I think the Lib Dems have a real chance of displacing Labour as the main opposition. It's possible Labour will realise the danger it's in quickly enough that it gets rid of Corbyn before the next election. In that case Johnson is quite likely to win comfortably by splitting the opposition. But if the new Labour leader is able to establish themselves as the most plausible alternative to the Brexiteers, in which case Labour will probably win.
Politics is very fluid right now.
Labour aren't going to be changing leader before the next election, or it is very unlikely anyway.
Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it.
On current polling LDs + Greens substantially outpoll Labour on its own. In general I don't aggregate two poll results but that pact looks plausible to me.
Green voters will not shift en masse to the 'Tories' Little Helpers'. Much more likely to switch back to Labour at a GE.
Nah. Not only do the LibDems have a more convincing environmental offer, they like the Greens know where they stand on Brexit.
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
Is the system d'Hondt ? It is not exactly proportional, is it ?
There's a bonus to the first placed party.
It is exactly proportional for those reaching 3%. With a bonus 50 seats for largest Party. An interesting system, which almost always throws up a majority government, but which ensures representation for significant minority Parties.
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
Is the system d'Hondt ? It is not exactly proportional, is it ?
There's a bonus to the first placed party.
It is exactly proportional for those reaching 3%. With a bonus 50 seats for largest Party. An interesting system, which almost always throws up a majority government, but which ensures representation for significant minority Parties.
The allocation of seats to constituencies, some of them at large, is absolutely byzantine by comparison.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
With all due respect, HYUFD, all you are measuring is name recognition at this point.
That's why Biden and Sanders were polling so well in Iowa in the Democratic primaries a year ago. And now that Iowans know the other candidates better, suddenly Biden and Sanders are polling much less well.
Name recognition, name recognition, always name recognition.
Harris got a huge profile in the last debate and still she does far less well v Trump than Biden does with ABC today
Which doesn't matter because it is still very premature.
How was David Cameron polling in next leader polls in 2004?
No, she's an African American Hillary with the same level of condescencion if at least not John Kerry in a skirt as Warren is
Nothing like HRC. Does not have the Clinton baggage and is considerably more charismatic.
If anything she is an African American Warren. So a black John Kerry in a skirt (if we must).
Does the deeply sub-optimal Donald Trump stand a chance of beating a black John Kerry in a skirt? No. Won't even be close.
Even without the skirt he will struggle.
If Harris can keep Hillary’s vote and get more African Americans to turn out in swing states, she wins.
At most she could scrape home and that depends on her not losing even more white working class voters to Trump in the swing states than Hillary did offsetting any gains with African Americans.
Biden by contrast leads Trump by 10% in the popular vote with ABC today compared to just 2% for Harris
The national polls are pretty irrelevant, though.
Exactly. In 2016, the polls said Hillary would win. She did "win" by 3m votes. Except not where it counts. I'd think there is no point looking at US polls. Just concentrate on MI, PA, WI, OH, AZ [new ], MN, NV, NC. FL, possibly IA. Unless TX gives us a big surprise. In any case, it's the turnout of Blacks and Hispanics that will determine the outcome.
...and how good a job the GOP does of suppressing their votes
I agree with Surbiton; the states to watch haven't changed much since I wrote briefly about them in 2016:
“Stewart commented: “My disagreement would be that international trade negotiations are not like a rugby match. It might work in 80 minutes and pump people up, but you cannot do tariff schedules on the basis of a rugby match.” Trade negotiations cannot be won on the playing fields of Eton, he said.”
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
With all due respect, HYUFD, all you are measuring is name recognition at this point.
That's why Biden and Sanders were polling so well in Iowa in the Democratic primaries a year ago. And now that Iowans know the other candidates better, suddenly Biden and Sanders are polling much less well.
Name recognition, name recognition, always name recognition.
Harris got a huge profile in the last debate and still she does far less well v Trump than Biden does with ABC today
Which doesn't matter because it is still very premature.
How was David Cameron polling in next leader polls in 2004?
Cameron had far less name recognition in 2004 in the UK than Harris has today in the US, for starters the Democrats have already started their primary debates and he was not in the Shadow Cabinet, Harris is a prominent Senator
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Again, all you're doing is polling name recognition.
More than 40% of Independents say they don't know enough about Harris or Warren to judge them yet. The numbers jump to above 50% with O'Rourke and about 70% with Buttigieg.
538 had an interesting piece on the Primary debates. Unlike the POTUS ones, they really do change minds.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Again, all you're doing is polling name recognition.
More than 40% of Independents say they don't know enough about Harris or Warren to judge them yet. The numbers jump to above 50% with O'Rourke and about 70% with Buttigieg.
538 had an interesting piece on the Primary debates. Unlike the POTUS ones, they really do change minds.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Thank you for that information. So you agree, the more she becomes known the more she thumps the trump?
And you know his twitter nickname for her and line of attack he is using?
Biden 'thumps Trump', Harris does no better than Hillary did on that poll
But on this polling, early doors it is though, trend is her friend is it not?
