at all convinced that replacing him is the safer bet.

philiph

DavidL said:

Meanwhile Corbyn explains that NATO was formed in 1948 to promote a cold war with the Soviet Union forcing the poor lambs into forming that wonderful Warsaw Pact: https://twitter.com/NudderingNudnik/status/1034494951822946310

I am not sure that stupid really does him justice. It's much more fundamental than that.

NATO - the biggest single contributor to the maintenance of European peace since WW11

DavidL

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Interesting that Raab does not feel the need to have Olly Robbins holding his hand in front of the committee:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45344203

Perhaps an implication that, unlike his predecessor, he has a reasonably good idea about what is going on?

Bold assumption David, if he does he will be the first

I fully accept that it is a bit of a stretch Malcolm. And not one corroborated by his rather lamentable performance with the advice notes. That's why I wondered if it indicated that a deal was indeed imminent. Meeting Barnier for a long meeting on Friday.

Alanbrooke

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1034797274751279104

he;s increasingly getting called out

Stereotomy

JohnRussell said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JohnRussell said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JohnRussell said:

So it seems to be the consensus that Conservatives barring people who want to join so as to influence the party is fair enough. Where does that leave Centrists who join or rejoin Labour to stop it becoming the SWP?

That is a strange argument.

We want centrists in our party specifically to resist the alt right and UKIP just as labour need centrists to resist the anti semites and SWP

It is a strange argument only if you believe every party has to be formed of centrists!

Of course not but the hard right and hard left will only cause division in parties

Well its your party and you can cry foul if you want to, but seems to me both Labour and Tories just got roughly their biggest vote shares this century on the back of promises of Hard Brexit, and Socialism

You mean you don't think the Tories and Labour should be trying to replicate the runaway electoral success of the Lib Dems?

Sean_F

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

RoyalBlue

Fysics_Teacher said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1034797274751279104

“Un discours de haine” sounds much classier than hate-speech, assuming I’ve tranlated that correctly.

Isn’t France stopping migrants from crossing the Franco-Italian border?

If so, he should dial down the pious cant.

OldKingCole

surby said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nobel Committee say Aungi San Suu Kyi cannot be stripped of her nobel peace prize

You could not make that up

I don't think its ever been done. And she earned it when she got it however disgracefully she is behaving now. She really needs to be indicted. She is, after all, the democratically elected leader of the country responsible for the genocide.

Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

Because she doesn't care about the Rohingya. She doesn't view them as her people.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to Corbyn ......

Yes, very sad and wrong. She’s not a stupid woman, though. She must realise that she has trashed her own and her country’s reputation. What on earth has she or Burma gained?

FPT

Cyclefree said:

» show previous quotes
Proof that you can be both a victim and an oppressor. Curious - and sad - how someone who showed so much moral courage for much of her life has had this blindspot to atrocities performed by her own side. Why did she not speak out?

I think it's the norm for the oppressed to become oppressors, when they get the chance.

I just wonder how ‘in control’ of the generals she actually is.

She really is as nasty as she seems. Her statements even before the genocide were wishy washy regards the Rohingyas. She is a nasty piece of work.

Having had a bit of a Google, I do feel that she could have at least SAID a lot more and probably done more too. She seems to have an ‘issue’ with Moslems, although I suspect many Buddhists do, due to them being regarded by Moslems as idol-worshippers.

DavidL

Stereotomy said:

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on that phenomenon. It suggests to me that Labour have a lot of potential upside when they get a leader who is not a disgrace. They need to decide if they want power or to be a slightly shoddy protest group.

Their tactic last time was to take advantage of the media's requirement to give equal time during an election, based on the belief that when the public actually saw Corbyn speak for himself, they'd like him.

It appeared to work, though it's possible to argue that actually May did it all for him. Still, the party hasn't had a lot of luck with centrists since the extremely charismatic Blair, and it'd completely suck the energy out of the base if he was replaced with somebody who they didn't agree with politically. So I'm not at all convinced that replacing him is the safer bet.

He's a loser. He's lost already and he will lose again bigly. Do you agree with him that the Attlee government promoted NATO as part of a conspiracy to have a cold war with the Soviet Union?

He said this in 2014, shortly after Russia had seized the Crimea using military force.

