A phrase that didn't exist until a few months ago when 'gender critical' people executed yet another seamless pivot about what they were arguing about.
No knowledge on scottish politics but does anyone think Labour would do better if they switched to backing a second referendum on Scottish independence? Whatever they're doing now doesn't seem to be working.
Flash estimates for the UK’s manufacturing sector, shows output hit its highest level in 10 months with PMI coming in at 51.9. That is compared to January’s reading of 50.0.
On topic. I think the thread is wrong an SNP MP is as good as a Lab. MP in bringing about a Lab. Govt. Besides which New Lab. lost Scotland for a generation .
In a wide-ranging interview with LabourList, Nandy also:
Criticised the conversation about trans rights within the party, which she said should be “much more respectful”
The same Lisa Nandy who signed a ridiculous pledge saying women should be kicked out for defending sex-based rights (equating this with 'hate') and that there are no material conflicts between women's rights and trans rights? Ludicrous.
A real shame as she once seemed like the most reasonable and realistic candidate.
"My takeaway from Wednesday’s hellaciously entertaining Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth . Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar all make good arguments, but they haven’t organized their worldview into a simple compelling myth."
"These efforts are hampered by men like Sanders and Trump who have never worked within a party or subordinated themselves to a team — men who are one trick ponies. All they do is stand on a podium and bellow."
Why is My Girl Lizzle for Shizzle left off this list? She actually has delegates.
The author argues that Warren is very good at communicating myth. It's just that is Bernie's rather than her own. She is doing work for him is the argument (see her attacks on Bloomberg).
No knowledge on scottish politics but does anyone think Labour would do better if they switched to backing a second referendum on Scottish independence? Whatever they're doing now doesn't seem to be working.
Most of those thinking that have made the switch to the SNP, leaving behind those that don't want independence. It would be a case of hoping independence supporters will switch back without upsetting those that have stuck with the Party. Similar issue to Labour leavers.
The header is misleading in that the overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland would be likely to sustain a non-Tory Government. It is correct in terms of Labour's ability to form a majority Government , but that would not be necessary for Starmer to become PM.
"My takeaway from Wednesday’s hellaciously entertaining Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth . Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar all make good arguments, but they haven’t organized their worldview into a simple compelling myth."
"These efforts are hampered by men like Sanders and Trump who have never worked within a party or subordinated themselves to a team — men who are one trick ponies. All they do is stand on a podium and bellow."
The concept of the Successful Myth is becomning very important in politics (perhaps it always was, but cynicism and indifference for detail is making it more powerful). Our own election was a classic example - "We'll get Brexit done and our opponents' leader is dodgy" easily defeated any number of individual policies with no coherent theme.
I think it's also relevant for the Labour leadership. Starmer has a theme: leftish but serious and electable. RLB has a theme: more left-wing policies without unnecessary baggage. I'm not sure what Nandy's theme is, much though I liked her interview - can one summarise in a sentence what she's about?
My son will be sitting his highers in approximately 2 months. From close hand experience the problems are deep rooted and not capable of simple solutions.
I suggest you read the report before they redact the "Official - Sensitive" part.
I've read it. The first part is just embarrassing, relentlessly upbeat and positive. The comments on the individual subjects in the second half show a much greater degree of realism.
The Scottish press is full of stories about failing public services, particularly health. After 13 years SNP should be vulnerable and a party that is all about public services should have potential - but it needs decent leadership and that is what SLAB desperately lacks. Getting back into contention in Glasgow and Lanarkshire is not impossible as the 2017 GE showed. I believe public in Scotland could become bored of constitutional argument - despite contrary evidence of recent GE - and SNP could be vulnerable from a squeeze from both sides esp if Nicola departs. But SCON and SLAB need to get their acts together - Jackson Carlaw is showing some signs of understanding that.
The header is misleading in that the overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland would be likely to sustain a non-Tory Government. It is correct in terms of Labour's ability to form a majority Government , but that would not be necessary for Starmer to become PM.
I don’t know, in 1979 the SNP ousted a Labour government and helped usher in Thatcher and eighteen years of Tory rule.
The Lib Dems were the coalition partners of the Tories for five years.
PS - So about SLAB MPs getting an incumbency boost.
"My takeaway from Wednesday’s hellaciously entertaining Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth . Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar all make good arguments, but they haven’t organized their worldview into a simple compelling myth."
"These efforts are hampered by men like Sanders and Trump who have never worked within a party or subordinated themselves to a team — men who are one trick ponies. All they do is stand on a podium and bellow."
The concept of the Successful Myth is becomning very important in politics (perhaps it always was, but cynicism and indifference for detail is making it more powerful). Our own election was a classic example - "We'll get Brexit done and our opponents' leader is dodgy" easily defeated any number of individual policies with no coherent theme.
I think it's also relevant for the Labour leadership. Starmer has a theme: leftish but serious and electable. RLB has a theme: more left-wing policies without unnecessary baggage. I'm not sure what Nandy's theme is, much though I liked her interview - can one summarise in a sentence what she's about?
Flash estimates for the UK’s manufacturing sector, shows output hit its highest level in 10 months with PMI coming in at 51.9. That is compared to January’s reading of 50.0.
Curious statistical twist. Lengthening supply times are interpreted as demand increasing faster than supply. PMI is intended as a leading indicator.
This boost to PMI is entirely due to supply chains being hit by the Coronavirus.
No knowledge on scottish politics but does anyone think Labour would do better if they switched to backing a second referendum on Scottish independence? Whatever they're doing now doesn't seem to be working.
Most of those thinking that have made the switch to the SNP, leaving behind those that don't want independence. It would be a case of hoping independence supporters will switch back without upsetting those that have stuck with the Party. Similar issue to Labour leavers.
Agree. They need to change the narrative to public services and away from constitution. What I find difficult to wargame is a straight statement from Boris saying notwithstanding the result of 2021 there will be no IndyRef. No ifs or buts. Suck it up. Does Scotland explode into a grievance induced pro-Indy storm, or do folks just say, fine, let's talk instead about how we improve our failing education system and get our hospitals to open?
Scottish Labour need independence to stop being the most important issue, either because most Scots accept the Union or Scotland moves definitively towards independence. As neither seems likely to happen in the immediate term, Labour will continue to struggle.
Too little, too late.
Even if independence ceases to be an issue then the SNP have cornered the market on the "Not Tory, left wing, standing up for Scotland" vote.
So what do Scottish Labour stand for? Even if independence ceases to be an issue what is the Scottish Labour Parties USP? Not many votes available in "Not Tory, left wing, don't want to stand up for Scotland".
The SNP is such a broad church that without its one compelling policy it would fall apart. Its membership stretches from unvarnished capitalists like our own MalcolmG to actual communists. It keeps going by being a nationalist party and everything else is policy-free.
There is a space for a communitarian, left wing party in Scotland, which isn't the SNP. But only if people think that's more important than independence.
The SNP have evolved into a left wing party in Scotland, that's why they're opposed by the Tories. Even if the independence issue goes away then a left/right divide in politics will remain as always occurs but the SNP will be the party of the left.
If MalcomG wants to drift away from the SNP after the independence issue goes away he can go to a party like the Scottish Tories . . . though knowing our Malcolm that won't happen any time soon, even if it has already happened for some of his compatriots.
Unless the SNP turns right, there's not much room for Scottish Labour.
A phrase that didn't exist until a few months ago when 'gender critical' people executed yet another seamless pivot about what they were arguing about.
Language evolves. The hardline trans rights activists have spawned such colourful terms as 'TERF', 'deadnaming', 'truscum' and the rest. 'Sex-based rights' is at least non-abusive and honest.
IMO any proposals based on levelling down, rather than levelling up, are doomed to fail.
My proposal would be to concentrate many more resources on the bottom 10% that hold everyone else back in mainstream schools. Take them out of the environment where they do nothing but cause disruption, and teach them maths and physics in the context of plumbing and electrics. Maybe even at boarding schools.