Not really, she still does worse than Biden v Trump even with the black vote
No "even" about it. She's a prosecutor. Given the incredibly racist justice system in the US I'd expect her to be doing worse with black people than the general public.
The black electorate is rather more sophisticated than that.
“Stewart commented: “My disagreement would be that international trade negotiations are not like a rugby match. It might work in 80 minutes and pump people up, but you cannot do tariff schedules on the basis of a rugby match.” Trade negotiations cannot be won on the playing fields of Eton, he said.”
He's almost too literate for a modern politician, in some way.
Hopefully he himself is already in the process of changing such a climate.
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
With 151 seats needed for a majority then New Democracy has now crossed that threshold.
New Democracy on its highest share of the vote since 2007 and Syriza down about 4% on the last election with Golden Dawn also down 4%, little change elsewhere apart from the Varoufakis group enters the Parliament for the first time
Varoufakis is what Sandy Rentool uses as her avatar isn’t it?
But what is Socratic ignorance? Is it the difference between Yanis and syriza?
I think the Lib Dems have a real chance of displacing Labour as the main opposition. It's possible Labour will realise the danger it's in quickly enough that it gets rid of Corbyn before the next election. In that case Johnson is quite likely to win comfortably by splitting the opposition. But if the new Labour leader is able to establish themselves as the most plausible alternative to the Brexiteers, in which case Labour will probably win.
Politics is very fluid right now.
Labour aren't going to be changing leader before the next election, or it is very unlikely anyway.
Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it.
On current polling LDs + Greens substantially outpoll Labour on its own. In general I don't aggregate two poll results but that pact looks plausible to me.
Green voters will not shift en masse to the 'Tories' Little Helpers'. Much more likely to switch back to Labour at a GE.
Nah. Not only do the LibDems have a more convincing environmental offer, they like the Greens know where they stand on Brexit.
Eco-socialists won't be voting for the LibDems.
As with the other parties, the voters don’t mirror the activists.
He has a point, certainly for highly skilled apprenticeships. Those doing higher apprenticeships at Level 5 have higher lifetime earnings than those doing undergraduate degrees at all universities expect those studying at a Russell Group university.
An advanced apprentice at level 3 will also earn more than someone whose highest qualification is A Level.
I think the Lib Dems have a real chance of displacing Labour as the main opposition. It's possible Labour will realise the danger it's in quickly enough that it gets rid of Corbyn before the next election. In that case Johnson is quite likely to win comfortably by splitting the opposition. But if the new Labour leader is able to establish themselves as the most plausible alternative to the Brexiteers, in which case Labour will probably win.
Politics is very fluid right now.
Labour aren't going to be changing leader before the next election, or it is very unlikely anyway.
Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it.
On current polling LDs + Greens substantially outpoll Labour on its own. In general I don't aggregate two poll results but that pact looks plausible to me.
Green voters will not shift en masse to the 'Tories' Little Helpers'. Much more likely to switch back to Labour at a GE.
If things stay as current and the Lib Dems and the Greens arrange and explain their pact competently, I think most Greens would vote Lib Dem on a reciprocal basis. Some won't but the "Progressive Alliance" (out whatever it's called) should also get current Labour supporters in that scenario.
I think the Lib Dems have a real chance of displacing Labour as the main opposition. It's possible Labour will realise the danger it's in quickly enough that it gets rid of Corbyn before the next election. In that case Johnson is quite likely to win comfortably by splitting the opposition. But if the new Labour leader is able to establish themselves as the most plausible alternative to the Brexiteers, in which case Labour will probably win.
Politics is very fluid right now.
Labour aren't going to be changing leader before the next election, or it is very unlikely anyway.
Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it.
On current polling LDs + Greens substantially outpoll Labour on its own. In general I don't aggregate two poll results but that pact looks plausible to me.
Green voters will not shift en masse to the 'Tories' Little Helpers'. Much more likely to switch back to Labour at a GE.
If things stay as current and the Lib Dems and the Greens arrange and explain their pact competently, I think most Greens would vote Lib Dem on a reciprocal basis. Some won't but the "Progressive Alliance" (out whatever it's called) should also get current Labour supporters in that scenario.
That’s the key point. Done properly, and rowing in the ex Indy’s and perhaps some sort of understanding with smaller parties, a Green/LibDem alliance could be greater than the sum of its parts, and further push Labour off into irrelevance beyond its heartland seats.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Now, a question. How does this relate to the death of nuance?
First, some background. When I was at Goldman Sachs as a junior analyst in the late 1990s, I was once being very rude about a large European Computer Services company on which my boss was sceptical. (As in, he expected the share price to perform poorly.)
My boss said to me: Robert, like any large organisation, company x has good bits and bad bits. Its management make some good decisions and some bad ones. It's a mistake to think that - just because we're sceptical about the direction of travel of the organisation as a whole - everything about it is terrible.
That was probably one of the very best pieces of advice I've recived in my whole life. Simply, be nuanced.
