More complicated than that in my case. I'm a pragmatic left-winger, keen to get the most left-wing government that has a chance of winning. I supported Tony because after 18 years of Tory Government there was plenty to do with merely centrist politics, so I thought fine, let's get on with those. Minimum wage! Reviving the NHS! Peace in Ulster! Gay marriage! By 2010 I felt we'd run out of centrist ideas (and the vacuum that is ChangeUK and IMO the fashionable LibDems too illustrates that it's still true), so time to move further left.
I thought the centre-left had no response to the events of 2008 which seemed to completely undermine the economic policies of the preceding decade and a half. That's not to say I didn't admire Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling for the considerable roles they played in mitigating the worst of the crisis but the failure to manage the public finances was hard to avoid after a decade in office.
The cultural impact of those events resonates today in people's attitudes to job security and public spending. There is a caution bordering on trepidation which simply didn't exist before Lehmann Brothers collapsed.
Off topic, today I have started making this year’s walnut brandy and successfully cut the walnuts without staining my fingers, I’ve spent most of the rest of the day in the pool and I’m currently sat watching the sky fade from blue to indigo to black. Life is good sometimes.
The Conservatives are casting around desperately to find a reason for anyone to vote for them. They haven’t found one yet,
They will with Boris, to deliver Brexit and to beat Corbyn
Yawn.
@HYUFD seeks elected office for the Cons. Just like many other conservative politicians he is keen to ally himself with the person he thinks will be the winner.
That's fair enough. He is doing no more or less than @NickP does with whomever is leading the Labour party at any one time.
Nick went from loyal Blairite to loyal Corbynite without too many complaints and I campaigned for the IDS Tory Party and the Cameron Tory Party so yes party loyalty is a powerful glue, even if you vote for a different candidate beforehand you get behind the winner
More complicated than that in my case. I'm a pragmatic left-winger, keen to get the most left-wing government that has a chance of winning. I supported Tony because after 18 years of Tory Government there was plenty to do with merely centrist politics, so I thought fine, let's get on with those. Minimum wage! Reviving the NHS! Peace in Ulster! Gay marriage! By 2010 I felt we'd run out of centrist ideas (and the vacuum that is ChangeUK and IMO the fashionable LibDems too illustrates that it's still true), so time to move further left.
Fair enough, the main parties tend to alternate between centrist and more left or rightwing leaders every decade or so
I have much sympathy with that view! Whilst Lineker seems a decent guy , he has never been a naturally broadcaster. When he first appeared on our screens in the mid-90s he was embarrassingly poor, and whilst over the years he has improved to the extent of being adequate he does not have the skills of some of his predecessors such as Lynam, Hill and Wolstenhome.He has no great charisma or natural authority, and I have always found it a mystery that the BBC spent so much on training him up up in the early years and then paying him a megabucks salary as if he was someone special - which in broadcasting terms he never has been. Others far more talented as journalists would have done the job for a fraction of his salary. Frankly it does seem an abuse of Licence Payers' money - and I find it difficult to believe that there are many people tuning in to BBC sports programmes just to see him!.
Justin124 agrees with Boris, that must be one for the record books!
The Conservatives are casting around desperately to find a reason for anyone to vote for them. They haven’t found one yet,
They will with Boris, to deliver Brexit and to beat Corbyn
Yawn.
@HYUFD seeks elected office for the Cons. Just like many other conservative politicians he is keen to ally himself with the person he thinks will be the winner.
That's fair enough. He is doing no more or less than @NickP does with whomever is leading the Labour party at any one time.
Nick went from loyal Blairite to loyal Corbynite without too many complaints and I campaigned for the IDS Tory Party and the Cameron Tory Party so yes party loyalty is a powerful glue, even if you vote for a different candidate beforehand you get behind the winner
Just because it's the same name doesn't mean it's the same party.