There’s a lot to like there. We can have that sort of thing as well as the structural shift away from private schools that I'm talking about. Broad churches are the most resilient to the elements. And we're not levelling up or down. Neither of those phrases make sense. We are levelling.
The header is misleading in that the overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland would be likely to sustain a non-Tory Government. It is correct in terms of Labour's ability to form a majority Government , but that would not be necessary for Starmer to become PM.
It's self defeating, though. The SNP are only interested in supporting a Labour PM if they are assured of an independence referendum in return (preferably quickly).
If they win the referendum, they are gone within a year or two and bingo, the majority is gone (and also why on earth are SNP MPs turning up to vote on matters that don't affect them while the break discussions are ongoing: that would not play well in the rest of the country).
If they lose, they have no further interest in supporting the Labour PM anyway.
"My takeaway from Wednesday’s hellaciously entertaining Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth . Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar all make good arguments, but they haven’t organized their worldview into a simple compelling myth."
"These efforts are hampered by men like Sanders and Trump who have never worked within a party or subordinated themselves to a team — men who are one trick ponies. All they do is stand on a podium and bellow."
The concept of the Successful Myth is becomning very important in politics (perhaps it always was, but cynicism and indifference for detail is making it more powerful). Our own election was a classic example - "We'll get Brexit done and our opponents' leader is dodgy" easily defeated any number of individual policies with no coherent theme.
I think it's also relevant for the Labour leadership. Starmer has a theme: leftish but serious and electable. RLB has a theme: more left-wing policies without unnecessary baggage. I'm not sure what Nandy's theme is, much though I liked her interview - can one summarise in a sentence what she's about?
Interesting juxtaposition of posts, since the "myth" (as you put it) that Sanders is peddling is, as far as I can tell, virtually identical to the one Corbyn tried here. The common theme is I suspect that's it's extremely compelling to a section of the population, but will never garner enough support to win an election outright.
IMO any proposals based on levelling down, rather than levelling up, are doomed to fail.
My proposal would be to concentrate many more resources on the bottom 10% that hold everyone else back in mainstream schools. Take them out of the environment where they do nothing but cause disruption, and teach them maths and physics in the context of plumbing and electrics. Maybe even at boarding schools.
There’s a lot to like there. We can have that sort of thing as well as the structural shift away from private schools that I'm talking about. Broad churches are the most resilient to the elements. And we're not levelling up or down. Neither of those phrases make sense. We are levelling.
The easiest way to be rid of private schools is to raise the range and standards of other schools to be equal to or better than public schools.
I saw Parasite the other day. Brilliant movie and great acting, rightly winner.
Not surprised Donald cites Gone With the Wind as the sort of film that should win.
He's never seen it, I'll wager.
He really is an absolute turd.
And he has his defenders/allies on this site, which makes me shake my head in disbelief.
For the past 12 years the Oscar for Best Picture is a consolation prize given to the best film that no one has seen.
Because the best people in the movie industry have moved to Internet TV, there is a real lack of talent that can marry the commercial with the artistic.
Have you not seen it yet?
Parasite is very good indeed. Considerably better than most Oscar winners. A pretty good turnout in our multiplex too last Saturday.
It was a very good film but I'm not sure where this view from some that its one of the decade or something has come from.
I'm a big fan of Korean cinema, but this one was a no from me. I just did not like the subject matter.
Interesting juxtaposition of posts, since the "myth" (as you put it) that Sanders is peddling is, as far as I can tell, virtually identical to the one Corbyn tried here. The common theme is I suspect that's it's extremely compelling to a section of the population, but will never garner enough support to win an election outright.
Well, I wasn't calling it a myth, the article was. But in a FPTP contest (which a leadership election always is), something usually beats nothing. That's why Corbyn won - he stood for a clear set of ideas which many of us find attractive, and his opponents stood for nothing that I can recall.
Sanders has less baggage than Corbyn - choice of honeymoon location decades ago, and some sympathetic remarks about Latin American populists, which don't seem to be hurting him with the Latino community at all. But my point is that beating Trump will need a central theme, more than "I'm not Trump". People know roughly what Sanders' theme is - I'd guess they'd see it as not very achievable, but maybe the right general direction - lots of free health care and no student fees. They elected Trump on the same sort of basis - people were clear that he wouldn't really get Mexico to build its own wall, but they liked the direction.
What is the central theme of the other candidates - how will they make lives better? It's not coming through clearly.
No knowledge on scottish politics but does anyone think Labour would do better if they switched to backing a second referendum on Scottish independence? Whatever they're doing now doesn't seem to be working.
Most of those thinking that have made the switch to the SNP, leaving behind those that don't want independence. It would be a case of hoping independence supporters will switch back without upsetting those that have stuck with the Party. Similar issue to Labour leavers.
Agree. They need to change the narrative to public services and away from constitution. What I find difficult to wargame is a straight statement from Boris saying notwithstanding the result of 2021 there will be no IndyRef. No ifs or buts. Suck it up. Does Scotland explode into a grievance induced pro-Indy storm, or do folks just say, fine, let's talk instead about how we improve our failing education system and get our hospitals to open?
Difficult to say. I think Scotland would vote for independence if another referendum happened, on the grounds that no-one much would be arguing for Union, especially a Boris style Union. OTOH a bad Brexit might make people think twice about the problems of independence. And as Johnson looks like he will double, triple and quadruple down on ever holding a second referendum, it's likely to get pretty miserable.
IMO any proposals based on levelling down, rather than levelling up, are doomed to fail.
My proposal would be to concentrate many more resources on the bottom 10% that hold everyone else back in mainstream schools. Take them out of the environment where they do nothing but cause disruption, and teach them maths and physics in the context of plumbing and electrics. Maybe even at boarding schools.
There’s a lot to like there. We can have that sort of thing as well as the structural shift away from private schools that I'm talking about. Broad churches are the most resilient to the elements. And we're not levelling up or down. Neither of those phrases make sense. We are levelling.
The easiest way to be rid of private schools is to raise the range and standards of other schools to be equal to or better than public schools.
IMO any proposals based on levelling down, rather than levelling up, are doomed to fail.
My proposal would be to concentrate many more resources on the bottom 10% that hold everyone else back in mainstream schools. Take them out of the environment where they do nothing but cause disruption, and teach them maths and physics in the context of plumbing and electrics. Maybe even at boarding schools.
There’s a lot to like there. We can have that sort of thing as well as the structural shift away from private schools that I'm talking about. Broad churches are the most resilient to the elements. And we're not levelling up or down. Neither of those phrases make sense. We are levelling.
The problem is that you’re just not going to change behaviour at the top end. You’ll end up with groups of middle class parents hiring private teachers and running their own ‘revision classes’ or home schooling. Much better to concentrate all the efforts on making the experience better for those at the bottom, and let the market do the rest.
One reason the coronavirus economic impact might be being underrated is that the headline Chinese exporters in the electronics industry have significant stocks (which they build up in any event to cover Chinese new year) to cushion the immediate supply shock.
The header is misleading in that the overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland would be likely to sustain a non-Tory Government. It is correct in terms of Labour's ability to form a majority Government , but that would not be necessary for Starmer to become PM.
It's self defeating, though. The SNP are only interested in supporting a Labour PM if they are assured of an independence referendum in return (preferably quickly).
If they win the referendum, they are gone within a year or two and bingo, the majority is gone (and also why on earth are SNP MPs turning up to vote on matters that don't affect them while the break discussions are ongoing: that would not play well in the rest of the country).
If they lose, they have no further interest in supporting the Labour PM anyway.
Even in the absence of any commitment to another Referendum , the SNP would still need to be seen to be opposed to a Tory Government.
