Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
You haven't spent much time on Twitter if you think Patel isn't despised and mocked as out of her depth all the time. The Remainiacs podcast team do it all the time.
I would also disagree the right is more sexist/racist than the left. The degree of antisemitism among Corbynites was shocking and Labour is about to elect its 23rd white man in a row as leader.
The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.
Can you explain what you mean by that please?
Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.
Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
The Lib Dems are in a far better position strategically at the next election than at the last two. When I get time, I'll do a thread header on this.
They also have the advantage (and it is an advantage) that the next Labour leader is likely to be much less polarising than the current one. That means that the Tories shouting about the risk of letting Labour in is likely to be much less effective than it was last time around.
Right now the Conservatives have the field to themselves as both the Lib Dems and Labour regroup. My advice to both of those parties would be to hold their nerve and to be true to their values.
Rank and file Conservatives are drawing exactly the wrong lesson from the last election. They are mistaking hatred of Jeremy Corbyn for adoration of Brexit. If the Conservative leadership make the same mistake, they are going to be very out of tune at the next election.
Why did the people who voted for Corbyn in 2017 hate him two and a half years later?
2017.. Corbyn vs May, both say they will implement Brexit, Hung Parliament
2019... Corbyn vs supposedly not that popular Boris, Tories say they'll implement Brexit/Labour say 2nd ref... Big Tory Maj
You say Boris is not really popular, and he didn't get any more votes than May really... so what is the different variable
The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.
Can you explain what you mean by that please?
Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.
Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
The Lib Dems are in a far better position strategically at the next election than at the last two. When I get time, I'll do a thread header on this.
They also have the advantage (and it is an advantage) that the next Labour leader is likely to be much less polarising than the current one. That means that the Tories shouting about the risk of letting Labour in is likely to be much less effective than it was last time around.
Right now the Conservatives have the field to themselves as both the Lib Dems and Labour regroup. My advice to both of those parties would be to hold their nerve and to be true to their values.
Rank and file Conservatives are drawing exactly the wrong lesson from the last election. They are mistaking hatred of Jeremy Corbyn for adoration of Brexit. If the Conservative leadership make the same mistake, they are going to be very out of tune at the next election.
Why did the people who voted for Corbyn in 2017 hate him two and a half years later?
2017.. Corbyn vs May, both say they will implement Brexit, Hung Parliament
2019... Corbyn vs supposedly not that popular Boris, Tories say they'll implement Brexit/Labour say 2nd ref... Big Tory Maj
You say Boris is not really popular, and he didn't get any more votes than May really... so what is the different variable
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
If Labour do not support an explicit Rejoin position under the next leader the Lib Dems should go for it fullthroatedly. They should be pro-EU, pro-Euro, pro-Schengen, pro-FoM. It is so much easier to defend a consistently internationalist position than hedging your bets.
This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
A little is probably down to PP being easier on the eye than Diane. It's shallow, but, arguably, it's driven by evolutionary biology. It's hard to escape the Pretty = Good genetic hardwiring.
The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.
Can you explain what you mean by that please?
Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.
Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
The Lib Dems are in a far better position strategically at the next election than at the last two. When I get time, I'll do a thread header on this.
They also have the advantage (and it is an advantage) that the next Labour leader is likely to be much less polarising than the current one. That means that the Tories shouting about the risk of letting Labour in is likely to be much less effective than it was last time around.
Right now the Conservatives have the field to themselves as both the Lib Dems and Labour regroup. My advice to both of those parties would be to hold their nerve and to be true to their values.
Rank and file Conservatives are drawing exactly the wrong lesson from the last election. They are mistaking hatred of Jeremy Corbyn for adoration of Brexit. If the Conservative leadership make the same mistake, they are going to be very out of tune at the next election.
Why did the people who voted for Corbyn in 2017 hate him two and a half years later?
2017.. Corbyn vs May, both say they will implement Brexit, Hung Parliament
2019... Corbyn vs supposedly not that popular Boris, Tories say they'll implement Brexit/Labour say 2nd ref... Big Tory Maj
You say Boris is not really popular, and he didn't get any more votes than May really... so what is the different variable
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
Of course I do, that's why Boris has a large majority. Labour reneged on their promise to implement the referendum result, so their Leave voters went elsewhere
What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?
We don't know.
He has claws, we know that. His response to Warren over the wine dinner affair was brutal and brilliant. It lost him votes, sure, but it also made it clear that he would strike back. (Warren undoubtedly lost as much, if not more, than him from the exchange.)
But he's also wonderfully clean cut, and wholesome, and really not that threatening to moderate Republicans. He's a veteran, who's at home talking about his faith, and who isn't going to take away your healthcare.
On the debate stage, he hasn't frozen up: he's been calm and collected and articulate. And he's steadily climbed in the "could you vote for this man" stakes as the contest has lengthened.
But he's still a long way from the nomination. He needs Klobuchar to drop out after New Hampshire, and ideally endorse him. He needs Biden to flop in both NH and then in Nevada, and for the Biden funding taps to dry up. He ideally needs to start eating into Bloomberg's 10+% national poll shares.
He could win. He's certainly better value than 1-in-10. But he's far from certain.
The lesson I have learned from Trump is that someone can have all the characteristics to despise, yet you'll support him because you believe he will give you something.
Evangelicals support Trump because he's doing things that restrict the availability of abortion. And for this, they forgive him for being an adulterer who's (allegedly) paid for a mistress to have an abortion.
People vote for those who they think will bring them baubles.
There's a left-right asymmetry. Those on the left are more concerned about unsuitability.
The phenomenon can be seen in Britain. Before July there was no shortage of Conservatives who regarded Boris Johnson as wholly unfit to be Prime Minister. He then proceeded to try to suspend democracy.
Come December, he won a thumping majority, because those same Conservatives decided that electing a leader who made a full-frontal assault on democracy was ok so long as Brexit was secured.
I would have preferred to remain in the EU, but I voted Conservative to secure capitalism and property rights. The brief suspension of Parliament was as irrelevant to my decison as it was to most people.
The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.
Can you explain what you mean by that please?
Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.
Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
The Lib Dems are in a far better position strategically at the next election than at the last two. When I get time, I'll do a thread header on this.
They also have the advantage (and it is an advantage) that the next Labour leader is likely to be much less polarising than the current one. That means that the Tories shouting about the risk of letting Labour in is likely to be much less effective than it was last time around.