And so I remember that, although I'm not generally a big fan of Trump, I need to look at each of his decisions in isolation. So, I heartily support his removal of the tax breaks on carried interest. I admire the steps his administration has taken to simplfy the US tax system, and to try and lower the price paid by Americans for pharmaceutical products. And I could go on. Simply, I'm remembering that not every thing he does is going to be bad or evil or wrong, and that he (like everyone else) will be a mix of right, wrong, competent, and incompetent.
Sadly, there seem to be very few commentators - either in our politics or on this board - who seem to apply the same principle to the EU. Either everything about the EU is amazing. Or it's all terrible.
This is most tortuous when it comes to the issue of free trade. The EU has weak domestic demand. Its citizens spend too little and save too much. There are two policy responses to insufficient aggregate demand. You can either stimulate domestic or external demand. The EU has few levers to stimulate domestic demand (and they also clash with the requirements to avoid running up further imbalances inside the Eurozone).
There remains therefore one option: increasing external demand. Free trade agreements will - ceteris paribus - boost external demand. Therefore the EU is instutionally rather in favour of them. This isn't because the EU is good or evil or anything else. It is because it is clearly in their aggregate interests to support them.
We need to see a bit more nuance on here.
If you can't recognise a dozen things that are good about your political opponents, then you have become blinkered.
Well said.
The world is shades of grey but too often people are drawn to viewing things as black or white.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
Has Hunt totally given up? After an at least interesting start I cannot recall anything he might have said or done in the last week.
He promised to hold a vote to end the hunting ban while doing a Rajoy and refusing to allow the SNP a second independence referendum in Scotland even if they won an outright majority at Holyrood. As he cannot out Brexit Boris he is trying desperately to throw Tory members any other bones he can having seen the latest membership polls
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
That would be an absolute disgrace and make us look bigger fools than we’re going to after you lot make Johnson pm. But then that must be a windup as nobody with a brain cell would do that
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
Syrizia doesn't seem too damaged despite the turmoil and reverse ferret over the bail outs. Very much an urban/rural divide though, with the interesting exception of Crete.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Really ! Then he wouldn’t be able to continue as head of the Brexit Party . Farage is the party . It would also send out a message that the UK intends to arse lick Trump.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
Our current Ambassador says the Donald needs to be told directly. Farage speaks directly. On that basis he's perfect for the job.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Certainly looks like poor little Donald's feelings have been hurt. 😢
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
In further news an unnamed nobody thinks it is possible that I might be appointed England football manager and England cricket captain.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Really ! Then he wouldn’t be able to continue as head of the Brexit Party . Farage is the party . It would also send out a message that the UK intends to arse lick Trump.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Certainly looks like poor little Donald's feelings have been hurt. 😢
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Really ! Then he wouldn’t be able to continue as head of the Brexit Party . Farage is the party . It would also send out a message that the UK intends to arse lick Trump.
PM Boris can kill 2 birds with one stone then
Appointing Farage might be a way to get rid of him but not sure his ego would cope with what is generally an appointment which doesn’t get much air time in the UK .
It would also cause a meltdown amongst some Tory MPs .
And he wouldn’t be allowed to be connected to the Brexit Party which is a much better vehicle for his ego .
I think this is one of those stories which is going nowhere and is the result of some fun and games at the foreign office .
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
It is well known the US appoints many unsuited people to be ambassadors because they are friends of or donors to political campaigners.
The question is whether we want untrained people to be our diplomats. Some say its fine, but even though some could be good at the job I note you avoided the question of what about Farage's experiences would translate well to the role. I framed it that way deliberately to account for lack of diplomatic experience not necessarily being a deal breaker.
Scottish Labour Leader Richard Leonard 'told how he had been “opposed to the Better Together campaign approach the Labour Party took” in the run-up to the 2014 vote – when Scots rejected independence and opted to stay in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent. Speaking in Motherwell to promote Labour’s policy for a “green industrial revolution” Leonard said: “I thought there should always have been then an autonomous, distinctive, Labour case made for voting ‘No’ in that referendum, but with a view to reform and change. “Nothing in my mind has changed about that.” He added that in the event of a future independence referendum campaign, Labour’s “distinctive” approach would be based on reform of the UK while remaining in the UK.'
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
In further news an unnamed nobody thinks it is possible that I might be appointed England football manager and England cricket captain.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
Our current Ambassador says the Donald needs to be told directly. Farage speaks directly. On that basis he's perfect for the job.
Would he be happy to rein himself in and only directly speak on issues the government directs him to?
It doesnt feel to me like Farage would enjoy the constraints of such a role.
Scottish Labour Leader Richard Leonard 'told how he had been “opposed to the Better Together campaign approach the Labour Party took” in the run-up to the 2014 vote – when Scots rejected independence and opted to stay in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent. Speaking in Motherwell to promote Labour’s policy for a “green industrial revolution” Leonard said: “I thought there should always have been then an autonomous, distinctive, Labour case made for voting ‘No’ in that referendum, but with a view to reform and change. “Nothing in my mind has changed about that.” He added that in the event of a future independence referendum campaign, Labour’s “distinctive” approach would be based on reform of the UK while remaining in the UK.'