Interesting juxtaposition of posts, since the "myth" (as you put it) that Sanders is peddling is, as far as I can tell, virtually identical to the one Corbyn tried here. The common theme is I suspect that's it's extremely compelling to a section of the population, but will never garner enough support to win an election outright.
Well, I wasn't calling it a myth, the article was. But in a FPTP contest (which a leadership election always is), something usually beats nothing. That's why Corbyn won - he stood for a clear set of ideas which many of us find attractive, and his opponents stood for nothing that I can recall.
Sanders has less baggage than Corbyn - choice of honeymoon location decades ago, and some sympathetic remarks about Latin American populists, which don't seem to be hurting him with the Latino community at all. But my point is that beating Trump will need a central theme, more than "I'm not Trump". People know roughly what Sanders' theme is - I'd guess they'd see it as not very achievable, but maybe the right general direction - lots of free health care and no student fees. They elected Trump on the same sort of basis - people were clear that he wouldn't really get Mexico to build its own wall, but they liked the direction.
What is the central theme of the other candidates - how will they make lives better? It's not coming through clearly.
One reason the coronavirus economic impact might be being underrated is that the headline Chinese exporters in the electronics industry have significant stocks (which they build up in any event to cover Chinese new year) to cushion the immediate supply shock.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese government didn't just pile a load of cash into propping them up.
I watched an interesting video the other day about US infrastructure, and how Trump hasn't really spent on it (despite the promises). And they compared it to China's approach, which has been if there is any sign of weakness in the economy, they get building loads of new infrastructure, then take their foot off the gas for a bit when economy looks stronger.
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
No knowledge on scottish politics but does anyone think Labour would do better if they switched to backing a second referendum on Scottish independence? Whatever they're doing now doesn't seem to be working.
Most of those thinking that have made the switch to the SNP, leaving behind those that don't want independence. It would be a case of hoping independence supporters will switch back without upsetting those that have stuck with the Party. Similar issue to Labour leavers.
Agree. They need to change the narrative to public services and away from constitution. What I find difficult to wargame is a straight statement from Boris saying notwithstanding the result of 2021 there will be no IndyRef. No ifs or buts. Suck it up. Does Scotland explode into a grievance induced pro-Indy storm, or do folks just say, fine, let's talk instead about how we improve our failing education system and get our hospitals to open?
Difficult to say. I think Scotland would vote for independence if another referendum happened, on the grounds that no-one much would be arguing for Union, especially a Boris style Union. OTOH a bad Brexit might make people think twice about the problems of independence. And as Johnson looks like he will double, triple and quadruple down on ever holding a second referendum, it's likely to get pretty miserable.
A confident gambler PM would call the second referendum now, accept the circumstances are different now from 2014, allow a one-off revote - in or out. If he thinks he will win, there's no better time to go for it.
No knowledge on scottish politics but does anyone think Labour would do better if they switched to backing a second referendum on Scottish independence? Whatever they're doing now doesn't seem to be working.
Most of those thinking that have made the switch to the SNP, leaving behind those that don't want independence. It would be a case of hoping independence supporters will switch back without upsetting those that have stuck with the Party. Similar issue to Labour leavers.
Otoh it would appear the remaining members of SLab are not necessarily all obsessive Unionists. As I suspected Phillips', Nandy's and Thornberry's revelations that they've loved the Union & hated the EssEnnPee all along didn't have that much traction in Scotland. SLab members want a credible UK party and leader, saving the Union & the phony internationalism that mysteriously stops at Dover are secondary for them. I also suspect that they're not quite as philosophical about accepting Brexit is a done deal as rUK Labour is.
One reason the coronavirus economic impact might be being underrated is that the headline Chinese exporters in the electronics industry have significant stocks (which they build up in any event to cover Chinese new year) to cushion the immediate supply shock.
It’s reckoned that China’s energy consumption is 25-30% down on usual levels. That’s a massive shock to the economy going on.
I’m sure a lot of the smaller businesses will be supported by the state, but lead times on production and shipping are going to start leading to worldwide shortages of many products in the coming weeks and months.
Also, news from Korea and Japan is not sounding good for containment of the Coronavirus, there could well be many months’ more disruption still to come.
"My takeaway from Wednesday’s hellaciously entertaining Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth . Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar all make good arguments, but they haven’t organized their worldview into a simple compelling myth."
"These efforts are hampered by men like Sanders and Trump who have never worked within a party or subordinated themselves to a team — men who are one trick ponies. All they do is stand on a podium and bellow."
The concept of the Successful Myth is becomning very important in politics (perhaps it always was, but cynicism and indifference for detail is making it more powerful). Our own election was a classic example - "We'll get Brexit done and our opponents' leader is dodgy" easily defeated any number of individual policies with no coherent theme.
I think it's also relevant for the Labour leadership. Starmer has a theme: leftish but serious and electable. RLB has a theme: more left-wing policies without unnecessary baggage. I'm not sure what Nandy's theme is, much though I liked her interview - can one summarise in a sentence what she's about?
Interesting juxtaposition of posts, since the "myth" (as you put it) that Sanders is peddling is, as far as I can tell, virtually identical to the one Corbyn tried here. The common theme is I suspect that's it's extremely compelling to a section of the population, but will never garner enough support to win an election outright.
Corbyn was peddling the myth that you shouldn't die because you can't afford insulin?
The header is misleading in that the overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland would be likely to sustain a non-Tory Government. It is correct in terms of Labour's ability to form a majority Government , but that would not be necessary for Starmer to become PM.
It's self defeating, though. The SNP are only interested in supporting a Labour PM if they are assured of an independence referendum in return (preferably quickly).
If they win the referendum, they are gone within a year or two and bingo, the majority is gone (and also why on earth are SNP MPs turning up to vote on matters that don't affect them while the break discussions are ongoing: that would not play well in the rest of the country).
If they lose, they have no further interest in supporting the Labour PM anyway.
Even in the absence of any commitment to another Referendum , the SNP would still need to be seen to be opposed to a Tory Government.
I'm sure they can find creative ways to oppose both parties. Chaos in Westminster isn't a bad result for the SNP, in general. Albeit they failed to make the best usage of what should have been an ideal situation last autumn.
One reason the coronavirus economic impact might be being underrated is that the headline Chinese exporters in the electronics industry have significant stocks (which they build up in any event to cover Chinese new year) to cushion the immediate supply shock.
It’s reckoned that China’s energy consumption is 25-30% down on usual levels. That’s a massive shock to the economy going on.
I’m sure a lot of the smaller businesses will be supported by the state, but lead times on production and shipping are going to start leading to worldwide shortages of many products in the coming weeks and months.
Also, news from Korea and Japan is not sounding good for containment of the Coronavirus, there could well be many months’ more disruption still to come.
Clothing supply chains in Vietnam and Cambodia are quite severely impacted, too.
"My takeaway from Wednesday’s hellaciously entertaining Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth . Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar all make good arguments, but they haven’t organized their worldview into a simple compelling myth."
"These efforts are hampered by men like Sanders and Trump who have never worked within a party or subordinated themselves to a team — men who are one trick ponies. All they do is stand on a podium and bellow."
The concept of the Successful Myth is becomning very important in politics (perhaps it always was, but cynicism and indifference for detail is making it more powerful). Our own election was a classic example - "We'll get Brexit done and our opponents' leader is dodgy" easily defeated any number of individual policies with no coherent theme.
I think it's also relevant for the Labour leadership. Starmer has a theme: leftish but serious and electable. RLB has a theme: more left-wing policies without unnecessary baggage. I'm not sure what Nandy's theme is, much though I liked her interview - can one summarise in a sentence what she's about?
Interesting juxtaposition of posts, since the "myth" (as you put it) that Sanders is peddling is, as far as I can tell, virtually identical to the one Corbyn tried here. The common theme is I suspect that's it's extremely compelling to a section of the population, but will never garner enough support to win an election outright.