Well exactly. The current Labour and Tory parties may or may not be vastly different from how they used to be, people will quite reasonably take different views on that, but a commitment to the brand of a party and some vague ideological notions they claim, whatever the truth of that claim, or simply out of fear of the other lot, to the point of doing so regardless of what they might become, is just baffling.
It's like those ridiculous 'X till I die' kind of comments you occasionally see, explicitly acknowledging the possibility that the name matters more than anything else - sure said people no doubt don't believe party x will become something truly unpalatable to them, but by being so loyally commited they admit that it would not matter even if the party did transform in such a way.
The Conservatives are casting around desperately to find a reason for anyone to vote for them. They haven’t found one yet,
They will with Boris, to deliver Brexit and to beat Corbyn
Yawn.
@HYUFD seeks elected office for the Cons. Just like many other conservative politicians he is keen to ally himself with the person he thinks will be the winner.
That's fair enough. He is doing no more or less than @NickP does with whomever is leading the Labour party at any one time.
Nick went from loyal Blairite to loyal Corbynite without too many complaints and I campaigned for the IDS Tory Party and the Cameron Tory Party so yes party loyalty is a powerful glue, even if you vote for a different candidate beforehand you get behind the winner
Gay marriage! By 2010 I felt we'd run out of centrist ideas...
Gay marriage came in under the Coalition after 2010.
The Conservatives are casting around desperately to find a reason for anyone to vote for them. They haven’t found one yet,
They will with Boris, to deliver Brexit and to beat Corbyn
Yawn.
@HYUFD seeks elected office for the Cons. Just like many other conservative politicians he is keen to ally himself with the person he thinks will be the winner.
That's fair enough. He is doing no more or less than @NickP does with whomever is leading the Labour party at any one time.
Nick went from loyal Blairite to loyal Corbynite without too many complaints and I campaigned for the IDS Tory Party and the Cameron Tory Party so yes party loyalty is a powerful glue, even if you vote for a different candidate beforehand you get behind the winner
I complained!
Plus at some point if your party changes you must take stock. What does it mean? What has it become?
For me the party has changed so I am considering my support.
Would you campaign strongly for a Francois-led Conservative party? Just because it's the same name doesn't mean it's the same party.
I would campaign for a Boris or Hunt led party, as I would have done for a Raab or Javid or Gove or even Stewart led Tory party. However I might have drawn the line at Mark Francois in which case the Tory Party really would be the No Deal diehards Party and indistinguishable from the Brexit Party, however I suspect I would still have voted Tory even then
Yes but Spain was won by a centrist Socialist Party under Sanchez not the far left Podemos and Denmark was won by the Social Democrats on a tough on immigration platform, neither can be described as Corbynista as Syriza in Greece is
Certainly but the point I'm making is the centre-left (as distinct from what you describe as the populist left) is far from dormant.
In the Ukraine, the "Servant of the People" Party of the President (how would you describe them?) look set for a big victory in the parliamentary elections in a fortnight.
In Portugal, which votes on October 6th, the centre-right government looks as though it will be toppled by the Socialists who I would argue are again more centre-left than populist left.
Austria will be more interesting - given the overwhelming strength of the OVP, the question is whether it will need to form a coalition and whether it could do so with NEOS rather than the FPO or the SPD both of whom have lost ground.
Yes and indeed the centre left is in government in Canada and New Zealand at the moment too (and France if Macron counts as centre left), however my point was about the populist left, not the centre left.
At the moment Corbyn Labour is closer to the populist left than the centre left, the LDs are closer to the latter. Corbyn would be closer to Podemos than the Socialists in Spain, Syriza than Pasok in Greece, the NDP than the Liberals in Canada, Melenchon than Macron in France, Die Linke than the SPD in Germany etc.