Right now the Conservatives have the field to themselves as both the Lib Dems and Labour regroup. My advice to both of those parties would be to hold their nerve and to be true to their values.
Rank and file Conservatives are drawing exactly the wrong lesson from the last election. They are mistaking hatred of Jeremy Corbyn for adoration of Brexit. If the Conservative leadership make the same mistake, they are going to be very out of tune at the next election.
To some extent I agree.
While the last election was between Boris and Corbyn and getting Brexit done or further delay, the next general election is likely to be between Boris and Starmer and hard Brexit and WTO+ trade deal with Boris or soft Brexit and back to the single market with Starmer
That’s not quite right. It would be if we had another election this autumn, but not in four years time.
It will be between whatever the new status quo is that Boris has negotiated and implemented versus ‘something else’, which could be building on that with a closer relationship in specific programmes or areas, or opening it up all over again.
Brexit (should) have fully taken effect by 2024, assuming we don’t get a No Deal calamity, so the battlelines will be different and titled differently.
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
Also, Priti Patel is in a position of power.
Another factor could be because Diane Abbott plays a political tune on race, whereas Priti Patel almost never does.
Indeed. Her take is that with the exception of Biden, she doesn't think it matters who the Dems nominate. She reckons Biden is risky as he is the most "status quo" compared to Trump's insurgency.
Funny that you (and she) should say that because I too have deep reservations about Biden and I'd be worried if he got the Nom. To me, he looks like a man who is just "going over". You can't start a 4 year term like that. You will be pretty much gone well before the end of it. It happens at different ages to different people. For example, over here in the media field, Jon Snow is "going over" at 72, whereas John Humphrys remains sharp as a tack at 76.
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
For me, I`d say that I am not (yet) convinced that Patel IS out of her depth whereas I`m totally convinced that Abbott is.
The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.
Can you explain what you mean by that please?
Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.
Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
It would be a start if the LibDems put forward what liberalism actually is. It isn`t difficult. It wouldn`t frighten the horses.
Their drift into collectivist ideology is very disconcerting indeed.
They could take a sensible middle ground on identity politics, similar to what Barack Obama has recently tried to do.
This is probably going to be the defining political dividing line of the 2020s, and it’s arguably what underlay Brexit itself.
If I were them I’d put their best thinkers on it.
People tie themselves in knots over identity politics when it isn't hard to articulate a position that almost everyone can back. The key is to treat everyone like individuals, while acknowledging the prejudicial barriers individuals from some groups need to constantly overcome.
"People of all backgrounds, regardless of ethnicity, genders or sexuality, want the same thing. To have a fair shot at a good life for them and their friends and family. The government needs to work hard to make that a reality, and that means breaking down the prejudices and disadvantages that some groups face."
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
Also, Priti Patel is in a position of power.
Another factor could be because Diane Abbott plays a political tune on race, whereas Priti Patel almost never does.
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
A little is probably down to PP being easier on the eye than Diane. It's shallow, but, arguably, it's driven by evolutionary biology. It's hard to escape the Pretty = Good genetic hardwiring.
Leavers aren't prepared even to let Remainers have a voice in opposition.
This reminds me of all the kind advice from committed Conservatives about who the next Labour leader should be and what policies should be adopted. It is much appreciated.
Why did the people who voted for Corbyn in 2017 hate him two and a half years later?
2017.. Corbyn vs May, both say they will implement Brexit, Hung Parliament
2019... Corbyn vs supposedly not that popular Boris, Tories say they'll implement Brexit/Labour say 2nd ref... Big Tory Maj
You say Boris is not really popular, and he didn't get any more votes than May really... so what is the different variable
Corbyn's personal ratings had also been absolutely hammered by anti-semitism. It was hard to sustain the plucky underdog/magic grandpa appeal of 2017 when the view was pretty widespread that he was either anti-semitic or sympathetic to friends and fellow travelers who were.
This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
Also, Priti Patel is in a position of power.
Another factor could be because Diane Abbott plays a political tune on race, whereas Priti Patel almost never does.
There are very, very few BAME people in Patel's constituency. A few newsagents, some GP's and pharmacists in Witham town itself, but that's about it.
Apparently there's set to be a reshuffle on Thursday. Is there any betting anywhere on who might be in/out of the cabinet?
Ladbrokes usually have a 'Next person to leave the Cabinet' market up - be prepared for it to settle under dead head rules if there's a wide reshuffle though. If you've a fiver on someone and five people leave the same day, you'll get paid out as if you only had a pound on them.
If Labour do not support an explicit Rejoin position under the next leader the Lib Dems should go for it fullthroatedly. They should be pro-EU, pro-Euro, pro-Schengen, pro-FoM. It is so much easier to defend a consistently internationalist position than hedging your bets.
If they are sensible they will stick to single market for now, most of their target seats in London and the South would be ready for that but not joining the Euro
Leavers aren't prepared even to let Remainers have a voice in opposition.
This reminds me of all the kind advice from committed Conservatives about who the next Labour leader should be and what policies should be adopted. It is much appreciated.
Yes, I agree, one shouldn`t give unsolicited advice.
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They remind me of the poker player who sold everything he had and put it all on red.
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
Also, Priti Patel is in a position of power.
Another factor could be because Diane Abbott plays a political tune on race, whereas Priti Patel almost never does.
There are very, very few BAME people in Patel's constituency. A few newsagents, some GP's and pharmacists in Witham town itself, but that's about it.
I am supposed to be playing football at Witham Sports Ground tomorrow!
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
A little is probably down to PP being easier on the eye than Diane. It's shallow, but, arguably, it's driven by evolutionary biology. It's hard to escape the Pretty = Good genetic hardwiring.
The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.
Can you explain what you mean by that please?
Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.
Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
The Lib Dems are in a far better position strategically at the next election than at the last two. When I get time, I'll do a thread header on this.
They also have the advantage (and it is an advantage) that the . If the Conservative leadership make the same mistake, they are going to be very out of tune at the next election.
To some extent I agree.
While the last election was between Boris and Corbyn and getting Brexit done or further delay, the next general election is likely to be between Boris and Starmer and hard Brexit and WTO+ trade deal with Boris or soft Brexit and back to the single market with Starmer
That’s not quite right. It would be if we had another election this autumn, but not in four years time.
It will be between whatever the new status quo is that Boris has negotiated and implemented versus ‘something else’, which could be building on that with a closer relationship in specific programmes or areas, or opening it up all over again.