Corbyn was peddling the myth that you shouldn't die because you can't afford insulin?
Myth isn't my word (or Mr Palmer's, as I am happy to make clear), but I would imagine that Sanders and Corbyn are probably aligned on this point?
In addition, I do recall some considerable noise from Labour during the campaign about the alleged planned privatisation of the NHS. So, yes, pretty much.
It is the first time someone under 10 has caught COVID-19 in Japan.
The younger Hokkaido boy visited a medical institution after developing a fever Saturday. He was hospitalized on Wednesday and is now recovering. His brother developed a fever on Tuesday. He was admitted to a hospital on Wednesday and is also recovering.
The brothers have no history of travel abroad and the prefectural government is investigating how they became infected....
At least four deaths in Iran now, one of the countries stupid enough to keep flights to China going. Also a Canadian has caught it after travelling to Iran.
Iran has elections today with the reformists boycotting it, so all the hardliners are at risk of infection. Regime change here we come?
One reason the coronavirus economic impact might be being underrated is that the headline Chinese exporters in the electronics industry have significant stocks (which they build up in any event to cover Chinese new year) to cushion the immediate supply shock.
It’s reckoned that China’s energy consumption is 25-30% down on usual levels. That’s a massive shock to the economy going on.
I’m sure a lot of the smaller businesses will be supported by the state, but lead times on production and shipping are going to start leading to worldwide shortages of many products in the coming weeks and months.
Also, news from Korea and Japan is not sounding good for containment of the Coronavirus, there could well be many months’ more disruption still to come.
The news is definitely bad. The mortality rate is RISING. The disease has taken root in Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Iran (and maybe others). Italy has an outbreak.
Coronavirus can go away, then come back, as was feared.
One reason the coronavirus economic impact might be being underrated is that the headline Chinese exporters in the electronics industry have significant stocks (which they build up in any event to cover Chinese new year) to cushion the immediate supply shock.
It’s reckoned that China’s energy consumption is 25-30% down on usual levels. That’s a massive shock to the economy going on.
I’m sure a lot of the smaller businesses will be supported by the state, but lead times on production and shipping are going to start leading to worldwide shortages of many products in the coming weeks and months.
Also, news from Korea and Japan is not sounding good for containment of the Coronavirus, there could well be many months’ more disruption still to come.
Clothing supply chains in Vietnam and Cambodia are quite severely impacted, too.
There’s supposed to be an F1 race in Vietnam in six weeks’ time too!
Hyundai have already shut three car plants in Korea, as they simply can’t get parts supply from China, supply issues are going to ripple out from Asia across the world as not much is leaving Chinese ports in Feb and March.
Panic setting in in the Dem party. I don't blame them.
He's going to pick up a load in CA, for sure.
the article makes the point Bernie polls as well against Trump as any other dem, though, which leads me to wonder whether....
US voters don;t really get that Bernie's a 'socialist' because they've never really been faced with such a candidate or.....
They get he's a socialist and dont care.
We shouldn't over-estimate how attention most people in the US will have taken so far. They take even less notice than in the UK until it gets really close to the actual GE.
Think how long it took before people realized what Magic Grandpa was about.
If Sanders gets the nomination, Team Trump will push wall to wall Socialist / Communist sympathizer stuff for months on end. And they will compare it to the pretty decent economic performance of the past 4 years.
"My takeaway from Wednesday’s hellaciously entertaining Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth . Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar all make good arguments, but they haven’t organized their worldview into a simple compelling myth."
"These efforts are hampered by men like Sanders and Trump who have never worked within a party or subordinated themselves to a team — men who are one trick ponies. All they do is stand on a podium and bellow."
The concept of the Successful Myth is becomning very important in politics (perhaps it always was, but cynicism and indifference for detail is making it more powerful). Our own election was a classic example - "We'll get Brexit done and our opponents' leader is dodgy" easily defeated any number of individual policies with no coherent theme.
I think it's also relevant for the Labour leadership. Starmer has a theme: leftish but serious and electable. RLB has a theme: more left-wing policies without unnecessary baggage. I'm not sure what Nandy's theme is, much though I liked her interview - can one summarise in a sentence what she's about?
Interesting juxtaposition of posts, since the "myth" (as you put it) that Sanders is peddling is, as far as I can tell, virtually identical to the one Corbyn tried here. The common theme is I suspect that's it's extremely compelling to a section of the population, but will never garner enough support to win an election outright.
Corbyn was peddling the myth that you shouldn't die because you can't afford insulin?
Myth isn't my word (or Mr Palmer's, as I am happy to make clear), but I would imagine that Sanders and Corbyn are probably aligned on this point?
In addition, I do recall some considerable noise from Labour during the campaign about the alleged planned privatisation of the NHS. So, yes, pretty much.
Pretty much? In the US you can go bankrupt because somebody calls you an ambulance. You can die because you can't afford insulin. There is nothing close to that here. Vague threats of Tory NHS privatisation are not remotely comparable to a promise to fix the nightmare of US healthcare costs.
You know, it's fine to look at American politics and say "actually, I don't really know much about that, I guess I won't form an opinion." It's a lot more sensible than "Sanders vaguely reminds me of Corbyn and is therefore doooomed!"
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
The concept of the Successful Myth is becomning very important in politics (perhaps it always was, but cynicism and indifference for detail is making it more powerful). Our own election was a classic example - "We'll get Brexit done and our opponents' leader is dodgy" easily defeated any number of individual policies with no coherent theme.
I think it's also relevant for the Labour leadership. Starmer has a theme: leftish but serious and electable. RLB has a theme: more left-wing policies without unnecessary baggage. I'm not sure what Nandy's theme is, much though I liked her interview - can one summarise in a sentence what she's about?
Interesting juxtaposition of posts, since the "myth" (as you put it) that Sanders is peddling is, as far as I can tell, virtually identical to the one Corbyn tried here. The common theme is I suspect that's it's extremely compelling to a section of the population, but will never garner enough support to win an election outright.
Corbyn was peddling the myth that you shouldn't die because you can't afford insulin?
Myth isn't my word (or Mr Palmer's, as I am happy to make clear), but I would imagine that Sanders and Corbyn are probably aligned on this point?
In addition, I do recall some considerable noise from Labour during the campaign about the alleged planned privatisation of the NHS. So, yes, pretty much.
Pretty much? In the US you can go bankrupt because somebody calls you an ambulance. You can die because you can't afford insulin. There is nothing close to that here. Vague threats of Tory NHS privatisation are not remotely comparable to a promise to fix the nightmare of US healthcare costs.
You know, it's fine to look at American politics and say "actually, I don't really know much about that, I guess I won't form an opinion." It's a lot more sensible than "Sanders vaguely reminds me of Corbyn and is therefore doooomed!"
Yet the US politicians aren’t even talking about the cost of medicine and healthcare itself, only who should pay for it.
Why has no-one mentioned that the USA is the only country in the world where every other TV advert is for some prescription-only drug or another? It’s almost as if pharmaceuticals and media companies are massive campaign donors, or something.
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Ah, racist slurs. Never change PB.
Nothing to do with racism and everything to do with bogus claims by this candidate.
Yet the US politicians aren’t even talking about the cost of medicine and healthcare itself, only who should pay for it.
Why has no-one mentioned thatthe USA is the only country in the world where every other TV advert is for some prescription-only drug or another? It’s almost as if pharmaceuticals and media companies are massive campaign donors.
To be fair, Sanders does talk about drug costs a lot, with a promise to force the drug companies to sell them at a much reduced cost. How that works out is another matter.
I am surprised he hasn't copied Corbyn's idea of just ignoring IP rules and knocking off all the popular medicines and have the state owned supplier make them.
Yet the US politicians aren’t even talking about the cost of medicine and healthcare itself, only who should pay for it.