I have much sympathy with that view! Whilst Lineker seems a decent guy , he has never been a naturally broadcaster. When he first appeared on our screens in the mid-90s he was embarrassingly poor, and whilst over the years he has improved to the extent of being adequate he does not have the skills of some of his predecessors such as Lynam, Hill and Wolstenhome.He has no great charisma or natural authority, and I have always found it a mystery that the BBC spent so much on training him up up in the early years and then paying him a megabucks salary as if he was someone special - which in broadcasting terms he never has been. Others far more talented as journalists would have done the job for a fraction of his salary. Frankly it does seem an abuse of Licence Payers' money - and I find it difficult to believe that there are many people tuning in to BBC sports programmes just to see him!.
Justin124 agrees with Boris, that must be one for the record books!
I was making similar comments re-Lineker twenty years ago!
I have much sympathy with that view! Whilst Lineker seems a decent guy , he has never been a naturally broadcaster. When he first appeared on our screens in the mid-90s he was embarrassingly poor, and whilst over the years he has improved to the extent of being adequate he does not have the skills of some of his predecessors such as Lynam, Hill and Wolstenhome.He has no great charisma or natural authority, and I have always found it a mystery that the BBC spent so much on training him up up in the early years and then paying him a megabucks salary as if he was someone special - which in broadcasting terms he never has been. Others far more talented as journalists would have done the job for a fraction of his salary. Frankly it does seem an abuse of Licence Payers' money - and I find it difficult to believe that there are many people tuning in to BBC sports programmes just to see him!.
I think TV personality appeal is subjective. Some people you like and some you loath. Lineker may not be a great broadcaster but he encapsulates and personifies a period of football for an audience of a certain age. I don't like football but I don't mind listening to his views on clips broadcast on the news.
The BBC licence fee pays for broadcasting for a broad audience. An individual might not like 50 - 60% of its output but there is probably something for everyone on it. I have in the past objected to money collected by the licence fee for overseas programs that are more associated with political objectives than broadcasting ones. As I have got older I now appreciate the soft power and prestige these vehicles afford British culture and the ability to project our values and way of life to other countries or populations. I pay the licence fee and just treat it like a tax one does not like paying but on balance it provides excellent broadcast programmes and we would be worse off culturally without it.
@Mike Either you've lost your betting marbles or the 'to win' market is free money at 1.20ish based on your header. I've just backed a little at 1.19.
I generally avoid LD betting - I simply don't understand the dynamic. However in small size, with a strong Smithson wind at my back (better that way) I'm happy to back the yellows.
I've won £100s (sadly) betting against the LDs doing as well as expected. Even at the 2010 GE they didn't match expectations.
The odds of 1.2 seem about right, i.e. no value in it. I might be tempted by 1.4-1.6.
Off topic, today I have started making this year’s walnut brandy and successfully cut the walnuts without staining my fingers, I’ve spent most of the rest of the day in the pool and I’m currently sat watching the sky fade from blue to indigo to black. Life is good sometimes.
The Conservatives are casting around desperately to find a reason for anyone to vote for them. They haven’t found one yet,
They will with Boris, to deliver Brexit and to beat Corbyn
Yawn.
@HYUFD seeks elected office for the Cons. Just like many other conservative politicians he is keen to ally himself with the person he thinks will be the winner.
That's fair enough. He is doing no more or less than @NickP does with whomever is leading the Labour party at any one time.
Nick went from loyal Blairite to loyal Corbynite without too many complaints and I campaigned for the IDS Tory Party and the Cameron Tory Party so yes party loyalty is a powerful glue, even if you vote for a different candidate beforehand you get behind the winner
More complicated than that in my case. I'm a pragmatic left-winger, keen to get the most left-wing government that has a chance of winning. I supported Tony because after 18 years of Tory Government there was plenty to do with merely centrist politics, so I thought fine, let's get on with those. Minimum wage! Reviving the NHS! Peace in Ulster! Gay marriage! By 2010 I felt we'd run out of centrist ideas (and the vacuum that is ChangeUK and IMO the fashionable LibDems too illustrates that it's still true), so time to move further left.
Given politics is a dialectical business, it was just time for the Tories to screw everything up instead of Labour!