Brexit (should) have fully taken effect by 2024, assuming we don’t get a No Deal calamity, so the battlelines will be different and titled differently.
Yes but the alternative to Boris' Brexit will almost certainly be the single market, Starmer has already committed Labour to full single market alignment if he becomes leader.
Brexit may well have been settled the question of the single market likely has not given it is the median position of most voters in the polls and the harder the Boris Brexit the more likely eventually returning to the single market will be, even if most Leavers and Tory voters back a hard Brexit Labour if it gets back in will likely return to the single market
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They remind me of the poker player who sold everything he had and put it all on red.
The big difference is, he won.
I confess to knowing little about poker but how do you "put it all on red"?
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They remind me of the poker player who sold everything he had and put it all on red.
The big difference is, he won.
I confess to knowing little about poker but how do you "put it all on red"?
Sorry for the ambiguity. It wasn’t a poker game. He put it on a roulette wheel.
Fascinating story. If you can bear to read The Scum there’s an article on it here:
Leavers aren't prepared even to let Remainers have a voice in opposition.
This reminds me of all the kind advice from committed Conservatives about who the next Labour leader should be and what policies should be adopted. It is much appreciated.
Yes, I agree, one shouldn`t give unsolicited advice.
You should go for Starmer though.
What are you talking about? Becky Long(-)Bailey has what it takes to ensure excellent governance for the UK over the long term
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
Also, Priti Patel is in a position of power.
Another factor could be because Diane Abbott plays a political tune on race, whereas Priti Patel almost never does.
There are very, very few BAME people in Patel's constituency. A few newsagents, some GP's and pharmacists in Witham town itself, but that's about it.
I am supposed to be playing football at Witham Sports Ground tomorrow!
It's not a bad ground at all. Lots of parking, too. Our U3a met in the clubhouse for a while, while our 'home' was being refurbished by the Council.
Leavers aren't prepared even to let Remainers have a voice in opposition.
This reminds me of all the kind advice from committed Conservatives about who the next Labour leader should be and what policies should be adopted. It is much appreciated.
Yes, I agree, one shouldn`t give unsolicited advice.
You should go for Starmer though.
What are you talking about? Becky Long(-)Bailey has what it takes to ensure excellent governance for the UK over the long term
Either would be an improvement on the current resident. But then again I flushed better potential PMs than Boris.
Leavers aren't prepared even to let Remainers have a voice in opposition.
This reminds me of all the kind advice from committed Conservatives about who the next Labour leader should be and what policies should be adopted. It is much appreciated.
Yes, I agree, one shouldn`t give unsolicited advice.
You should go for Starmer though.
What are you talking about? Becky Long(-)Bailey has what it takes to ensure excellent governance for the UK over the long term
Either would be an improvement on the current resident. But then again I flushed better potential PMs than Boris.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
Leavers aren't prepared even to let Remainers have a voice in opposition.
This reminds me of all the kind advice from committed Conservatives about who the next Labour leader should be and what policies should be adopted. It is much appreciated.
Yes, I agree, one shouldn`t give unsolicited advice.
You should go for Starmer though.
What are you talking about? Becky Long(-)Bailey has what it takes to ensure excellent governance for the UK over the long term
Either would be an improvement on the current resident. But then again I flushed better potential PMs than Boris.
Leavers aren't prepared even to let Remainers have a voice in opposition.
This reminds me of all the kind advice from committed Conservatives about who the next Labour leader should be and what policies should be adopted. It is much appreciated.
Yes, I agree, one shouldn`t give unsolicited advice.
You should go for Starmer though.
What are you talking about? Becky Long(-)Bailey has what it takes to ensure excellent governance for the UK over the long term
Either would be an improvement on the current resident. But then again I flushed better potential PMs than Boris.
He was a number two choice...
Boris de Poopel Johnson
So did we: 'If it's Brown, flush it down', as the environmentally-conscious say!
Leavers aren't prepared even to let Remainers have a voice in opposition.
This reminds me of all the kind advice from committed Conservatives about who the next Labour leader should be and what policies should be adopted. It is much appreciated.
Yes, I agree, one shouldn`t give unsolicited advice.
You should go for Starmer though.
What are you talking about? Becky Long(-)Bailey has what it takes to ensure excellent governance for the UK over the long term
Either would be an improvement on the current resident. But then again I flushed better potential PMs than Boris.
Here speaks the man who thinks Gordon Brown was a good Prime Minister.. ffs
It's almost certainly a negligent homicide on the part of the parents. But these things are generally tried by a jury, and could go either way in the States.
Sadly the only thing that might sort out the anti-vaxxers in the USA, is a bunch of them ending up in prison for child negligence, and the rest of them thinking they could be next. Will they be refusing their kids Coronavirus vaccines next winter, if there's a worldwide pandemic?
@viewcode Watching that Peter Hitchens Interview you linked to. After about ten mins he talks of the difference that lack of religious belief has on society; More or less that people who believe live their life as though a higher being is watching their every move, cctv for your soul maybe, and this keeps people from trying to get away with stuff that other humans won’t notice. I like to think I do that anyway, guided by my conscience rather than God, although maybe they are the same thing?
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
Oh God, amen. If Corbyn had not been Labour leader and Swinson not Lib leader, it could have been different. I argued here that the aim was to work out the best way to Leave instead of going full PaleoRemain. But they couldn't find their own arse with two hands and a map, and here we are...
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
I so so agree with this.
A soft Brexit was so obviously the morally right thing and so obviously the strategically right thing (unless your strategic priority is to win votes for your smaller party on the left).
The indicative votes opened the door to achieving it. We have to move on, but I don't find it easy to forgive those people who voted against all of the compromise options.
@viewcode Watching that Peter Hitchens Interview you linked to. After about ten mins he talks of the difference that lack of religious belief has on society; More or less that people who believe live their life as though a higher being is watching their every move, cctv for your soul maybe, and this keeps people from trying to get away with stuff that other humans won’t notice. I like to think I do that anyway, guided by my conscience rather than God, although maybe they are the same thing?
It rather depends where you think that little voice comes from: to whom do you answer when you are alone or unobserved?