Why has no-one mentioned thatthe USA is the only country in the world where every other TV advert is for some prescription-only drug or another? It’s almost as if pharmaceuticals and media companies are massive campaign donors.
"SANDERS: No. Let me be very clear, two points. For a hundred years, from Teddy Roosevelt to Barack Obama, this country has been talking about the need to guarantee health care for all people. And yet today, despite spending twice as much per capita, Chuck, twice as much as any other major country on Earth, we got 87 million who are uninsured or underinsured, we got over 60,000 people who die every year because they don't get to a doctor on time.
We're getting ripped off outrageously by the greed and corruption of a pharmaceutical industry, which in some cases charges us 10 times more for the same drugs because of their price-fixing, 500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they can't afford medical bills."
and:
SANDERS: Somehow or another, Canada can provide universal health care to all their people at half the cost. U.K. can do it. France can do it. Germany can do it. All of Europe can do it. Gee-whiz, somehow or another, we are the only major country on Earth that can't do it. Why is that?
And I'll tell you why. It's because, last year, the health care industry made $100 billion in profits. Pharmaceutical industry, top six companies, $69 billion in profit. And those CEOs are contributing to Pete's campaign and other campaigns up here.
Yet the US politicians aren’t even talking about the cost of medicine and healthcare itself, only who should pay for it.
Why has no-one mentioned thatthe USA is the only country in the world where every other TV advert is for some prescription-only drug or another? It’s almost as if pharmaceuticals and media companies are massive campaign donors.
The concept of the Successful Myth is becomning very important in politics (perhaps it always was, but cynicism and indifference for detail is making it more powerful). Our own election was a classic example - "We'll get Brexit done and our opponents' leader is dodgy" easily defeated any number of individual policies with no coherent theme.
I think it's also relevant for the Labour leadership. Starmer has a theme: leftish but serious and electable. RLB has a theme: more left-wing policies without unnecessary baggage. I'm not sure what Nandy's theme is, much though I liked her interview - can one summarise in a sentence what she's about?
Interesting juxtaposition of posts, since the "myth" (as you put it) that Sanders is peddling is, as far as I can tell, virtually identical to the one Corbyn tried here. The common theme is I suspect that's it's extremely compelling to a section of the population, but will never garner enough support to win an election outright.
Corbyn was peddling the myth that you shouldn't die because you can't afford insulin?
Myth isn't my word (or Mr Palmer's, as I am happy to make clear), but I would imagine that Sanders and Corbyn are probably aligned on this point?
In addition, I do recall some considerable noise from Labour during the campaign about the alleged planned privatisation of the NHS. So, yes, pretty much.
Pretty much? In the US you can go bankrupt because somebody calls you an ambulance. You can die because you can't afford insulin. There is nothing close to that here. Vague threats of Tory NHS privatisation are not remotely comparable to a promise to fix the nightmare of US healthcare costs.
You know, it's fine to look at American politics and say "actually, I don't really know much about that, I guess I won't form an opinion." It's a lot more sensible than "Sanders vaguely reminds me of Corbyn and is therefore doooomed!"
Yet the US politicians aren’t even talking about the cost of medicine and healthcare itself, only who should pay for it.
Why has no-one mentioned that the USA is the only country in the world where every other TV advert is for some prescription-only drug or another? It’s almost as if pharmaceuticals and media companies are massive campaign donors, or something.
Its all about balance though. Pharmaceuticals gamble billions on developing new drugs. Take away the profit motive and you can effectively say goodbye to ground breaking new treatments.
Yet the US politicians aren’t even talking about the cost of medicine and healthcare itself, only who should pay for it.
Why has no-one mentioned thatthe USA is the only country in the world where every other TV advert is for some prescription-only drug or another? It’s almost as if pharmaceuticals and media companies are massive campaign donors.
The concept of the Successful Myth is becomning very important in politics (perhaps it always was, but cynicism and indifference for detail is making it more powerful). Our own election was a classic example - "We'll get Brexit done and our opponents' leader is dodgy" easily defeated any number of individual policies with no coherent theme.
I think it's also relevant for the Labour leadership. Starmer has a theme: leftish but serious and electable. RLB has a theme: more left-wing policies without unnecessary baggage. I'm not sure what Nandy's theme is, much though I liked her interview - can one summarise in a sentence what she's about?
Interesting juxtaposition of posts, since the "myth" (as you put it) that Sanders is peddling is, as far as I can tell, virtually identical to the one Corbyn tried here. The common theme is I suspect that's it's extremely compelling to a section of the population, but will never garner enough support to win an election outright.
Corbyn was peddling the myth that you shouldn't die because you can't afford insulin?
Myth isn't my word (or Mr Palmer's, as I am happy to make clear), but I would imagine that Sanders and Corbyn are probably aligned on this point?
In addition, I do recall some considerable noise from Labour during the campaign about the alleged planned privatisation of the NHS. So, yes, pretty much.
Pretty much? In the US you can go bankrupt because somebody calls you an ambulance. You can die because you can't afford insulin. There is nothing close to that here. Vague threats of Tory NHS privatisation are not remotely comparable to a promise to fix the nightmare of US healthcare costs.
You know, it's fine to look at American politics and say "actually, I don't really know much about that, I guess I won't form an opinion." It's a lot more sensible than "Sanders vaguely reminds me of Corbyn and is therefore doooomed!"
Panic setting in in the Dem party. I don't blame them.
He's going to pick up a load in CA, for sure.
the article makes the point Bernie polls as well against Trump as any other dem, though, which leads me to wonder whether....
US voters don;t really get that Bernie's a 'socialist' because they've never really been faced with such a candidate or.....
They get he's a socialist and dont care.
We shouldn't over-estimate how attention most people in the US will have taken so far. They take even less notice than in the UK until it gets really close to the actual GE.
Think how long it took before people realized what Magic Grandpa was about.
If Sanders gets the nomination, Team Trump will push wall to wall Socialist / Communist sympathizer stuff for months on end. And they will compare it to the pretty decent economic performance of the past 4 years.
Yep. He'll be lucky to take his own state never mind the electoral college.
Panic setting in in the Dem party. I don't blame them.
He's going to pick up a load in CA, for sure.
the article makes the point Bernie polls as well against Trump as any other dem, though, which leads me to wonder whether....
US voters don;t really get that Bernie's a 'socialist' because they've never really been faced with such a candidate or.....
They get he's a socialist and dont care.
It's a bit abstract (and according to polling not unwelcome to many US voters), like calling someone a capitalist or a reactionary. Unless it relates to something concrete that people dislike, they categorise it no more than vaguely concerning. The disappearance of the Soviet Union into fading memory has somewhat defused the issue, in the same way that most people didn't really care much that Corbyn hobnobbed with the IRA.
Calling Bernie a communist would still be more damaging if it stuck, but that is short of actual evidence.
One reason the coronavirus economic impact might be being underrated is that the headline Chinese exporters in the electronics industry have significant stocks (which they build up in any event to cover Chinese new year) to cushion the immediate supply shock.
It’s reckoned that China’s energy consumption is 25-30% down on usual levels. That’s a massive shock to the economy going on.
I’m sure a lot of the smaller businesses will be supported by the state, but lead times on production and shipping are going to start leading to worldwide shortages of many products in the coming weeks and months.
Also, news from Korea and Japan is not sounding good for containment of the Coronavirus, there could well be many months’ more disruption still to come.
Clothing supply chains in Vietnam and Cambodia are quite severely impacted, too.
There’s supposed to be an F1 race in Vietnam in six weeks’ time too!
Hyundai have already shut three car plants in Korea, as they simply can’t get parts supply from China, supply issues are going to ripple out from Asia across the world as not much is leaving Chinese ports in Feb and March.
The impact of hospitals having all resources used up dealing with it is frightening. I will be having an op in March following my colonoscopy and just hope things don’t get out of hand.
Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If people think you’re an arse, they can respond accordingly. This isn’t complicated stuff. You’d have thought Toby Young would have learned that by now. But perhaps it’s more lucrative for him to play the victim.
The header is misleading in that the overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland would be likely to sustain a non-Tory Government. It is correct in terms of Labour's ability to form a majority Government , but that would not be necessary for Starmer to become PM.
It's self defeating, though. The SNP are only interested in supporting a Labour PM if they are assured of an independence referendum in return (preferably quickly).
If they win the referendum, they are gone within a year or two and bingo, the majority is gone (and also why on earth are SNP MPs turning up to vote on matters that don't affect them while the break discussions are ongoing: that would not play well in the rest of the country).
If they lose, they have no further interest in supporting the Labour PM anyway.
No, it's not as simple as that.
The SNP should be fearful of what might happen if they vote with the Tories to vote down a Labour PM in the initial vote of confidence on the grounds that Labour will not commit to a vote on Scottish secession within the lifetime of that parliament. Let's say Starmer forms a government, announces a progressive programme which is generally well received across the UK including by the majority in Scotland, only for the SNP to ensure that the programme is stillborn.
If that happened, there would be another GE. That might suit Labour, much as a GE in the Autumn of 2019 was what suited Johnson.
The last time something similar happened, when the SNP brought down a Labour government in 1979, it set them back for a (properly defined) generation.
I think you severely underestimate the extent to which the middle and upper classes will go to give their kids the best education possible.
This includes sending them abroad - as already happens with the thousands of rich kids from developing countries who are educated in the UK every year.
Perhaps. But I would be prepared to find out.
This is an omelette and eggs thing. For me, the omelette is such an attractive prospect that I can happily use up a lot of eggs if needs be.
You, OTOH, won't use any eggs at all because you don't even want an omelette.
I know you think this authoritarian left rubbish is somehow brave and charming, but it really isn't, and an awful lot of people don't find it funny at all. If the Left wants to come for private education, then the Right will make an omelette of everything the Left loves - and they're a lot better at it!
Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If people think you’re an arse, they can respond accordingly. This isn’t complicated stuff. You’d have thought Toby Young would have learned that by now. But perhaps it’s more lucrative for him to play the victim.
So say the persons who claim to know the consequences of what a given person says at a given time.
How can they? events have a myriad of complex effects. Its just an excuse to silence what they don;t want to hear.
One reason the coronavirus economic impact might be being underrated is that the headline Chinese exporters in the electronics industry have significant stocks (which they build up in any event to cover Chinese new year) to cushion the immediate supply shock.
It’s reckoned that China’s energy consumption is 25-30% down on usual levels. That’s a massive shock to the economy going on.
I’m sure a lot of the smaller businesses will be supported by the state, but lead times on production and shipping are going to start leading to worldwide shortages of many products in the coming weeks and months.
Also, news from Korea and Japan is not sounding good for containment of the Coronavirus, there could well be many months’ more disruption still to come.
The death of the medical director of a Wuhan hospital is rather ominous, at least to a fifty something British doctor.
On the economic front this is quite an impressive drop in activity:
Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If people think you’re an arse, they can respond accordingly. This isn’t complicated stuff. You’d have thought Toby Young would have learned that by now. But perhaps it’s more lucrative for him to play the victim.
So you would be ok with someone losing their job for being a Remain-supporter?
A phrase that didn't exist until a few months ago when 'gender critical' people executed yet another seamless pivot about what they were arguing about.
Language evolves. The hardline trans rights activists have spawned such colourful terms as 'TERF', 'deadnaming', 'truscum' and the rest. 'Sex-based rights' is at least non-abusive and honest.
What do you think "Deadnaming" is if you think is abusive and dis-honest?
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Ah, racist slurs. Never change PB.
Nothing to do with racism and everything to do with bogus claims by this candidate.
It's everything to do with racism. You are connecting native American heritage with raking in easy money from casinos. This is an old stereotype that every native American has to deal with. It's like a joke about Jews being money lenders or African Americans being strong from slavery.
It is the first time someone under 10 has caught COVID-19 in Japan.
The younger Hokkaido boy visited a medical institution after developing a fever Saturday. He was hospitalized on Wednesday and is now recovering. His brother developed a fever on Tuesday. He was admitted to a hospital on Wednesday and is also recovering.
The brothers have no history of travel abroad and the prefectural government is investigating how they became infected....
Yup, cases popping up all over the place, seems like it's out of the bottle...
The header is misleading in that the overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland would be likely to sustain a non-Tory Government. It is correct in terms of Labour's ability to form a majority Government , but that would not be necessary for Starmer to become PM.
I don’t know, in 1979 the SNP ousted a Labour government and helped usher in Thatcher and eighteen years of Tory rule.
The Lib Dems were the coalition partners of the Tories for five years.
PS - So about SLAB MPs getting an incumbency boost.
The SNP did indeed help usher in eighteen years of Tory rule. They were reduced to 2 seats thanks to the implosion in their support that their actions caused - "Tartan Tories" and all that. It took them a long while to recover electorally.
They may privately be quite happy with Tory rule at present, because it seems to cause support for secession by Scotland to rise as a means of escaping Tory rule. But what they can't afford to do is to be SEEN to usher in Tory rule by voting to bring down a potential Labour government.
Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If people think you’re an arse, they can respond accordingly. This isn’t complicated stuff. You’d have thought Toby Young would have learned that by now. But perhaps it’s more lucrative for him to play the victim.
So you would be ok with someone losing their job for being a Remain-supporter?
If it didn’t affect how that person did their job, no. That would be unfair dismissal and no doubt expensive for the employer.
If it got in the way, yes. The Conservative party have just had a clear-out on exactly that basis. It’s ultimately their choice that they’ve decided to dispose of a big section of their most talented politicians.
I know you think this authoritarian left rubbish is somehow brave and charming, but it really isn't, and an awful lot of people don't find it funny at all. If the Left wants to come for private education, then the Right will make an omelette of everything the Left loves - and they're a lot better at it!
Except it is not authoritarian. It's the opposite. I was asked what I would do if my enlightened and intelligent measures to incentivize the use of state schools led to the likes of Eton decamping to Dubai. My reply? Nothing. They are FREE to do so. I'm a massive fan of freedom of choice.
A phrase that didn't exist until a few months ago when 'gender critical' people executed yet another seamless pivot about what they were arguing about.
Language evolves. The hardline trans rights activists have spawned such colourful terms as 'TERF', 'deadnaming', 'truscum' and the rest. 'Sex-based rights' is at least non-abusive and honest.
What do you think "Deadnaming" is if you think is abusive and dis-honest?
Ok, I don't think accusing someone of 'deadnaming' is abusive. It does however sound like Newspeak.
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Ah, racist slurs. Never change PB.
Nothing to do with racism and everything to do with bogus claims by this candidate.
It's everything to do with racism. You are connecting native American heritage with raking in easy money from casinos. This is an old stereotype that every native American has to deal with. It's like a joke about Jews being money lenders or African Americans being strong from slavery.
I had no idea there was such a stereotype regarding native Americans. Every day is a school dy.
Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If people think you’re an arse, they can respond accordingly. This isn’t complicated stuff. You’d have thought Toby Young would have learned that by now. But perhaps it’s more lucrative for him to play the victim.
So you would be ok with someone losing their job for being a Remain-supporter?
Is it just me who struggles to care or get involved with the whole "Trans vs Feminist" debate? People seem to get deep passions on either side, as there have been on other issues in the past, but while I was passionately in favour of equality for LGBT etc in marriage etc on this one issue I'm struggling to give a damn or to find it a matter of huge concern.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
Panic setting in in the Dem party. I don't blame them.
He's going to pick up a load in CA, for sure.
the article makes the point Bernie polls as well against Trump as any other dem, though, which leads me to wonder whether....