I never voted for Labour between 1997 and 2010 but felt we were reasonably well governed between 1997 and 2007, domestically at least. Brown was a very poor PM and his ambition to be PM warped many of the decisions he made as C of the E, which came home to afflict his Premiership.
I don't think going further left is the way for Labour to get the keys to No.10 and I doubt the Corbyn agenda is the best way forward for the UK. I actually think the threat of a hard left Government just helps keep the Tories in power.
I always think well of John Major. I don't know how the membership will take his advice though. 1992 - 1997 looks like a period of calm compared to the current political environment!
I suspect a sizeable chunk of the electorate will have already filled out their ballot papers
Tsipras and Syrizia are an interesting example of populist left in power. That was a reasonable view of them when they first took power, but for more recent years they are much closer to mainstream European centre left. Economic growth is back at 1.9%, there is a significant primary budget surplus, unemployment is still at 15%, but much less than its peak at 28% and continuing to improve. Greece has weathered the 2015 migrant crisis and the resolution of relations with North Macedonia. Still in recovery mode, but no longer the basket case that it was, and still in the Euro. While New Democracy look likely to win, Syrizia will put up a good showing.
I was talking over this with one of my Greek colleagues and what won him over to Tsipras was how he reneged on the austerity referendum at the peak of the crisis. He rates Tsipras for good sense in pulling back from the brink of a Venezuela like collapse. I dont think he is alone in that opinion as Syrizia does not seem to be extensively punished at the polls. An interesting case of pragmatism over demogoguary from which we could perhaps learn.
I always think well of John Major. I don't know how the membership will take his advice though. 1992 - 1997 looks like a period of calm compared to the current political environment!
I suspect a sizeable chunk of the electorate will have already filled out their ballot papers
I remember in 2001 voting for Ken Clarke within 5 minutes of receiving it and getting it in the post! I actually went to a hustings after I had voted just to see the candidates in the flesh. Ken Clarke was excellent, speaking without notes and tailoring his message to the audience. IDS on the other hand used notes and his message just did not resonate with me.
The BBC licence fee pays for broadcasting for a broad audience. An individual might not like 50 - 60% of its output but there is probably something for everyone on it. I have in the past objected to money collected by the licence fee for overseas programs that are more associated with political objectives than broadcasting ones. As I have got older I now appreciate the soft power and prestige these vehicles afford British culture and the ability to project our values and way of life to other countries or populations. I pay the licence fee and just treat it like a tax one does not like paying but on balance it provides excellent broadcast programmes and we would be worse off culturally without it.
I think TV personality appeal is subjective. Some people you like and some you loath. Lineker may not be a great broadcaster but he encapsulates and personifies a period of football for an audience of a certain age. I don't like football but I don't mind listening to his views on clips broadcast on the news.
The BBC licence fee pays for broadcasting for a broad audience. An individual might not like 50 - 60% of its output but there is probably something for everyone on it. I have in the past objected to money collected by the licence fee for overseas programs that are more associated with political objectives than broadcasting ones. As I have got older I now appreciate the soft power and prestige these vehicles afford British culture and the ability to project our values and way of life to other countries or populations. I pay the licence fee and just treat it like a tax one does not like paying but on balance it provides excellent broadcast programmes and we would be worse off culturally without it.
I agree with most of that , but still find it difficult to understand why the BBC has felt the need to spend so much of its budget on someone whose talent - as a broadcaster - has always been so clearly limited. In current affairs, people such as Dimbleby, Paxman, Marr et al are distinguished journalist broadcasters and it is more than likely that their inclusion has had a positive effect on BBC viewing figures etc. I simply fail to see the case for that with Lineker - many are just as good and quite a few would be much better. He is certainly not in the same class as - say - David Coleman.
I quite Lineker and find him an engaging host for MOTD. While talent is subjective, and hard to pin down, I think his standing as an English football legend helps. MOTD actually is quite an economical show to make otherwise, apart from the handful in the studio. Far cheaper than costume drama or shows like Strictly. In terms of cost per viewer it is good value. That charm that works on TV is a fairly rare quality, like the ability to score 20 goals per season, and has its price.