Hitchens is broadly right at least in sweep (although not in detail: thank you to that poster who pointed out his errors in Syria) and I agree with some of his conclusions. Plus I am quite fond of the older high-churchy type of Conservative he represents. But I cleave to the idea that parties don't have principles per se - the Conservative Party least of all, which is why there are so successful - so rather sadly, I think he has become electorally irrelevant.
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
Also, Priti Patel is in a position of power.
Another factor could be because Diane Abbott plays a political tune on race, whereas Priti Patel almost never does.
There are very, very few BAME people in Patel's constituency. A few newsagents, some GP's and pharmacists in Witham town itself, but that's about it.
I am supposed to be playing football at Witham Sports Ground tomorrow!
Well now! The communist gerontocracy wobbles. The Chinese government is reacting to the social media storm (~ 1.5 bn views!) provoked by the death of Dr Li Wenliang who warned about the new virus but was told by police to "stop making false comments" and was investigated for "spreading rumours".
Well now! The communist gerontocracy wobbles. The Chinese government is reacting to the social media storm (~ 1.5 bn views!) provoked by the death of Dr Li Wenliang who warned about the new virus but was told by police to "stop making false comments" and was investigated for "spreading rumours".
If President Xi is toppled and forced to stop murdering a huge number of Chinese people because of a slightly more serious version of the common cold, some good will have come of it.
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They remind me of the poker player who sold everything he had and put it all on red.
The big difference is, he won.
I confess to knowing little about poker but how do you "put it all on red"?
You put it on the cue when you go to hit the shuttlecock. And as long as the bat puts the oval ball over the posts, you can yell "Back of the net" when it goes thru the hoop for the first set. Checkmate!
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
Also, Priti Patel is in a position of power.
Another factor could be because Diane Abbott plays a political tune on race, whereas Priti Patel almost never does.
There are very, very few BAME people in Patel's constituency. A few newsagents, some GP's and pharmacists in Witham town itself, but that's about it.
I am supposed to be playing football at Witham Sports Ground tomorrow!
@viewcode Watching that Peter Hitchens Interview you linked to. After about ten mins he talks of the difference that lack of religious belief has on society; More or less that people who believe live their life as though a higher being is watching their every move, cctv for your soul maybe, and this keeps people from trying to get away with stuff that other humans won’t notice. I like to think I do that anyway, guided by my conscience rather than God, although maybe they are the same thing?
Amazing how his brother Christopher used exactly the same image of God to draw exactly the opposite conclusion: a higher power that watched you and judged you every moment of your life even in the privacy of your own mind was a horrific concept, more egregious than the worst examples of totalitarianism.
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
I so so agree with this.
A soft Brexit was so obviously the morally right thing and so obviously the strategically right thing (unless your strategic priority is to win votes for your smaller party on the left).
The indicative votes opened the door to achieving it. We have to move on, but I don't find it easy to forgive those people who voted against all of the compromise options.
Putting morals to one side, a soft Brexit was not the only thing on offer, assuming it was on offer at all. The options were, Theresa May's Brexit; crash-out Brexit; Repeal and Revoke (and presumably then renegotiate and hold a second referendum). Was there really anything else that seems plausible that can be picked out of the meaningful votes, or the MVs being held in a different order?
May was defeated by a combination of Remainers and Hard Brexiteers. Repeal and Revoke was defeated by Jo Swinson's aversion to Jeremy Corbyn.
And now we are where we are, and no-one knows where we are because Boris, even if he has a particular goal in mind, has not divulged it in his leadership campaign, the election campaign, or since, and most of those who spent the past decade or more caring very deeply about Brexit no longer seem to give a damn.
Perhaps that is Boris's genius. Like Trump, he makes his supporters stop caring provided their team wins.
Do you not think what actually happened between 2017 and 2019 had any effect? For all the short term 'wins' the blocking achieved, it clearly was having a different effect in the wider countryside.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
I so so agree with this.
A soft Brexit was so obviously the morally right thing and so obviously the strategically right thing (unless your strategic priority is to win votes for your smaller party on the left).
The indicative votes opened the door to achieving it. We have to move on, but I don't find it easy to forgive those people who voted against all of the compromise options.
They still would not have got a majority anyway, it needed a Labour plus LD plus SNP majority Parliament to get staying in the Single Market passed not a Tory plus DUP majority one
@viewcode Watching that Peter Hitchens Interview you linked to. After about ten mins he talks of the difference that lack of religious belief has on society; More or less that people who believe live their life as though a higher being is watching their every move, cctv for your soul maybe, and this keeps people from trying to get away with stuff that other humans won’t notice. I like to think I do that anyway, guided by my conscience rather than God, although maybe they are the same thing?
It rather depends where you think that little voice comes from: to whom do you answer when you are alone or unobserved? .
Yes, a big philosophical question! I suppose personally, although I have never been to church other than for weddings/christenings etc, I am religious in that I do kind of worry that if I act immorally, or more accurately when I have acted immorally, there is a kind of judgement awaiting somehow, somewhere
What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?
.
Is there an issue re the bigoted vote if he becomes the candidate. With Obama the bigoted vote could be cancelled by an increase in the black vote (was it? I don't know the stats) whereas there could be an anti gay vote, particularly from some of the fundamentalist Christians, without an upside. Or are we assuming this vote is almost all lost anyway to Trump regardless and the example the other day on the TV at the caucus is a very small minority.
The lesson I have learned from Trump is that someone can have all the characteristics to despise, yet you'll support him because you believe he will give you something.
Evangelicals support Trump because he's doing things that restrict the availability of abortion. And for this, they forgive him for being an adulterer who's (allegedly) paid for a mistress to have an abortion.
People vote for those who they think will bring them baubles.
So you think there isn't a downside? Democrats that have religious (or other views) against gays will vote for him anyway because of other overriding views and in addition he has the ability to attract moderate republicans?
The test I guess is what would that lady who wanted to reallocate her vote to another democrat the other day because of what the bible says do when the option is a gay democrat or trump?
37% of Americans say they wont vote for a candidate over 70 24% of Americans say they wont vote for a candidate who is gay
Given his realistic rivals are all over 70 being gay doesnt sound like a big barrier if he can get it to a two way contest against imperfect candidates like Sanders and Trump.
Just like with Johnson and Corbyn many voters will have to choose the lesser of two evils rather than their perfect candidate (or stay at home).
It's almost certainly a negligent homicide on the part of the parents. But these things are generally tried by a jury, and could go either way in the States.