Any and all splits in Unionist ranks are to be welcomed.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
Convention can be dispensed with if necessary
What's necessary about it here? What advantages are there to doing so, given friendly personal relations with the incumbent head of government are not the sort of thing that justifies ignoring any other points?
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
Scottish Labour Leader Richard Leonard 'told how he had been “opposed to the Better Together campaign approach the Labour Party took” in the run-up to the 2014 vote – when Scots rejected independence and opted to stay in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent. Speaking in Motherwell to promote Labour’s policy for a “green industrial revolution” Leonard said: “I thought there should always have been then an autonomous, distinctive, Labour case made for voting ‘No’ in that referendum, but with a view to reform and change. “Nothing in my mind has changed about that.” He added that in the event of a future independence referendum campaign, Labour’s “distinctive” approach would be based on reform of the UK while remaining in the UK.'
Any and all splits in Unionist ranks are to be welcomed.
What is needed to appeal to a traditional Labour middle aged working class potential No voter in the Central belt is different to what is needed to appeal to a traditional Tory pensioner potential No voter in the Scottish borders so I have no problem with it
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
Convention can be dispensed with if necessary
What's necessary about it here? What advantages are there to doing so, given friendly personal relations with the incumbent head of government are not the sort of thing that justifies ignoring any other points?
If you don't have good relations with the current government then by definition you cannot get anything else done to press your country's interests
This is a very interesting header and thought-provoking.
But I take issue with some of what is said.
Take this - “This is a career crisis. If politicians are not going to offer policy, what are they going to offer?”
It seems to me that the most important thing politicians offer - or should offer - is not their policy slate but their judgment, their political character, their default instincts - what you think or trust they will do when events happen.
Certainly, that is how I judge politicians. So maybe it is only me, in which case this comment is pointless. But bear with me,
It seems to me that in recent years we have devalued the importance of judgment, of understanding the difference between “can” and “should”, the value of moral character. Having information is not the same as having the judgment to decide what to do with it. And that is where the real skill of the professional is. What is often forgotten, with the focus on data, is that at the heart of everything, are humans. The stuff that goes wrong - certainly in my sector - is because someone somewhere decided to do the wrong thing or failed to do the right thing. Understanding the human heart is the single most important skill we need, whatever we do, no matter how much data or information we have. Being trustworthy really matters. I often used to tell my team that what really marked us out was not our technical abilities and knowledge etc, brilliant as these were, but that people knew they could trust us, that when the bullets were flying overhead it was us the they wanted in the trenches beside them helping them.
Part of the reason for the rise in populist politicians is because they seem to speak to or about people as individuals, as humans. And that, coupled with a simple - if often simplistic - analysis of a mass of often confusing information is very attractive. Making sense of that information is harder than it seems. The devaluation of experience and wisdom and judgment - the malicious assumption that an elite is somehow wrong and out to get you - has been immensely damaging. And into that vacuum have flown people with little knowledge and superficially attractive solutions.
It is like the old legal joke. The barrister explains something to a judge who at the end of the explanation says:
“Mr X, thank you. But I am none the wiser.”
“Yes, my Lord. But you are better informed.”
We are all better informed, if we want to be. Whether we are wiser is quite another matter.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
That's true. But in the US ambassadors are appointed in reward for previous support to the President. The UK takes them from a pool although they have been occasionally offered to others (was the rumour that Heath was offered US Ambassador by Thatcher substantiated?)
I hate to be that guy, but we have Trump demanding that an ambassador be fired, then Farage jumps in and soon, no doubt, Boris will answer his mas...sorry, his own conscience and, ever so reluctantly, fire a British Civil Servant for wrongspeak.
Scottish Labour Leader Richard Leonard 'told how he had been “opposed to the Better Together campaign approach the Labour Party took” in the run-up to the 2014 vote – when Scots rejected independence and opted to stay in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent. Speaking in Motherwell to promote Labour’s policy for a “green industrial revolution” Leonard said: “I thought there should always have been then an autonomous, distinctive, Labour case made for voting ‘No’ in that referendum, but with a view to reform and change. “Nothing in my mind has changed about that.” He added that in the event of a future independence referendum campaign, Labour’s “distinctive” approach would be based on reform of the UK while remaining in the UK.'
Any and all splits in Unionist ranks are to be welcomed.
What is needed to appeal to a traditional Labour middle aged working class potential No voter in the Central belt is different to what is needed to appeal to a traditional Tory pensioner potential No voter in the Scottish borders so I have no problem with it
That old Lib Dem trick of giving contradictory messages to different geographical groups doesn’t work in the internet age. The No side will be a laughing stock within days of the campaign starting.
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
Convention can be dispensed with if necessary
What's necessary about it here? What advantages are there to doing so, given friendly personal relations with the incumbent head of government are not the sort of thing that justifies ignoring any other points?
If you don't have good relations with the current government then by definition you cannot get anything else done to press your country's interests
I didn't say good relations or at least professional relations are not important. I said they dont justify ignoring any other points. An actual diplomat could have good relations too.