US voters don;t really get that Bernie's a 'socialist' because they've never really been faced with such a candidate or.....
They get he's a socialist and dont care.
It's a bit abstract (and according to polling not unwelcome to many US voters), like calling someone a capitalist or a reactionary. Unless it relates to something concrete that people dislike, they categorise it no more than vaguely concerning. The disappearance of the Soviet Union into fading memory has somewhat defused the issue, in the same way that most people didn't really care much that Corbyn hobnobbed with the IRA.
Calling Bernie a communist would still be more damaging if it stuck, but that is short of actual evidence.
You clearly didn't, but I think a lot of people cared very much that Corbyn had hobnobbed with the IRA.
The header is misleading in that the overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland would be likely to sustain a non-Tory Government. It is correct in terms of Labour's ability to form a majority Government , but that would not be necessary for Starmer to become PM.
It's self defeating, though. The SNP are only interested in supporting a Labour PM if they are assured of an independence referendum in return (preferably quickly).
If they win the referendum, they are gone within a year or two and bingo, the majority is gone (and also why on earth are SNP MPs turning up to vote on matters that don't affect them while the break discussions are ongoing: that would not play well in the rest of the country).
If they lose, they have no further interest in supporting the Labour PM anyway.
No, it's not as simple as that.
The SNP should be fearful of what might happen if they vote with the Tories to vote down a Labour PM in the initial vote of confidence on the grounds that Labour will not commit to a vote on Scottish secession within the lifetime of that parliament. Let's say Starmer forms a government, announces a progressive programme which is generally well received across the UK including by the majority in Scotland, only for the SNP to ensure that the programme is stillborn.
If that happened, there would be another GE. That might suit Labour, much as a GE in the Autumn of 2019 was what suited Johnson.
The last time something similar happened, when the SNP brought down a Labour government in 1979, it set them back for a (properly defined) generation.
Your extremely hypothetical situation is 5 years away, what do you think will be happening in the interim period? There're a lot of 'events' to get through before a Labour PM turns up.
The old comforting trope about the SNP bringing in Thatcher is brought up by Labour again and again (usually when the SNP aren't being helpful to Labour) to vastly diminishing effect. I seem to recall someone on here suggesting that the SNP might be punished by voters at the last GE for forcing it on Labour at a time inconvenient to them, how did that go?
Comparing Corbyn's NHS policies to Bernie's M4A indicated you were ignorant of American politics. But yes, I admit, as those articles indicate, you could also espouse the same opinion because you're a shill or just plain stupid.
Except that he hasn't really gone. He's just tendered a meaningless resignation that now allows him to stay on indefinitely as Taoiseach in a caretaker role until all this is sorted out. No wonder he's smiling in that photo when he "resigned".
Not the greatest advert for the Irish electoral system.
Is it just me who struggles to care or get involved with the whole "Trans vs Feminist" debate? People seem to get deep passions on either side, as there have been on other issues in the past, but while I was passionately in favour of equality for LGBT etc in marriage etc on this one issue I'm struggling to give a damn or to find it a matter of huge concern.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
I don’t struggle to care. I do struggle to get involved because I find it a difficult subject. I don’t want to dump on trans people, who have a pretty shit time of it. Equally, some trans people are way too dismissive of the concerns of others.
Also, I get the strong impression that a lot of the loudest voices on both sides are professing certainty about a whole load of stuff that remains poorly understood. This debate will look very different in 50 years’ time, but I’m not sure which bits will look antiquated and bizarre. Possibly all of it.
Is it just me who struggles to care or get involved with the whole "Trans vs Feminist" debate? People seem to get deep passions on either side, as there have been on other issues in the past, but while I was passionately in favour of equality for LGBT etc in marriage etc on this one issue I'm struggling to give a damn or to find it a matter of huge concern.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
Do you believe that trans women are women and trans men are men? Because if so the idea of forcing a man to go to a women's prison or vice-versa because they didn't fill in the correct paper work should be troubling.
Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If people think you’re an arse, they can respond accordingly. This isn’t complicated stuff. You’d have thought Toby Young would have learned that by now. But perhaps it’s more lucrative for him to play the victim.
So you would be ok with someone losing their job for being a Remain-supporter?
If it didn’t affect how that person did their job, no. That would be unfair dismissal and no doubt expensive for the employer.
If it got in the way, yes. The Conservative party have just had a clear-out on exactly that basis. It’s ultimately their choice that they’ve decided to dispose of a big section of their most talented politicians.
Whether the speech "got in the way" is clearly very subjective to interpretation. Along that grey zone you could draw the line at various strictness levels, all of which are balancing the right of free speech with accepting consequences for some speech. You may feel that line is drawn in the perfectly right place, but others can believe the balance is drawn in the wrong place while not being a simpleton.
One reason the coronavirus economic impact might be being underrated is that the headline Chinese exporters in the electronics industry have significant stocks (which they build up in any event to cover Chinese new year) to cushion the immediate supply shock.
It’s reckoned that China’s energy consumption is 25-30% down on usual levels. That’s a massive shock to the economy going on.
I’m sure a lot of the smaller businesses will be supported by the state, but lead times on production and shipping are going to start leading to worldwide shortages of many products in the coming weeks and months.
Also, news from Korea and Japan is not sounding good for containment of the Coronavirus, there could well be many months’ more disruption still to come.
Clothing supply chains in Vietnam and Cambodia are quite severely impacted, too.
There’s supposed to be an F1 race in Vietnam in six weeks’ time too!
Hyundai have already shut three car plants in Korea, as they simply can’t get parts supply from China, supply issues are going to ripple out from Asia across the world as not much is leaving Chinese ports in Feb and March.
The impact of hospitals having all resources used up dealing with it is frightening. I will be having an op in March following my colonoscopy and just hope things don’t get out of hand.
... that most people didn't really care much that Corbyn hobnobbed with the IRA.
Calling Bernie a communist would still be more damaging if it stuck, but that is short of actual evidence.
The reasons Labour lost so heavily are still unclear, at least to me. The authorised version is voters hated Corbyn not Corbynism but neither the leadership candidates nor Conservatives are acting like they believe that.
It may be that CCHQ did find enough floating voters who did care about the IRA (although Venezuela is more of a stretch) for their under the radar messaging. Previously, when Tories linked Corbyn with the IRA, Labour countered that this was part of the (or 'a') peace process, which seemed to work. This time round, if Labour does not even know the accusation is being made to micro-targetted Facebook voters, then it cannot counter it.
Whether that is what happened, we may never know, but it is at least plausible.
Comments
A phrase that didn't exist until a few months ago when 'gender critical' people executed yet another seamless pivot about what they were arguing about.
.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51581098
I think it's also relevant for the Labour leadership. Starmer has a theme: leftish but serious and electable. RLB has a theme: more left-wing policies without unnecessary baggage. I'm not sure what Nandy's theme is, much though I liked her interview - can one summarise in a sentence what she's about?
St Paul's bomb plot: IS supporter Safiyya Shaikh pleads guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-51583815
I believe public in Scotland could become bored of constitutional argument - despite contrary evidence of recent GE - and SNP could be vulnerable from a squeeze from both sides esp if Nicola departs. But SCON and SLAB need to get their acts together - Jackson Carlaw is showing some signs of understanding that.
The Lib Dems were the coalition partners of the Tories for five years.
PS - So about SLAB MPs getting an incumbency boost.
This boost to PMI is entirely due to supply chains being hit by the Coronavirus.
https://twitter.com/ClausVistesen/status/1230773759549698054
What I find difficult to wargame is a straight statement from Boris saying notwithstanding the result of 2021 there will be no IndyRef. No ifs or buts. Suck it up.
Does Scotland explode into a grievance induced pro-Indy storm, or do folks just say, fine, let's talk instead about how we improve our failing education system and get our hospitals to open?