Sadly the only thing that might sort out the anti-vaxxers in the USA, is a bunch of them ending up in prison for child negligence, and the rest of them thinking they could be next. Will they be refusing their kids Coronavirus vaccines next winter, if there's a worldwide pandemic?
Whatever punishment the courts give them won't exceed the punishment of losing their child. It's the unqualified people who gave them misleading medical advice who I'd like to see in the dock.
What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?
.
Is there an issue re the bigoted vote if he becomes the candidate. With Obama the bigoted vote could be cancelled by an increase in the black vote (was it? I don't know the stats) whereas there could be an anti gay vote, particularly from some of the fundamentalist Christians, without an upside. Or are we assuming this vote is almost all lost anyway to Trump regardless and the example the other day on the TV at the caucus is a very small minority.
The lesson I have learned from Trump is that someone can have all the characteristics to despise, yet you'll support him because you believe he will give you something.
Evangelicals support Trump because he's doing things that restrict the availability of abortion. And for this, they forgive him for being an adulterer who's (allegedly) paid for a mistress to have an abortion.
People vote for those who they think will bring them baubles.
So you think there isn't a downside? Democrats that have religious (or other views) against gays will vote for him anyway because of other overriding views and in addition he has the ability to attract moderate republicans?
The test I guess is what would that lady who wanted to reallocate her vote to another democrat the other day because of what the bible says do when the option is a gay democrat or trump?
37% of Americans say they wont vote for a candidate over 70 24% of Americans say they wont vote for a candidate who is gay
Given his realistic rivals are all over 70 being gay doesnt sound like a big barrier if he can get it to a two way contest against imperfect candidates like Sanders and Trump.
Just like with Johnson and Corbyn many voters will have to choose the lesser of two evils rather than their perfect candidate (or stay at home).
28% won't vote for someone under 40%, 39% won't vote for an atheist (higher than the 33% who won't vote for a Muslim), 51% won't vote for a socialist
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
But so long as Trump loses ...
The Remain camp's big errors were before we knew all these post 2016 factions existed. The death knell for the EU was the belief, sustained over a huge period, that the UK would remain quietly in for ever without being asked in successive referenda what we thought about the major developments, at the same time watching our neighbours get asked and then ignored or over ridden. Not enough politicians pay attention to poets.
It's almost certainly a negligent homicide on the part of the parents. But these things are generally tried by a jury, and could go either way in the States.
Sadly the only thing that might sort out the anti-vaxxers in the USA, is a bunch of them ending up in prison for child negligence, and the rest of them thinking they could be next. Will they be refusing their kids Coronavirus vaccines next winter, if there's a worldwide pandemic?
Whatever punishment the courts give them won't exceed the punishment of losing their child. It's the unqualified people who gave them misleading medical advice who I'd like to see in the dock.
The doctor gave her the correct drugs, and a bunch of people she knew to be unqualified talked her out of it.
In the land of free speech, there's no way those unqualified people posting on a site not unlike this one, are going to be found guilty of anything.
This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:
What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?
.
Is there an issue re the bigoted vote if he becomes the candidate. With Obama the bigoted vote could be cancelled by an increase in the black vote (was it? I don't know the stats) whereas there could be an anti gay vote, particularly from some of the fundamentalist Christians, without an upside. Or are we assuming this vote is almost all lost anyway to Trump regardless and the example the other day on the TV at the caucus is a very small minority.
The lesson I have learned from Trump is that someone can have all the characteristics to despise, yet you'll support him because you believe he will give you something.
Evangelicals support Trump because he's doing things that restrict the availability of abortion. And for this, they forgive him for being an adulterer who's (allegedly) paid for a mistress to have an abortion.
People vote for those who they think will bring them baubles.
So you think there isn't a downside? Democrats that have religious (or other views) against gays will vote for him anyway because of other overriding views and in addition he has the ability to attract moderate republicans?
The test I guess is what would that lady who wanted to reallocate her vote to another democrat the other day because of what the bible says do when the option is a gay democrat or trump?
37% of Americans say they wont vote for a candidate over 70 24% of Americans say they wont vote for a candidate who is gay
Given his realistic rivals are all over 70 being gay doesnt sound like a big barrier if he can get it to a two way contest against imperfect candidates like Sanders and Trump.
Just like with Johnson and Corbyn many voters will have to choose the lesser of two evils rather than their perfect candidate (or stay at home).
28% won't vote for someone under 40%, 39% won't vote for an atheist (higher than the 33% who won't vote for a Muslim), 51% won't vote for a socialist
Sanders possibly hits all the top three factors voters say they wont accept (his position on religion is unclear, he says he isnt an atheist but skeptical religious voters may believe he is). So they will probably pick him!
It's almost certainly a negligent homicide on the part of the parents. But these things are generally tried by a jury, and could go either way in the States.
Sadly the only thing that might sort out the anti-vaxxers in the USA, is a bunch of them ending up in prison for child negligence, and the rest of them thinking they could be next. Will they be refusing their kids Coronavirus vaccines next winter, if there's a worldwide pandemic?
Whatever punishment the courts give them won't exceed the punishment of losing their child. It's the unqualified people who gave them misleading medical advice who I'd like to see in the dock.
The doctor gave her the correct drugs, and a bunch of people she knew to be unqualified talked her out of it.
In the land of free speech, there's no way those unqualified people posting on a site not unlike this one, are going to be found guilty of anything.
I know. It's sad though. So often we punish people who are already suffering while letting the underlying problem continue. Not saying there's any realistic chance of it being different.
It's almost certainly a negligent homicide on the part of the parents. But these things are generally tried by a jury, and could go either way in the States.
Sadly the only thing that might sort out the anti-vaxxers in the USA, is a bunch of them ending up in prison for child negligence, and the rest of them thinking they could be next. Will they be refusing their kids Coronavirus vaccines next winter, if there's a worldwide pandemic?
Whatever punishment the courts give them won't exceed the punishment of losing their child. It's the unqualified people who gave them misleading medical advice who I'd like to see in the dock.
This fits into a larger controversy over the role and legal standing of platforms like Facebook, Youtube and so on. Should they be liable for what is posted on their platforms? Currently they are not liable but particularly in America there are lobbies for them to be stripped of this protection. Won't someone think of the children? The children harmed by grooming, by antivaxxers, and incitement to terrorism? And the children still raking it in from grandad's copyright films being pirated?
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
But so long as Trump loses ...