You've yet to provide any explanation ad to why the unqualified Farage is a necessary or even good appointment. Steve garner at least gave it a shot.
Your logic appears to be suggesting ambassadors could only ever serve as long as a leader they were buddies with were in office, basically letting other countries screen our diplomats.
I'm going to bed, but I'll be fascinated to see if you even attempt to explain why Farage's skills would make him a good choice for the role, and you've side stepped it twice.
Perhaps they should blindside everyone by campaigning for Yes.
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
No, it is still about 50% Yes to 50% No in Scotland on any indyref2 even with No Deal.
The LDs are even more Unionist than the Tories in Scotland now (given without Scotland it is more difficult to get the votes to reverse Brexit) and of course the Scottish LDs beat Scottish Labour in the European elections.
Without SNP MPs propping him up bang goes Corbyn's chance of becoming PM in all likelihood though
On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC
Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
More to the point how many have made being undiplomatic their profession?
This is a very interesting header and thought-provoking.
But I take issue with some of what is said.
Take this - “This is a career crisis. If politicians are not going to offer policy, what are they going to offer?”
It seems to me that the most important thing politicians offer - or should offer - is not their policy slate but their judgment, their political character, their default instincts - what you think or trust they will do when events happen.
Certainly, that is how I judge politicians. So maybe it is only me, in which case this comment is pointless. But bear with me,
It seems to me that in recent years we have devalued the importance of judgment, of understanding the difference between “can” and “should”, the value of moral character. Having information is not the same as having the judgment to decide what to do with it. And that is where the real skill of the professional is. What is often forgotten, with the focus on data, is that at the heart of everything, are humans. The stuff that goes wrong - certainly in my sector - is because someone somewhere decided to do the wrong thing or failed to do the right thing. Understanding the human heart is the single most important skill we need, whatever we do, no matter how much data or information we have. Being trustworthy really matters. I often used to tell my team that what really marked us out was not our technical abilities and knowledge etc, brilliant as these were, but that people knew they could trust us, that when the bullets were flying overhead it was us the they wanted in the trenches beside them helping them.
Part of the reason for the rise in populist politicians is because they seem to speak to or about people as individuals, as humans. And that, coupled with a simple - if often simplistic - analysis of a mass of often confusing information is very attractive. Making sense of that information is harder than it seems. The devaluation of experience and wisdom and judgment - the malicious assumption that an elite is somehow wrong and out to get you - has been immensely damaging. And into that vacuum have flown people with little knowledge and superficially attractive solutions.
We are all better informed, if we want to be. Whether we are wiser is quite another matter.
It seems to me that the most important thing politicians offer - or should offer - is not their policy slate but their judgment, their political character, their default instincts - what you think or trust they will do when events happen.
That might work if you want a parliament of respected backbenchers or possibly some small local council.
But it wont if you want a government which actually does anything contentious.
And I think in the age of social media its going to be increasingly difficult to get politicians of the moral character and judgement you want.
Perhaps they should blindside everyone by campaigning for Yes.
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
Without Labour backing the Union it is finished.
Utter rubbish. Scottish Labour is a dead carcass of a party now, 5th in Scotland in the European elections, behind the Brexit Party, the LDs and the Tories. The latter 3 are more staunchly Unionist than Labour and now have more Scottish voters than Scottish Labour too.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories or Brexit Party by backing Yes it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway and will not go back to Labour.
We're supposed to live in an information age, but I found that no-one was putting the local election results into a simple-to-read format on a spreadsheet, which is why I started doing it a few years ago.
Perhaps they should blindside everyone by campaigning for Yes.
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
Without Labour backing the Union it is finished.
Utter rubbish. Scottish Labour is a dead carcass of a party now, 5th in Scotland in the European elections, behind the Brexit Party, the LDs and the Tories. The latter 3 are more staunchly Unionist than Labour and now have more Scottish voters than Scottish Labour too.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway
I love how you quote stale three year old opinion polls when it suits you, and switch to minuscule turnout, ultra odd, recent Euro results when those suit better.
Labour is the bulwark holding the Union together. I realise that Tories detest that concept, but it is nevertheless true.
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
Syrizia doesn't seem too damaged despite the turmoil and reverse ferret over the bail outs. Very much an urban/rural divide though, with the interesting exception of Crete.
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
Syrizia doesn't seem too damaged despite the turmoil and reverse ferret over the bail outs. Very much an urban/rural divide though, with the interesting exception of Crete.
I think Crete always been left-wing and before that a stronghold of Republican supporters.
It looks like Thessalonika has voted for ND which seems surprising - I would have thought it was an old industrial city but maybe it isn't.
Crete is an anomalously interesting place in a lot of ways. A bit closed-off to other Greeks - Cretans notoriously stick together in business, for instance - with a funny mix of ultra-conservatism in the interior of the island and a more general history of radicalism and republicanism on the coastal and more educated bits. Also some stunning Minoan-alike beauties here and there.