More complicated than that in my case. I'm a pragmatic left-winger, keen to get the most left-wing government that has a chance of winning. I supported Tony because after 18 years of Tory Government there was plenty to do with merely centrist politics, so I thought fine, let's get on with those. Minimum wage! Reviving the NHS! Peace in Ulster! Gay marriage! By 2010 I felt we'd run out of centrist ideas (and the vacuum that is ChangeUK and IMO the fashionable LibDems too illustrates that it's still true), so time to move further left.
I thought the centre-left had no response to the events of 2008 which seemed to completely undermine the economic policies of the preceding decade and a half. That's not to say I didn't admire Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling for the considerable roles they played in mitigating the worst of the crisis but the failure to manage the public finances was hard to avoid after a decade in office.
The cultural impact of those events resonates today in people's attitudes to job security and public spending. There is a caution bordering on trepidation which simply didn't exist before Lehmann Brothers collapsed.
Yes, I agree. There is definitely an unease in the air, coming perhaps from the sense that nobody has a reliable answer to the evident fragility of both economics and political systems.
I don't think going further left is the way for Labour to get the keys to No.10 and I doubt the Corbyn agenda is the best way forward for the UK. I actually think the threat of a hard left Government just helps keep the Tories in power.
Perhaps. But I don't see the point of knocking myself out to get, say, Umunna or Swinson into Number 10, to do nothing in particular. I'd rather work hard to have a 20% chance of a government I like.
I quite Lineker and find him an engaging host for MOTD. While talent is subjective, and hard to pin down, I think his standing as an English football legend helps. MOTD actually is quite an economical show to make otherwise, apart from the handful in the studio. Far cheaper than costume drama or shows like Strictly. In terms of cost per viewer it is good value. That charm that works on TV is a fairly rare quality, like the ability to score 20 goals per season, and has its price.
I am not into football at all but believe I am correct in saying that MOTD has a much smaller audience today compared with the 80s and 90s - yet its presenter is paid so much more. Moreover, back in 1996/97 Lineker's performance was pretty abysmal and attracted quite a bit of negative press comment . I accept that he has improved over time - though no longer seen as 'Mr Squeaky Clean' as was the case in his playing days. Twice divorced , he is no longer seen as anyone special in terms of personal morality etc.I still cannot work out why - back in the mid-1990s - when he clearly lacked the skills expected of professional broadcasters, the BBC felt the need to splash out on him . Even today, he is just average - nothing outstanding there to justify the megabucks. On the same basis, why was Bobby Moore never hired for such a role?
In the past few days, as he prepares to leave government, Hammond has seamlessly transitioned into the role of leading resistance to Brexit amongst Conservative MPs. It's quite clear that he must have spent the last 3 years in the 2nd most powerful post in government straining every sinew to ensure that Brexit was either stillborn or unrecognisable as anything worthy of the name.
I quite Lineker and find him an engaging host for MOTD. While talent is subjective, and hard to pin down, I think his standing as an English football legend helps. MOTD actually is quite an economical show to make otherwise, apart from the handful in the studio. Far cheaper than costume drama or shows like Strictly. In terms of cost per viewer it is good value. That charm that works on TV is a fairly rare quality, like the ability to score 20 goals per season, and has its price.
BiB - Utter utter bollocks. Mark Chapman and Gabby logan are just as capable at presenting MoTD. Linekar's salary is a disgrace.
I don't think going further left is the way for Labour to get the keys to No.10 and I doubt the Corbyn agenda is the best way forward for the UK. I actually think the threat of a hard left Government just helps keep the Tories in power.
Perhaps. But I don't see the point of knocking myself out to get, say, Umunna or Swinson into Number 10, to do nothing in particular. I'd rather work hard to have a 20% chance of a government I like.