The Remain camp's big errors were before we knew all these post 2016 factions existed. The death knell for the EU was the belief, sustained over a huge period, that the UK would remain quietly in for ever without being asked in successive referenda what we thought about the major developments, at the same time watching our neighbours get asked and then ignored or over ridden. Not enough politicians pay attention to poets.
That was one of them. The use of the EU as a scapegoat for decades was another. Complacency was a third - so many people I know suddenly became passionate Remainers on 24th June 2016. But above all, seeing the world as a binary place containing outward-looking liberal nice people and parochial conservative white people who (at best) need educating. The refusal to compromise was largely an expression of that.
But in March 2019, it was clearly still possible to make the best of a bad job, with support from a significant number Conservative MPs.
Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.
That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
Also, Priti Patel is in a position of power.
Another factor could be because Diane Abbott plays a political tune on race, whereas Priti Patel almost never does.
There are very, very few BAME people in Patel's constituency. A few newsagents, some GP's and pharmacists in Witham town itself, but that's about it.
I am supposed to be playing football at Witham Sports Ground tomorrow!
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
It's almost certainly a negligent homicide on the part of the parents. But these things are generally tried by a jury, and could go either way in the States.
Sadly the only thing that might sort out the anti-vaxxers in the USA, is a bunch of them ending up in prison for child negligence, and the rest of them thinking they could be next. Will they be refusing their kids Coronavirus vaccines next winter, if there's a worldwide pandemic?
Whatever punishment the courts give them won't exceed the punishment of losing their child. It's the unqualified people who gave them misleading medical advice who I'd like to see in the dock.
This fits into a larger controversy over the role and legal standing of platforms like Facebook, Youtube and so on. Should they be liable for what is posted on their platforms? Currently they are not liable but particularly in America there are lobbies for them to be stripped of this protection. Won't someone think of the children? The children harmed by grooming, by antivaxxers, and incitement to terrorism? And the children still raking it in from grandad's copyright films being pirated?
As I've said repeatedly, the US election 'season' is going to be a complete and utter sh!t-show of fakery on all sides, with Facebook and Google right in the middle making money from all sides. No matter who wins, there will be bipartisan campaigns next year to have those two companies taken down a peg or two.
On the other side of the argument, Twitter have made a point of banning a bunch of people, mostly right-wingers, with no discussion or appeal to actual humans allowed. Their actions are increasingly looking like those of a publisher, and it's probably only a matter of time until a court holds them responsible for the opinions of their users.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
It's almost certainly a negligent homicide on the part of the parents. But these things are generally tried by a jury, and could go either way in the States.
Sadly the only thing that might sort out the anti-vaxxers in the USA, is a bunch of them ending up in prison for child negligence, and the rest of them thinking they could be next. Will they be refusing their kids Coronavirus vaccines next winter, if there's a worldwide pandemic?
Whatever punishment the courts give them won't exceed the punishment of losing their child. It's the unqualified people who gave them misleading medical advice who I'd like to see in the dock.
This fits into a larger controversy over the role and legal standing of platforms like Facebook, Youtube and so on. Should they be liable for what is posted on their platforms? Currently they are not liable but particularly in America there are lobbies for them to be stripped of this protection. Won't someone think of the children? The children harmed by grooming, by antivaxxers, and incitement to terrorism? And the children still raking it in from grandad's copyright films being pirated?
As I've said repeatedly, the US election 'season' is going to be a complete and utter sh!t-show of fakery on all sides, with Facebook and Google right in the middle making money from all sides. No matter who wins, there will be bipartisan campaigns next year to have those two companies taken down a peg or two.
On the other side of the argument, Twitter have made a point of banning a bunch of people, mostly right-wingers, with no discussion or appeal to actual humans allowed. Their actions are increasingly looking like those of a publisher, and it's probably only a matter of time until a court holds them responsible for the opinions of their users.
Basically my opinion of the internet is that it should be regarded the same as a phone because the technology and usage is very similar.
If there are restrictions and monitoring on the internet those should be the same as on any phone call.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
The problem of the Democratic Party is that in this election they lack candidates that appeal to most factions of their party, are charismatic, or have popular policies, at a time when the public is very satisfied with how things are.
Sure they can make the case that Trump is immoral, but it wasn't enough to defeat Clinton in 1996. Have things changed so much since then ?
Blair vs Major is the only time that worked, but Trump is not Mr.Grey.
It's almost certainly a negligent homicide on the part of the parents. But these things are generally tried by a jury, and could go either way in the States.
Sadly the only thing that might sort out the anti-vaxxers in the USA, is a bunch of them ending up in prison for child negligence, and the rest of them thinking they could be next. Will they be refusing their kids Coronavirus vaccines next winter, if there's a worldwide pandemic?
Whatever punishment the courts give them won't exceed the punishment of losing their child. It's the unqualified people who gave them misleading medical advice who I'd like to see in the dock.
This fits into a larger controversy over the role and legal standing of platforms like Facebook, Youtube and so on. Should they be liable for what is posted on their platforms? Currently they are not liable but particularly in America there are lobbies for them to be stripped of this protection. Won't someone think of the children? The children harmed by grooming, by antivaxxers, and incitement to terrorism? And the children still raking it in from grandad's copyright films being pirated?
As I've said repeatedly, the US election 'season' is going to be a complete and utter sh!t-show of fakery on all sides, with Facebook and Google right in the middle making money from all sides. No matter who wins, there will be bipartisan campaigns next year to have those two companies taken down a peg or two.
On the other side of the argument, Twitter have made a point of banning a bunch of people, mostly right-wingers, with no discussion or appeal to actual humans allowed. Their actions are increasingly looking like those of a publisher, and it's probably only a matter of time until a court holds them responsible for the opinions of their users.
Basically my opinion of the internet is that it should be regarded the same as a phone because the technology and usage is very similar.
If there are restrictions and monitoring on the internet those should be the same as on any phone call.
The phone equivalent of me making this post would be me ringing you on a conference call with the several dozen other people currently reading the site, and arranging for a copy of the message to be left on the voicemail of every phone in the world. So not that similar.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
That isn't vacuous, but it'd be an absolutely terrible thing to lead on if and when he gets the nomination. In fairness, he's trying to appeal to a different electorate right now.