Sean_F

DavidL said:

Meanwhile Corbyn explains that NATO was formed in 1948 to promote a cold war with the Soviet Union forcing the poor lambs into forming that wonderful Warsaw Pact: https://twitter.com/NudderingNudnik/status/1034494951822946310

I am not sure that stupid really does him justice. It's much more fundamental than that.

In his eyes, NATO prevented the liberation of Western Europe by the Red Army.

surby

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

Stereotomy

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on that phenomenon. It suggests to me that Labour have a lot of potential upside when they get a leader who is not a disgrace. They need to decide if they want power or to be a slightly shoddy protest group.

Their tactic last time was to take advantage of the media's requirement to give equal time during an election, based on the belief that when the public actually saw Corbyn speak for himself, they'd like him.

It appeared to work, though it's possible to argue that actually May did it all for him. Still, the party hasn't had a lot of luck with centrists since the extremely charismatic Blair, and it'd completely suck the energy out of the base if he was replaced with somebody who they didn't agree with politically. So I'm not at all convinced that replacing him is the safer bet.

He's a loser. He's lost already and he will lose again bigly. Do you agree with him that the Attlee government promoted NATO as part of a conspiracy to have a cold war with the Soviet Union?

He said this in 2014, shortly after Russia had seized the Crimea using military force.

Uh, no?

Aren't we taking about trying to predict election results here? Whether or not you like him accounts for at most one vote, so it doesn't seem very relevant

David_Evershed

williamglenn said:

Important points:
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1034762224949239808
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1034762379396087809

Noting is agreed until everything is agreed.

Alanbrooke

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1034797274751279104

All is not well in the EU by a long way and next May could see the Parliament flooded with hard right and hard left MEPs

It's almost a shame we're leaving :-)

surby

Fysics_Teacher said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1034797274751279104

“Un discours de haine” sounds much classier than hate-speech, assuming I’ve tranlated that correctly.

The President of Europe.

Sean_F

surby said:

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

It depends how keen they are on forming a government.

surby

Sean_F said:

surby said:

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

It depends how keen they are on forming a government.

THe Social Democrats with the Moderates, Liberals and the Greens can easily form a government.

DavidL

Stereotomy said:

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on that phenomenon. It suggests to me that Labour have a lot of potential upside when they get a leader who is not a disgrace. They need to decide if they want power or to be a slightly shoddy protest group.

Their tactic last time was to take advantage of the media's requirement to give equal time during an election, based on the belief that when the public actually saw Corbyn speak for himself, they'd like him.

It appeared to work, though it's possible to argue that actually May did it all for him. Still, the party hasn't had a lot of luck with centrists since the extremely charismatic Blair, and it'd completely suck the energy out of the base if he was replaced with somebody who they didn't agree with politically. So I'm not at all convinced that replacing him is the safer bet.

He's a loser. He's lost already and he will lose again bigly. Do you agree with him that the Attlee government promoted NATO as part of a conspiracy to have a cold war with the Soviet Union?

He said this in 2014, shortly after Russia had seized the Crimea using military force.

Uh, no?

Aren't we taking about trying to predict election results here? Whether or not you like him accounts for at most one vote, so it doesn't seem very relevant

Oh I agree, my views count for nothing. But he is not going to get the easy ride he did in 2017 again. Idiotic, frankly imbecilic statements like that, will damage a party which, as you point out, has so far retained its support. Last time JC lifted the Labour vote, next time if he stands, he will be a drag on it.

slade

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Meanwhile Corbyn explains that NATO was formed in 1948 to promote a cold war with the Soviet Union forcing the poor lambs into forming that wonderful Warsaw Pact: https://twitter.com/NudderingNudnik/status/1034494951822946310

I am not sure that stupid really does him justice. It's much more fundamental than that.

In his eyes, NATO prevented the liberation of Western Europe by the Red Army.

Yes - NATO was created to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out.

Sean_F

surby said:

Sean_F said:

surby said:

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

It depends how keen they are on forming a government.

THe Social Democrats with the Moderates, Liberals and the Greens can easily form a government.

I couldn't see the Social Democrats and Moderates teeming up.

RoyalBlue

surby said:

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

Er, yes they do. Why would the SD let them get into power if they get no concessions? That’s not a reasonable way to treat a party with 20% of the vote.

They could keep the existing coalition in office and vote against all their legislation. Bringing the Riksdag to a halt might help to concentrate minds.

surby

RoyalBlue said:

surby said:

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

Er, yes they do. Why would the SD let them get into power if they get no concessions? That’s not a reasonable way to treat a party with 20% of the vote.