Perhaps they should blindside everyone by campaigning for Yes.
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
Without Labour backing the Union it is finished.
Utter rubbish. Scottish Labour is a dead carcass of a party now, 5th in Scotland in the European elections, behind the Brexit Party, the LDs and the Tories. The latter 3 are more staunchly Unionist than Labour and now have more Scottish voters than Scottish Labour too.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway
I love how you quote stale three year old opinion polls when it suits you, and switch to minuscule turnout, ultra odd, recent Euro results when those suit better.
Labour is the bulwark holding the Union together. I realise that Tories detest that concept, but it is nevertheless true.
Yet again, rubbish. Labour voters who are Unionists maybe a key part of the No Coalition but not the Labour leadership, if the Labour leadership abandons its Unionist voters by backing Yes they will defect to the LDs, the Brexit Party or Ruth Davidson's Tories who actually will still back the Union without winning any Yes voters back from the SNP. Thus the Labour leadership will finally be left with no voters and no party to lead and go the way of the Dodo
We're supposed to live in an information age, but I found that no-one was putting the local election results into a simple-to-read format on a spreadsheet, which is why I started doing it a few years ago.
You try getting hold of some info. @Hyfud has repeatedly referred to the odds of Reagan and Bush I being the nominee for Republican candidate in 80, 84, 88 and 92, but he won't volunteer them and I can't find them. Similarly, tell me what the Betfair exchange odds were for the 2005 election: I can't find them.
Shutting the Scottish exchanges in the 60s and 70s was one of the nails in the coffin of Scottish Toryism. Perhaps second only to the idiotic takeover of the Unionist Party by the Conservative Party of England and Wales, in 1965.
We're supposed to live in an information age, but I found that no-one was putting the local election results into a simple-to-read format on a spreadsheet, which is why I started doing it a few years ago.
A good point, which casts a little doubt on the assertion that we live in a “world of abundant knowledge that is effortlessly accessible....”. Though I suppose your spreadsheet is now part of that abundant knowledge.
To say that it’s not valued would, however, be quite wrong.
Perhaps they should blindside everyone by campaigning for Yes.
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
Without Labour backing the Union it is finished.
Utter rubbish. Scottish Labour is a dead carcass of a party now, 5th in Scotland in the European elections, behind the Brexit Party, the LDs and the Tories. The latter 3 are more staunchly Unionist than Labour and now have more Scottish voters than Scottish Labour too.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway
I love how you quote stale three year old opinion polls when it suits you, and switch to minuscule turnout, ultra odd, recent Euro results when those suit better.
Labour is the bulwark holding the Union together. I realise that Tories detest that concept, but it is nevertheless true.
Yet again, rubbish. Labour voters who are Unionists maybe a key part of the No Coalition but not the Labour leadership, if the Labour leadership abandons its Unionist voters by backing Yes they will defect to the LDs, the Brexit Party or Ruth Davidson's Tories who actually will still back the Union without winning any Yes voters back from the SNP. Thus the Labour leadership will finally be left with no voters and no party to lead and go the way of the Dodo
Only Scottish independence can now save Labour from dodo territory.
It is fun to hear a Tory scoffing about another party “with no voters and no party to lead and going the way of the Dodo”. Oh, to see oursels as ithers see us!
Shutting the Scottish exchanges in the 60s and 70s was one of the nails in the coffin of Scottish Toryism. Perhaps second only to the idiotic takeover of the Unionist Party by the Conservative Party of England and Wales, in 1965.
Really? Seems a somewhat niche issue to fall over.
Shutting the Scottish exchanges in the 60s and 70s was one of the nails in the coffin of Scottish Toryism. Perhaps second only to the idiotic takeover of the Unionist Party by the Conservative Party of England and Wales, in 1965.
Really? Seems a somewhat niche issue to fall over.
“Niche”??
How “niche” would the issue be if Brussels shut the London stock exchange?
Shutting the Scottish exchanges in the 60s and 70s was one of the nails in the coffin of Scottish Toryism. Perhaps second only to the idiotic takeover of the Unionist Party by the Conservative Party of England and Wales, in 1965.
Really? Seems a somewhat niche issue to fall over.
“Niche”??
How “niche” would the issue be if Brussels shut the London stock exchange?
Interesting that the white paper on independence didn't propose a new stock exchange, and that London was good enough.
Saying that, if you had actual evidence to back up your claim that would certainly change my mind.
Perhaps they should blindside everyone by campaigning for Yes.
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
Without Labour backing the Union it is finished.
Utter rubbish. Scottish Labour is a dead carcass of a party now, 5th in Scotland in the European elections, behind the Brexit Party, the LDs and the Tories. The latter 3 are more staunchly Unionist than Labour and now have more Scottish voters than Scottish Labour too.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway
I love how you quote stale three year old opinion polls when it suits you, and switch to minuscule turnout, ultra odd, recent Euro results when those suit better.
Labour is the bulwark holding the Union together. I realise that Tories detest that concept, but it is nevertheless true.