That said, I don't fancy any of their chances. If anyone other than Bloomberg can win, it's probably Sanders. Age and health are issues, but he comes across as anti-establishment, despite being establishment, which is very useful. He also sounds authentic while actually being very willing to compromise on his principles.
He's dismissed on this site for being too left wing, but most voters aren't interested in that. (People are bound to cite Corbyn as counter-evidence, but aside from the fact that it's a different country, he became despised over perceptions of unpatriotism, antisemitism and weakness, not for being economically too left wing.)
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
The problem of the Democratic Party is that in this election they lack candidates that appeal to most factions of their party, are charismatic, or have popular policies, at a time when the public is very satisfied with how things are.
Sure they can make the case that Trump is immoral, but it wasn't enough to defeat Clinton in 1996. Have things changed so much since then ?
[..]
I think things have changed but also that Clinton was a better candidate than people made her out to be.
Trump has lost support from key demographics. His margin of victory was so narrow that he needs new voters that didn't go for him last time, or the Democrat vote needs to collapse in swing states.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
The problem of the Democratic Party is that in this election they lack candidates that appeal to most factions of their party, are charismatic, or have popular policies, at a time when the public is very satisfied with how things are.
Sure they can make the case that Trump is immoral, but it wasn't enough to defeat Clinton in 1996. Have things changed so much since then ?
Blair vs Major is the only time that worked, but Trump is not Mr.Grey.
Whoever from this uncharismatic bunch of party dividers gets the nomination won’t even inspire half the democratic base out voting for them on Election Day let own convert people who voted for Trump giving him a solid EC win. Whoever gets this nomination is doomed to being booted into the long grass of ignominy by Trump in November, so from that point of view this whole election year is very flat and boring, no matter how many OGH headers tries sexing this up.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
This fits into a larger controversy over the role and legal standing of platforms like Facebook, Youtube and so on. Should they be liable for what is posted on their platforms? Currently they are not liable but particularly in America there are lobbies for them to be stripped of this protection. Won't someone think of the children? The children harmed by grooming, by antivaxxers, and incitement to terrorism? And the children still raking it in from grandad's copyright films being pirated?
As I've said repeatedly, the US election 'season' is going to be a complete and utter sh!t-show of fakery on all sides, with Facebook and Google right in the middle making money from all sides. No matter who wins, there will be bipartisan campaigns next year to have those two companies taken down a peg or two.
On the other side of the argument, Twitter have made a point of banning a bunch of people, mostly right-wingers, with no discussion or appeal to actual humans allowed. Their actions are increasingly looking like those of a publisher, and it's probably only a matter of time until a court holds them responsible for the opinions of their users.
Basically my opinion of the internet is that it should be regarded the same as a phone because the technology and usage is very similar.
If there are restrictions and monitoring on the internet those should be the same as on any phone call.
The problem with that analogy is that the internet is a one-to-many relationship, rather than a one-to-one which is a phone call.
This has turned a lot of people in to publishers in the legal sense, under older laws where publishers were thought to be only large and well-resourced companies. Hence libel actions over Twitter posts involving tens of thousands of pounds in costs on both sides.
There's an interesting case in the US at the moment, involving an adult film site that was shut down for operating under false pretenses - they would tell the American 'actresses' that the films they were making were for an Australian pay site, and *definitely* wouldn't end up on any internet site accessible to Americans. The court has ordered the removal of the movies from American-hosted sites, but the lawyers are quickly finding out that it's impossible to actually delete porn from the internet. People simply keep changing the videos slightly and upload them again - and the people uploading now have no connection at all with the original publisher of the material, they just like the style of it!
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
The problem of the Democratic Party is that in this election they lack candidates that appeal to most factions of their party, are charismatic, or have popular policies, at a time when the public is very satisfied with how things are.
Sure they can make the case that Trump is immoral, but it wasn't enough to defeat Clinton in 1996. Have things changed so much since then ?
[..]
I think things have changed but also that Clinton was a better candidate than people made her out to be.
Trump has lost support from key demographics. His margin of victory was so narrow that he needs new voters that didn't go for him last time, or the Democrat vote needs to collapse in swing states.
And the Dem vote already collapsed last time in the Swing States, Clinton shed masses of votes without Trump picking them up.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
AAAAAARGGH!
Write out one hundred times:
He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
Good to see I'm not the only Radio 4 listener on the site!
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
The best two candidates for the Democrats are Biden and Warren in my opinion.
I use 3 positive metrics and 1 negative when weighing primary candidates:
Who has popular policies? Sanders
Who is charismatic? No one.
Who can unite the party? Warren
Who can divide the party? Buttigieg, Sanders
Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
There is nothing divisive about Buttigieg.
Yes there is. Progressives like me see him as yet another middle of the road, centrist, corporate hack. Mayo Pete: rich and white.
I'd vote for him over Trump, but with no enthusiasm. My wife doesn't think she could - she says she might sit the general out if he's the nominee as we live in a state, New York, that won't go anything but Democrat.
Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
AAAAAARGGH!
Write out one hundred times:
He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
‘ Less coal, fewer sacks.’. Go on Doctor explain the English language to us.
Can you run the That and Which option passed us one more time as well please.
I'd vote for him over Trump, but with no enthusiasm.
All votes count exactly the same, whether cast with enthusiasm or not.
People tend to forget this. It's nice to get the "Oh, [insert name here]" chants. But, ultimately, it's more important to persuade a plurality that you're marginally better than the alternative.
Corbyn and Sanders are, in my view, good examples of people who enthuse quite a lot of people at the cost of making a lot of people (whose votes count just as much) quietly say, "nah, not for me".
The best two candidates for the Democrats are Biden and Warren in my opinion.
I use 3 positive metrics and 1 negative when weighing primary candidates:
Who has popular policies? Sanders
Who is charismatic? No one.
Who can unite the party? Warren
Who can divide the party? Buttigieg, Sanders
Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
There is nothing divisive about Buttigieg.
Yes there is. Progressives like me see him as yet another middle of the road, centrist, corporate hack. Mayo Pete: rich and white.
I'd vote for him over Trump, but with no enthusiasm. My wife doesn't think she could - she says she might sit the general out if he's the nominee as we live in a state, New York, that won't go anything but Democrat.
Comments
I would also disagree the right is more sexist/racist than the left. The degree of antisemitism among Corbynites was shocking and Labour is about to elect its 23rd white man in a row as leader.