If MalcomG wants to drift away from the SNP after the independence issue goes away he can go to a party like the Scottish Tories . . . though knowing our Malcolm that won't happen any time soon, even if it has already happened for some of his compatriots.
Unless the SNP turns right, there's not much room for Scottish Labour.
If they win the referendum, they are gone within a year or two and bingo, the majority is gone (and also why on earth are SNP MPs turning up to vote on matters that don't affect them while the break discussions are ongoing: that would not play well in the rest of the country).
If they lose, they have no further interest in supporting the Labour PM anyway.
Lyin' Liz
Have any of the candidates come out of this process looking better than when they started. Mayor Pete and perhaps Andrew Yang?
Sanders has less baggage than Corbyn - choice of honeymoon location decades ago, and some sympathetic remarks about Latin American populists, which don't seem to be hurting him with the Latino community at all. But my point is that beating Trump will need a central theme, more than "I'm not Trump". People know roughly what Sanders' theme is - I'd guess they'd see it as not very achievable, but maybe the right general direction - lots of free health care and no student fees. They elected Trump on the same sort of basis - people were clear that he wouldn't really get Mexico to build its own wall, but they liked the direction.
What is the central theme of the other candidates - how will they make lives better? It's not coming through clearly.
"“Putting a socialist at the top of the ticket will lose you the House and all of those moderate seats that we picked up.” "
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483944-rivals-worry-sanders-building-insurmountable-super-tuesday-lead
Panic setting in in the Dem party. I don't blame them.
China's less visible, but economically vital, smaller businesses are in a more precarious condition:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Industry-in-focus/Virus-hits-China-s-economic-heart-its-small-businesses
I watched an interesting video the other day about US infrastructure, and how Trump hasn't really spent on it (despite the promises). And they compared it to China's approach, which has been if there is any sign of weakness in the economy, they get building loads of new infrastructure, then take their foot off the gas for a bit when economy looks stronger.
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Haley Taps Key Conservative, Fueling 2024 Speculation
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/20/haley_taps_key_conservative_fueling_2024_speculation.html
I’m sure a lot of the smaller businesses will be supported by the state, but lead times on production and shipping are going to start leading to worldwide shortages of many products in the coming weeks and months.
Also, news from Korea and Japan is not sounding good for containment of the Coronavirus, there could well be many months’ more disruption still to come.
In addition, I do recall some considerable noise from Labour during the campaign about the alleged planned privatisation of the NHS. So, yes, pretty much.
Iran has elections today with the reformists boycotting it, so all the hardliners are at risk of infection. Regime change here we come?
US voters don;t really get that Bernie's a 'socialist' because they've never really been faced with such a candidate or.....
They get he's a socialist and dont care.
Hyundai have already shut three car plants in Korea, as they simply can’t get parts supply from China, supply issues are going to ripple out from Asia across the world as not much is leaving Chinese ports in Feb and March.
Think how long it took before people realized what Magic Grandpa was about.
If Sanders gets the nomination, Team Trump will push wall to wall Socialist / Communist sympathizer stuff for months on end. And they will compare it to the pretty decent economic performance of the past 4 years.
You know, it's fine to look at American politics and say "actually, I don't really know much about that, I guess I won't form an opinion." It's a lot more sensible than "Sanders vaguely reminds me of Corbyn and is therefore doooomed!"
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1230766024753963012?s=20
Why has no-one mentioned that the USA is the only country in the world where every other TV advert is for some prescription-only drug or another? It’s almost as if pharmaceuticals and media companies are massive campaign donors, or something.
I am surprised he hasn't copied Corbyn's idea of just ignoring IP rules and knocking off all the popular medicines and have the state owned supplier make them.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/07/20dems-are-taking-money-healthcare/
Also Sanders from the Nevada debate:
"SANDERS: No. Let me be very clear, two points. For a hundred years, from Teddy Roosevelt to Barack Obama, this country has been talking about the need to guarantee health care for all people. And yet today, despite spending twice as much per capita, Chuck, twice as much as any other major country on Earth, we got 87 million who are uninsured or underinsured, we got over 60,000 people who die every year because they don't get to a doctor on time.
We're getting ripped off outrageously by the greed and corruption of a pharmaceutical industry, which in some cases charges us 10 times more for the same drugs because of their price-fixing, 500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they can't afford medical bills."
and:
SANDERS: Somehow or another, Canada can provide universal health care to all their people at half the cost. U.K. can do it. France can do it. Germany can do it. All of Europe can do it. Gee-whiz, somehow or another, we are the only major country on Earth that can't do it. Why is that?
And I'll tell you why. It's because, last year, the health care industry made $100 billion in profits. Pharmaceutical industry, top six companies, $69 billion in profit. And those CEOs are contributing to Pete's campaign and other campaigns up here.
https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1230768236167221248?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/15/the-electability-business-is-bernie-sanders-americas-corbyn
How about Jim Messina (quoted here; opposing views also available)?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/15/the-electability-business-is-bernie-sanders-americas-corbyn
Maybe this article:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn-uk-election-politics-democrat-labour-a9186316.html
Is £7,500 in Newton Stewart able to purchase the same amount and quality of education as £7,500 in Harrogate, Knutsford, Westminster or Winchester?
Calling Bernie a communist would still be more damaging if it stuck, but that is short of actual evidence.
The SNP should be fearful of what might happen if they vote with the Tories to vote down a Labour PM in the initial vote of confidence on the grounds that Labour will not commit to a vote on Scottish secession within the lifetime of that parliament. Let's say Starmer forms a government, announces a progressive programme which is generally well received across the UK including by the majority in Scotland, only for the SNP to ensure that the programme is stillborn.
If that happened, there would be another GE. That might suit Labour, much as a GE in the Autumn of 2019 was what suited Johnson.
The last time something similar happened, when the SNP brought down a Labour government in 1979, it set them back for a (properly defined) generation.
How can they? events have a myriad of complex effects. Its just an excuse to silence what they don;t want to hear.
On the economic front this is quite an impressive drop in activity:
China’s Passenger Car Sales Tumble 92% in First Half of Feb. Due to Virus Outbreak https://www.theepochtimes.com/chinas-passenger-car-sales-tumble-92-in-first-half-of-feb-due-to-virus-outbreak_3245081.html
They may privately be quite happy with Tory rule at present, because it seems to cause support for secession by Scotland to rise as a means of escaping Tory rule. But what they can't afford to do is to be SEEN to usher in Tory rule by voting to bring down a potential Labour government.
If it got in the way, yes. The Conservative party have just had a clear-out on exactly that basis. It’s ultimately their choice that they’ve decided to dispose of a big section of their most talented politicians.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
The old comforting trope about the SNP bringing in Thatcher is brought up by Labour again and again (usually when the SNP aren't being helpful to Labour) to vastly diminishing effect. I seem to recall someone on here suggesting that the SNP might be punished by voters at the last GE for forcing it on Labour at a time inconvenient to them, how did that go?
Except that he hasn't really gone. He's just tendered a meaningless resignation that now allows him to stay on indefinitely as Taoiseach in a caretaker role until all this is sorted out. No wonder he's smiling in that photo when he "resigned".
Not the greatest advert for the Irish electoral system.
Also, I get the strong impression that a lot of the loudest voices on both sides are professing certainty about a whole load of stuff that remains poorly understood. This debate will look very different in 50 years’ time, but I’m not sure which bits will look antiquated and bizarre. Possibly all of it.
It may be that CCHQ did find enough floating voters who did care about the IRA (although Venezuela is more of a stretch) for their under the radar messaging. Previously, when Tories linked Corbyn with the IRA, Labour countered that this was part of the (or 'a') peace process, which seemed to work. This time round, if Labour does not even know the accusation is being made to micro-targetted Facebook voters, then it cannot counter it.
Whether that is what happened, we may never know, but it is at least plausible.