They could keep the existing coalition in office and vote against all their legislation. Bringing the Riksdag to a halt might help to concentrate minds.

Add up the Social Democrats, the Moderates, the Greens [ MP ] and the Liberals. The SD can go to hell.

MarqueeMark

DavidL said:

Meanwhile Corbyn explains that NATO was formed in 1948 to promote a cold war with the Soviet Union forcing the poor lambs into forming that wonderful Warsaw Pact: https://twitter.com/NudderingNudnik/status/1034494951822946310

I am not sure that stupid really does him justice. It's much more fundamental than that.

The man got two Es at A-level. Give him a break.

Preferably, a career break.....

RoyalBlue

surby said:

RoyalBlue said:

surby said:

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

Er, yes they do. Why would the SD let them get into power if they get no concessions? That’s not a reasonable way to treat a party with 20% of the vote.

They could keep the existing coalition in office and vote against all their legislation. Bringing the Riksdag to a halt might help to concentrate minds.

Add up the Social Democrats, the Moderates, the Greens [ MP ] and the Liberals. The SD can go to hell.

That’s fine. In 4 years’ time, the SD can campaign on a ‘they’re all the same’ platform. Their % of the vote will rise further and the Moderates will shrink.

williamglenn

MarqueeMark said:

The man got two Es at A-level. Give him a break.

Preferably, a career break.....

https://twitter.com/mocent0/status/1030015186713956353

MarqueeMark

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1034797274751279104

All is not well in the EU by a long way and next May could see the Parliament flooded with hard right and hard left MEPs

It's almost a shame we're leaving :-)

Watching from the side-lines will be just fine.....

Stereotomy

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on that phenomenon. It suggests to me that Labour have a lot of potential upside when they get a leader who is not a disgrace. They need to decide if they want power or to be a slightly shoddy protest group.

Their tactic last time was to take advantage of the media's requirement to give equal time during an election, based on the belief that when the public actually saw Corbyn speak for himself, they'd like him.

It appeared to work, though it's possible to argue that actually May did it all for him. Still, the party hasn't had a lot of luck with centrists since the extremely charismatic Blair, and it'd completely suck the energy out of the base if he was replaced with somebody who they didn't agree with politically. So I'm not at all convinced that replacing him is the safer bet.

He's a loser. He's lost already and he will lose again bigly. Do you agree with him that the Attlee government promoted NATO as part of a conspiracy to have a cold war with the Soviet Union?

He said this in 2014, shortly after Russia had seized the Crimea using military force.

Uh, no?

Aren't we taking about trying to predict election results here? Whether or not you like him accounts for at most one vote, so it doesn't seem very relevant

Oh I agree, my views count for nothing. But he is not going to get the easy ride he did in 2017 again. Idiotic, frankly imbecilic statements like that, will damage a party which, as you point out, has so far retained its support. Last time JC lifted the Labour vote, next time if he stands, he will be a drag on it.

I certainly wouldn't rule it out. The Tories have had an opportunity to learn what didn't work against him last time.

MarqueeMark

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

The man got two Es at A-level. Give him a break.

Preferably, a career break.....

https://twitter.com/mocent0/status/1030015186713956353

...and an ism.....

surby

RoyalBlue said:

surby said:

RoyalBlue said:

surby said:

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

Er, yes they do. Why would the SD let them get into power if they get no concessions? That’s not a reasonable way to treat a party with 20% of the vote.

They could keep the existing coalition in office and vote against all their legislation. Bringing the Riksdag to a halt might help to concentrate minds.

Add up the Social Democrats, the Moderates, the Greens [ MP ] and the Liberals. The SD can go to hell.

That’s fine. In 4 years’ time, the SD can campaign on a ‘they’re all the same’ platform. Their % of the vote will rise further and the Moderates will shrink.

The SDs are fascists.

surby

RoyalBlue said:

surby said:

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

Er, yes they do. Why would the SD let them get into power if they get no concessions? That’s not a reasonable way to treat a party with 20% of the vote.

They could keep the existing coalition in office and vote against all their legislation. Bringing the Riksdag to a halt might help to concentrate minds.

Are you dreaming like HYUFD did during the French elections ?

DavidL

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

The man got two Es at A-level. Give him a break.