Yet again, rubbish. Labour voters who are Unionists maybe a key part of the No Coalition but not the Labour lead and go the way of the Dodo
Only Scottish independence can now save Labour from dodo territory.
It is fun to hear a Tory scoffing about another party “with no voters and no party to lead and going the way of the Dodo”. Oh, to see oursels as ithers see us!
Scottish Labour are not going to win back any Yes voters from the SNP now and Richard Leonard does not have the charisma to even try to be able to do so.
Meanwhile Labour Unionist voters would desert the party en masse.
The Scottish Tories were second at the last general election in Scotland behind the SNP and beat Scottish Labour in the Scottish European elections even while losing voters to the Brexit Party.
The Tories north of the border are in far better shape than Labour with a far more charismatic leader too and one who actually does back the Union.
If Scottish Labour went Yes it would be obliterated at the next general and Holyrood elections with Yes backers still voting SNP or Green and No Remain voters going LD and No Leave voters going Tory or Brexit Party
Shutting the Scottish exchanges in the 60s and 70s was one of the nails in the coffin of Scottish Toryism. Perhaps second only to the idiotic takeover of the Unionist Party by the Conservative Party of England and Wales, in 1965.
Really? Seems a somewhat niche issue to fall over.
“Niche”??
How “niche” would the issue be if Brussels shut the London stock exchange?
Interesting that the white paper on independence didn't propose a new stock exchange, and that London was good enough.
Saying that, if you had actual evidence to back up your claim that would certainly change my mind.
There are many, many nails in the coffin of Scottish Toryism, and ranking them is really just a matter of judgment based on knowledge. I’d say that on both scores you are heavily out-ranked.
If they do that bang goes Corbyn's chance of No 10 as he needs SNP MPs for that
So you’re assuming that without Labour on the No side, it’s all over?
Without Labour backing the Union it is finished.
Utter rubbish. Scottish Labour is a dead carcass of a party now, 5th in Scotland in the European elections, behind the Brexit Party, the LDs and the Tories. The latter 3 are more staunchly Unionist than Labour and now have more Scottish voters than Scottish Labour too.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway
I love how you quote stale three year old opinion polls when it suits you, and switch to minuscule turnout, ultra odd, recent Euro results when those suit better.
Labour is the bulwark holding the Union together. I realise that Tories detest that concept, but it is nevertheless true.
Yet again, rubbish. Labour voters who are Unionists maybe a key part of the No Coalition but not the Labour lead and go the way of the Dodo
Only Scottish independence can now save Labour from dodo territory.
It is fun to hear a Tory scoffing about another party “with no voters and no party to lead and going the way of the Dodo”. Oh, to see oursels as ithers see us!
Scottish Labour are not going to win back any Yes voters from the SNP now and Richard Leonard does not have the charisma to even try to be able to do so.
Meanwhile Labour Unionist voters would desert the party en masse.
The Scottish Tories were second at the last general election in Scotland behind the SNP and beat Scottish Labour in the Scottish European elections even while losing voters to the Brexit Party.
The Tories north of the border are in far better shape than Labour with a far more charismatic leader too and one who actually does back the Union.
If Scottish Labour went Yes it would be obliterated at the next general and Holyrood elections with Yes backers still voting SNP or Green and No Remain voters going LD and No Leave voters going Tory or Brexit Party
You just don’t get it. You are going on as if the Union would still be in existence. If Labour switch sides, it is game over for the Union. We would be starting afresh. On both sides of the border.
Comments
Edit: see Foxy explained this.
How was David Cameron polling in next leader polls in 2004?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/
“Stewart commented: “My disagreement would be that international trade negotiations are not like a rugby match. It might work in 80 minutes and pump people up, but you cannot do tariff schedules on the basis of a rugby match.” Trade negotiations cannot be won on the playing fields of Eton, he said.”
Hopefully he himself is already in the process of changing such a climate.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/07/university-isnt-everyone-need-apprenticeships/
An advanced apprentice at level 3 will also earn more than someone whose highest qualification is A Level.
https://www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/levels-of-success-apprenticeships-earnings/
I am going to have to raise my game, I see.
Anyway, having a lovely time in Manchester this evening!
The world is shades of grey but too often people are drawn to viewing things as black or white.
It looks like Thessalonika has voted for ND which seems surprising - I would have thought it was an old industrial city but maybe it isn't.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-ditch-better-together-17483692.amp
😢
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/07/donald-trump-aides-call-kim-darroch-sacked-leak-damning-cable/
It would also cause a meltdown amongst some Tory MPs .
And he wouldn’t be allowed to be connected to the Brexit Party which is a much better vehicle for his ego .
I think this is one of those stories which is going nowhere and is the result of some fun and games at the foreign office .
The question is whether we want untrained people to be our diplomats. Some say its fine, but even though some could be good at the job I note you avoided the question of what about Farage's experiences would translate well to the role. I framed it that way deliberately to account for lack of diplomatic experience not necessarily being a deal breaker.