2017.. Corbyn vs May, both say they will implement Brexit, Hung Parliament
2019... Corbyn vs supposedly not that popular Boris, Tories say they'll implement Brexit/Labour say 2nd ref... Big Tory Maj
You say Boris is not really popular, and he didn't get any more votes than May really... so what is the different variable
It will be between whatever the new status quo is that Boris has negotiated and implemented versus ‘something else’, which could be building on that with a closer relationship in specific programmes or areas, or opening it up all over again.
Brexit (should) have fully taken effect by 2024, assuming we don’t get a No Deal calamity, so the battlelines will be different and titled differently.
https://twitter.com/BrandyZadrozny/status/1225541826028933121
"People of all backgrounds, regardless of ethnicity, genders or sexuality, want the same thing. To have a fair shot at a good life for them and their friends and family. The government needs to work hard to make that a reality, and that means breaking down the prejudices and disadvantages that some groups face."
As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.
You should go for Starmer though.
The big difference is, he won.
Brexit may well have been settled the question of the single market likely has not given it is the median position of most voters in the polls and the harder the Boris Brexit the more likely eventually returning to the single market will be, even if most Leavers and Tory voters back a hard Brexit Labour if it gets back in will likely return to the single market
Fascinating story. If you can bear to read The Scum there’s an article on it here:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/758233/i-sold-everything-i-owned-for-all-or-nothing-gamble-on-red-and-inspired-simon-cowells-new-show-red-or-black/
And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.
But so long as Trump loses ...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1224268821210505216?s=20
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1225690936572698624?s=20
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1225339711218163712?s=20
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1225465436315234305?s=20
Sadly the only thing that might sort out the anti-vaxxers in the USA, is a bunch of them ending up in prison for child negligence, and the rest of them thinking they could be next. Will they be refusing their kids Coronavirus vaccines next winter, if there's a worldwide pandemic?
A soft Brexit was so obviously the morally right thing and so obviously the strategically right thing (unless your strategic priority is to win votes for your smaller party on the left).
The indicative votes opened the door to achieving it. We have to move on, but I don't find it easy to forgive those people who voted against all of the compromise options.
Hitchens is broadly right at least in sweep (although not in detail: thank you to that poster who pointed out his errors in Syria) and I agree with some of his conclusions. Plus I am quite fond of the older high-churchy type of Conservative he represents. But I cleave to the idea that parties don't have principles per se - the Conservative Party least of all, which is why there are so successful - so rather sadly, I think he has become electorally irrelevant.
I know sports, me...
May was defeated by a combination of Remainers and Hard Brexiteers. Repeal and Revoke was defeated by Jo Swinson's aversion to Jeremy Corbyn.
And now we are where we are, and no-one knows where we are because Boris, even if he has a particular goal in mind, has not divulged it in his leadership campaign, the election campaign, or since, and most of those who spent the past decade or more caring very deeply about Brexit no longer seem to give a damn.
Perhaps that is Boris's genius. Like Trump, he makes his supporters stop caring provided their team wins.
24% of Americans say they wont vote for a candidate who is gay
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-lot-of-americans-say-they-dont-want-a-president-who-is-over-70-really/
Given his realistic rivals are all over 70 being gay doesnt sound like a big barrier if he can get it to a two way contest against imperfect candidates like Sanders and Trump.
Just like with Johnson and Corbyn many voters will have to choose the lesser of two evils rather than their perfect candidate (or stay at home).
In the land of free speech, there's no way those unqualified people posting on a site not unlike this one, are going to be found guilty of anything.
But in March 2019, it was clearly still possible to make the best of a bad job, with support from a significant number Conservative MPs.
https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
On the other side of the argument, Twitter have made a point of banning a bunch of people, mostly right-wingers, with no discussion or appeal to actual humans allowed. Their actions are increasingly looking like those of a publisher, and it's probably only a matter of time until a court holds them responsible for the opinions of their users.
I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
If there are restrictions and monitoring on the internet those should be the same as on any phone call.
Sure they can make the case that Trump is immoral, but it wasn't enough to defeat Clinton in 1996. Have things changed so much since then ?
Blair vs Major is the only time that worked, but Trump is not Mr.Grey.
That said, I don't fancy any of their chances. If anyone other than Bloomberg can win, it's probably Sanders. Age and health are issues, but he comes across as anti-establishment, despite being establishment, which is very useful. He also sounds authentic while actually being very willing to compromise on his principles.
He's dismissed on this site for being too left wing, but most voters aren't interested in that. (People are bound to cite Corbyn as counter-evidence, but aside from the fact that it's a different country, he became despised over perceptions of unpatriotism, antisemitism and weakness, not for being economically too left wing.)
Who has popular policies?
Sanders
Who is charismatic?
No one.
Who can unite the party?
Warren
Who can divide the party?
Buttigieg, Sanders
Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
Trump has lost support from key demographics. His margin of victory was so narrow that he needs new voters that didn't go for him last time, or the Democrat vote needs to collapse in swing states.
He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
This has turned a lot of people in to publishers in the legal sense, under older laws where publishers were thought to be only large and well-resourced companies. Hence libel actions over Twitter posts involving tens of thousands of pounds in costs on both sides.
There's an interesting case in the US at the moment, involving an adult film site that was shut down for operating under false pretenses - they would tell the American 'actresses' that the films they were making were for an Australian pay site, and *definitely* wouldn't end up on any internet site accessible to Americans. The court has ordered the removal of the movies from American-hosted sites, but the lawyers are quickly finding out that it's impossible to actually delete porn from the internet. People simply keep changing the videos slightly and upload them again - and the people uploading now have no connection at all with the original publisher of the material, they just like the style of it!
Write out one hundred times:
He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
I'd vote for him over Trump, but with no enthusiasm. My wife doesn't think she could - she says she might sit the general out if he's the nominee as we live in a state, New York, that won't go anything but Democrat.
If you got to a shop with Mrs Ydoethur and she wants to buy something which you know is £100 cheaper next door, would you tell her..
A.) it costs £100 fewer next door
Or
B.) it costs £100 less next door
Can you run the That and Which option passed us one more time as well please.
People tend to forget this. It's nice to get the "Oh, [insert name here]" chants. But, ultimately, it's more important to persuade a plurality that you're marginally better than the alternative.
Corbyn and Sanders are, in my view, good examples of people who enthuse quite a lot of people at the cost of making a lot of people (whose votes count just as much) quietly say, "nah, not for me".