Is there no sense at all though in Labour circles that the party would be well served if Corbyn stood down to be replaced by - say - Thornberry? What is the point in Corbyn leading his party to a heavy defeat? His 2017 success will have been a complete waste of time - and that in itself risks generating further disillusionment.
In the past few days, as he prepares to leave government, Hammond has seamlessly transitioned into the role of leading resistance to Brexit amongst Conservative MPs. It's quite clear that he must have spent the last 3 years in the 2nd most powerful post in government straining every sinew to ensure that Brexit was either stillborn or unrecognisable as anything worthy of the name.
Hammonds one of the few sane voices in the cabinet . He voted 3 times for the WA , and just wants to leave with a deal .
As for stillborn , Brexit really needs to have been aborted , as for anything worthy of the name . Vote Leave promised an orderly exit and a deal .
If that what transpires fair enough as a Remainer I’ll move on . If not then Bozo has to go back to the public and get a proper mandate for no deal .
I don't think going further left is the way for Labour to get the keys to No.10 and I doubt the Corbyn agenda is the best way forward for the UK. I actually think the threat of a hard left Government just helps keep the Tories in power.
Perhaps. But I don't see the point of knocking myself out to get, say, Umunna or Swinson into Number 10, to do nothing in particular. I'd rather work hard to have a 20% chance of a government I like.
Blair could have gone further to the left in the 2001 manifesto but maybe he was only comfortable in the space he occupied as he did. Certainly if he had proposed to put taxes up and increase spending I think he would still have won in 2001 but not by a cricket score amount!
I can see your point in campaigning for a Government of a purist persuasion but if all political parties do this: Labour, Tory, Lib Dems, Brexit and SNP will all be unhappy at the result as none of them will win outright I should imagine! I will certainly read the next Labour manifesto with interest as it promises with Corbyn as leader to be very radicle, at least as defining as 1983 IMO. If Labour do get in with that sort of program - enjoy! As I think the pendulum will swing back very quickly.
I don't think going further left is the way for Labour to get the keys to No.10 and I doubt the Corbyn agenda is the best way forward for the UK. I actually think the threat of a hard left Government just helps keep the Tories in power.
Perhaps. But I don't see the point of knocking myself out to get, say, Umunna or Swinson into Number 10, to do nothing in particular. I'd rather work hard to have a 20% chance of a government I like.
Blair could have gone further to the left in the 2001 manifesto but maybe he was only comfortable in the space he occupied as he did. Certainly if he had proposed to put taxes up and increase spending I think he would still have won in 2001 but not by a cricket score amount!
I can see your point in campaigning for a Government of a purist persuasion but if all political parties do this: Labour, Tory, Lib Dems, Brexit and SNP will all be unhappy at the result as none of them will win outright I should imagine! I will certainly read the next Labour manifesto with interest as it promises with Corbyn as leader to be very radicle, at least as defining as 1983 IMO. If Labour do get in with that sort of program - enjoy! As I think the pendulum will swing back very quickly.
I rather disagree re- Blair and 2001. There was already much disillusionment with him on the left which showed itself in the collapse in GE turnout to 59% - lowest since 1918.Many Labour voters stayed at home .
More complicated than that in my case. I'm a pragmatic left-winger, keen to get the most left-wing government that has a chance of winning. I supported Tony because after 18 years of Tory Government there was plenty to do with merely centrist politics, so I thought fine, let's get on with those. Minimum wage! Reviving the NHS! Peace in Ulster! Gay marriage! By 2010 I felt we'd run out of centrist ideas (and the vacuum that is ChangeUK and IMO the fashionable LibDems too illustrates that it's still true), so time to move further left.
I thought the centre-left had no response to the events of 2008 which seemed to completely undermine the economic policies of the preceding decade and a half. That's not to say I didn't admire Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling for the considerable roles they played in mitigating the worst of the crisis but the failure to manage the public finances was hard to avoid after a decade in office.
The cultural impact of those events resonates today in people's attitudes to job security and public spending. There is a caution bordering on trepidation which simply didn't exist before Lehmann Brothers collapsed.