Preferably, a career break.....

https://twitter.com/mocent0/status/1030015186713956353

...and an ism.....

No, I don't think he did.

Mortimer

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1034797274751279104

he;s increasingly getting called out

Makes Blair seem quite reserved...

Foxy

surby said:

RoyalBlue said:

surby said:

RoyalBlue said:

surby said:

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

Er, yes they do. Why would the SD let them get into power if they get no concessions? That’s not a reasonable way to treat a party with 20% of the vote.

They could keep the existing coalition in office and vote against all their legislation. Bringing the Riksdag to a halt might help to concentrate minds.

Add up the Social Democrats, the Moderates, the Greens [ MP ] and the Liberals. The SD can go to hell.

That’s fine. In 4 years’ time, the SD can campaign on a ‘they’re all the same’ platform. Their % of the vote will rise further and the Moderates will shrink.

The SDs are fascists.

To be fair, they only have Fascist roots and founders, they have moderated their positions to curry votes

DavidL

Stereotomy said:

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

DavidL said:

Stereotomy said:

On topic, dire news for the Tories if Corbyn's ratings have really fallen so far and yet barely moved the needle on voting intention

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on that phenomenon. It suggests to me that Labour have a lot of potential upside when they get a leader who is not a disgrace. They need to decide if they want power or to be a slightly shoddy protest group.

Their tactic last time was to take advantage of the media's requirement to give equal time during an election, based on the belief that when the public actually saw Corbyn speak for himself, they'd like him.

It appeared to work, though it's possible to argue that actually May did it all for him. Still, the party hasn't had a lot of luck with centrists since the extremely charismatic Blair, and it'd completely suck the energy out of the base if he was replaced with somebody who they didn't agree with politically. So I'm not at all convinced that replacing him is the safer bet.

He's a loser. He's lost already and he will lose again bigly. Do you agree with him that the Attlee government promoted NATO as part of a conspiracy to have a cold war with the Soviet Union?

He said this in 2014, shortly after Russia had seized the Crimea using military force.

Uh, no?

Aren't we taking about trying to predict election results here? Whether or not you like him accounts for at most one vote, so it doesn't seem very relevant

Oh I agree, my views count for nothing. But he is not going to get the easy ride he did in 2017 again. Idiotic, frankly imbecilic statements like that, will damage a party which, as you point out, has so far retained its support. Last time JC lifted the Labour vote, next time if he stands, he will be a drag on it.

I certainly wouldn't rule it out. The Tories have had an opportunity to learn what didn't work against him last time.

We've got a bizarre situation where neither of the leaders of our main political parties are actually fit for purpose. But one is merely useless, the other is a dangerous fool. It's a sub optimal choice.

RochdalePioneers

Corbyn on NATO: "It represents Western Imperialism oppressing the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union"

MarqueeMark

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

So after 2 years of non stop scare mongering, it looks like a Brexit deal is in sight

Would you care to recapitulate?

Would you care to capitulate?

To Brussels - of course you would!

MarqueeMark

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

The man got two Es at A-level. Give him a break.

Preferably, a career break.....

https://twitter.com/mocent0/status/1030015186713956353

In that image, Maureen Lipman look like she's just had half an hour of Jeremy's insights on British Jewish irony....

DavidL

Here's the whole speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4zaNJnpLOQ&app=desktop

It is just demented.

RobD

surby said:

RoyalBlue said:

surby said:

RoyalBlue said:

surby said:

Sean_F said:

Two more Swedish polls suggest the Social Democrats and allies and the Coalition will get c.39% each, with the SD's on 18-20%. The Coalition will be very tempted to cut some sort of deal with the SD's if that is the outcome.

They will not touch the SDs with a barge pole!They don't need to.

Er, yes they do. Why would the SD let them get into power if they get no concessions? That’s not a reasonable way to treat a party with 20% of the vote.

They could keep the existing coalition in office and vote against all their legislation. Bringing the Riksdag to a halt might help to concentrate minds.

Add up the Social Democrats, the Moderates, the Greens [ MP ] and the Liberals. The SD can go to hell.

That’s fine. In 4 years’ time, the SD can campaign on a ‘they’re all the same’ platform. Their % of the vote will rise further and the Moderates will shrink.

The SDs are fascists.

Fascist has a quite broad definition these days, doesn't it?