Best prices:
LD 1/6
Con 8/1
Bxp 11/1
Lab 100/1
Speaking in Motherwell to promote Labour’s policy for a “green industrial revolution” Leonard said: “I thought there should always have been then an autonomous, distinctive, Labour case made for voting ‘No’ in that referendum, but with a view to reform and change.
“Nothing in my mind has changed about that.”
He added that in the event of a future independence referendum campaign, Labour’s “distinctive” approach would be based on reform of the UK while remaining in the UK.'
Will a fanboy like Nige be inclined to do that? Unlikely.
It doesnt feel to me like Farage would enjoy the constraints of such a role.
But I take issue with some of what is said.
Take this - “This is a career crisis. If politicians are not going to offer policy, what are they going to offer?”
It seems to me that the most important thing politicians offer - or should offer - is not their policy slate but their judgment, their political character, their default instincts - what you think or trust they will do when events happen.
Certainly, that is how I judge politicians. So maybe it is only me, in which case this comment is pointless. But bear with me,
It seems to me that in recent years we have devalued the importance of judgment, of understanding the difference between “can” and “should”, the value of moral character. Having information is not the same as having the judgment to decide what to do with it. And that is where the real skill of the professional is. What is often forgotten, with the focus on data, is that at the heart of everything, are humans. The stuff that goes wrong - certainly in my sector - is because someone somewhere decided to do the wrong thing or failed to do the right thing. Understanding the human heart is the single most important skill we need, whatever we do, no matter how much data or information we have. Being trustworthy really matters. I often used to tell my team that what really marked us out was not our technical abilities and knowledge etc, brilliant as these were, but that people knew they could trust us, that when the bullets were flying overhead it was us the they wanted in the trenches beside them helping them.
Part of the reason for the rise in populist politicians is because they seem to speak to or about people as individuals, as humans. And that, coupled with a simple - if often simplistic - analysis of a mass of often confusing information is very attractive. Making sense of that information is harder than it seems. The devaluation of experience and wisdom and judgment - the malicious assumption that an elite is somehow wrong and out to get you - has been immensely damaging. And into that vacuum have flown people with little knowledge and superficially attractive solutions.
It is like the old legal joke. The barrister explains something to a judge who at the end of the explanation says:
“Mr X, thank you. But I am none the wiser.”
“Yes, my Lord. But you are better informed.”
We are all better informed, if we want to be. Whether we are wiser is quite another matter.
I hate to be that guy, but we have Trump demanding that an ambassador be fired, then Farage jumps in and soon, no doubt, Boris will answer his mas...sorry, his own conscience and, ever so reluctantly, fire a British Civil Servant for wrongspeak.
Cynical? Moi? Heaven forfend.
https://www.dw.com/en/african-leaders-launch-landmark-55-nation-trade-zone/a-49503393
You've yet to provide any explanation ad to why the unqualified Farage is a necessary or even good appointment. Steve garner at least gave it a shot.
Your logic appears to be suggesting ambassadors could only ever serve as long as a leader they were buddies with were in office, basically letting other countries screen our diplomats.
I'm going to bed, but I'll be fascinated to see if you even attempt to explain why Farage's skills would make him a good choice for the role, and you've side stepped it twice.
The LDs are even more Unionist than the Tories in Scotland now (given without Scotland it is more difficult to get the votes to reverse Brexit) and of course the Scottish LDs beat Scottish Labour in the European elections.
Without SNP MPs propping him up bang goes Corbyn's chance of becoming PM in all likelihood though
Bigger on betfair though.
So I guess I don't like it.
Although “neutrality” on the constitutional question is more feasible (and would be widely interpreted as much the same thing).
That might work if you want a parliament of respected backbenchers or possibly some small local council.
But it wont if you want a government which actually does anything contentious.
And I think in the age of social media its going to be increasingly difficult to get politicians of the moral character and judgement you want.
Indeed if Scottish Labour abandons its Unionist voters to the LDs or Scottish Tories or Brexit Party by backing Yes it will finally die given its nationalist voters are already voting SNP anyway and will not go back to Labour.
Labour is the bulwark holding the Union together. I realise that Tories detest that concept, but it is nevertheless true.
http://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1147977821211566080
To say that it’s not valued would, however, be quite wrong.
Coughcoughcorruptioncoughcough...
It is fun to hear a Tory scoffing about another party “with no voters and no party to lead and going the way of the Dodo”. Oh, to see oursels as ithers see us!
How “niche” would the issue be if Brussels shut the London stock exchange?
I so wish he was Labour Leader .
Saying that, if you had actual evidence to back up your claim that would certainly change my mind.
Meanwhile Labour Unionist voters would desert the party en masse.
The Scottish Tories were second at the last general election in Scotland behind the SNP and beat Scottish Labour in the Scottish European elections even while losing voters to the Brexit Party.
The Tories north of the border are in far better shape than Labour with a far more charismatic leader too and one who actually does back the Union.
If Scottish Labour went Yes it would be obliterated at the next general and Holyrood elections with Yes backers still voting SNP or Green and No Remain voters going LD and No Leave voters going Tory or Brexit Party