Yes, I agree. There is definitely an unease in the air, coming perhaps from the sense that nobody has a reliable answer to the evident fragility of both economics and political systems.
Put simply I find it hard to trust anyone not to balls it up, so I can understand people being wary of politicians with grandiose, but vague, plans.
And yet, there is so much, with such urgency, that needs to be done. How better to do it than with the financial and organisational powers of government?
I just wish that Corbyn was more competent, open-minded, curious, generous, compassionate, reflective, honest and intelligent. There has to be a better leader for the left somewhere?
I have much sympathy with that view! Whilst Lineker seems a decent guy , he has never been a naturally broadcaster. When he first appeared on our screens in the mid-90s he was embarrassingly poor, and whilst over the years he has improved to the extent of being adequate he does not have the skills of some of his predecessors such as Lynam, Hill and Wolstenhome.He has no great charisma or natural authority, and I have always found it a mystery that the BBC spent so much on training him up up in the early years and then paying him a megabucks salary as if he was someone special - which in broadcasting terms he never has been. Others far more talented as journalists would have done the job for a fraction of his salary. Frankly it does seem an abuse of Licence Payers' money - and I find it difficult to believe that there are many people tuning in to BBC sports programmes just to see him!.
Justin124 agrees with Boris, that must be one for the record books!
I was making similar comments re-Lineker twenty years ago!
Obscene salary aside, I wouldn't have an issue with Gary Linekar if he stuck to football and had not gone down the road of gobbing off about politics as if anyone is benefiting from his inane remainerist utterances. Not a very intelligent person sadly.
In the choice between Hunt and Boris, it has to be Hunt.
I can understand why someone might spoil their ballot but one of the two is going to become PM in a few weeks time.
I am opposed to hunting as I think it is cruel and barbaric. If you are going to kill animals do it with rifles not a pack of dogs with blood thirsty maniacs in red tunics galivanting around the countryside. I think any form of "sport" that involves the killing of animals is an activity that belongs in the past.
For the good of the country I would vote for Jeremy Hunt as we don't want saddling with Boris Johnson as PM, he will lead us into disaster....
If you are a centre cenre/left voter Johnson has to be the hoped for Tory winner. Apart from a minority of swivel eyed Tory members I can't see his appeal even getting close to Mrs May's.
I’m not so sure. If the sun newspaper could design their ideal candidate this year, a Churchill wannabe flanked by the right of centre populism of Bannon and Crosby, it would be Boris.
Look at Trumps unprecedented support in the Republican Party, and imagine a YouGov where Boris has not just the Conservative 24% and most the BP 23%, but that same fervour from that 40+% like Trump is now getting in his party. You can say only this is impossible if you are desperate for it to be impossible.
I have much sympathy with that view! Whilst Lineker seems a decent guy , he has never been a naturally broadcaster. When he first appeared on our screens in the mid-90s he was embarrassingly poor, and whilst over the years he has improved to the extent of being adequate he does not have the skills of some of his predecessors such as Lynam, Hill and Wolstenhome.He has no great charisma or natural authority, and I have always found it a mystery that the BBC spent so much on training him up up in the early years and then paying him a megabucks salary as if he was someone special - which in broadcasting terms he never has been. Others far more talented as journalists would have done the job for a fraction of his salary. Frankly it does seem an abuse of Licence Payers' money - and I find it difficult to believe that there are many people tuning in to BBC sports programmes just to see him!.
Justin124 agrees with Boris, that must be one for the record books!
I was making similar comments re-Lineker twenty years ago!
Obscene salary aside, I wouldn't have an issue with Gary Linekar if he stuck to football and had not gone down the road of gobbing off about politics as if anyone is benefiting from his inane remainerist utterances. Not a very intelligent person sadly.
Could be worse Paul Gascoigne could be singing about sausage rolls!
Comments
The cultural impact of those events resonates today in people's attitudes to job security and public spending. There is a caution bordering on trepidation which simply didn't exist before Lehmann Brothers collapsed.
It's like those ridiculous 'X till I die' kind of comments you occasionally see, explicitly acknowledging the possibility that the name matters more than anything else - sure said people no doubt don't believe party x will become something truly unpalatable to them, but by being so loyally commited they admit that it would not matter even if the party did transform in such a way.
At the moment Corbyn Labour is closer to the populist left than the centre left, the LDs are closer to the latter. Corbyn would be closer to Podemos than the Socialists in Spain, Syriza than Pasok in Greece, the NDP than the Liberals in Canada, Melenchon than Macron in France, Die Linke than the SPD in Germany etc.
The BBC licence fee pays for broadcasting for a broad audience. An individual might not like 50 - 60% of its output but there is probably something for everyone on it. I have in the past objected to money collected by the licence fee for overseas programs that are more associated with political objectives than broadcasting ones. As I have got older I now appreciate the soft power and prestige these vehicles afford British culture and the ability to project our values and way of life to other countries or populations. I pay the licence fee and just treat it like a tax one does not like paying but on balance it provides excellent broadcast programmes and we would be worse off culturally without it.
The odds of 1.2 seem about right, i.e. no value in it. I might be tempted by 1.4-1.6.
I never voted for Labour between 1997 and 2010 but felt we were reasonably well governed between 1997 and 2007, domestically at least. Brown was a very poor PM and his ambition to be PM warped many of the decisions he made as C of the E, which came home to afflict his Premiership.
I don't think going further left is the way for Labour to get the keys to No.10 and I doubt the Corbyn agenda is the best way forward for the UK. I actually think the threat of a hard left Government just helps keep the Tories in power.
I was talking over this with one of my Greek colleagues and what won him over to Tsipras was how he reneged on the austerity referendum at the peak of the crisis. He rates Tsipras for good sense in pulling back from the brink of a Venezuela like collapse. I dont think he is alone in that opinion as Syrizia does not seem to be extensively punished at the polls. An interesting case of pragmatism over demogoguary from which we could perhaps learn.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/04/us/portland-police-chief-mask-ban/index.html
I quite Lineker and find him an engaging host for MOTD. While talent is subjective, and hard to pin down, I think his standing as an English football legend helps. MOTD actually is quite an economical show to make otherwise, apart from the handful in the studio. Far cheaper than costume drama or shows like Strictly. In terms of cost per viewer it is good value. That charm that works on TV is a fairly rare quality, like the ability to score 20 goals per season, and has its price.
There can be no Brexit like the one they described.
It's a myth. A fantasy.
That's not Hammond's fault.
As for stillborn , Brexit really needs to have been aborted , as for anything worthy of the name . Vote Leave promised an orderly exit and a deal .
If that what transpires fair enough as a Remainer I’ll move on . If not then Bozo has to go back to the public and get a proper mandate for no deal .
https://twentyessex.com/people/gordon-nardell/
NEW THREAD
I can see your point in campaigning for a Government of a purist persuasion but if all political parties do this: Labour, Tory, Lib Dems, Brexit and SNP will all be unhappy at the result as none of them will win outright I should imagine! I will certainly read the next Labour manifesto with interest as it promises with Corbyn as leader to be very radicle, at least as defining as 1983 IMO. If Labour do get in with that sort of program - enjoy! As I think the pendulum will swing back very quickly.
And yet, there is so much, with such urgency, that needs to be done. How better to do it than with the financial and organisational powers of government?
I just wish that Corbyn was more competent, open-minded, curious, generous, compassionate, reflective, honest and intelligent. There has to be a better leader for the left somewhere?
Look at Trumps unprecedented support in the Republican Party, and imagine a YouGov where Boris has not just the Conservative 24% and most the BP 23%, but that same fervour from that 40+% like Trump is now getting in his party. You can say only this is impossible if you are desperate for it to be impossible.
Batten should read David Gauke’s speech but he is too thick and/or malicious to understand it.